From: mav@cs.uq.oz.au (Simon Dennis)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:43:14 GMT
Reply-To: mav@cs.uq.oz.au

In <1992Nov9.032158.9364@alf.uib.no> magnus@brisk.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad) writes:

>Uhm? I didn't intend using a d100, we always use d10 x 10 + d10 -
>which comes to the same thing. This gives you the added bonus of
>switching the digits f.ex for hit location when rolling to hit.

Sorry I was stuck in d20-d20 mode.

>Well, I feel that it constricts the imagination of the GM. I think the
>roleplaying profits on letting the GM come up with effect, successes,
>failures etc. This is part of the fun!

In principle I agree. Two points though. Firstly, in many situations
and particularly in combat, there are alot of things happening very
quickly. If as GM, I am responsible for 8-9 NPCs it becomes difficult
just to come up with creative combat without slowing the play down, let
alone make decisions about the outcomes of each of the encounters.
Certainly, if the GM wants to overrule, to keep a PC alive etc, thats
no problem, but I just don't want to have to deal with the details. I
want to save my imagination for the bigger issues.  Secondly, there is
the point of consistency. One of the most frustrating consequences of
developing a roleplaying system has been the adjustments to the rules.
For instance, to begin with, the table I developed for falling was too
harsh. One of the players discovered that he could do much more damage
by running around pushing NPCs from their mounts than he could by
engaging them in combat. While he acknowledged that I had to modify the
table he was a bit put out by the sudden "reality shift". The point
being that the characters would generally have a much better idea of
their chance of doing a certain amount of damage than the players and
if the tables are removed I think it would be difficult for most GM's
to maintain consistency. When the players are deciding what to do
next they rely on consistency.

>I prefer doing these things real-time, so you get a feeling of what
>you are doing. For the same reason I use computers for just about
>everything, except for roleplaying. It's no fun rolling the dice with
>a program. The papers, pens, calculations, dice rolls, etc. - it's
>part of the roleplaying. I may just be sentimental, but this is how I
>think it should be. 

The catch cry of Lore is simplicity at all costs. My players all use dice,
and like it that way. Again though, if I've got 8-9 NPC's running around
its nice to hit one button and know what all the results are. Gives me more
time to decide where they run to! I would argue it helps make it real time.

>No! You don`t lose on detail because the GM spends his time filling in
>the details. I think the GM should be used as a story teller, not as a
>bean counter or page flipper. 

>I think a good GM is a lot more fine grained than your most detailed
>table. Agreed, your system makes for a much simpler system to play
>from the GM side, but is it worth it? I don't want a computer to
>create my character, even if it does it better, with more detail.

>There is a human touch.

Certainly, I'm for giving free rein in character creation although I
understand why some people prefer random generation systems (see thread
some months ago). Lore is very free form. Players allocate points to skill
groups and choose traits from a set of suggestions. There are no ability
scores to influence skill selection and there are no professions. At this point
the only roll is for life points (which don't alter there after) and the
range is fairly limited.

I think that in essence we agree, the point of departure is where it is
most important for the human touch to be applied. Perhaps, with the right
sort of campaign (mostly individual encounters) one could tell a story in
a broad sense and in detail. In the campaign I'm running however, I have 
several groups interacting and I would rather leave the bean counting to
the computer. To do this however, I need an automated system with enough
detail to be realistic.

Perhaps, an interesting observation. When I read the Iliad I only made it
to the forth chapter. After that I just got sick of battles described in
fine detail. For me the story comes at a level above the thrust and parry.
Of course, the Iliad is a classic, so my views clearly aren't shared by all.


--
Simon Dennis                  Address: Department of Computer Science
Email: mav@cs.uq.oz.au                 University of Queensland
                                       QLD 4072
                                       Australia
Newsgroups: rec.games.design