From: mavra@cpac.washington.edu (Peter D. Adkison)
Subject: Re: Supplements for Multiple Systems
Organization: Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
	<MAVRA.92Sep16075112@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>,<MAVRA.92Sep29153530@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>
	<1992Sep30.125909.1334@msus1.msus.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:47:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.125909.1334@msus1.msus.edu> f00022@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU (M. Shanmugasundaram (F00022@TIGGER.stcloud.msus.edu)) writes:

>	   Hmm. Sounds awfully wishywashy to me. Have there been any studies 
>   or net.surveys (which I don't put much stock in, I'm afraid) determining 
>   the actual interest in a cross-game platform? I was speaking from personal 
>   impression, not deliberate, detailed study. 

The work we're currently doing with our capsystem products is sorta
like a study.  I figured that by printing what we have we'd attract
some attention and comments from various people.  Interestingly
enough, the input to date has been all over the spectrum.  Some people
love it and others can't figure out why we bothered.  Our attorney in
particular loves it *and* can't figure out why we bothered.  :-)

>   Also, If I understand correctly, you want to create a haven for 
>   people with creativity who do not want to bother themselves with game
>   statistics. If this is the case, why not go completely descriptive 
>   (like Grimtooth's Traps) and simple include statistics for a variety of 
>   games as you have done with your two currently available products.

Grimtooth's Traps is mentioned a lot to me, but one doesn't need a
system of mechanics to describe a trapping mechanism.  But when trying
to describe a character or a beastie, having some mechanics is more
important.

The completely descriptive format certainly is a possibility for
anyone to use.  And it's probably sufficient for targeting those
gamers who are in to more of a storytelling format and would
ultimately like to throw out all the rules and the dice too even.  But
what about the other gamers?  If I were buying a bestiary I'd at least
like to know how to convert over the basic physical attributes to my
system, and the more important combat characteristics.  I'd probably
immediately turn around and change them, but at least it would give me
an idea of what the original designer wanted.  :-)

>   Why bother setting up another numerical system and distributing it to the 
>   public? With a verbal description and a few examples, they should be able to 
>   make their own conversions. It cuts down on work at both ends. 

As a game publisher I'm looking for ways to make things as easy as
possible for our customers.  Sure, you might not feel in the least bit
daunted by having to make up stats based on detailed descriptions, but
some GMs would like some help.

>   I rather like the idea of a cross-game platform myself, but I don't 
>   like having to learn a new numerical system every time I look at a 
>   supplement or system. Currently TPO and Pawns both use unlike systems 
>   (I realize they deal with unlike subjects). I hope that you are not 
>   implying that WotC will be developing a slightly different system for 
>   each of its forthcoming products with appropriate conversions in the 
>   appendices. 

We're not trying to change things on purpose.  Consider it an
evolution.  I'm immensely curious to hear what people think of the
system used in Pawns.  If the feedback is positive, I don't think the
list will want to change it.  Think of TPO and Pawns as playtesting
projects for Envoy.  :-)

I want the platform to settle down as badly as you do.  Believe me.

>   The creativity lies primarily in the use of language, not the 
>   rating systems. While I am aware that unique organizational systems are 
>   the backbones of most games, is it really necessary for the type 
>   of creative environment you are trying to provide? 

Oh, I agree that the creativity is the primary emphasis and that the
integration notes are only a sidelight.  But we're trying to make our
products the best they can be and as long as something like this seems
feasible, and helpful to a significant portion of the audiance, we'll
pursue it.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy