Let's ask ourselves; what effect will our scoring system have on a player's experience of the game? A simple system that doesn't require tables and charts is ideal, and could be seen as a natural extension of the low-overhead nature of FoG itself (I'm only going by the promotional fluff - I haven't read the beta myself so don't know how accurate my statement is!). A complex system, and I do include some of the early suggestions here as they require players to complete tables and consult charts, would appeal to players that feel their victory (or defeat) was the result of intricate or complex play - and would feel validated by an equally complex scoring system. Both extremes have merit - perhaps some compromise between the two is ideal? I'm starting to drift now so I'll try to make my point - what does the scoring system say about FoG, what is the experience of playing FoG, and what scoring system best reflects that experience as a natural extension? I propose that none of us want a scoring system that is more complicated than the game itself
The main point of my post aside, I'll propose something lighthearted...
I'm in favour of a very simple scoring system, probably because I'm not very bright:
2 points for a win
1 point for a draw
0 points for a loss
It still only needs data entry for one player. You could play around with the numbers to make it add up to whatever you want at the end of the meet and/or add extra levels of success to reflect what is considered (correctly or incorrectly) to be an accurate outcome of the historical battles we like to think we are simulating, although I feel it works best just like this.
