Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
It's mainly important to the GM rather than the players. Just think how different it would be if France and Italy remained in Nato and fought alongside the Germans, Americans, British and others during 1996-97? Just think what the addition of another couple of armies on the western side would have allowed Nato to do to the Pact....
Given those additional forces I think it's safe to say there would be no reason for anyone to be in Poland. The world might in fact be a glowing cinder as the Soviets openned up with everything they had rather than limited strikes, just in an effort to survive - victory against those odds would have been extremely unlikely.
Remember, nothing happens in islolation. Change something in one place and the ripples will be felt halfway across the world.
As another example, what if India and Pakistan didn't go to war? What if they sided with the Soviets? How would that alter deployments in the middle east?
|
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I see where you're going but I read all of that and all I can muster is
"Who cares?" Though I guess it might more correctly be, "So what?" - since so many of you obviously care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
Understanding the background is vital to running a believable world.
|
I think folks confuse background with setting. Setting is where you are. Background is the universe of events that had to transpire before you got there. Setting is of paramount importance. Background is not. Players need a detailed setting in order to understand their situation and gauge its gravity. Beyond a little immediate local history, they don't really need much in the way of background at all in order to play (and enjoy) a game. I contest the same is true of the GM, especially in that he needs to be focused on looking forward, not back.
I mean not to diminish your cogent analysis or geopolitical acumen, but it seems I may be tilting at a windmill and this is clearly a case where I expect to remain the sole voice of dissent.