[War_ooc] Okay, so...

Sun Jun 21 17:21:39 EDT 2009

Hey Mike!

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Michael Downey" <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 2:16 PM
To: <war_ooc at esteroic.com>
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...

> Your idea is logical and would make sense if we were more of a
> military/combat sim (ironic given our title). But we are a creative
> writing game, why burden ourselves with trying to quantify
> political/military/economic levels of every country that is being
> played? A logical, critical thinking approach seems more apt. Not to
> say numbers aren't going to play a part (Zimbabwe's GDP obviously
> doesn't allow for nuclear power plants to be constructed) but
> assigning everything from 1 to 10 seems to be placing headaches on
> John.
>
> And yes Pat we are listing to you. Your point in KISS is very apt, and
> I think that trying to give a qualititative criteria for what makes a
> post 'decent' is a good *starting* point.
>
> PS IAN!
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:41 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 