From: jimfost@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jim Foster)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Realism Vs. Games
Keywords: phoenix command
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:06:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: matt.1asdidINNe9n
Distribution: usa
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

lobby3@cirrus.com (Receptionist Lobby3) writes:


>So....This is what we did.  We went out and bought the Phoenix Command
>combat system.  This system is very realistic--it basically breaks

{description of system deleted}

>is not something characters enter into lightly.

>While the system is VERY realistic, it does have two major drawbacks,
>in my opinion:

>1)  The system is rather complex, and is best used if the GM and all
>of the players are familiar with the system.  Otherwise, 30 seconds of
>game time takes 2 hours of real time to play.  It is modular, and so
>some of the more complex rules need not be used, but if you dont use
>some of the advanced rules the realism is hurt.

This is the primary reason I no longer enjoy the system as much as when I first began playing with it. Combat took up all of our play time, and we spent a loot of time looking up rules. Our gaming slogan for that summer was "We've got a chart for that!"

>2)  The company that publishes it has a thing about supplements.  You
>have to buy 6 books to get all of the different guns, tanks, armor,
>artillery, etc. they have out. (Actully more like 8 books.  They are
>by time in history though, so if you dont need the WW II weapons, dont
>but the supplement.)

They degree to which they segment their material is, IMHO, unacceptable. 
and the fact that they give *no* hints whatsoever on converting real weaponry into game stats also irritated me. 

Also, the nature of their supplements baffles me, is an artillery system really necessary for an RPG combat system? The tiems required to call in arty is longer than most Phoenix Combat usually lasts....

>We find characters are alot more picky about when and where they fight
>when a realistic system like Phoenix Command is used.  When a guy has
>you pinned down with an M-60 in twilight:2000, you can take a hit or
>two and not sweat it, so why not take a few risks.  YOU REALLY DONT
>WANT TO TRY THAT WITH PHOENIX COMMAND.  

True, but the sytem is *so* deadly, that it makes gaming with it difficult. If the character get into a combat they weren't really prepared for, they can die without any hope of realistic reprieve. This is not RPGing, this is tactical wargaming.

>Does anyone else have any experience with this or other "Realistic"
>systems??

As I've said, I've used Phoenix Command extensively in the past. One other problem we ran into: the 'fighter' types (I have one player in particualr who cannot/will not design anything but a combat monster no matter what restrictions I place on him) are so vastly superior to better-balanced characters that it is difficult to desgin any usable combat encounters at all. Again, perhaps realistic, but too much so for RPGing.

In Phoenix Commands defense, if combat is all you're looking for, you love charts and tables, and don't mind having to buy a supplement to get rules that are in most games' basic combat systems, then PC is for you. It's realism *is* hard to beat....but I prefer to keep it out of my RPGs.

I've found the BTRC system outlined in TimeLords to be enjoyable, realistic, and(gloriously) self-contained. BTRCs CORPS system is streamlined, but still 'realistic' enough to satisfy me. And lately I've been using GURPS simply because I decided to give up a bit of 'hard numbers' realism for the ease of use it offers.

When I do decide that I need a bit more realism (i.e. I switch froma fantsy genre to SF) I'll probably go with TimeLords. And next time I want to wargame, I'll go with PC.

-- 
Jim Foster                [                                                   ]
jimfost@matt.ksu.ksu.edu  [    "Joel, are human beings *really* like this?"   ]
Kansas State University   [                                                   ]