From: laird@think.com (Laird Popkin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: SF Poll
Date: 11 Jan 1993 20:53:34 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: django.think.com

In article <19370@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>dunkelza@titan.ucc.umass.edu (KEITH C MCCORMIC) writes:
>
>>     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?

I like a detailed background, as a separate part of the game from the game
mechanics.

>>     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.)

I wouldn't like the system to be completely rigid, since I like to tinker
with systems to do the things I like.  But if a system were *very* well
done, I could overlook this flaw.

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

You're talking about two completely different issues here.

1) What tech level do I prefer?  I like both near future (and far future

2) What accuracy do I prefer?  I don't need equations covering the thermal
effects of chemical reactions, but if the campaign is supposed to be
believable, the system should avoid abviously stupid things.  Of course, in
a very high tech campaign, it's easier to explain things as "superscience",
but even then things need to be consistent.  The more changes are made from
modern day science, the more the RPG will need to explain how things work,
and how the various changes interact.  And, of course, the technology needs
to be integrated into society.

For example, if a society has matter transmission, they need to address
issue such as "what happens when I transmit a bomb into enemy HQ?", "how
can I stop someone else from doing that?", and "can I make copies of
things?"  If a society doesn't have FTP drive, they need to address the
issue of how a multi-system society can operate when it takes decades to
travel between systems, meaning that things must be planned well in
advance, border commanders are quite independent, news travels slowly, and
so on.  If a society is "the '90's with cooler guns" then I'm not
interested.

>> 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?

It depends on what people are in the mood for.  I enjoy occasional Space
Opera (I'm looking forward to GURPS Lensmen), but I also enjoyed a
long-running SF/Cyberpunk, gritty "us vs. the corporation" campaign.  Real
Cyberpunk seems quite difficult to run (death is easy, things are often
unfair, netrunning and "real life" need to be run at the same time, etc.)
but if you cheat a bit (e.g. Shadowrun) it can work OK.  For some reason, I
dislike Shadowrun quite a bit, though I couldn't say whether it's the
aweful rules or the irritating slang or the fact that people keep calling
it "cyberpunk" when it's not -- it's a cross between technology and magic,
with a completely different feel.  I've enjoyed ST:TRPG, Supers (high
tech), and all sorts of other campaigns.

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

If it's aweful I might "by" it.  On the other hand, if a background is good
I might "buy" it.  Since I have a set of rules that I would prefer to stick
with for most roleplaying, I'm more interested in background material than
"yet another set of RPG rules".  New background material can be used with
the rules I already use...

>>   MECHANICS:
>>     1.  Do you prefer accuracy or simplicity in a system?  How far are you
>> willing to bend either way?  Why?

I strongly prefer simplicity, give that believability isn't completely
compromised.  Also, players should always have the option of using more
complex, more "accurate" rules if they prefer, for the situations for which
that is dramatically appropriate.

For example, in routine combat, resolving things in a skill roll and a
damage roll is good enough.  But for the "dramatic climactic duel to the
death" it's more appropriate to have lots of feinting and maneuvering for
advantage, and the players enjoy fiddling with all the modifiers in an
attempt to swap the situation in their favor.  That is, as long as it's
roleplayed as "the character thinks things through carefully" rather than
"the player desperately attempts to talk the GM into every possible
positive modifier".

>>     2.  Do you feel that realistic combat at a cost of speed and ease is an
>> acceptable trade-off?  Why?

Generally I prefer speed, so long as the players don't feel trapped by the
system.  For example, the AD&D combat system plays very fast, but it's
extremely limited, while the Hero combat system plays fairly slowly, but
it's extremely flexible.  Where the balance lies depends on what sort of
campaign the players want.  In general I like GURPS' approach, with very
simple basic rules, but with lots of advanced options to handle unusual
things that the players might try (e.g. swordfighting while swinging on a
rope).

>>     3.  Do you prefer combat that is quick and dirty, quick but clean-cut,
>> just dirty, or just clean-cut?  Why?

I'm not sure what you mean.  I'll guess that "quick" refers to the time it
takes to resolve actions, and "dirty" means that characters have to deal
with specific injuries.

My preferences are for combat to be resolved as simply as possible without
cheating players out of their options, and that the characters have to deal
with specific wounds rather than simple generic hit point damage.

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

I prefer point-based character creation systems for PC's, though I have
nothing against random character generation as an option.

I don't see any connection between a character's "realism" and whether the
character was "built" or "rolled".

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

Most typical tasks should be handled in a single roll.  I prefer that
complex tasks be broken up into many simple ones, with as little
calculation as possible.  For example, if someone tries to hit another
person with a sword, and the target tries to parry the attack, I'd rather
have three simple rolls (roll to hit, roll to parry, roll damage) rather
than a more complex roll (contest of rolls to hit or defend) and a simple
roll (roll for damage).

When possible, and dramatically appropriate, I prefer to make things as
abstract as possible.  Thus, if someone drives across town, they might have
to make a single driving roll, on the off chance that they might critically
fail.  But in a car chase at high speed through crowded roads, they'd need
to roll constantly to avoid pedestrians, keep the car under control, and so
on.

I haven't seen a system yet that resolved everything in a single roll that
I liked.  It works fine for simple task resolution, but for combat, for
example, it seems to take multiple rolls to handle attacking, defending,
and damage in a way that "feels right" to me.

>>     6.  How long is the ideal combat turn (Time it take to perform one
>> action) in your opinion?  Why?

For combat, the GURPS single-second round works well, because it's easy for
players to understant what they can do in a second.  Also, since I prefer
that complex tasks be resolved as many simple tasks, short turns work well
for me.

For travel, and large-scale combat, turns can be hours or days.

>>     7.  Would you or do you buy games just for their mechanics?  Why?

Unlikely.  There are a few games I've bought for their mechanics (GURPS,
Hero) but mainly I guy games for their background (e.g GURPS suppliments,
Toon, etc.)

- Laird
-- 
- Laird Popkin, Thinking Machines

Connection Machine: Massively parallel supercomputer.  Also a cool black
cube with more blinking lights than you can shake a stick at.