[War_ooc] Okay, so...

[lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca]

I agree with the bottom point.

Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:

> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Michael Downey <
> michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > We need to figure out the line between unlikely and not-possible. We can
>> > find plenty of examples of stuff sitting way past the line (you listed
>> only
>> > WAR's classic examples...), but it's hard for me to figure out the stuff
>> > that's merely unlikely or just-barely impossible.
>>
>> I think that in this we simply use our judgment. We're all fairly
>> worldly and have a good understanding (I hope) of both quality
>> writing, history and modern politics. The GM(s) simply need to sit
>> down and critically think "How likely is this? How difficult would it
>> be to implement? Does the quality of writing and details provided
>> justify it working? Will allowing this push the envelope too far?"
>
>
> And when the GM is stressed, harrassed, off their meds, etc.?
>
> Well, IMHO, them's the breaks of WAR. Others may disagree, but my personal
> opinion is that WAR needs very few hard-and-fast rules. ("No launching nukes
> and making the game post-apocalyptic" being basically the key one.)
>
> It might be *helped* by rules of thumb like "X numbers of troops takes Y
> hours to move Z distance", but that's really just for the "Ahh wtf do you
> mean I gotta decide all this at once?" moments.
>
> John
>