From: SATELLITE@eldi.epfl.ch (Uncle Alias)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: SF Poll
Date: 7 Jan 93 12:29:05 GMT
Organization: Satellite -- Enjoy!.. -- EPFL Students pub
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.22

In <1if5mnINNpvo@titan.ucc.umass.edu> dunkelza@titan.ucc.umass.edu writes:

> 
>  
>      Continuing on my previous thread about the potentially huge market for
> Science Fiction RPGs, I figured to formalize my request as a poll.  So if
> you in anyway care at all about this, please post a response, or e-mail me 
> one.
> 
>   BACKGROUND:
>     1.  Do you like a heavy background in a game?  Another words, do you like
>         a game to have huge amounts of material available? Why?

	Yes. If there is no background, no extensions, nothing like that, the
game dies. Period. In few times, nobody plays it anymore, no matter how good it
is, and in a few years, it's forgotten. Of course, background can be "official"
game supplements or "unofficial", fan-stuff published in fanzines or over the
net.

>     2.  If a background is very fixed, such as the one for Shadowrun, does
>         it turn you off?  Why?  (I mean very fixed in that if you alter the
>         background it totally changes the flavor of the game.)

	There are several games that I don't like because of a very fixed
background. By "very fixed", I mean a "closed" world, with next to no
possibility for extensions, but more equipment, vehicles, and a couple of
scenarii. See above under "background". In a SF universe, it's specially
important to have an "open" game, because of the speed of travel and the --
usual -- lack of Magic or Divine Intervention stuff (not that it is a very good
gimmick, but it's sometimes useful...).

>     3.  Do you prefer Soft SF (High Tech, Low scientific accuracy)
>         or Hard SF (Lower Tech, High accuracy)?  Why?

	I use a mix of high and low tech, with a mix of high and low scientific
accuracy. Typical Swiss compromise...

>     4.  Do you prefer Cyberpunk ("Hoi, chummer.."), Space Opera ("Hand me 
>         that hydro-spanner, will ya Chewie?"), Exploration ("To boldly
>         go..."),   Future War ("We're gonna hit them bastards, and hit
>         `em hard..."), or some mix and match of the above?  Why? 

	Mix. My universe is very cyberpunk-ish, but without all the cybertech,
with a glint of war; the characters are members of a huge madcap mercenary
association, looking more like Boyington's "Black Sheeps" than some mercenary
unit out of the Battletech universe, and are actually on a planet at war. Sort
of. I don't like much Space Opera-style because it involves lots of game 
mechanics (starships ar a drag!).

>     5.  Would you or do you buy games just for the Background?  Why? 

	Sometimes I do. Because there are always ideas I can salvage 8-). Well,
background is flavour. Without flavour, ice cream is just iced cream...

>   MECHANICS:
>     1.  Do you prefer accuracy or simplicity in a system?  How far are you 
>         willing to bend either way?  Why?
>
>     2.  Do you feel that realistic combat at a cost of speed and ease is an
>         acceptable trade-off?  Why?
> 
>     3.  Do you prefer combat that is quick and dirty, quick but clean-cut,
>         just dirty, or just clean-cut?  Why?

	I like simplicity. Perhaps a bit too much. I have made a combat system
where everything is solved by a single percentile die roll (to-hit, location,
penetration, damage), unfortunately it means that a very skilled gunner can
kill almost anything, behind armor or not...
	In a sci-fi game, action speed is sometimes primordial (or the players
get bored), so simplicity takes over accuracy. And INMHO, combat must be quick
and leathal. Guns kill, that's what they're made for.

>     4.  Do you prefer realistic but challenging Random roll creation or
>         less realistic but simpler to handle Point Allocation? Why?

	I tend to prefer Point Allocation. Everybody has the same chances from
the very start, and, more important, players can build up the character they
want. Disadvantage: beginners get confused.

>     5.  How many die rolls are too many to perform an action (Shooting, 
>         Driving a car, tying shoes, etc.)?  Why?

	As a rule of thumb, and a very simplistic one, I think that two die
rolls for a "simple" action (driving, shooting, repairing an object, etc...) is
the top. More is too much.
 
>     6.  How long is the ideal combat turn (Time it take to perform one action)
>         in your opinion?  Why?

	One turn = one second, in my game. It makes thing much simpler: "You
want to reload your shotgun, that's five seconds, hence five turns." Also it
makes for a lighter weapon ROF (no more "25 shots per 5-seconds turn, with one
roll per bullet...").
 
>     7.  Would you or do you buy games just for their mechanics?  Why?

	No. Game mechanics tend to get more and more standardized. There are
dozens of them, so just pick up your fave...

>   ART:
>     1.  Do you consider role-playing game design, and role-playing in general
>         to be an art worthy of notice? Why?

	Yes. Mainly because I'm drawing myself. But more because "there's an
image worth a thousand words". Saves up space 8-)...
     
>     2.  If so, can you find some examples of self-expression and emotional
>         meaning in any well-known games on the market?  What are they?  
>         What is the author saying?  Why?
> 
	The best example I can think of is Vampire. Very dark b/w art, lots of
shadows. Live in the shadows, live in the dark...
 
>    Thank you for reading this, hopefully you will answer it.  I'm sorry it's 
> so long.  I promise you that I will post a compiled list of results if I get
> a good number of responses.  Thanks again.
> 
> Dunkelzahn

	One more thing: I am trying to self-publish the second version of my
own SF RPG and I can tell you: art IS important. The first thing people look at
when they browse the rules is art.
	The damn thing is, it's very difficult to find decent sci-fi artists
around here... 8-(

	Hope all this will help.

	"Fire in Harmony!.."						Alias