From: v057qkmm@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (BABBLING SAGE)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Let's talk REAL sci-Fi systems
Keywords: The best
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:26:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <bn6yjsl@rpi.edu>, cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg) writes...
>In article <BuDznu.2IE@acsu.buffalo.edu> v057qkmm@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (BABBLING SAGE) writes:
>>In article <j+6y!zd@rpi.edu>, cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg) writes...
>>>In article <BuC6KL.Fpw@acsu.buffalo.edu> v057qkmm@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Bluerazor) writes:
>>>I rather liked Twilight:  2000 (at least, 1st edition) for its combat system.
>>>Quick, accurate, and deadly, while still retaining simplicity.  I ONCE
>>>calculated the damage done by a 40mm HE grenade that hit an enemy in the
>>>head.  It was not nice.  I had two of six characters put out of action by
>>>simple shots to the arms, from pistol fire.  And no one walks around like
>>>a veritable tank in armor from hell.
>>
>>	grenade to the head: quite fatal in most cases. helmet can save
>>you, if its a hi-tech device.
>>	Pistol shots to arm: critical hits to can cause unconsciouness;
>>	so this is a definite possibility.
>>	Armor from hell: It's high tech, and it costs a lot. And your enemies
>>will have it too.
> 
>Look, they use 40mm grenades to punch holes in tanks, and it's explosive.  If
>it hits you in the HEAD, I don't give a damn WHAT helmet you got on, if the
>helmet isn't solidly attached to the rest of your bodyarmor, and NOT jointed
>(yeah, right), then you're going to be SOL when the explosive force decides
>to rend your head away from your body.  It don't happen that way.  Ask Simms
>he was in the "army"...
> 
> 
>Armor from hell:  The fact that EVERYONE has it IS the problem!
> 
> 
>>>I don't doubt it.  However, I have one complaint already:  I had been
>>>led to believe that Simms' main idea behind BattleLords was to keep 
>>>everything in one book, "so that people don't have to buy tons of
>>>accessories".  And if he would have put as much effort in making a 
>>>COMPLETE set of rules as he has for equipment, I wouldn't be complaining
>>>at ALL at this point.
>>> 
>>
>>	You CAN play the game without LockNLoad. It's a supplement.
>>	No one said there wouldn't be any support material!
>>
>>>>	No space combat system? Of course not - its still under development 
>>>>because when its released it will be the BEST. Can't fit it into a 250-page
>>>>rulebook which already explains the basics.
>>> 
>>>And no "Real" vehicle rules, no "real" computers rules, no "real" robot rules.
>>
>>	Well, admittedly the vehicle rules are a patch. Computer rules
>>are foun in LockNLoad, and only for body computers. And robots are also
>>a patch. However, two points:
>>
>>	1> Most people add something of their own to a game. Most GMs can
>>improvise rules and background, and there is no game which can completely 
>>cover every situation.
>>	2> Again, the vehicles and robots wouldnt fit. expect all of those
>>things in a supplement.
>>
> 
>So you admit then, that you're completely clueless, and utterly lost?  You've
>just contradicted yourself BIG TIME.  "No one said there wouldn't be any
>support material", but then vehicles and robots are supposed to become a
>supplement?  If you want a loyal consumer base, you can't go off half-cocked
>without having worked as much out as possible.  You can't sell off volume A,
>say it's complete, then turn around with volume B as a "just about as close
>to necessary as need be discussed" book, and expect people to go for it.
> 
>And from what I've seen, it appears that all you U of Buffalo people are 
>actually gaming under Simms.  I played a game under Simms, and I've got some
>points on his playing style you ought to take note of.
> 
>Simms is a half-decent GM, and only that.  He's very good at remembering (his)
>rules, but he has a definite problem with understanding the "common sense"
>concept.  Example:  We were in a city, and we were going to go into this guy's
>house to see if he was okay (we were supposed to pick up a briefcase).  I
>told Larry I put my pistol under my jacket and walked up to the front of
>the house, with a guy in our van covering us with an automatic weapon, but
>out of sight.  He convinces me I need to put on my armor.  He basically
>commandeered my character into putting my armor on.  Now you tell me if this
>is conducive to roleplaying, as opposed to suiting up for a hack & slash 
>encounter.  Yeah, I was going into a possibly dangerous situation, but Geez,
>you can't go everywhere with the Pillsbury Doughboy Defense (tm).  I was
>trying not to catch too much attention by walking up a man's house in a
>city in full battlearmor and a rifle.
> 
>I think the main problem is that Larry's got a playing style more closely
>related to hack & slash than he thinks; his concept of roleplaying is to
>carefully describe HOW you kill your opponent.  Did he think NO ONE was ever
>going to use a computer, drive a vehicle, or work with a robot to complete
>a mission?  What was his predetermined plan, that everyone tromp in with
>guns blazing on everything that moved or wore armor?  I think not.  Unless
>I see a BIG improvement in BattleLords, you can be sure I'm not going to 
>sink anymore of my money into a game system designed by a whole team of
>bloodthirsty, misguided, deluded hack & slashers.
> 
>....Paul

	1> You were previously asking if Larry was going to be at Council
of Five Nations con. Yes.
	2> You asked why you weren't mailed on the mailing list? It's because
the list from your con was stolen along with a car. Simple.
	3> You asserted that it took you 31 days to realize you'd been screwed,
as you put it. Well here is my suggestion to you (and I am not speaking in an
official capacity here): go to the Con and take your book back to Larry. He 
will most likely give you your money back regardless --- If you really hate the
game that much, you'd be the first.

Bluerazor
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc