Karen, for the sake of the gods, just post the part about how to unsubscribe. Everyone deletes/loses those things. I've been on this list since '91, in various forms, and I certainly don't have it any more. And while you're at it, please stop running people off the list. Honey and vinegar, my dear. Lucifer >:} -- "The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n" --Milton, Paradise Lost, Bk. 1 Homepage: http://members.aol.com/noctifer/index.html Lucifer's DJ Webpage: http://members.aol.com/noctifer/private/DJ/index.html Lucifer's Vampire Webpage: http://members.aol.com/noctifer01/private/VampHome/index.html ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
Well, if we can all move along . . .
What kind of game system do you prefer? One that is relatively simple
and fast, or one that is detailed and complex (and more time consuming)?
I'm creating a game, you see. I'd welcome lots of input.
:)
-Zealot
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
At 12:59 AM -0600 6/14/01, a & g wrote: >Well, if we can all move along . . . > > What kind of game system do you prefer? One that is relatively simple >and fast, or one that is detailed and complex (and more time consuming)? > I'm creating a game, you see. I'd welcome lots of input. Well, there's a raging debate that's going on right now on rpg-create that speaks to this very issue. The consensus is that a game system can cater to one of three types of gamers: narrativists, simulationists, or gamists. "Simple" systems usually attract the narativists or gamists. Either they don't want the rules to intrude on the progress of creating a compelling story or they don't want the rules to slow down the excitement of game play. Simulationists, however, will tolerate more rules if they add to the "realism" of the setting. Maybe you could describe the character of game play that you want your rules to support. That would help to begin to define the types of rules that should be included. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
>three types of gamers: narrativists, simulationists, or gamists.
Hmmm, which am I ?
>"Simple" systems usually attract the narativists or gamists. Either
>they don't want the rules to intrude on the progress of creating a
>compelling story or they don't want the rules to slow down the
>excitement of game play. Simulationists, however, will tolerate more
>rules if they add to the "realism" of the setting.
Urrp. I just started a "historical" game of RUS (but using the GURPS
Russia rules instead).
(standing up before the room) "Hello, my name is Thom and I'm a Simulationist."
Hmmmm seriously, I think the best game should have elements of all of the
above.
Geeks want Star Wars stats (megawatts, baby), the "wild die" lends to the
narrative. Um, what's a gamist again?
--Thom
PS No, I did not just say Star Wars was the best system. Oh lord, where's
that flame resistant barding - I am on my horse and away!
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
>What kind of game system do you prefer? One that is relatively simple >and fast, or one that is detailed and complex (and more time consuming)? > I'm creating a game, you see. I'd welcome lots of input. That's a really impossible question for me to answer. I really like complexity in my fantasy...my favorite fantasy RPG is Mythus, which is a morass of rules systems and tables (and over 1400 spells!). But I also love D&D3, which I'm running right now, for its simplicity and various options. More on that later. With science fiction I tend to prefer simplicity. I love West End Games' old Star Wars rules...they're what I call a "beer and chips" game...easy to just sit down and play as the mood hits, without complex rules systems...just fun. I really like the Traveller background, for example, but GDW's rules systems made it very, very complex to run (though I love the new GURPS stuff)...I often had a hard time wrapping my brain around the engineering and mathematics. The big thing, I think, isn't simple vs. complex, but options, options, options. Let the player create the character he wants to play, within reason. This results in rather dangerous freedom for min/maxers, but for true role players it gives them a concrete way to create the character they want to create. To me, that's key. Lucifer >:} -- "The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n" --Milton, Paradise Lost, Bk. 1 Homepage: http://members.aol.com/noctifer/index.html Lucifer's DJ Webpage: http://members.aol.com/noctifer/private/DJ/index.html Lucifer's Vampire Webpage: http://members.aol.com/noctifer01/private/VampHome/index.html ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 Noctifer@aol.com wrote:
> But I also love D&D3, which I'm running right now, for its simplicity
> and various options.
This is the funny thing about games... I hate D&D3 because of its
complexity, while you love it for its complexity.
Of course, "complex" doesn't mean "difficult to understand" it means "made
up of many parts"... all of which can be simple in themselves. D&D3's
core mechanic is simple. None of its rules are difficult to understand.
But as a whole, D&D3 is a massive set of rules, even if you count only the
Players Handbook. I don't like memorizing lots of rules, and I don't like
looking things up all the time, and one of these is required to play D&D3.
> The big thing, I think, isn't simple vs. complex, but options, options,
> options. Let the player create the character he wants to play, within
> reason. This results in rather dangerous freedom for min/maxers, but for
> true role players it gives them a concrete way to create the character they
> want to create.
Which is why I like rules-light games and find D&D3 to be too limiting,
despite its massive set of rules. There are just so many things I can't
do without changing the rules or writing new ones. Lighter games like
Fudge, where creating custom character traits is the norm instead of an
exception, grant more freedom through fewer rules instead of more.
--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) GMAST List Owner
[ GMAST, GM Discussion -- http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/ ]
Talk is cheap because supply inevitably exceeds demand.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
> Well, if we can all move along . . . > > What kind of game system do you prefer? One that is relatively simple > and fast, or one that is detailed and complex (and more time consuming)? > I'm creating a game, you see. I'd welcome lots of input. > :) Boy that's a hard one to answer. If you look at what I've spent the most of my gaming life playing in one form or another (Champions/Hero System), you'd assume I like complex and detailed systems. A lot of this though has more to do with familiarity than a love of complexity. At the time I learned Champions (and had the time to really learn and understand the system), it was as close to a state-of-the-art game system as I could find, and well suited to my needs (I was 18 or 19 and looking for a detailed way to get superheroes "exactly right". Since becoming fluent in Hero System nigh on twenty years ago, I've found it's a bit like being a programmer who prefers an old language. Sure, there may be better ways to program, but I end up going back to what works for me. Today, when I play Champions with my group (mostly similar-minded veterans), the rules tend to remain in the background and are the first thing on the chopping block when they get in the way of the story. Among new systems, I find simple is better, if only because I no longer have the time to learn new systems unless they really grab my attention (I'm currently toying with Tri-Stat). I'm not too fond of complexity clothed as simplicity (d20 is simple on the surface, but the vast number of options dwarf the Hero System in potential complexity, IMHO). But, ultimately, simplicity is relative. I've known people who loved playing mages in 1st edition Chivalry & Sorcery and people who couldn't handle Ghostbusters. Theron Houston ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
> What kind of game system do you prefer? One that is relatively simple > and fast, or one that is detailed and complex (and more time consuming)? It depends on what kinds of actions I am going to be administrating with the system. I like a system that's relevant to the theme of the game; if most of what I'm going to be doing is combat, I want the details to be there. If most of what I am going to be doing is in narrative and character development, that's where I want the emphasis. If magic, similarly so. On top of that, I want easy adaptation of other rules; maybe the genre is angels versus devils in a magic-against- magic society, but I want to run a western-style showdown. How hard would it be for me to adapt the rules to handle that scenario? At the same time, I don't want a system that tries to do everything equally... I want to see focus on its niche; what's going to attract me to the game needs to be met with the system, not just some neat "what if this is what the world is like, you take it from there," stuff. Who is your audience? Simple is fine if you're relying on people to do the work for you...but it's not as popular. Complex has its followers but its multiple drawbacks. Remember, if it's a game-making action, maybe I WANT it to take time (both as GM and player) rather than rolling a few dice (drawing cards, comparing ranks, whatever) and tah-dah, game's basically over. \\ Mb \\ mabarry@xpert.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
> What kind of game system do you prefer? One that is relatively simple
> and fast, or one that is detailed and complex (and more time consuming)?
> I'm creating a game, you see. I'd welcome lots of input.
1) Consistency. If I'm faced with a situation not covered by a specific
rule, I should be able to devise a rule real easy. Most game systems have
been moving in this direction, so that skills, combat, magic, and what not
all fall under the same rules (Be it GURPS's 3d6 or D20's, um, D20.
[Although they don't really have magic in the fold])
2) In general I prefer simplicity, but it needs to be able to handle
common situations. so:
-I need some way to indicate situational modifers ("It's slippery, so
that's a -1")
-I need some way to indicate assistance from other characters or other
skills.
-I need some way to indicate both simple and complex tasks ("Designing
your own tank? Okay, here's what your character needs to do....")
3) I'm a rules minimist, so I tend to ignore rules often. However, I like
to HAVE rules that I can choose to ignore. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
At 12:59 AM 6/14/2001 -0600, a & g wrote: > What kind of game system do you prefer? One that is relatively simple >and fast, or one that is detailed and complex (and more time consuming)? > I'm creating a game, you see. I'd welcome lots of input. > :) As so many people have said, it depends upon the flavor you want to create, and the style of GM you want to attract. The concept is that simple and complex itself. *smiles* You definitely won't get the same answer from every GM or every player. You might not even get a concensus. And while one GM says that one style of game requires a certain sort of system, I'd probably disagree. For example, I've played story-oriented games run with Champions. Hells, I've run them, and yeah, I even used dice. *grins* In general, though, I suppose you could say that GMs who want to run story-intensive games want to be able to run in a system where the dice are useful, but not intrusive. I don't want to roll "flattery" when I can roleplay it, although a subtle roll in the background by the GM isn't bad. (This is when prerolled charts are so good for being unnoticable). Then there are GMs who want to run gritty games where there are high risks and every die roll adds an element of chance to that risk, and suddenly the entire plot could change because you rolled a 3. And then there's everything in between. I guess you could say my opinion is that there is no right answer. I prefer to avoid dice. I like running what I call freeform (although I've been told its not true freeform... *shrugs* whatever). The rules are loose, the dice are pretty much absent, and the interaction of story, characters and plot are key. But then, I've also had a huge collection of d6 just so I could have the biggest blast in Champions. Not to mention having run many many combats, both diceless and with dice (I remember one of my players grousing "I would like to make an activation roll." My return, "well, roll the dice Marc." And him, "I have. Five times. Haven't made one yet." I laughed. The element of dice meant he was sitting there basically snapping his fingers trying to turn his bloody power on *laughter*). So, good luck... if you're trying to write a system, it'll never be perfect. some people will love it, some will hate it. If you're lucky, it'll become a major cult war like diceless vs diced. *chuckles* Good luck. Writing a system is hard work. Mine has never been finished and will likely continue to reside in my head for the next 20 years, like it has for the last 15. *smiles* D. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
