HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: META: Game Mechanics vs. Background
Date: 22 Dec 92 04:40:08 GMT
Organization: Newt World Order

In article <1992Dec21.232019.14670@oz.plymouth.edu>, sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
> Hmmm - I've had some interesting conversations with folks lately about
> what sells in an RPG, and why.  What do you look for when you buy RPG
> material?  Good game mechanics or good world background?

Both.

> I guess it comes down to this:  I feel I should pay a game designer for
> game design, and a fiction author for setting, mood, genre, background,
> etc.

I expect a roleplaying game to supply me with mechanics so that my
friends and I can have fun telling tall tales to each other, and a
usable background so that we can concentrate on characterization and
storytelling. If the background is especially rich in detail, or
especially exotic, then that is even better, since it gives us scenario
hooks and possible motives for the players to put into their characters.

I also appreciate game worlds that have been developed in depth enough
that you could write a novel in them. In fact, I enjoy reading stories
and novels set in gameworlds because they illuminate how things work. I
guess it doesn't matter to me whether the world was written for a game
or for a story upon which the game was later based, in either case it is
part of a work of fiction and I appreciate the work put in by someone
else, but only if it makes it easier for us to play and have fun. There
are a few game worlds that I think have been developed to this depth,
Tekumel, Shadowrun, and (perhaps) Glorantha are my favorite examples. If
WW started publishing stories set in their Ars Magica and Gothic Horror
worlds I'd put them in the same category. I think that GURPS' new
Madlands stuff is good this way, possibly SJG's best non-licensed world
pack ever. Anyway, I think that the fictional part of roleplaying games
can be as important or more important than the mechanics.

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Mediocrity is a hand rail.                         -- Baron de Montesquieu
From: wga@po.CWRU.Edu (Will G. Austin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: META: Game Mechanics vs. Background
Date: 22 Dec 1992 20:21:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: wga@po.CWRU.Edu (Will G. Austin)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


Steffan O'Sullivan says:

>Hmmm - I've had some interesting conversations with folks lately about
>what sells in an RPG, and why.  What do you look for when you buy RPG
>material?  Good game mechanics or good world background?
>Apparently, judging from e-mail I've gotten lately, I'm in the
>minority:  I think game mechanics are of prime importance in a game I
>buy, and background secondary. 
>When I buy a game, I'm looking for clean, smooth-playing, simple,
>comprehensive game mechanics that aren't obtrusive into the game
>setting.  This is very important to me, so whatever setting I'm using
>works.

	I have to agree--for me, game mechanics come first and foremost.  Spec-
ifically:
	1.) How well the mechanics work
	2.) Are the mechanics consistent within the system?
	3.) How well do the mechanics represent the genre of the game they
	    are being used for?
	4.) The ease of the system, as well as it's playability

	With the exceptions of AD&D and V&V (nostalgia, I guess), I've made
game mechanics the prime criterion for buying new games (I guess that knocks
DJ off the list. . . . . .:))
	As for background, if it's there, I'll take it; if not, then I won't
miss it.  More often then not, I'll supply my own background or my interpret-
ation of the backround elements presented by the author.  

>  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu

-- 
"...It is a tale told by an idiot/Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!"
Will Shakespeare, *Macbeth*||||Me, after seeing Coppola's version of *Dracula*
=====Will Austin---Nomad---wga@po.cwru.edu---wga%po.cwru.edu@cunyvm============
	
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: dvandom@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dave Van Domelen)
Subject: Re: Hero Bestiary and other Hero Stuff
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:34:15 GMT

Oh, one other neat thing about the Bestiary...it has stats for various 
diseases, like Anthrax and Rabies.
     Dave Van Domelen, "My collection of rare deadly diseases...violated!"
From: speno@clam.rutgers.edu (John P. Speno)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Champions and SNES
Date: 1 Jan 93 04:27:33 GMT
Distribution: rec.games.frp.misc
Organization: Rutgers University -- Camden, New Jersey.


Attention females with Super Nintendo machines in the Denver area!
Would you like to make Champion's characters with me? I make
competitive characters who can hold their own in any fight. Must have
good math skills and an interest in power gaming. Call Ted at (303)
832-6169. 

Do not respond via email.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: SF vs Fantasy
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 04:33:45 GMT

rleroux1@sol.UVic.CA (Roger Leroux) writes:

> Myself, I prefer SF books, but fantasy RPGing.

I felt the same way, when all that was available was Traveller, Space Opera,
etc.  Fantasy rpgs were more effective at supplying what I sought in books.

For me, that changed with Legacy (recently released).  It does offer the SF
atmosphere I sought in SF books.  Now in comparison, I'm dissatisfied with
the ability of existing fantasy rpgs to supply what I seek in fantasy books.
:)

>  Columbia Games (my all time favourite gaming company!)

The designer of Legacy helped design Harn and the supplements, and Legacy
displays some of the same attitudes towards gaming that Harnmaster does
(attention to details, preference for "realism", etc).  The Legacy rules are
much smoother and faster though.

IMO, of course...   :-)

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: markk@pongo.West.Sun.COM (Mark Allen Kampe)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: META: Game Mechanics vs. Background
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:55:13 GMT
Reply-To: markk@pongo.West.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo.west.sun.com

Well, I can understand the argument that says that a game can be ruined
by bad mechanics and that therefore mechanics are the most important thing
in the box ... but I do not believe that is the correct conclusion.

I agree that a GM must protect himself/herself against bad mecanics (or
abuse of mechanics that is detrimental to play).  There are lots of ways
to do this, and (IMHO) only buying games with "correct" mechanics is not
a particularly good one:

	(1) it greatly limits your choices in games and you deprive 
	    yourself of a lot of very imaginitive/creative stuff that
	    just happens to be cast in "ungood" systems.

	(2) no system of mechanics works well for all groups, all 
	    styles of play and all levels of play.  Locking yourself
	    into a single system locks you into a style and level of play.

	(3) any system of mechanics can be abused by rules lawyers if
	    they are so inclined.

	(4) we grow, as players and GMs through experience.  New experience
	    is more valuable than repeating old ones.  If you limit the
	    systems you will play, you limit your experience and thus
	    your growth.  This will ultimately limit your pleasure.

There are other ways to protect your games from abusive and abused
mechanics.  Some people translate new games/modules into their own
preferred systems.  Other people transcend formal mechanics entirely,
borrowing freely from all systems but being bound by none.

Nobody games because they "like to follow rules".  The Game's the thing!
And the Game is in the Playing!  Anything that is not playing is superfluous!

Antoinne d' St. Exupere said it very well in "Earth, Wind and Sand"

	In anything at all, perfection is not achieved with the
	addition of the last possible embellishment - but with
	the removal of all that is unnecessary.

KILL BOB!
From: chuahl@ocf.berkeley.edu (Chua HakLien)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: META: Game Mechanics vs. Background
Date: 22 Dec 1992 16:48:25 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

I would prefer a combination of good game mechanics and background. However,
I would like a system wherein the rules are not overly dependent on the
game world, so that one can easily adapt them to one's own world.
That's the reason I'm apprehensive of Talislanta, which really has a 
fantastic background, but has rules that aren't easily adaptable elsewhere.
SJG is doing the right thing by making it's main supplements generic ( GURPS
Fantasy and GURPS Space ), while issuing other supplements detailing specific
game worlds ( Yrth and Uplift ). That way, the player isn't steamrolled into
using the background, and no space is wasted on stuff the buyer doesn't really
need.

Chua
+==+
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Re: SR Spell Locks
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 20:15:52 GMT

It should not be forgotten that (at least in SRI--I don't own SRII)
elementals can be used to hold spells for up to 1 day per force point,
and ritual magic can be used to hold spells for up to 1 day per die
dedicated to the purpose.  Neither of these involves karma or huge
amounts of nuyen, and as far as I can tell from the SRI rules neither
runs any risk of the spell being used to ground something.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Blade (was Re: Palladium/WotC Lawsuit--How You Can Help)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 19:43:35 GMT

stv@unislc.uucp (Steve Spencer) writes:
>Steffan O'Sullivan (sos@oz.plymouth.edu) wrote:
>: 
>: And I agree one hundred percent with your assessment of it, but Mavra
>: doesn't . . .
>
>I'm surprised to see such a statement from you. I mean, up till now
>I've been fairly impressed with your posts. But I seem to recall
>(Shoot me if I'm accusing the wrong person here) that you recently
>asked the question of the net "What is a cap-system". Which obviously
>meant that you haven't used TPO. Now here you are slamming TPO, and 
>calling it unneccesary. Come now. 

I'm not slamming TPO at all!  I'm agreeing with Ed's assessment of the
Blade product line, which he and I both feel is excellent!  There was
no mention of TPO in my post, so I didn't think anyone would take a
compliment to one company as a put-down of another ...  I certainly
mean no put-down.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: lead toy ban      1/2
Date: 30 Dec 1992 19:55:13 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: rec
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec14.162459.2588@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cwatters@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Coyt D Watters) writes:
>My editorializing was my response to the stupidity of a ban on items intended
>for sale to adults, which , I contend, should be the adult's responsibility to
>keep out of the hands of children.  This includes pornography, firearms, drugs,
>miniatures, car keys, toxic cleaners, etc. 

Would you then support a ban on the sale of miniatures at toy stores or
other stores where the primary focus is selling things for use by children?

It seems to me there is a fine line between collectables and toys.
Certainly I have always used my miniatures as toys.  I have never just
put them on a shelf or display, as one would do with collectables.





Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: mwlucas@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Michael W. Lucas)
Subject: Re: Solar System Generator wanted
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:27:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.113823.119685@marshall.wvnet.edu> rcbi46@marshall.wvnet.edu writes:
>I'm looking for an IBM program that will generate planets and solar systems,
>for Fringeworthy, a space exploration game from Tri-Tac Games. I have
>Worldgen, but it is an old version.  I'm looking for a program that
>will generate maps and info about the planet, but I'll take anything. If 
>you have any info, please drop me some electrons at:

I believe that Richard Tucholka (writer of Fringeworthy, FTL, Stalking, Escape
from Westerville State, etc.) has a new version of the world generator 
"in the works."  Take that as you will...

BTW, for anyone interested, Fringeworthy is back in print again.


-- 
"No, no, no!  Slash _parallel_ to your arm, not across!"
	-Leck's Suicide Hotline (from Ivan Brunetti's _Misery Loves Comedy_)
		mwlucas@vela.acs.oakland.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: mavra@cpac.washington.edu (Peter D. Adkison)
Subject: Re: Palladium/WotC Lawsuit--How You Can Help
Organization: Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
	<1992Dec18.113844.3212@odin.diku.dk> <BzGn3u.5r6@nic.umass.edu>
	<MAVRA.92Dec18102351@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>
	<clanti55.724912874@ursa>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 03:10:03 GMT

In article <clanti55.724912874@ursa> clanti55@ursa.calvin.edu (Christopher Lantinga) writes:

>   May I refer you to the first Palladium game, _The Mechanoid Invasion_,
>   published in the very early 80s, page 44, under the description of an
>   NPC, "Potang the Great Old ONe Talon Shaman"...  his alignment is
>   listed as "Chaotic Neutral", a term otherwise undefined in the
>   rulebook and understandable only by reference to D&D...  Not exactly
>   what you're looking for but I always thought it an interesting
>   curiosity.

Now this is very very interesting!  Anyone have a copy of this they'd
be willing to sell me?

				--Mavra!
				  Peter D. Adkison
				  Janitor, Wizards of the Coast
				  mavra@wizards.com

The above internet address should be used for e-mail if it is
different from the e-mail address in the header.
From: mcsbc3maw@dct.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Star trek game
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:31:58 GMT
Organization: Dundee Institute of Technology

In article <1992Dec16.132555.7786@maths.tcd.ie>, samik@maths.tcd.ie (Samik Sen) writes:
> 
>   Just a short question.What is star fleet battles like?(or whatever it is
> called).
> 
> Samik.


	Ah starfleet battles is a ,for want of a better term ,wargame
in the startrek universe.It involves starship combat and is not a RPG.
This is a great game but takes a little practice
to play it properly.If you want to know more ,  post this question in
REC.GAMES.BOARD many people will be delighted to tell you more.


	The startrek RPG is , or should i say was , called "the Startrek
RPG" it is now out of print since FASA lost it's lisence from paramount.
(Fasa - the company that produced the game) comments about the FASA 
produced game -  B****Y terrible . 


FASA also produce(d) a strategy game called "combat simulator"
It is Ok but star fleet battles is better (IMHO).


	Mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: clanti55@ursa.calvin.edu (Christopher Lantinga)
Subject: Re: META: Game Mechanics vs. Background
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:08:38 GMT

sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:

>Hmmm - I've had some interesting conversations with folks lately about
>what sells in an RPG, and why.  What do you look for when you buy RPG
>material?  Good game mechanics or good world background?

>When I buy a game, I'm looking for clean, smooth-playing, simple,
>comprehensive game mechanics that aren't obtrusive into the game
>setting.  This is very important to me, so whatever setting I'm using
>works.

>I don't need or even like to be spoon-fed a gaming world with every
>little detail filled in.  The exception might be a setting from an
>existing fictional source that works - already worked before somebody
>made a game out of it, in fact.  But in general, I am more offended by
>some game designer's opinion on a genre than helped by it.  Just as an
>example, I can figure out a decent vampire society without being forced
>to use clans . . .

I agree with your easily offendedness.  That's what always pissed me
off about Ars Magica: it purported to be a game drawing on really
realistic medieval assumptions and turned out to be far less about
Europe, real or Mythic, as about the peculiar creative inventions of a
bunch of Californians who can't even write good Latin. I like a set of
game rules that doesn't design a BACKGROUND.

However, I don't mind a set of rules that helps define the GENRE.  A
fascinating thing about roleplaying games is the way good rules can
simulate the way things work in a particular style of story.  In this
way, V&V does far better as a comic book game than Gurps Supers,
because its every rule has "comic book" behind it.

Also, I will put up with a lot more world background in a book if it
is presented as peripheral and does not force too much on you.  For
example, when Traveller first came out, the included background was
some shady ideas about an Imperium with huge amounts of planets, and
lots of details to fill in.  I liked that.  Then they started
publishing maps of the whole world, and they had the gall to publish
updates of what was "really" happening from year to year in "their"
world, for your reference...  I got real sick of it real fast.  In
other words, I will accept world background if it stays out of my
face.  For these reasons, I much prefer NIGHTLIFE to VAMPIRE --
the background they give isn't so bloody idiosyncratic it reminds you
at every turn that it's somebody else's idea; it's more like a
background, generic horrorshow thing.

>I guess it comes down to this:  I feel I should pay a game designer for
>game design, and a fiction author for setting, mood, genre, background,
>etc.

I like hearing about fantasy worlds, and a game as well as a book can
provide that -- however, to do that well, a game designer has to
BECOME a fiction author and weave his two trades together -- and not
many do that well.

--Ed
Edward James Heil
c/o Chris Lantinga, clanti55@ursa.calvin.edu
"There is nothing wrong with the software that rm won't cure."
		-Arnie Romo



Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: macgyver@turtle.cis.ohio-state.edu (MacGyver)
Subject: Re: Rifts Weapon's rate of fire
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:20:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.163234.10415@news2.cis.umn.edu> coult@siegel.geom.umn.edu (Nicholas Coult) writes:
 >1. A handgun could only do this if it had a payload of 20 shots.  
 >  Many of the more powerful handguns have only a 10 shot payload.

 where is this rule located? I can't find this in either the main rule book
 nor the sourcebook #1.

 >3. The GB Gun is firing a burst, whereas the handgun is firing wild (no bonus
 >to strike.)

 not true. GB gun is firing single shot. The rulebook says firing burst   
 is NOT possible. Also, the handgun doesn't have to be firing wild, it 
 could be firing a "empty the magazine" burst. Which gives you a +1 to
 hit, and x10 in the original rule. (I just found out the change of x7 from
 your post, I don't have the conversion book.)

 >4. The GB gun has a range of over 2 miles, while most handguns can only shoot
 >about 800 feet or so.

 well, yes. But GB's gun also creates a sonic wave, which is good for
 ALL to hear.

 What other changes did the conversion book make to the combat?

				 Thanks,
					 Mac

Wilson MacGyver                      |"I do like a road, because you can be 
Internet:macgyver@cis.ohio-state.edu | always wondering what is at the end
=====================================| of it."
Disclaimer:All opinions are mine only|=======================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: mark@cheers.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Manning)
Subject: Re: Help with weenie list posting
Organization: NASA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:50:38 GMT

I will send you everything. :)

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: stv@unislc.uucp (Steve Spencer)
Subject: Re: Blade (was Re: Palladium/WotC Lawsuit--How You Can Help)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:10:18 GMT

Steffan O'Sullivan (sos@oz.plymouth.edu) wrote:
: 
: And I agree one hundred percent with your assessment of it, but Mavra
: doesn't . . .
: 
: -- 
:   - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu

I'm surprised to see such a statement from you. I mean, up till now
I've been fairly impressed with your posts. But I seem to recall
(Shoot me if I'm accusing the wrong person here) that you recently
asked the question of the net "What is a cap-system". Which obviously
meant that you haven't used TPO. Now here you are slamming TPO, and 
calling it unneccesary. Come now. 
"I'm telling you, I HATE BROCCOLLI (sp?)!"
"Have you ever tried it?"
"NO, but I know I'll hate it!"


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| It's the sputter of a raindrop. It's the sunlight on my face |
| My mind's eye into other realms. It's my paradise escape.    |
| Steve Spencer	SLC, Utah 	stv@unislc.slc.unisys.com      |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: mathers@sibelius.trl.OZ.AU (Steven Mathers)
Subject: Re: META: Game Mechanics vs. Background
Reply-To: s.mathers@trl.oz.au
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:35:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.232019.14670@oz.plymouth.edu>, sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
|> When I buy a game, I'm looking for clean, smooth-playing, simple,
|> comprehensive game mechanics that aren't obtrusive into the game
|> setting.  This is very important to me, so whatever setting I'm using
|> works.
|> 
|> I don't need or even like to be spoon-fed a gaming world with every
|> little detail filled in.  The exception might be a setting from an
|> existing fictional source that works - already worked before somebody
|> made a game out of it, in fact.  But in general, I am more offended by
|> some game designer's opinion on a genre than helped by it.  Just as an


Depends what you're talking about with 'background'.  A lot of people
have said 'Id rather design my own scenario rather than buy source
material' and I am also of this ilk.  But thats not the 'background' I
think you mean.

Take Paranoia for example.  The 'background' supplied by the authors is
ALPHA COMPLEX, traitors, the computer and all that.  This is classic!
The 'background' IS paranoia.  Nobody really cares about the mechanics.

I think what you meant was mechanics vs. gaming world.  Whether the
gaming world be Alpha complex, Glorantha, future Earth, or whatever.

In my opinion, a good gaming world is worth much more than good
mechanics -- and for that matter, as someone who has/is designing
both, the gaming world is a much harder and involved creative task.

I challenge someone to come up with a gaming world that isnt just
another fanstasy land full of hobbits and ogres, or a future where
everyone doesnt walk around with cyber limbs and big guns.  Sure, these
were great original ideas when they first came out, but they have
been done to death, and no amount of great mechanics is going to
make these gaming worlds seem any more original/interesting nowdays.