[War_ooc] Okay, so...

Sun Jun 21 17:11:35 EDT 2009

I like this -- I still say we should put this into some objective  
metric and rate how each decision would sit in the metric, and then  
base our decisions on that, but I think this is good regardless.

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

> It would have to be case by case, I would think.
>
> 1) Has anything like/similar this happened before? Has anything
> like/similar to this happened in this particular country before?
>
> 2) How left/right is this action? How left/right is the country in question?
>
> 3) Is the quality of writing good enough (personal note, quality of
> writing is purely a qualitative review, in my opinion)
>
> For example, the Russian president being overthrown by the army is
> possible. The US president being overthrown by the military is highly
> unlikely. Just as the US President fully nationalizing the health care
> system is unlikely but the Canadian PM fully nationalizing Canada's
> health care system is well within the realm of 'possible'
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:16 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> My issue is with what is DECENT. In the end, that basically comes down
>> to John's judgment, and then we get things like flying Ebola monkeys.
>>
>> At the very least, that decent explanation needs to be ruled against
>> some barometer of quality. Maybe a qualitative left-center-right scale
>> in terms of checks and balances? As I've explained to John,
>> right-leaning policies wouldn't necessarily fly well in a left-leaning
>> environment. Further, how do we determine what is too severe a
>> reaction from what is not? I'm not saying the game has to be
>> determined by numbers, but a clear, objective system SHOULD be in
>> place so that the game doesn't go to Narnia.
>>
>> And no, I'm not interested in playing in Narnia. ;)
>>
>> Quoting Iain <iain at iain-waddell.co.uk>:
>>
>>> For the very little that will be my two pence (being British and all ;-)):
>>>
>>> I also think the best setting (from a totally personal preference and
>>> selfish-I-would-enjoy-more) would be near future. Again this gets us out of
>>> being bogged down in current affairs (does anyone REALLY want to   
>>> play Gordon
>>> Brown?? Huh? Lol) and also gives us enough grounding in reality to not have
>>> to overthink how the world would be or research how it was...
>>>
>>> Furthermore, I agree that the game needs something to keep it chugging
>>> along, but through experience of sims (yes yes, mainly Trek I   
>>> admit it) this
>>> is done by having guidelines rather than hard and fast rules and a good set
>>> of players/writers.
>>>
>>> And I'm afraid good writing with 'decent' explanation does win   
>>> over complete
>>> realism in my book. Note the word 'decent'.
>>>
>>> Iain
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com] On
>>> Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
>>> Sent: 21 June 2009 21:32
>>> To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>>>
>>> I see what your saying -- that turning this game into a strictly
>>> by-the-numbers game would make it boring.
>>>
>>> HOWEVER
>>>
>>> I think that, while not overly restrictive, SOMETHING needs to be in
>>> place. If we don't have anything objective in place, the game will
>>> need constant nudging along, which would not bode well in down times.
>>> I'm not saying that we need to be number crunching GDP and such, but
>>> if a left-leaning country implements right-leaning policies, the game
>>> should reflect the consequences of that decision. Further, in a lull,
>>> the game SHOULD be able to support itself.
>>>
>>> To reiterate my point, while we don't need a D&D rulebook, we need
>>> some clearly defined rules that'll keep the game chugging along during
>>> down time, and make sure things make sense.
>>>
>>> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> I personally vote for the near-future timeline. War in Space is really
>>>> not what I imagined this game to be. Historical is interesting but
>>>> would seem like a fundamental shift in WAR. Aren't there other games
>>>> like that out there?
>>>>
>>>> Near-future gives us a strong basis but does not bog us down with
>>>> current events. If things happening now suddenly come up that make our
>>>> near-future scenario out of place then we just have to shrug our
>>>> shoulders and remember it is AU.
>>>>
>>>> I have and always will be a proponent of realism but John is correct
>>>> that this is a creative writing RPG and not a number-for-number
>>>> simulation. A lack of realism leads to things like the Anglo-Japanese
>>>> War of 2001, Austrian Gundam and Central African railgun tanks. But
>>>> becoming a bunch of bean counters that pour over the GDP and other
>>>> stats of a country vs. another would bog the game down and make it
>>>> boring and pedantic. That is why I would suggest we take a 'Tom
>>>> Clancy' approach; a solid grounding in realism but a bit of
>>>> unrealistic (or more precisely, unlikely) events being allowed if they
>>>> are backed with good writing.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>