Re: [NetEpic ML] Implications of "epic" proportions

From: Kelvin Henderson <kx.henderson_at_...>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 08:05:00 +1000

At 06:37 PM 4/5/01 -0400, Peter of the tribe Ramos wrote:

I have to say that this post and the one previous to this have put into
words what I have always felt about GW games. They seriously need to take
a leaf out of Ground Zero Games' book (not that they haven't already, I can
point to at least 2 different GZG mechanics that GW stole for Epic40K).

Jon at GZG admits to being to biased to his own rules. He knows what he
means when he writes a rule, but understands others may not see his
intention. This is why there is the GZG playtester's email list. Each
member agrees to a non-disclosure agreement (its probably not universally
legal, but the people on the list remain VERY tight lipped) and in return
Jon issues test rules and rules sets to the list and gets them to play them
out and discuss them. In return, they get credit in the rules BY NAME and
I believe they may also get a free copy of the rules when finally published
(I'm not a member BTW). This service is happily provided by the list
members who are all passionate about GZG products. As the list members are
from all around the world (as our list is), GZG gets a perspective that GW
seriously lacks. As a result, GZG games are (IMO) some of the BEST rules
available. I can't wait until the Full Metal Codpiece system is released
(their Fantasy rules).

>I could not have expressed it better. I consider myself and amateur
>games designer and I am always tinkering and making stuff. The FIRST
>thing I learned while making some games is that if people OUTSIDE the
>design process are not involved in examining my work, design and format,
>the game NEVER works well. I find it overwhelmingly moronic on the part
>of a company who loudly proclaims their powerful status as a games
>company to continuously produce such shoddy game designs. Come on, I bet
>we can all remember GW games that after the first read we pinpointed all
>the loopholes for power gamers and ambiguous rules, some so large you
>can drive a truck through it! What Josh points out is too true, flaws
>are never readily apparent to the games designer because he is too close
>to the design process, even testing by the designer is flaws because he
>will subconciously compensate for holes in his design. Only review by an
>outsider, someone with no knowledge of the design process can
>objectively test a game.

>Heck for
>a free copy of those rules when done I'd consider myself paid in full.
>Its just laziness on thier part.

Yep. I'd jump on the band wagon for that. GW have a MASSIVE resource out
there. They just don't seem to want to use it.

-Kelvin...

"Look, just give me some inner peace
or I'll mop the floor with you."
-Homer
Received on Thu Apr 05 2001 - 22:05:00 UTC