How much is too much?

[joseki]

I along with all of you reading this post eagerly wait upon the long promised 8th addition.

I've seen all the new rules published in the Aerodrome over the years and enjoy playing with them.

BUT...(You knew there was a but coming)

Are we in danger of sacrificing playibility?

One of the first things I liked about dawn patrol was that it reminded me of other games that I enjoyed in the past. Starfleet Battles and Battle Tech. Whether fliying a 400 ton spacecraft a 20 ton battlemech or a sopwith 1/2 strutter I find the games to be fairly similar.

I don't know of anyone that plays SFB or Battle tech anymore. The company kept expanding the game and adding new and exciting features. The more they added the less playable the game became. I remember sadly the day I gave up and tossed out the rules for both games.

I believe that the main reason DawnPatrol has existed for as long as it has is because essentially Mike hasn't upset the quiesence. He took a very playable game and added a little refinement to it. I worry greatly that the 8th edition may start that slide.

I'm all in favor of new planes and refined rules but I worry.

Looking forward to your thoughts

[Stephen]

First, there's a difference between variety and playability. Having more planes in the game does not affect playability... but it adds variety. The game plays the same no matter what airplane you're in so you might as well have more of them to choose from.

Secondly, playability can be applied to the entire playing experience, not just to the game mechanics themselves. For instance, adding a/c groups makes the game less playable since you get fewer missions per pilot and pilot progression slows to a crawl. To me, that has an indirect impact on playability.

And finally, I do think that playability suffers a bit from things like the new bombing charts, aerial photography rules that require three turns to take one stinking picture, and the constant demands that you must decide right now what you're going to do later.

But for the most part, I see the new rules as forward progress.

[albpilot]

I played SFB since it's introduction in a little plastic bag. By the time the Commanders edition rules had come out I gave it up.

Why did they ruin a simple little game with a huge monstrosity of a rulebook? In my opinion, 2 reasons:

a) because too many groups were playing too many different ways due to ambiguity in the initial rule set

b) because there was a need to balance out badly written rules and even the playing field for whatever race.

So, applying this to the DP world, were do we stand? We certainly have a lot of different groups playing different ways (and no matter how hard you argue, Madison vs Indy vs Apache vs Australian etc) no one set is 'better' than the others - but each does expand/exploit ambiguity in the rules. However, an 8th edition will go a LONG way toward unifying play IF the things causing the variances are addressed (for about a week, until some group decides it doesn't like the way a rule reads). And there are certainly rules that could be better thought out and/or written better.

Long lead in to get to this point, sorry: I think that the playability is sacrified whenever an additional role or chart is added, regardless of the reason. So I expect the 8th edition will take away some playability, yes. But I don't expect it will take away so much as to make me want to stop playing.

[Stephen]

albpilot said:

playability is sacrified whenever an additional role or chart is added, regardless of the reason.

Well, I see your point but I'm not sure its always bad.

Rolling the dice to see the result of your decision is the fun of the game... of any game, for that matter. There would be little enjoyment in a game where we all sat down and rolled one six-sider and said "1-3 we win, 4-6 you win." So the whole playability debate often forgets that no one would want to play the most playable game.

I like more charts and rolls so long as I can understand them and still get a full, relaxed game done in the same amount of time.

[kirkh]

I'm no expert, but I've seen this occur with other games. Anybody here remember Squad Leader? I used to love that game. Then came Cross of Iron and Crescendo of Doom, and G.I. Anvil of Victory and then finally it all was trashed and ASL replaced it. The nice game that Squad Leader was morphed into something completely different and got prohibitively complex. If an 8th edition of DP ever comes out, what I'd like to see is more aircraft, clarifications of formerly confusing rules, and optional rules that govern unique circumstances. The rules for the basic fighter vs. fighter dogfight shouldn't change much. Any wargame is a delicate balance between playability and realism. I played a game called Canvas Falcons a couple tims and it took me three weeks to execute a 180 degree turn that represented maybe ten seconds of real time. That game was very realistic, but was as fun as watching paint dry. Plus you had to brush up on the Pythagorean Theorem in order just to play. DP right now is a good mix of fun and realism and I hope the 8th edition doesn't upset that balance.

[Stephen]

I don't think it will. The only thing I really hate are the new bombing rules, but maybe I'll eventually learn to live with them. Everything else uses the same basic rules as the 7th edition and just elaborates on some things.

And I do like more airplanes to fly and more unique characteristics to each of them. To me that's a good thing.

[albpilot]

The new bombing rules really aren't all that bad, other than a couple of things that need to be clarified with scatter and better definitions of bombing types (single, multiple, salvo). If you'd care to go over it, I can teach it to you in like 30 minutes providing the better definitions of bombing types makes sense to you. To that end, I'm going to be using the bombing rules in my only GenCon scenario with the changes that I feel are appropriate to make it work better (along with a variant that I think everyone will enjoy on something else - call it Alt Universe Pt II except with no screwy movement).

What I don't think I'll like much is what appears to be a dependance on the ideas that one geographic group likes to the exclusion of ideas from other groups...if that is the case, the next edition might just as well be only a regional release to cater to the group that likes the way it's been altered...

[Stephen]

Amen to that last comment.

I think you should put that into an editorial and let me submit it to DROME and run it in ISD.

[kirkh]

OK, be honest, in my half dozen years of monitoring DP activity off and on the constant discussion has been about the "upcoming 8th edition". How truly close is the 8th edition to being on a game shelf at a store somewhere?

[Stephen]

No one really knows. The standard answer has been "2 or 3 years" for about 10 years now. I don't think MC has a real timetable for it, he just works at it as he has time. We have most of the 8th edition already anyway and we play with it all the time. And after joining the society everyone gets advance copies of everything... so while I would love to see an 8th edition soon, a) I don't think its going to happen soon, and b) we're already using it anyway.

[joseki]

This is hearsay so take it with alot more than a gran of salt.

It was my understanding that the 8th edition was mostly ready to go...But (you knew that but was coming) a new and more insightful book of french aircraft was recently published and now the french tables are being redone to conform more closely with history as that book describes it.

[kirkh]

Mike sounds like an engineer. Being an engineer I'm constantly seeing the desire to add "just one more change" before getting something made. Problem is, eventually you get twenty years down the road and you find out you haven't produced anything yet. What's the old saying? "Eventually you have to shoot the engineers if you want to get anything accomplished."

[joseki]

Hmmm tempting....
Chuckles

Ok lets discuss those house rules. I'll start another thread for that. If we all argue enough maybe we will actually achieve parity.

I do like a variety of aircraft. But I wish we had counters for all of them. Of course I have one counter with no plane stats so go figure. (Zepplin Stacken)

[kevan]

I've been working on new counters for Vassal Dawn Patrol. When the new plane pack comes out in a few weeks, there will be more than 500 counters available. Admittedly, the common planes are overrepresented (40+ Albs), as I keep finding good images while searching for more obscure planes. But when I'm done, I should be able to make up counter sheets that could be printed on to cardstock. I'm still missing a few of the 8th edition planes, but should have most by the time the plane pack is finished. And, like you, I have a bunch of counters with no plane stats, but they're there if anyone ever makes them up.