Re: Odyssey vs. Olympia (long)

From: bobfry@crl.com (Robert Fry)

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Rob Rodgers <rrodgers@unex.ucla.edu> writes:

>Odyssey vs. Olympia - a comparison.

>Note:  All this is IMHO.

>Category 				Advantage to:

>Set-up Options:				Odyssey
>"Logic" of playing system:		Tie
>Empire-Building Aspect:			Olympia
>Military Aspect:			Odyssey
>Roleplaying Aspect:			Odyssey
>Magic:					Odyssey
>Game Information:			Olympia
>Support:				Tie
>Cost:					Olympia
>Overall:				Close, but gotta pick Odyssey

>These are different games--Odyssey is very complex and closed end, while
>Olympia is medium complex and open ended.  I like them both, but the fact
>that the Odyssey system has a lot fewer holes and is more imaginative
>makes it my choice.

Interesting -- given the differences you list, Odyssey (which I know
almost nothing about) has a lot of appeal to me. But I'd still pick
Olympia, because I don't generally care for closed-ended games. You might
also add (if it's true) that Olympia has to deal with some difficulties
that Odyssey doesn't: balancing beginners in a world with some highly
skilled and experienced players, and giving them a chance to eventually
become leaders. I'm sure others could think of a number of areas where
Olympia has problems that don't exist for Odyssey. But you're right, I'd
be tempted to call it a very close call anyway...

Bob
Horse Feathers, in Olympia

References

Odyssey vs. Olympia (long)
Rob Rodgers <rrodgers@unex.ucla.edu>
Thu, 19 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000