🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec24.001604.6727@trl.oz.au> s.mathers@trl.oz.au writes:
>I am getting bored with talk of mechanics.  I think mechanics are of
>secondary importance when designing a RPG, and I think you would
>get a better and more consistent set of mechanics if you worried
>about them only after you have a reasonable idea of where the game
>will take place and what the world is like. (world=universe)
>
>Besides, a generic RPG game called GURPS is already been done, and is on
>the market and doing just fine thanks.
>
>I don't want to kill off the mechanics discussion, because some good
>ideas have come from it.  I just want to open another discussion on
>world design, which I think will be more interesting and yield even
>more interesting ideas.  Having said that...
>
I'm game. Mechanics are challenging and worthy pursuits, but I feel
world-design is at least as important. I have also found it true that
if world-design comes first, the themes and style therein will dictate
many mechanics. A game set in Howard's Hyborian Age should, to keep to
the spirit of the source material, rely on many different rules than
would one set in Tolkein's Middle Earth. Designing a generic or broad
system, as I have done, is problematic when it comes to this. This why
most games material is oriented around set, developed 'worlds'. All the
mechanics and visuals and tone blend for a cohesive thrill.
More on this, but suffice to say I cast my vote in favor of some
world-design and world-design mechanics (hurm) discussion.

>Here is a general outline of a world I have been tinkering with for a
>long while.  It is a fantasy world with the usual low mundane technology
>(ie: swords & crossbows etc...), but the roll high-technology has in
>our world is replaced by what is called magic.  I like the idea of magic
>being based in a lot of ways on natural talent.  ie: there are a lot 
>of OK magicians out there, and a lot of people have tinkered with
>magic, but there are only a few magicians who have achieved excellence.
>Think of it in the same vein as playing an instrument.  Say guitar.
>Lots of us have mucked about with a guitar at some stage or another,
>and a lot have given up because it was too hard, or we just didnt have
>the knack.  Then there are the few such as Jimi Hendrix...the 'wizards'
>
>
>Anyway, the centre of this world is a huge city.  I am influenced
>heavilly in this respect by Byzantium.  A large fabulous city, famous
>for its culture, high arts etc.. surrounded by not so fabulous, and
>posibly hostile territories and rival empires.
>
>I wont go any further, or nobody will read a huge post, so thats just
>a few fragments of some ideas.  

In article <C0GFq8.C97@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, alyon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (arthur alexander lyon) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec24.001604.6727@trl.oz.au> s.mathers@trl.oz.au writes:
|> >I am getting bored with talk of mechanics.  I think mechanics are of
|> >secondary importance when designing a RPG, and I think you would
|> >get a better and more consistent set of mechanics if you worried
|> >about them only after you have a reasonable idea of where the game
|> >will take place and what the world is like. (world=universe)
|> >
|> >Besides, a generic RPG game called GURPS is already been done, and is on
|> >the market and doing just fine thanks.
|> >
|> >I don't want to kill off the mechanics discussion, because some good
|> >ideas have come from it.  I just want to open another discussion on
|> >world design, which I think will be more interesting and yield even
|> >more interesting ideas.  Having said that...
|> >
|> I'm game. Mechanics are challenging and worthy pursuits, but I feel
|> world-design is at least as important. I have also found it true that
|> if world-design comes first, the themes and style therein will dictate
|> many mechanics. A game set in Howard's Hyborian Age should, to keep to
|> the spirit of the source material, rely on many different rules than
|> would one set in Tolkein's Middle Earth. Designing a generic or broad
|> system, as I have done, is problematic when it comes to this. This why
|> most games material is oriented around set, developed 'worlds'. All the
|> mechanics and visuals and tone blend for a cohesive thrill.
|> More on this, but suffice to say I cast my vote in favor of some
|> world-design and world-design mechanics (hurm) discussion.


Yeah.  Working out the mechanics and the world at the same time is the
best policy because ideas from one cross-polinate the other.  ie: 'But
if the world works this way, we will need to have rules like this...'
OR.. 'Hey, this rule means that this will happen in the world..and this
..and this..'

So where are all the ideas for a net.fantasy.world?

In article <C0GFq8.C97@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> alyon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (arthur alexander lyon) writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.001604.6727@trl.oz.au> s.mathers@trl.oz.au writes:
>>I am getting bored with talk of mechanics.  I think mechanics are of
>>secondary importance when designing a RPG, and I think you would
>>get a better and more consistent set of mechanics if you worried
>>about them only after you have a reasonable idea of where the game
>>will take place and what the world is like. (world=universe)

	I disagree.  A bad set of rules will make a game quite
unplayable.  (de-emphasis of such rules helps, but then why bother?)
I consider the rules almost as important as the background (if any).
If they don't work, if they're seriously flawed, if they choke up
every time I ask for a skill roll, then I'm going to seriously think
about playing some other game.
	Good background is nice, but GURPS has shown that it's not
everything.

>>Besides, a generic RPG game called GURPS is already been done, and is on
>>the market and doing just fine thanks.

	Not everyone likes GURPS (judging from complaints and those
who like FUDGE...grin).  And perhaps GURPS does not fit some
people's needs.  I have also found that the rules used directly
affect the game world being designed.  (Or so's my opinion on the
matter.)
	I have nothing against Yet Another Generic System.  People
have been doing the Yet Another... schtick for a long time now, I
suppose ever since D&D came out...

>>I don't want to kill off the mechanics discussion, because some good
>>ideas have come from it.  I just want to open another discussion on
>>world design, which I think will be more interesting and yield even
>>more interesting ideas.  Having said that...

	I'd like that too.  I've read some of the Novus game (forgot
who's the author...sorry!) and I've enjoyed quite a bit of it
(except that I don't have the section on damage and I can't find the
ARC table!  argh!).

>would one set in Tolkein's Middle Earth. Designing a generic or broad
>system, as I have done, is problematic when it comes to this. This why
>most games material is oriented around set, developed 'worlds'. All the
>mechanics and visuals and tone blend for a cohesive thrill.

	Yeah, it's a lot easier to concentrate on a single theme or
idea.  The more "worlds" and themes you introduce, the more you've
got to reduce the specifics for certain themes so the game system
works with other worlds...ah well.  The first thing I'd like to see
in any RPG is the ability to make a very wide variety of characters.
To be pigeon-holed into a specific style of play is very
irritating.

>More on this, but suffice to say I cast my vote in favor of some
>world-design and world-design mechanics (hurm) discussion.

	Yes!  A few things I'd like to see...

	Aliens!  (How to make them, how to make truly ALIEN aliens)
	Planets! (Yeah, I've got GURPS Space, I've read GURPS
			Uplift, but I want more...)
	How other people design their game worlds (generally this is
aimed at fantasy worlds, but specifically...this works with
anything)

>>our world is replaced by what is called magic.  I like the idea of magic
>>being based in a lot of ways on natural talent.  ie: there are a lot 
>>of OK magicians out there, and a lot of people have tinkered with
>>magic, but there are only a few magicians who have achieved excellence.
>>Think of it in the same vein as playing an instrument.  Say guitar.
>>Lots of us have mucked about with a guitar at some stage or another,
>>and a lot have given up because it was too hard, or we just didnt have
>>the knack.  Then there are the few such as Jimi Hendrix...the 'wizards'

	I like this.  Actually, makes me think of Katherine Kurtz'
Deryni books.  I've been running such a game for a little bit (well,
not now that school has started).  The players are members of a much
-disliked group of mages.  It's a matter of the have's and the
have-nots.  Unfortunately, bad experience in the past with certain
cruel mages has turned much of society against any magic
practitioners...

	Well, I hope this has started up an interesting discussion!

In article <1992Dec24.001604.6727@trl.oz.au> s.mathers@trl.oz.au writes:
>I am getting bored with talk of mechanics.  I think mechanics are of
>secondary importance when designing a RPG, and I think you would
>get a better and more consistent set of mechanics if you worried
>about them only after you have a reasonable idea of where the game
>will take place and what the world is like. (world=universe)

I agree with your sentiments.  I have always said that genre (and
hence, world) must be considered before any other desicisions are
made.  net.rpg, however, is designed to be a multi-genre (and hence,
multi-world) game system.  One might begin a discussion on how
game worlds are to be created, but discussion on one world would,
in my opinion, not fit within the net.rpg discussions.

The discussion on magic which was started prior to break was an
example of a world-specific discussion which still could be put
under a net.rpg heading.  Though not all worlds will have magic
in them, some will and we must consider the consequences of that
addition during the game design stage.  

Many interesting views were expressed concerning magic, and it is 
probably impossible to create a single magic system from those
views, nor is it necessary given the choice of a multi-genre
game system.  If we wanted to create a single fantasy world,
however, we would have to come to a consensus on how magic was
to be handled which would not be easy.  It would also likely
leave many out in the cold when their views were discarded in
favor of someone else's.

So, although I personally agree with most of your post, I would
say that discussion of the specifics (for example geography, 
population, etc.) of a particular game world is not the
province of net.rpg; such a discussion is more aplicable to 
private work by each individual or by a small group of 
individuals.

--
Charles F. Fitzgerald | '...it's a tale, told by an idiot,
Iowa State University | full of sound and fury,
cffitzge@iastate.edu  | signifying nothing.'
                      | _MacBeth_, by W. Shakespeare.

In article <43160@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:
|> In article <C0GFq8.C97@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> alyon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (arthur alexander lyon) writes:
|> 	I disagree.  A bad set of rules will make a game quite
|> unplayable.  (de-emphasis of such rules helps, but then why bother?)
|> I consider the rules almost as important as the background (if any).
|> If they don't work, if they're seriously flawed, if they choke up
|> every time I ask for a skill roll, then I'm going to seriously think

I find it hard to see any redeamable features about AD&D mechanics,
but it's awfully popular.  Sort of reminds me of IBM PC's in a way.