[Ogre] Re: Ogre-list Digest, Vol 8, Issue 7

[Chris French]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <ogre-list-request at sjgames.com>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:35:05 -0500
> From: David Morse <dcmorse at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Ogre] Cripes, give him a break
> Chris French wote:
> I'm curious, why do you subscribe to this list?

Like the rest of you, I am an OGREite (tho' of late, I play mainly
solitaire -- gaming's dead up here in Portland, OR).

> 
> The reason I subscribe is to talk about Ogre, how to play it better,
> come up with weasely tactics, think about variant units, and maybe see
> what scenarios people come up with.  That's where my interest lies.

Except for the "weasel tactics" part, yep, same here. (The only
reason I want to hear about "weasel tactics" is so I can come up
with ways to defeat them -- "The Way of the Weasel" should be
limited to _Dilbert_ cartoons.)

> You see optional rules in
> Kentucky decreasing your enjoyment of your games in Nebraska.

Oregon, actually. Most of my experiences with people screwing up
the rules came while I was in NE, tho'.

> 
> If you hate rules bloat, and "Ooopses", complain to SJG about the
> issues the bloating rules and Ooopses.

I am, as much as SJG actually listens to that sort of thing. (I suspect
he might be reading this as well, and I can only imagine what shade
of red he is at the moment. :) ) I have, in the past, tried to make my
case directly; to put it bluntly, I was ignored. A public forum end-
runs the "stealth censorship" issue (if the complainers are simply
ignored, no one ever knows there were complaints -- all anyone
sees are paeans, no pee-ons :) ).

> 
> Having to carry around Ogre Miniatures rulebook to play Ogre Hex is
> lame, I'm with you on that, and I'll happily co-sign any letter of
> complaint you want to author.  Lets do it.  Seriously.

Expect a Deafening Wave of Silence to come out of that -- I have
seen it tried before, and without exception, it has failed miserably.

> If you don't
> like someone's proposal, and you don't have any input on how to
> refashion it better,

And, unless I cannot find a way to "refashion it better", all I can do
is say, "This is a Bad Idea [TM]". Usually, tho', I do find a simpler,
more elegant solution, which I then offer. This recent issue over
OGRE "fractional movement", for example -- the original idea added
die rolls, and non-6-sided dice; mine, OTOH, used a mechanic ex-
tant in the game (a single roll of a single D6).

> then the fastest way you can get the group to
> move on to a less boring subject is to NOT write anything, and let the
> topic fade into the background.

Nowadays, sadly, silence is equated with agreement, rather than a
lack of interest.... :P

>  Poo-poo'ing people's ideas doesn't
> make anyone happy,

Of course not.

> nor does it turn back the clock and "heal" Car
> Wars,

No, but if someone out there beats me to the punch, and comes up
with an idea that doesn't involve "a fistful of dice", or a brace of
exceptions to the rules, or what-have-you, instead of contributing
to Rule Bloat, and does so because of something he saw here, then
perhaps it *was* worthwhile (and if, by some miracle, said trained
person became an SJG editor, then glory to Azathoth in the highest,
the greatest possible good has come from this).

> nor does it impact SJG's decision to bloat or not bloat the Ogre
> rules further.  It is not clear that they even read this list anymore.

And here we hit the crux of the problem -- SJG Not Listening.

I keep coming back to _CW_ for a reason -- it is a living (OK, maybe
not "living" anymore...) example of what I'm talking about when I
complain about Rule Bloat, and "Fixing" Things That Didn't Need
Fixing (or Fixing Them Worse Than Before).

This is not to denigrate or demean anyone, except maybe the souls
responsible for these earlier disasters. It is simply an attempt by me
to -- I don't know -- "teach", or "warn", or something, gamers
against coming up with overly-complicated rules (optional or other-
wise -- and realize that a lot of the _CW_ disasters began as Op-
tional Rules) for what are supposed to be simple, straightforward
"soda and chips" games ("soda and chips" is "beer and pretzels"
for the non-drinker).

> Realize that I've been as polite as I possibly could be to you in this
> reply, and try to be equally polite back.

You ask a fair question; you deserve a fair response. And no, I'm
not offended or bothered by you saying this openly -- in fact, I'm
actually quite pleased (rather than trying to get me tossed out as
a "troll", or some such, you look me in the eye and say, "WTF?").

As I said before, I am trying to keep _O_ off the path into the
Swamp-hexes that so many other solid SJG products have rolled
1s or 2s upon entering. If that means being overly blunt about how
I feel about it, oh well. I do try to stay out of personal abuse -- I've
seen how *that* works out, and it's even less productive than
simply complaining to SJG.

All I ask, from you or from anyone else, is to remember that _O_ is
a simple game -- that is what attracts people to it. Simple set-up,
simple game mechanics, simple rules, simple everything. If the _O_
rulebook turned into a 100+-page "bible", new gamers would avoid
it like the plague, and I doubt the "alter Kampferer" would be ter-
ribly thrilled either. So, as is said in the military, "Keep it simple."
(I deleted the last word, so as not to sound insulting.)

CF