Subject:
|
Re: Pirate Game Rules Thoughts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming, lugnet.pirates
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:57:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2973 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> In lugnet.fun.gaming, Frank Filz writes:
>
> > One thing Steve has been trying to come up with is a way to eliminate
> > plotting moves since this slows down the game the most.
>
> It seemed to me that getting the hang of plotting took a few turns for most
> people and then they could mostly do it in their sleep. When I've played, I
> typically had my next turn plotted long before the previous turn was resolved.
> Do the experiences of others here differ?
That works well for some players, but if you recall, there is always one
player who hasn't even started plotting when you ask if all plotting is
complete.
> > One thing which helped the diversity of the Saturday game at BricksWest
> > was that each hit on the opponents base scored 25 points. This allowed
> > an alternative target and meant that ships didn't just all wind up in a
> > mosh pit in the center of the ocean.
>
> I would generally like to see alternative point scoreing goals. Maybe, in
> fact, each player could have a secret point-scoring mechanism that they would
> have the option to pursue in addition to the normal stuff. Actually, I'm not
> even sure how points work.
In the role playing game, winning has generally be determined by wealth.
In the Saturday game at BricksWest, 200 points were scored for each
capture of a ship, and 50 points scored for each hit on a base.
In every game I've played, evaluating who is a winner has actually been
done by obviousness or hasn't really been a factor. At BricksWest the
winning side was obvious in each battle (all enemy ships captured), at
BrickFest, I just awarded prizes to those I thought played the best
overall, not really the winner (though at BF 2001, the prizes fairly
well followed the wealth acquired). At BricksWest, I awarded a prize to
the young player who was such a good sport in both games (Steve DeCramer
had given me a copy of the Pirate comic, which I felt bad accepting
since I have a couple copies I am trying to sell/trade, so I donated it
as a prize).
Alternate goals for winning would be interesting, but do increase setup
time. So far, I think I've just had enough energy to get a basic game
rolling. Perhaps when a game session comes around where I have real time
to prepare ahead of time this would work better. It also requires a more
predictable number of players.
> > One thought of a way to reduce the time to plot moves is to allow goal
> > oriented plots for certain things. A goal oriented plot would not be
> > allowed for attempting to get a crossing the T shot, but would be fine
> > for landing on an island, or closing with an enemy base, etc. Even just
> > closing with the enemy when the distances are great would be an OK goal
> > oriented plot.
>
> I don't know what's everyone else did, but if it wasn't affecting anyone, I
> just pseudo-plotted and then moved the way I meant. When I was engaging, I was
> careful to be precise. I imagine that we could just trust everyone to do that
> and it would be fine.
That works well with a certain class of player. Of course, if you
remember, Shiri was constantly upset at the way I moved the NPC ship at
BF 2000 (of course I wasn't measuring, just guestimating distance).
> > One way to handle such plots would be to ask everyone to plot. Then ask
> > goal oriented plots to be announced. If no one raises any objections, a
> > GM or player then sets out markers to indicate a decent plot (basically
> > lay out a die at each turn point for those goals requiring multiple
> > turns). If an objection is raised, the player must re-write his orders
> > with a real plot.
>
> This sounds like a hassle and probably more slow than just plotting moves. But
> maybe I'm not really envisioning it. I'm game to try stuff like this in any
> case.
It probably is slower, I was just looking for ways to avoid detailed
plotting. I think there really isn't any way around it. Naval games just
aren't interesting without plotting.
> > I also wonder at the idea of giving all men a cutlass and a musket. The
> > games only had one or two boardings since musket fire basically swept
> > the decks of all opposition. I'd be more inclined to assume everyone has
> > a cutlass and pistol, and skip muskets for simple games. My general
> > feeling about the genre is that muskets didn't see too much use on a
> > ship, except perhaps by marines on a regular navy ship. Of course this
> > will make for some boring turns as cannonless cutters attempt to close,
> > but perhaps that just means cannon should be a little harder to take
> > out.
>
> My preference would be to have so many points of some kind to spend on creating
> and outfitting your ship(s) and crew. Of course there has to be a point
> balancing effort then, but I think variety and diversity in the startups would
> be a good thing. If I want a leaky tub staffed by crack musketeers, then why
> not? Or why not allow someone to trade their starting cannon for an extra 2"
> (or whatever) of movement?
This is interesting, but increases setup time. I'm not sure how much
flexibility can be had with the initial startup in a campaign type game.
> > - Plotting ship to ship small arms fire by measuring the closest
> > distance between the two ships certainly simplifies things. Ranges
> > should still have some effect when fighting breaks out aboard a ship,
> > but perhaps there is a way to simplify this. Things are a little tricky
> > when ships get real close. Perhaps in a non-role playing scenario,
> > boarding could be simplified with a simple chart to roll on which takes
> > into account the relative numbers of people on each ship (such a chart
> > should have some "surrender" options on it, since very rarely would a
> > crew really fight to the death).
>
> On first thought, I don't like the range being between closest points rather
> than between firer and target. It was easy enough to get in with a six-"inch"
> rangestick and do the calculations "right" that I'm not sure why we'd want to
> do it that way. But if you wanted to simplify with a table, you could have a
> volley by volley roll and the commander would have to decide when to surrender.
> of course, I guess there'd have to be a good reason (like a point break or
> something) to actually surrender, and of course a mutinous surrender could be a
> table result.
Steve does have a table which lets mass small arms fire be conducted
quickly, basically by giving you the expected value on the number of
kills. Calculating individual ranges isn't too bad with just a handful
of men, but would be real ugly with a large ship with 50 men....
Morale rules might be interesting since there currently is no reason to
ever surrender.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Pirate Game Rules Thoughts
|
| (...) It seemed to me that getting the hang of plotting took a few turns for most people and then they could mostly do it in their sleep. When I've played, I typically had my next turn plotted long before the previous turn was resolved. Do the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.gaming, lugnet.pirates)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
