[UA] UA lrp (was no subject)

[Nick Wedig]

>> I myself would want to adapt the combat strategies system from Greg's
>Usagi Yojimbo rpg.  More or less, these could be used to eliminate dice
>rolling in combat (and extended to non-combat situations) though the game
>itself doesn't go this far, IIRC.
>>
>
>sad to say i haven't got usagi yojimbo (though i may buy it at some point to
>help greg keep his kid in diapers). how does it work?

When attacking, you choose one of two strategies (total attack and cautious attack) or attempt whatever else (eg, run away).  The defender chooses out of three strategies (totall offense, cautious offense, or total defense).  The effectiveness of your attack is determined by comparing your strategy with their strategy (and rolling your skill, which is unimportant in this instance).  Total attack smashes right through the weak defense of cautious attack, but is blocked by total defense.  Cautious attack can get around total defense, etc.  When both choose the same strategy, skill levels determine who wins.  (Also, this all seems to imply [IIRC]the defender gets a simultaneous counterattack on the attacker's turn, which some roleplayers can't seem to get, but makes sense in the sword-fighting context).  There's more involved than that, but you should buy the book, and the comic as well.  I suppose Greg could explain it all better if he chose to do so.

>> thinking about game theory
>
>as in "bertrand russell says we should nuke the ussr" game theory? or am i
>getting confused again?

More like John Von Neumann says we shouldn't nuke the USSR (Incidentally, Bertrand Russell was strongly opposed to war and was jailed several times for protesting any war in the last century that you could mention, so I doubt he suggested that), thoguh Russell was involved, IIRC.  The reason I mention it was that their system of game theory resembles the fighting strategies in UY.  In nuclear war, there's basically two strategies: nuke them or don't.  As long as both sides held off, then both receive a moderate benefit.  If one side nukes and the other doesn't, then the nuking side receives a large benefit, while the other loses horribly.  If both sides nuke, both lose horribly.  So the best strateg is not to nuke, or nuke when you're certain the other guy won't, etc.  Could be adaptble into gaming somehow, IMHO.

Mr. Teapot
doesn't mean "nuke the crap out of Europe" 
( http://www.criticalmiss.com/backissues/issue3/nukecrap1.html )

____________________________________________________
FREE Disinformation E-book - http://www.disinfo.com

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua