From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: SF Poll
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 22:52:07 GMT

dunkelza@titan.ucc.umass.edu (KEITH C MCCORMIC) writes:
> 
>  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?

No.  Because I want to play in Jack Vance's _Demon Princes_ setting.  Or
Leigh Brackett's _Skaith_, or some other setting from fiction that I
like.

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

I don't understand your definitions.  Why does higher with one
automatically mean lower with the other?

>    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? 

None of the above - see the SF series named in #1 to see what I like.

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

No.  See #1.

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

Simplicity.  I'll bend until it intrudes into the playing session, then
back up a step.  Why?  Because I don't want the play interrupted by
technical game mechanic things.

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

No.  See #1, this section.

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

Not sure how you are defining dirty here.

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

Point Allocation.  Random makes no sense to my psyche at all, at all.

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

Depending on the action, 2 is sometimes too many, while for more
intricate actions, 4 is too many.

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

Depends on the situation.  3 seconds seems right, usually, but 1 second
can be appropriate and 1 minute can be appropriate.  And if the PCs have
landed on a Baroque world and are partaking in sailing ship to sailing
ship combat, one hour is appropriate . . .

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

Yes, if they were clean, simple, unobtrusive, smooth-playing and fun.  If
you have to ask why, my answer wouldn't mean anything . . .

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

Game design, yes.  Playing: only for the moment it is happening.

>    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?  

I refuse to answer this question as it will lead to a flame war, sorry.

>        What is the author saying?  Why?

Read the books!  That's what the author is saying!  Why?  To make a
living at something they love, or to possibly for a limited fame, or
possibly for the love of it . . .

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