From: bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Net.rpg: Stats for guns?
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:36:35 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Nov19.193916.22818@crd.ge.com> (Spike) writes:
>Guns (vehicles, etc.) are easy to create mechanics for,
>because they have traits which are more clearly rooted
>in the concrete. What does "Rate of Fire" mean? Exactly
>what it means. All you have to do is put it together in a 
>reasonable fashion.

	Easy?  As in "easy to handle" or "easy to create"?  (I
certainly wouldn't call the mechanics in Guns Guns Guns EASY.
They're not horribly difficult to use, but the work required to
generate such rules is far, far from easy.)  Same goes for vehicles
and the like.
	After fiddling with my own rules for vehicles, I basically
gave up.  The best ones I've come across in a while were GURPS
Vehicles (not published yet, I believe, but I'm waiting...waiting).
If you're using very simple mechanics, then handling just about
anything is easy..."Yeah, yeah, sure.  Double backhand somersault...
Difficult maneuver, roll..."  But as the mechanics get more complex
(a la GURPS), it craetes a precedent to echo the same complexity
elsewhere, say in the vehicles rules.  Otherwise all one would need
to say is, "Figure out how big it is, how it moves, how much armor
it has, and put in seats.  Move out..."  But then people ask, "But
what about streamlining?  Handling?  How many machineguns can I
stick on the front of my Mondo Kick Butt Attack Vehicle?  What about
different power supplies?  Flight units?  Wings?"
	The Simple Mechanics System would probably shrug and say,
"Doesn't matter.  Who cares?  This is roleplaying, for heavens
sake..."
	The Not-So-Simple (or at least more detailed), would say,
"Well, it depends.  Now why don't we talk about the machineguns
first..."

	Handling vehicles isn't very simple either under a detailed
system.  ("Double three-sixty?  Yeah, Impossible maneuver..." <- for
the simple system)  One might have to worry about terrain, handling,
traction, maneuvers, enemy fire, etc, in very quantified ways.  "I'm
making a 30 degree turn on ice, so that's a -8 to my skill, but I
took two hits this turn which increases it to -12...hold on,
folks..."

>Living beings, OTOH, are a bitch. Beyond "height,
>weight, hair color, eye color, penis length" etc., you
>pretty much have to create form from abstraction. 

	So we're using the detailed mechanics.  See above on
vehicles and the like.  (Guns are mostly easier, though.)  The main
problem is How Much Detail Do We Want and When Do We Have Too Much
Detail and What Sort of Damn Scale Are We Going To Use?  (On scales,
say, GURPS vs. Vampire vs. AD&D vs....etc...Bell curve?  No Bell
curve?  Coarse stats?  Etc.  I'm sorry, I know I brought this up,
but it does have a point.  What's the use having tons of detail when
you only have 5 levels in stats and skills?  The character is
already horribly coarse...)
	GURPS uses the Very Broad method for defining primary
statistics (which, as opinions go, ranges from Perfectly Fine to It
Cripples the System).  Others have suggested splitting up stats.
Some have suggested that splitting up stats would increase
role-playing (mostly wrong in my opinion...).  What stats are
necessary?  Using the Detailed System, we'd need quite a few.
(Possibly as many at 15...that's how many the system I fiddled with
uses...)
	Alternately, you can define fewer stats and use aspecting.
This reduces the emphasis on statistics and the need to reduce/raise
them for the sake of being higher than somebody else and allows
players to get more creative.  Still, the question is when do we
have enough stats?  Some people have suggested as few as 2 to 4
while others want more...dunno...depends for everyone...
	So far as What's More Realistic, it doesn't matter.  I've
never seen a truly realistic set of stats for characters.  I can
always point out places where they're lacking and so can others.
You want to select a level of realism that doesn't reduce
playability, not The Highest Possible Reality Level In the World.
(And I, personally, am amused by Slug...might not ever use it, but
it's cute...)

>What, exactly does Psyche mean? See what I mean?

	I'd expect that an RPG would define Psyche, give it a
definition, and tell you what it does for you.  The biggest problem
I have with some games (palladium among them) are stats which are
there for the sake of being stats and stats which don't accomplish
anything at all.  If they're just there to offer Character Bonuses
(a la AD&D), then maybe you're better off without them.  If they
can't be used to define a character in a way that people can use
when running that character, then is it necessary at all?
	The biggest problem I have is the Fragmentation Statistics
problem that seems to crop up once in a while.  Some people want to
keep splitting them and splitting them and splitting them...
	Personally, if all you're doing is writing down fragmented
stats and they start adding up to 20 or more, you're in serious
trouble.  10 is a personal max that I'd set, but it's an
uncomfortable one.  And stats shouldn't be created without at least
some idea as to the mechanics that they'll be used for.  Hmn, an
example:

Strength
	Size
	Stamina
Intelligence
	Technical Ability
Dexterity
	Agility
Health
	Hit Points
Speed
Will
Perception
Charisma

	[indented stats are listed for the sake of organization,
nothing else]

	Cute little stats they are, but do they work?  Strength
stands for general physical power.  Stamina is a judge of physical
fitness and the like.  Someone with high ST but a low STaM might be
really strong, but he wouldn't be able to keep it up.  Great.
Sounds cute.  But how to do it?
	Similarly, INT was split into two groups:  INT and TECH.
Tech is used for skills like craftsmanship, repairing cars, etc.
Why was it split?  Wouldn't it be easier to keep them together?  But
it's possible to make someone who's very good at fixing cars but
isn't very good at the sciences and the like.  That sounds fine.
But what about people who are really good at art but aren't good at
the sciences?  Do they fall under TECH?  No, but that's a good
point.  We should make another one...
	But what about people who can do terrific sculptures but
can't draw?  Or people who are great at chemistry but suck at
physics?  Maybe we could create a Visualisation stat to deal with
people who can't visualize things well in their mind...etc...etc...
(And along the lines of art, "What about architechts?  Do they fall
under Creativity, Tech, Intelligence, Visualization, or what?")
	Slopping hundreds of stats onto a piece of paper isn't very
useful unless they can be used in a way that makes sense.  The
ever-fragmenting intelligence statistic is a prime case of this.
"What about someone who's really smart but not very wise?"  Bang,
now we have a common-sense statistic...
	At some point the game designers must put down their
keyboards and say, "There's only so much that the mechanics
themselves should be expected to handle.  When a player wants
something that's beyond them, then it should be up to the player to
deal with it."
	So in my opinion, a reduced number of stats and a greater
emphasis on roleplaying, REGARDLESS of the design philosophy
(detailed or not-so-detailed), is preferable for me.  And with
aspecting, much of the above can be completely removed and done away
with...

>Spike
>
>"I would shelter you, and keep you in light
> but I can only teach you
> night vision" - Suzanne Vega

	Long winded, pointless, and uninteresting.  I know!  :)

Newsgroups: rec.games.design