[War] Status

[Michael Downey]

If we've reached a consensus on the realism debate in WAR, maybe now
would be a good time to move on to getting the game back in gear.

I think we have enough writers to start things off. My question is if
we are going to do another restart or continue on where we left off
four months ago.

On 7/8/06, pentaj2 at scranton.edu <pentaj2 at scranton.edu> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dan Garcia <ssiruuk25 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Saturday, July 8, 2006 11:31 am
> Subject: Re: [War] Status
>
> > I think I'm not lazy enough at the moment to put my two cents in.
> > I agree that the reins should
> > be loosened up somewhat.  As I think Downey mentioned, it is a
> > game after all.  As to some of the
> > more wild and crazy things that have been tried in the past and
> > may be tried in the future, I also
> > agree that perhaps we should eschew some of the more far flung
> > ideas, though still allow enough
> > leeway that if someone does put a lot of effort into making
> > Britain plausibly fascist (for
> > instance), it should be allowed.  Of course, in that instance, it
> > would really need to be well
> > done and well written.  I should note here, probably with some
> > hypocrisy (as I think that I have
> > at times taken a too realist approach to GMing) that the WAR
> > Constitution does state that "results
> > will be based upon quality and quantity", with exceptions for
> > those who aren't native English
> > speakers.
>
> Fascist Britain was on my list of "overdone plots" for a *reason*,
> guys...:)
>
> > > 6. I, personally, will advise this:
> > >
> > > The laws of physics and the like *remain in effect*. If we ever
> > have
> > > to stop and go "can that happen on Earth?" or something, I will
> > kill
> > > you.
> >
> > I should (at least in theory) be able to be a decent judge of
> > this.  If not, I need to rethink my
> > career choice.  As to technology, my own opinion is that we
> > shouldn't really push the threshold
> > here beyond speeding up current developments (e.g. bringing the
> > JSF forward would be much more
> > okay than EMP battlefield weapons), and possibly allowing new
> > developments based on relatively
> > near term technology (for instance, China IC getting enough
> > technology [somehow] to design and
> > build a Raptor-like jet, though this would have to be pretty well
> > done, though maybe not fascist
> > Britain well done).
>
> I was thinking also of basics in medicine, psych, etc.
>
> In short, if the GMs blink, and then figure you're playing dumb or
> just ignoring common sense, I kill you.:)
>
> So far as tech: I agree with Dan. In the interests of preventing
> insanity, I would argue that speeds of development and such should be
> GM Fiat only. Might that be unfair and inconsistent? Yeah, but that's
> the trade off.
>
> I'm coming at this these days with the benefit(?) of the last few
> years of WAR's existence.
>
> On the one hand, I'm not (as much of) the realism fanatic I once was.
> I will never again try to determine consistent WAR times on building
> anything; Far better to play it by ear. If the results are semi-
> consistent, yay. If not, oh well. (A lot rests GM trust of the
> individual player, gut instinct, and "Where do we want to drive this?"
> thoughts.) On the other hand, I'm also of a mood to scrap all that has
> come before, particularly the WAR constitution, and run basically
> without anything binding our hands.
>
> On the third hand, I'm more convinced than ever that we need to work
> on developing the characters, not just the countries, so that's going
> to be something I'm cranky about.
>
> > Speaking of career choices, I'll be away for the rest of the
> > weekend until late Monday, though I
> > may still have internet access.  Apartment hunting is fun!
>
> Happy Hunting.
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> War mailing list
> War at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_esteroic.com
>