From: surge@cqs.washington.edu (Jonathan Sari)
Subject: Re: META: Game Mechanics vs. Background
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 12:26:10 GMT

>These belong to mrm70@diag.amdahl.com (Mike McAllister):

>What about the time required to read and absorb the sourcebook?

Reading is quick compared to creating, for me.  It's the sheer
quantity of ideas that need to be generated to create a plausible
campaign that gets me.

All of the NPCs encountered need to be three-dimensional characters,
so that the players can get to know each NPC on an individual basis,
where that is appropriate.  Group dynamics work along the same lines,
but require more design to make them believable.  A number of these
entities should have their own plots associated with them, awaiting
discovery by the characters.  Especially if those plots are
complicated, it takes me a while simply to come up with that many
reasonable plots and supporting personalities.  Getting them from
books and tying them all together is an order of magnitude easier, for
me.  Absorbtion takes time, but I find that after working with the
details a bit, most of it fits into place.  Besides, if I don't get
full absorption, I can always return to the sourcebook, where I might
have to reinvent the wheel if I forgot a detail about my own creation.

>          But it's not fun to modify mechanics, like it is background.

In my experience, mechanic modification for most workable games
requires significantly less time than background creation, and I have
yet to see a complete rules system that works without modification,
except Amber, which is really more a set of guidelines than a set of
rules, and certainly not a game it would even be conceivable to
prepare every NPC, or even every *type* of NPC the players may
encounter.  Besides, I get quite a kick out of comparing mechanics,
deciding what the benefits of one over another are.

>I agree with the importance you put on background, it's just
>that I think the best full background (to me) cannot be bought.

I am not always necessarily looking for the BEST full background to
me.  I am looking to explore different backgrounds.  The overall
background is a major part of the game, but the details are what
really makes it come to life, and that is what I focus on.  The
background merely has to be plausible.

>What's the difference? So you have thought that some detail in a background
>was 'stupid/useless'? If so, what did you do? I come across offending/stupid/
>useless background in every game I have ever bought. This usually has to
>do with scientific stupidity, or a view of technology or society in the
>future that I think is inconsistent or illogical. I will pick and choose
>what I like from the background, and insert my own ideas, or just create
>my own background. (yes, i like sf)

I find it difficult to take offense at an oversight.  If I believed
that the designer were creating intentional flaws for some reason, I
might take offense.  When faced with such a circumstance, I do what
you do.  Rarely do I encounter a supplement that is entirely devoid of
anything I can use.  I imagine that it is the price to usefulness
ratio that you find offensive, then.  To that, I can only say "Let the
buyer beware."

>>Why would one would choose to create a society from scratch when a
>>completely workable one exists?

>Because you think your own society might be more fun or interesting?

I can see the appeal in this.  

>Btw, I'm just trying to show my point of view, not convert you. :)

And I appreciate that.  :-)

>Whatever method is most enjoyable, is the best.

Naturally.



:And these belong to sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan):

:                [GURPS Fantasy was way cool.]
:Then along came GURPS Fantasy, 2nd edition, which was the same world,
:damn near all filled in.  It is, IMO, a very poor supplement, and not
:1/10 as exciting as the Yrth we had created.

What about the 2nd edition made it a poor supplement?  Was it merely
that it provided the details, or that the details were flawed in some
way?

:OTOH, trying to run a game in 2nd edition GURPS Fantasy, or Forgotten
:Realms, would require so many changes as not to be worth it for me.

What is the difference between using the seeds from a supplement with
flawed details and using a supplement which provides only seeds?  Or
were the basic concepts behind the 2nd edition drastically screwed up?

-Jon
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA