From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: SF Poll
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:28:18 GMT

dunkelza@titan.ucc.umass.edu (KEITH C MCCORMIC) writes:

>     1.  Do you like a heavy background in a game?  Another words, do you
> like a game to have huge amounts of material available? Why?

Yes, it adds depth to a world.  It's not important if you have The Best GM in
the World, but if your GM has less than infinite time and creativity, the
published material can help out.

>     2.  If a background is very fixed, such as the one for Shadowrun, does
> it turn you off?  Why?  (I mean very fixed in that if you alter the
> background it totally changes the flavor of the game.)

If it was very fixed, I would either like it or hate it, depending on how I
felt about the style/atmosphere.  It's also likely that I'd soon tire of a
background that allowed only a very limited styles of campaigns.

>     3.  Do you prefer Soft SF (High Tech, Low scientific accuracy) or Hard
> SF (Lower Tech, High accuracy)?  Why?

High accuracy, because I'm bothered by flaws in the science, technology, and
effects of them on society.  I can't take T-2300 seriously when its FTL
starships are powered by chemical energy (fuel cells) and MHD generators are
supposedly more efficient than the fuel cells (the reverse is true).

Lower technology is almost mandatory, since it is difficult to create a
detailed, self-consistent world with high tech, such as artificial
intelligence or nanotechnology.  I can't comprehend what such a world would
be like.  It certainly won't be 1993 with some fancy gadgets; every aspect of
society will be affected.

> 4.  Do you prefer Cyberpunk ("Hoi, chummer.."), Space Opera ("Hand me that
> hydro-spanner, will ya Chewie?"), Exploration ("To boldly go..."),   Future
> War ("We're gonna hit them bastards, and hit `em hard..."), or some mix and
> match of the above?  Why?

None of the above, since they're all stereotypes.  I prefer a believable
future, with believably real people doing believably real activities in that
self-consistent universe.

>     5.  Would you or do you by games just for the Background?  Why?

I might, if the background material made interesting reading.

>   MECHANICS:
>     1.  Do you prefer accuracy or simplicity in a system?  How far are you
> willing to bend either way?  Why?

I prefer a compromise: rules as simple as possible while allowing "realistic"
actions and results.  Too simple rules reduces the level of detail possible
in the game.  For example, combat would be fairly boring for me if all combat
was resolved with a coin flip; there's no room for tactics or heroic imagery.
Too complex rules bog down play.

>     2.  Do you feel that realistic combat at a cost of speed and ease is an
> acceptable trade-off?  Why?

I can't answer that without more details: how much realism; how fast?

>     3.  Do you prefer combat that is quick and dirty, quick but clean-cut,
> just dirty, or just clean-cut?  Why?

I have no idea what your terms mean.  I prefer combat that is fairly
realistic. A gunshot could injure, incapacitate a right arm, or kill.  A
player should be able to "call" a shot at a specific body area, or simply
spray automatic fire in an area with an improved chance of hitting
_something_.

>     4.  Do you prefer realistic but challenging Random roll creation or
> less realistic but simpler to handle Point Allocation? Why?

I prefer random generation, for reasons that I think I made amply clear in an
earlier discussion.  :-)

>     5.  How many die rolls are too many to perform an action (Shooting,
> Driving a car, tying shoes, etc.)?  Why?

One is good, and should handle most tasks.  Some tasks might require two
(roll to hit; roll to determine location and damage), and some special cases
might require more (spraying automatic fire a several possible targets).
More rolls than absolutely necessary bog down play.

>     6.  How long is the ideal combat turn (Time it take to perform one
> action) in your opinion?  Why?

It varies with the situation.  Something like 3 seconds is good for most
things.  special circumstances could require shorter or longer turns.

>     7.  Would you or do you buy games just for their mechanics?  Why?

Possibly, but unlikely.  For the style of gaming I prefer, the mechanics and
background are interrelated to a large extent.  If there was a set of
mechanics that was obviously superior to whatever I'd encountered elsewhere,
for the style of gaming that I prefer, then I might consider it.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca