>to cooperate to achieve anything. "The Broken Council" had a full-blown wargame
>with its own map and counters, but this seemed overly distracting to me: some
>interesting player characters spent much of the game rolling dice and pushing
>stacks around. We prefer to have military forces committed perhaps a couple of
>times in the course of an eight-hour game, giving referees plenty of time
>(during the breaks) to work out satisfactory (interesting and deserved)
>resolutions to their actions, and have a chance to communicate the news to all
>of the other players affected.
To defend Broken Council, it didn't look to me like there was a full-blown wargame. The only relevant comment is that people did move stacks around. However, I never saw dice being rolled, nor were there any grids on the maps. It seemed like a simple improvised system.
(When my territory was threatened, I had no concept of "combat values" or anything; all I saw was a big stack of monsters; I had to do a bit of quick deal-making at the table to try and get a large enough looking force committed to defend me)
One could argue that the system had merit: military leaders might be unavailable for consultation, due to on-going battles.
Powered by hypermail