From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.board
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 19:30:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User

.
     ]['ve decided to add my comments/opinions on this issue.
 
 
 rec.games.frp.board
 rec.games.board.frp
    ___
     |oo general, and which hierarchy should it be under?  Most of the
 games that would fall under this category are either equally weighted
 towards board and RPG aspects, or are only slightly weighted one way or
 the other.  Ideally, a group for the games that are a synthesis of board
 and role-playing games should go at the rec.games level of the hierarchy.
 Using frp.board or board.frp breaks the hierarchy, as both r.g.b and
 r.g.f are at the same level, and this would _appear_ to be a group trying
 to move one of them to a position under the other one.
 
 
 rec.games.mecha
 
   \  /
    \/ery specific.  Possibly too specific.
 
 
 rec.games.[battletech|btech]
    ___
     |oo specific.
 
 
 rec.games.[board|frp].miniatures
 rec.games.miniatures
     _
    (_
    __)pecific, but confusing.  "Miniatures" can connote the RPG/board
 games we're discussing, lead figurines that almost any RPG is capable of
 using, three dimensional pieces for board games, or the whole gaming
 genre that is called "miniatures gaming." As a general rule, the majority
 of the people who do "miniatures gaming" completely exclude RPG/board
 games and lead figurines specific to RPGs.  There was just recently a
 long thread about this kind of issue in r.g.b.  I think choosing this
 option would lead to many conflicts.
 
 
 rec.games.[board|frp].combat
 rec.games.[board|frp].armor
 rec.games.[board|frp].war
 rec.games.[board|frp].warfare
    ___
     |oo general.  40%-70% of the games discussed in r.g.b and r.g.f have
 something to do with these categories.  If one of these were chosen, it'd
 likely generate a split of anywhere from 40/60 to 60/40 percent.
 
 
 rec.games.tactical
 rec.games.strategic
    ___
     |oo ambiguous, as evidenced by the RFD that resulted in the creation of
 the group rec.games.abstract.
 
 
 
 
    ]-[ere's a new one I just thought of:
 
 rec.games.armored-combat
 
    ][t may be a little too general.  It also is weighted more towards the
 tactical aspect of the games, and less towards the role-playing aspect.
 "Armored" conotates people actually wearing armor, whether its personal
 armor like in Warhammer, or mecha type armor, which is worn almost as
 much as it's piloted/driven.  I don't think it would get confused with
 tanks/etc., which are usually described as just "armor."  It fits exactly
 within the 14 character limit.  (As a side note, the game of BattleTech is
 sub-titled "A Game of Armored Combat," which is where I got the idea.)
 
     _
    (_)f all of these, the ones I would cast my vote for would be r.g.mecha
 or r.g.armored-combat.  If the vote comes down to r.g.frp.board or
 r.g.board.frp, I'm going to vote "No," and urge all the people I know in
 r.g.b to vote "No," as well.

-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
/______________________________________________________/
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.med