In a message dated 9/14/99 5:10:17 PM Central Daylight Time,
> bbrush@rev.state.ne.us writes:
> In general most designers and publishers agree that the mechanics of
> (Don Perrin)...started with the background of his new game
Now, I respect your opinion but...A COUPLE OF DAYS!
IMHO, this is the problem with 99% of the (war)games put out today. I don't
play a background, I play a game (system).
> Also, in general, great books do not necessarily make great games.
Many would, and I assume they would be 'adapted' for use not taken 100%
verbatim.
Again, I respect what you say, but there is one HUGE glaring exception to all
of what you said. The GRANDDADDY of all Fantasy games. The one without
whose success 99% of our Fantasy (as well as Sci-fi) games would not
even have been created. I speak of course about "Dungeons and Dragons".
Think about it for a minute. This game has changed very little over the
years and it has always been sparse to completely nonexistent with regard to
a pre-established background. Hell, it takes a one person (the DM)
WORKING overtime LONG BEFORE the game even begins to BUILD a background so
that OTHERS people can play! This does not sound like an awful lot of people
need, or even really want to be 'spoon-fed' there background to me and
GW has wet dreams about selling as many copies of Warhammer as D&D have sold
"Player's Handbook(s)" and "Dungeon Master's Guide(s)" ;-))
Now, I will admit many people have always wanted their backgrounds
pre-engineered, and they always will. I just think many people have
forgotten why they got into this hobby in the first place. And much more sad,
most of the younger players have come to expect to have a background dictated
to them and would not know what to do if you dropped a copy of SGII in their
lap (minus the background section). I don't think it would even occur to most
of young Warhammer players to deviate from the 'Official Army Lists' let alone
design an entire background!
I think we may be stifling that key element of what really built this hobby to
begin with...imagination (all for a box set that costs $69.99)
SC
Even AD&D have problems when it comes to converting modules to novels or
vice-versa.
I found this out 2 weeks ago when talking to an ex-TSR editor/writer.
If you convert a module to a book, text about the module might only take up
3-4000 words. Not enough for a good book, especially when management
can be protective of their background or in allowing any changes to the
established world. One example of this is 'Pool of Radiance', as a computer
game it was great, but as a novel, it stunk. A lot. There was an occasional
reference to various scripted events from the game, but usually only in
passing. If you used the novel as a playguide to the game, you would never get
past the first dungeon.
Back on topic, if you have a look at the various short stories written by list
members, you'll find that they are very good reads, mainly due to the fact
that the universe isn't rigid like some other companies, which allows free
reign with plotlines (within reason). Los' novellette, "The Rot Hafen Saga" is
a good example. An excellent story within the framework of the GZG universe,
but he doesn't introduce outrageous technology, stays within realistic force
parameters & is creating new background which expands on the Kra'vak without
breaking the game systems or background (which some writers try to do almost
religiously).
(By the way Los, when is the final chapter going to be available?)
'Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
> -----Original Message-----
> Again, I respect what you say, but there is one HUGE glaring exception
Ok, just to clarify, I did mean that the majority of people won't make up
their own background, not everybody. Also, when I said that Don said that the
basic mechanics were worked out in a couple of days; he, and I meant the
basics of how
the game works. What die type(s) are used, how they are used etc. The
mechanics do not go from concept to finished in a couple of days, but the
framework is there. He also said that sometimes you have to chuck the whole
mechanics framework and start over. That's not my opinion, that's Don's
experience.
On your reference to D&D not giving you any background well, it's there if you
want it, and many, many people do. Ever heard of Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms,
or Dragonlance? They are all published D&D backgrounds. It's as another poster
said, when you have published background then people from disparate groups
have a common ground. One is not superior to the other, it's just easier.
As far as your statement that you play the system and not the background,
maybe you do. I've read Point Blank, and it's pretty sparce on the
background. :-)
However, most people play a game because they like the story it tells. Without
a setting for the conflict, (a story if you will) then you just have a random
fight. Add a setting and suddenly it's the settlers desparate battle to stave
of the ravaging hordes of barbarians. Which makes a better story?
I think a lot of people got into gaming, not to make up their own stories, but
to be able to in some way take part in a story. Role playing is this desire
taken to it's most obvious end. LARP'ing is this desire taken almost to the
extreme. I think wargamers play war games because they've
read/heard/seen
stories about great generals and wonder "Could I do better?".
Young games as you noted are notorious for not deviating from the established
published army lists and such. I think that is related to the fact that they
are kids. Kids (in general and should) have a very disciplined, and defined
existence. Most kids follow the rules because that's what their parents have
been (or should have been) teaching them. The rulebooks for Warhammer say,
"this is what you do", so they do it. Unless someone tells them otherwise that
is what will seem "right" to them. The Rogue Trader book was much less rigid
and most gamers from that era of 40K remember that their games were much less
structured.
Bill
UsClintons@aol.com on 09/14/99 08:57:44 PM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Bill Brush/InfSys/Revenue)
Subject: Re: Background?
In a message dated 9/14/99 5:10:17 PM Central Daylight Time,
> bbrush@rev.state.ne.us writes:
> In general most designers and publishers agree that the mechanics of
> (Don Perrin)...started with the background of his new game
Now, I respect your opinion but...A COUPLE OF DAYS!
IMHO, this is the problem with 99% of the (war)games put out today. I don't
play a background, I play a game (system).
> Also, in general, great books do not necessarily make great games.
Many would, and I assume they would be 'adapted' for use not taken 100%
verbatim.
Again, I respect what you say, but there is one HUGE glaring exception to all
of what you said. The GRANDDADDY of all Fantasy games. The one without
whose success 99% of our Fantasy (as well as Sci-fi) games would not
even have been created. I speak of course about "Dungeons and Dragons".
Think about it for a minute. This game has changed very little over the years
and it has always been sparse to completely nonexistent with regard to
a pre-established background. Hell, it takes a one person (the DM)
WORKING overtime LONG BEFORE the game even begins to BUILD a background so
that OTHERS people can play! This does not sound like an awful lot of people
need, or even really want to be 'spoon-fed' there background to me and
GW has wet dreams about selling as many copies of Warhammer as D&D have sold
"Player's Handbook(s)" and "Dungeon Master's Guide(s)" ;-))
Now, I will admit many people have always wanted their backgrounds
pre-engineered, and they always will. I just think many people have
forgotten why they got into this hobby in the first place. And much more sad,
most of the younger players have come to expect to have a background dictated
to them and would not know what to do if you dropped a copy of SGII in their
lap (minus the background section). I don't think it would even occur to most
of young Warhammer players to deviate from the 'Official Army Lists' let alone
design an entire background!
I think we may be stifling that key element of what really built this hobby to
begin with...imagination (all for a box set that costs $69.99)
SC
> On your reference to D&D not giving you any background
:-) All published LONG after D&D (not AD&D) was already the well
established icon of RPGs.
As a matter of fact I have the orginal Greyhawk supplement around here
somewhere....it had ZERO background in it. It altered the armor class system
to the one in use today, added a lot of weapons and spells and a few new
classes...no background provided. And again IIRCC this came out quite a few
years after D&D first hit the shelves in my neck of the woods (Midwest back in
those days).
I don't recall seeing many (if any) of the pre-generated backgrounds for
D&D until after the system had just about 'maxed-out' its possibilities.
I think it was not long after the first ones appeared that they overhauled the
game and came out with AD&D. BTW they should have packaged it as 2nd edition,
3rd edition, etc. in a boxed set and charged
us all $59.99, we would all still be playing ;-))
But I have to agree that it sure does seem like alot of people out there
want pre-generated backgrounds. I just hate to see this continued trend
of games being designed by (background) "writers" instead of (system)
"designers". Everyone gets tired of the same background after awhile.
But a good system can last a REAL long time. Again, witness D&D/AD&D,
Squad Leader/ASL, and many more.
Thanks for the 'debate', SC
PS As for "Point Blank"...who needs a background its based in WWII? :-)
I'm not sure that background is as important as is being stated here.
In the non-brainwashed (dirty-minded?) group the big games seem to
be GZG stuff for sci-fi and Fantasy Rules! for fantasy. FR! doesn't
have ANY background, and until I joined the list I wasn't terribly impressed
with the GZG background, it seemed to be more a "here's something to work with
until you find something of your own" kind of thing.
My guess is we are running into two camps, those that are treating these games
as an overblown roleplaying game, and those that are into wargaming.
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the rpg people (I wrote my own
fantasy rpg, I used to run traveller, and I am now gearing up for a champions
game), but there are many of us to whom creating our own background is half
the fun.
> "Robertson, Brendan" wrote:
> Los wrote:
> "Robertson, Brendan" wrote:
Sounds familer...Let me think...Ah! A mister Wikan tantilized us with a "kids
game" a while back...(say, any progress Mike? Hint hint hint 8D)
> At 09:57 PM 9/14/99 EDT, you wrote:
WORKING
> overtime LONG BEFORE the game even begins to BUILD a background so that
> OTHERS people can play! This does not sound like an awful lot of
3rd edition D&D (they are dropping the advanced part) is going to have the
Greyhawk setting as its core setting, they will also still be supporting the
Forgotten Realms. They are tieing a setting into the rules and 99% of the
people I know who play D&D use an existing setting published by TSR.
I could go on, but you can check it out at: www.wizards.com/3e/
I am not basing this on just my own perceptions, I don't care for canned
worlds myself, but the folks on the DnD Mailing list certainly seem to prefer
them to the point of having flamewars over Greyhawk vs. Fogotten Realms.
(Strange that I am on it since I don't actually play D&D much anymore, or run
it ever, bu 3rd ed looks interesting).
Anyhow, I really do think that the vast weight of numbers leads me to believe
that most people want their world provided for them.
Later,