"Philosophical Questions From Crusade/Babylon 5 Episodes?" Topic

I found these 7 questions very interesting:

link

And they made me wonder about this …

A) Do your preferred SF miniature rules ever take into consideration the beliefs and fundamental motivations of the factions, beyond just the obvious fact that they sit on opposite sides of a battlefield?

B) And, if so, to what extent does it help (or hinder) the enjoyment of the game?

Dan

There are several that involve morale in several different ways--and that is the battlefield manifestation of beliefs and motivations. I wrote modified morale and response to being under fire rules for a scenario (base rules were Stargrunt) for Kra'Vak aliens, so that when they failed a morale test, they reacted differently than human units (note: not better, just different).

And yes, I like that, but it has to make sense and:

1. do it in ways that are internally consistent; and
2. don't create an "unstoppable" enemy or "irresistible" faction.

Rob

I loved the B 5 shows in part because of the deeper ideas beyond mere action. On the other hand, I have never asked myself these questions either from fear of the answers or sheer laziness.

It's sometimes the underlying themes in background that generate the best scenarios, and the philosophy of action to those situations.. Though the derivation can be difficult, it's worth the effort to do.

Some examples: the original DW fluff had a detailed alt-history and part of that was the ramifications of the earlier start to the industrial revolution, supercharged by Sturginium and the Great European War: this changed the complexion of the American Civil war, since slavery as such was not an issue given the higher level of mechanization of both North and South. Consequently, the British had no moral qualms about assisting their main cotton supplier ( The South) in that conflict, in exchange for concessions of trade and worker's rights, leading to a new result. Like all good Alt-History, the question is raised in this background "Given the freedom of advanced technical power, and different moral circumstances, how would the people of this age react?"

In Full Thrust, the ancient Sa'Vasku race have a deep motivation for their actions; To preserve their culture and individual action from interference. They simply wish to retard the development of the other races to a point where no-one threatens their worlds,physically, mentally or culturally, and as a retroactive snub to the Ancient Ones who they are pretty sure set the other races on closely matched lines of development just to see conflict occur in the future for what appears to be "Deep Time Lulz". Thus their intervention has a pattern only when you realize that they side with the outnumbered force only to bring the larger one to a level where stalemate will occur.

A) Do your preferred SF miniature rules ever take into consideration the beliefs and fundamental motivations of the factions, beyond just the obvious fact that they sit on opposite sides of a battlefield?

Yes, though I am a bit concerned about the most recent story developments.

One faction has gone from nuanced opponent to Captain Planet villain. Or at least that's the direction the fluff seems to be pointing. Will see at the start of April.

B) And, if so, to what extent does it help (or hinder) the enjoyment of the game?

Generally, it made the games more believable. You were running special ops for short-term gains. The Outrage manga actually had a plotline that one faction was playing for media points via part of the conflict (which has almost nothing to do with the actual events in the story).

Shagnasty: "On the other hand, I have never asked myself these questions either from fear of the answers or sheer laziness"

LOL. You and me both.

Covert Walrus: "It's sometimes the underlying themes in background that generate the best scenarios, and the philosophy of action to those situations.. Though the derivation can be difficult, it's worth the effort to do."

I think you definitely understand what I was getting to, but you worded it way better than I could.

Dan