From: mrm70@diag.amdahl.com (Mike McAllister)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: META: Game Mechanics vs. Background
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:07:36 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <surge.725032400@bart>, surge@cqs.washington.edu (Jonathan Sari) writes:
|>... 
|> When I run across a background that is unique enough to make me want
|> to run a game of it, then I look further for detailed background
|> source material.  When I can work one hour at my job to buy a
|> sourcebook which contains detailed information that would require many
|> hours of my time to produce, I will buy it every time.  I can then
|> move on to customization, and save countless hours of work.

What about the time required to read and absorb the sourcebook?
I actually can't imagine saving a lot of time by buying a sourcebook, reading
it and figuring out what you want to use, as opposed to making it
up oneself, getting ideas subconciously or while doing mundane every
tasks. If your required background includes calculations of some sort,
then I would agree with you. Otherwise I really don't see a drastic
difference in the amount of time spent. And to me, and the original
poster, designing stuff on your own is great fun.

|> 
|> >When I buy a game, I'm looking for clean, smooth-playing, simple,
|> >comprehensive game mechanics that aren't obtrusive into the game
|> >setting.
|> 
|> A clean set of rules is nice, but the rules are so much secondary to
|> the background and plot that I will buy good background over good
|> rules every time.  Besides, if I don't like a rule in play, I just
|> modify it on the spot.

Yeah, I don't know of any mechanics that I haven't modified at least
a little. But it's not fun to modify mechanics, like it is background.
I agree with the importance you put on background, it's just
that I think the best full background (to me) cannot be bought.

|> 
|> >                                 But in general, I am more offended by
|> >some game designer's opinion on a genre than helped by it.
|> 
|> Sounds like a personal problem, to me.  :-)  I can't conceive of being
|> offended by detailed background information.  I might say "This is
|> stupid/useless", but be offended?

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)

|> 
|> >                                                            Just as an
|> >example, I can figure out a decent vampire society without being forced
|> >to use clans . . .
|> 
|> I prefer to be spoon-fed a decent society than to be forced to think
|> up one on my own.  Sure, if I want, I can scrap what exists and start
|> from scratch.  Why should I do that if they have provided details on
|> one that works?

Because you think your own society might be more fun or interesting?
Btw, I'm just trying to show my point of view, not convert you. :)
Whatever method is most enjoyable, is the best.

|> -Jon

Mike