From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Net.rpg - "modularity"
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:20:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: charnel.1du78nINN3tj
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu

Loren Miler Writes
>David Lamb writes:
>> As with many respondents I've been working on my own system;  an important
>> goal has been to make the system modular 
>How do you pick the modules to use? Seems to me that determines a lot of the
>flavor of the rpg right there. For instance, the following picks tell a lot
>about what the system is trying to do.

The easiest answer to that is to let the group decide on the method of 
choosing, as well as the actual choices.  I can see a group wholly
allowing the referee to determine the methods, or having a 'house' set
of methods, or voting/lobbying/"I like <x> and it's not been tried yet"
for each instance.  After all, if it is going to be a monster, then it
should be all things to all people.

As an example, I'll go through some aspects of the character and spout off:

>character background

rolled, player determined, or gm assigned.  In truth, we give a series of
events that may/may not have happened to the character, and all threee
choices are now possible.

>character quantization

to take the gurps stats vs. advantages arguement further, how about
allowing each stat to be broken down into separate stats?  Thus, one's
Mental stat is the average (or weighted mean, or whatever) of one's
Psyche, Willpower, Acumen, etc....  

The only potential problem is when a player tries to minimax by either
creating useless or redundant stats and lower those so s/he can raise
the choice ones.

>the roll (or not)

We can create an expected value table for whatever mechanic(s) we use
and allow the player to choose that result instead of rolling dice.  

If we go 'cards,' we could allow a 'hand' to be dealt, and do d100
with black cards as 10's place and red cards as 1's.  Face cards 
could be criticals, or played to counteract (trump?) criticals.

Still, this does not allow for completely ruleless play, in either
case.  I don't know if that is entirely a fault, however.

>simple skill use, opposed skills

If we have the mechanic in the rules, the choice again falls to the
group whether to utilize it or not.

>interpersonal conflict: combat; repartee; and mystic duels

We can have combat be based on the skill system, but with extra 
details thrown in for spice.

>mystic abilities: magic; miracles; psychic powers. super abilities

Definitely to be included in the behemoth if it is to be universal.
Taking one good aspect from Hero, we should be internally conistent.
I'd rather not have the steep learning curve, however.  Still, if
we are to have one mechanic, then we should be consistent in applying
that one mechanic to all parahuman abilities.

Ryk (Seawasp) Spoor would differ with this (as is his right and as he 
is wont to do) but I feel that the special effects and maybe some 
peripheral changes will determine the difference between a bullet 
wound and Mr Magnet's Magneto-ocular beam.  Matter is definitely open
to discussion.

>foe lists
>adventure design hints

Here we are getting into refereeing and out of mechanics.  While not
to say that refereeing is unimportant, I was under the assumption we
were addressing solely the issue of mechanics.  BTW, WotC has a
mailing list for one work entitled The Art of GMin (but you knew that
already, Loren)  Send mail to taogm-request to subscribe.

-- 
Next to being shot at and missed, nothing is really quite as satisfying
as an income tax refund.
		-- F. J. Raymond
Newsgroups: rec.games.design