From: surge@cqs.washington.edu (Jonathan Sari)
Subject: Re: META: Game Mechanics vs. Background
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:53:20 GMT

>These quotes belong to sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan):

>                                What do you look for when you buy RPG
>material?  Good game mechanics or good world background?

When I buy RPG material, I look for uniqueness.  I don't really care
whether it's the mechanics or the background that is unique, as long
as there is something there that I haven't seen before.  (Although in
my quest for uniqueness, I've bought a lot of things that aren't so
unique.)

When I run across a background that is unique enough to make me want
to run a game of it, then I look further for detailed background
source material.  When I can work one hour at my job to buy a
sourcebook which contains detailed information that would require many
hours of my time to produce, I will buy it every time.  I can then
move on to customization, and save countless hours of work.

>                                                         I'm quite
>comfortable translating either my own ideas or a favorite fictional
>world to whatever game mechanics I use.

I would agree with the point of view, if I had a lot of time to spend
on my campaign.  I don't.  I am capable of winging it, but I think
that well thought out background material makes my GMing run many
times smoother given the same amount of preparation, and hence makes
the game more enjoyable.

>When I buy a game, I'm looking for clean, smooth-playing, simple,
>comprehensive game mechanics that aren't obtrusive into the game
>setting.

A clean set of rules is nice, but the rules are so much secondary to
the background and plot that I will buy good background over good
rules every time.  Besides, if I don't like a rule in play, I just
modify it on the spot.

>                                 But in general, I am more offended by
>some game designer's opinion on a genre than helped by it.

Sounds like a personal problem, to me.  :-)  I can't conceive of being
offended by detailed background information.  I might say "This is
stupid/useless", but be offended?

>                                                            Just as an
>example, I can figure out a decent vampire society without being forced
>to use clans . . .

I prefer to be spoon-fed a decent society than to be forced to think
up one on my own.  Sure, if I want, I can scrap what exists and start
from scratch.  Why should I do that if they have provided details on
one that works?

Perhaps this depends on which part of running a campaign provides the
most entertainment for you.  If you really like thinking up entire
societies, geographies, philosophies, religions, and histories which
make sense across the board, viewed from every angle; you would
probably buy less of them.  Fiction just doesn't cut this for me
because very few works of fiction provide a broad enough coverage for
me to use them without hours of work.

What I get the biggest kick out of, as a gamemaster, is bringing pages
of printed matter to life in a way that seems real enough that my
players can imagine "This could really happen."

I have a question for all of you, Steffan in particular.  How many
hours of your time do you spend preparing a campaign to run?  How
about preparing an adventure?  Please be as specific as you feel
comfortable with, and give as many examples as you feel comfortable
with.

-Jon
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc