joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on May 31, 2007 20:58:39 GMT -5
Hey guys,
Ok at least two strong opinions against eliminating top defense. Both of you wish to add rules to make it more difficult to use...
I am extremely opposed to that. Both of you have stated it would make it more realistic. Playability suffers from realism. The game suffers enough as it is.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 1, 2007 21:34:50 GMT -5
Playability suffers from realism. I do understand what you're saying... that sometimes we complicate things unnecessarily for the sake of realism. And yes, that is occasionally true. But I really believe that the flat statement that "playability suffers from realism" is indefensible overall. For instance, increasing Parabellum capacity from 10 rounds to 25 was entirely realistic and had no effect on the game at all. Same with moving Lewis guns up one chart on the hit table, expanding critical hit charts, adding historical planes to the game and on and on and on. Not one of these rules adds a single die roll to the game or has the slightest effect on playability, yet they expand realism exponentially. So I do see your greater point (and agree with it), but we should not say that playability suffers from realism. In the vast majority of cases realism - when properly applied - adds greatly both to the enjoyment and playability of the game. That said, I think we should leave the SE 5 alone to be flown as it was intended in 7th edition.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 2, 2007 0:17:21 GMT -5
When your right your right. All encompassing statements by thier nature are incorrect.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 3, 2007 22:24:45 GMT -5
Ok if were talking about leaving top defense intact then comes the question of the front 3 squares vs all directions?
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 4, 2007 7:32:01 GMT -5
Ok if were talking about leaving top defense intact then comes the question of the front 3 squares vs all directions? TD has always been allowed from any angle and I'd leave it that way. If a change is to be made, that is the wrong one. The front three squares house rule is based on faulty logic and incorrect information. I'm not opposed to reviewing TD, but if we do we must go an entirely different direction with fresh thinking based on historical facts and sound logic.
|
|
albpilot
Ace of Aces
Red Baron Fight XVIII Champ
I'm not frightened of terrorism, so please don't go and create a police state on my account...
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by albpilot on Jun 4, 2007 8:04:02 GMT -5
Playability suffers from realism. But I really believe that the flat statement that "playability suffers from realism" is indefensible overall...So I do see your greater point (and agree with it), but we should not say that playability suffers from realism. In the vast majority of cases realism - when properly applied - adds greatly both to the enjoyment and playability of the game. That said, I think we should leave the SE 5 alone to be flown as it was intended in 7th edition. Ok, anyone that played through my impulse movement experiment would probably agree that it was more realistic (in some ways) than the current movement system, but it was far more unplayable than the current system. The blanket statment of 'more realism causes less playability' is absolutely true at an overview level. When you get down to tiny minutae of rules that statement does indeed break down, as Stephen suggests. The key to this is, imho, to not be so caught up trying to make the game realistic, but to insure it remains playable and enjoyable while still adding what realism we can. A very fine line to walk. So, this goes back to my earlier statements about house rules (and my favorite example). We in Indy play with the 7th ed rules for top defense. Madison limits top defense to the front 3 squares of entry (for some unknown illogical reason I have yet to understand). So, which is more playable? Which is more realistic? Is one both more playable and more realistic? To really resolve this question is going to take a lot of discussion and such, not some edict from on high that one is better than the other. If you go that route, you insure the continuation of house rules and the splintering of the DP community. Again, mho.
|
|
|
Post by kirkh on Jun 4, 2007 10:05:35 GMT -5
Not that I'm experienced enough to render an opinion of the specific rule in question, but overall, as long as DP is a board game there will be house rules. Even once the 8th edition comes out (if ever) there will be one group somewhere that does things one way while there will be a group somewhere else that does things differently. In the end it all comes down to how the group thats playing the game at the time gets the most enjoyment out of it. Personally, when I play at home I use a number of house rules (revised head-on damage chart, more severe penalties for deflection shooting, +/- 1mp per 200' change in elevation up or down, etc.) that I find realistic that I'll probably always use even after the 8th edition comes out. It all comes down to the fact it's a boardgame and each person/group can do whatever they want to enhance their enjoyment of it.
|
|
albpilot
Ace of Aces
Red Baron Fight XVIII Champ
I'm not frightened of terrorism, so please don't go and create a police state on my account...
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by albpilot on Jun 4, 2007 12:48:43 GMT -5
And I understand that.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 4, 2007 13:46:19 GMT -5
Hmmm... I don't think some of you were there for the spring mini-con when Mark and Blake got into over rule interpretation. The comment "Well thats how we do it in..." was used repeatedly. I started this project with the idea of using the forum here so that we could all discuss house rules with the attempt at being able to come to a consensus among all the groups. What you all seem to be telling me is I'm investing energy into a cause I can not succeed at. If thats the case could we at least come to a stable platform for society events. Going into a society event wondering whose rules we will be using today is just plain BS. I don't really care if we have Top Defense or not. I just want a level playing field when we as a society get together. Most of you guys are in the Midwest. And if you feel like it could make weekend games in Indiana, Illinois, or Wisconsin. And I mean all 30 or 40 of you could meet at Mike's place or yours Rick, or anyone's place up there. Yes it would be a long drive Friday night but its doable. So you all have some familiarity with each others rule structures. I really tired of the comment you should learn how we play before you come. I'm not pointing fingers because the comment is correct. If we are coming to play in your home field we need to be up on your rules. In my not so humble opinion we need an official set that coveres the problems found after the 7th edition was printed some 20 odd years ago. At the spring mini, there were two rules posted. No top defense, no medium wounds. If thats all it takes cool. But anyone reading this post knows there are more holes than that in our rules. There is another thread on here about Multi-engine planes. The "rule" sheet for that states it is a preliminary set of rules. Meaning lets see how they work. On the official sight there are or were plane stats, and pilot progression forms. If we are taking these as "official"documents why can't we publish an official list of "Tournament Rules" Stepping off the Soapbox ~~Jim
|
|
albpilot
Ace of Aces
Red Baron Fight XVIII Champ
I'm not frightened of terrorism, so please don't go and create a police state on my account...
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by albpilot on Jun 4, 2007 15:56:29 GMT -5
Hmmm... If thats the case could we at least come to a stable platform for society events. Going into a society event wondering whose rules we will be using today is just plain BS. ... I really tired of the comment you should learn how we play before you come. I'm not pointing fingers because the comment is correct. ... In my not so humble opinion we need an official set that coveres the problems found after the 7th edition was printed some 20 odd years ago. To address the first point, most of the society events I've been to seem to have had the 'house rules' posted prior to the event taking place (one example I have is the 'If one person votes for open damage the game is forced to open damage' rule I railed against awhile back). But for the most part, at the events I've attended there is a clear delineation of what rules will be used. To address the second point, I don't recall anyone in this forum saying that. If someone said that to you at the spring mini-con, shame on them. You know how much I like to debate stuff here, I don't think I'd ever say that to someone (at least I hope to God I haven't). It seems to me the duty of the experienced player to help out the noob rather than make snide comments and use them for target practice. To address the third point, I agree, unless those issues are addressed by caveat with the input of just one group being used.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 4, 2007 15:58:54 GMT -5
The blanket statment of 'more realism causes less playability' is absolutely true at an overview level. Whether its true is probably not a profitable debate. But the automatic assumption that it is has become such an epidemic that many good rule changes and offerings to the game have been refused a hearing in order to preserve "playability" that was never threatened.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 4, 2007 18:44:05 GMT -5
To address the first point, most of the society events I've been to seem to have had the 'house rules' posted prior to the event taking place (one example I have is the 'If one person votes for open damage the game is forced to open damage' rule I railed against awhile back). But for the most part, at the events I've attended there is a clear delineation of what rules will be used. To address the second point, I don't recall anyone in this forum saying that. If someone said that to you at the spring mini-con, shame on them. You know how much I like to debate stuff here, I don't think I'd ever say that to someone (at least I hope to God I haven't). It seems to me the duty of the experienced player to help out the noob rather than make snide comments and use them for target practice. To address the third point, I agree, unless those issues are addressed by caveat with the input of just one group being used. I'm not looking to fix the blame I'm looking to fix the problem. But I appreaciate the thought. And I'm not exactly a noob I've been playing since 1998. Grins We've had Mike down here and made him play with our house rules hoping he will adopt some into the game. When we go up there its our responsability to play by the posted rules.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 4, 2007 18:46:42 GMT -5
The blanket statment of 'more realism causes less playability' is absolutely true at an overview level. Whether its true is probably not a profitable debate. But the automatic assumption that it is has become such an epidemic that many good rule changes and offerings to the game have been refused a hearing in order to preserve "playability" that was never threatened. Therein lies the story, it's not exactly an automatic assumption. Its more like an observation based upon the empirical collection of data. And I believe we look at every rule as it comes along evaluating it on its individual merits.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 5, 2007 8:13:44 GMT -5
we look at every rule as it comes along evaluating it on its individual merits. But many don't. Lots of folks come into it with a pre-conceived agenda that any effort to make a WWI game resemble WWI must of necessity result in an incomprehensible mess, which is just not so. Another example is airplane choice... lots of folks stomp around saying how "unplayable" the game would be when too many planes are added. But why? You still have to make the same roll on the same chart. You still have to write down the plane stats on your mission log. Why does the game become "unplayable" when you have ten possible planes on the chart instead of eight? It has a huge effect on the realism of the overall game, but the way the game is played is not affected in the slightest. I gave several examples of that previously. Another one is listed above. There are scads more. Making rules more realistic CAN make a game unplayable, but it doesn't HAVE to when they are thought out and well executed. The imaginary assumption that the realism cause invariably equals the unplayable result is not a natural law of the universe, it is an assumption... and many times its an incorrect assumption.
|
|
albpilot
Ace of Aces
Red Baron Fight XVIII Champ
I'm not frightened of terrorism, so please don't go and create a police state on my account...
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by albpilot on Jun 5, 2007 8:21:55 GMT -5
Wanna go to impulse movement for all IndySqdn events then? I can dig the charts back out....
|
|