Having done some game design, attended some game design conferences, and
talked to some proven game designers, I feel I can offer some info on this.
In general most designers and publishers agree that the mechanics of the game
are not what sells the game, the story sells the game. GZG games seem to be a
notable exception to that guideline in that there is realtively little
background immediately available. I think it is a testament to the strength of
the rules that they have done as well as they have. A good example of
what I'm talking about came up in the last panel I went to on game design.
Someone asked the designer (Don Perrin) if he started with the background of
his new game first, or the mechanics. He replied that in most of the games he
designed 65% of the work went into background. He said that generally the
basic mechanics can be worked out in a couple of days, and then the rest of
the time is spent playtesting them and integrating them into the background.
Also, in general, great books do not necessarily make great games. I think
most people would agree that Weber's Honor Harrington series is a great
pseudo-hard
science fiction series, but if a game was marketed based on that system how
playable would it be? The Manties have an advantage on almost every scale
except quantity, which the PNS can't bring to bear effectively due to having
to
police their rear-areas. So you have a game where one side has better
ships, better crew, and better weapons. The other side has more ships. In a
one off or pickup game the Mantie is almost always going to win unless there
is a fairly big quantitative edge given to the PNS. Also, you have the problem
of who is
going to _want_ to play the PNS? Playing a repressive, dictatorial
government doesn't sell very well in the egalitarian society we generally
enjoy. Another example is the Hammer's Slammers by Drake. A pretty good read,
but in a game, would you ever want to play anything other than the Slammers?
They have better armor, better infantry, better artillery, and have a theater
defense grid tight enough to intercept incoming artillery. Yeah, those are
guys I want to fight. I'm surprised opposing merc companies don't just
surrender as soon as the Slammers hit the dirt.
If you want to see an excellent example of the background written for the game
covering for the weaknesses of the mechanics, look at most of GW's games. In
all fairness, GW's games are not _bad_ ......as games. They are not
especially realistic, or consistent, but they are decently playable. The thing
that sets them apart is the background. When a player starts a particular army
it already has a history behind it which he can use to flesh out his
particular force.
It may seem odd to some people (myself included) that people don't want to
create their own storylines, backgrounds, and history, but the fact of the
matter is, they don't. Whether it's through lack of time, lack of motivation,
lack of imagination, it ultimately doesn't matter; because, you can't make
them do it, and for the most part people won't accept anyone doing it for them
except for the game publisher. This list is a very creative list, as
fan/player lists
go, but it has it's conservatives that prefer to let others do the world
building, and would undoubtably be happy if Jon did it all himself and said
"This is how it IS". At least here Jon gives his tacit approval for a lot of
things if not his explicit endorsement.
Just my experience, Bill
UsClintons@aol.com on 09/12/99 09:06:02 PM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Bill Brush/InfSys/Revenue)
Subject Re: SGII Newbie Question
:
In a message dated 9/12/99 8:58:57 PM Central Daylight Time,
> johncrim@voicenet.com writes:
> Secondly...I don't know. There's a very vocal faction on r.g.m.m. who
Yep, that's what I have always thought them mean too. It just seemed weird to
me that the players are incapable of creating their own story line...or god
forbid READING a novel or two. On that note I have yet to see a game (sorry
SGII included) that has a background as good as any of a
half-dozen
books sitting on my shelf right now! So why would I want to use their
background when I already have a better one on my shelf! Maybe this all stems
from people reading less these days...hmmm....
> bbrush@rev.state.ne.us wrote:
> It may seem odd to some people (myself included) that people don't
Sort of reminds me of my uncle who owns a restaurant in Florida (breakfast
joint) and he always says people don't want to decide what to eat for
breakfast (ala "give me two eggs over meduim, hasbrown, bacon" etc). They'd
rather just look at one of the specials and go, "gimme the big bubba. Or the
all american..."
Actually though what is historical gaming? Its' pretty much using someone
elses
background ;-)
Other than that I see GZG games doing very well all over. Not a week goes buy
that someone doesn't ask about SG2 and it isn't responded to with very
favorable comments. And by guys that aren't even on this list and I never
heard of. In our game club I see people using SG2 (people I never even talked
to about the game) for all kinds of backgrounds including an Afgan rebel
Russian game last week. Others make up generic Sci fi stuff and don't really
give two rats about a detailed background (these guys usually game lots of
periods and don't consider themselves scifi gamers, just wargamers.).
> lack of imagination, it ultimately doesn't matter; because, you can't
> building, and would undoubtably be happy if Jon did it all himself and
Having been on this list for two years now I'd be very hard pressed to think
of one person who on here that hasn't had his hand in either
discussing/building the GZG
background, or whipped up his own background, or submitted conversions to
other popular backgrounds. And there have been a lot on this list.
As for me, three quarters of the fun is in the background, writing the AAR,
and providing fodder for my fiction.
> Also, in general, great books do not necessarily make great
So design the game that way. Quantity vs quality is always fun.
> Also, you have the problem of who is
You mean I should send back my Avalon Hill Russian Campaign (Hitler vs
Stalin)?
> It may seem odd to some people (myself included) that
I think you're overgeneralizing here. _Some_ people don't
want to--so they buy GW. Then there are the GZG listers,
who are busily designing their own planets, star systems, societies, etc etc.
See the GZGPedia for details. St^3 Jon has provided a framework but it's not
really necessary, just convenient. I grant you, creativity flourishes more
within a framework than without it; and is fostered by discussion. I don't
know that I'd have done all the work I have, if i didn't expect someone to
read it.
Hi Bill,
Some good comments/observations there.
Only one comment I'd like to make I think.
The games background also becomes Common ground for gamers to get together on.
This GZG list as an example; lets people from literally all around the world
play in a common setting. This gives an instant common frame of reference and
really does facilitate people able to get into the gaming side
really quickly. At conventions/clubs people can get on with the gaming
and not have to compare their own private unverses to work out how they can
play relative to others.
If you are talking Sci-Fi i think it is important to have SOME sort of
background/explanation otherwise you really are starting in a vacumn
(forgive the pun). Historical gaming has the perfect prewritten background
you can find! Doesn't stop people using sci-fi of rules to play in the
settings.
But getting people to use the rules set in the first place I think is very
much due to marketing and a background is a large part of that.
Q "Why should I play these rules?"
A1 "Coz they're really good and have an innovative set of dice and tables to
resolve combat!"
A2 "Well, this is near future hard combat in a universe dealing with expanding
colonies to other worlds and meeting alien races whilst still fighting age old
wars."
I think most people would likely opt for A2.
My.02C worth
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
> bbrush@rev.state.ne.us wrote:
> Having done some game design, attended some game design conferences,
May I (briefly) ask what games you have worked on?
> It may seem odd to some people (myself included) that people don't
Very interesting comments! :-) I love hearing game designers talk!
(Thats half the reason I keep my old gaming mags...)
> Another
Just to play Devil's Advocate.... If I, as a player, was told: "You are going
to defend a small, but wealthy, government from foreign agressors. The enemy,
cowardly dogs that they are, have hired Hammer's Slammers to do their fighting
for them. You can spend X points on men and vehicles, but no more than 250
pts. on any one AFV. You cannot purchase powerguns or iridium armor for your
force, and air units are pretty much a terrible idea. You will have access to
prepared defenses, including mine fields. Good luck."
I'd go for the idea like a shot. And I would probably lose, but it would be a
heck of a lot of fun.
Actually I talked to David (Weber) last year about designing a game to
simulate the Honor Harrington space combat universe. He talked at great
length, (as he is wont to do) about how he had done such a set of rules as a
lark. He
concluded by saying he didn't think you could make a _fun_ game out of
it and remain true to the background. I tend to agree (after talking to him).
The quantitative edge that the PNS has over the RMN would be extremely hard to
simulate except on a full campaign setting. If you go to a campaign setting
then you are no longer doing strictly a space simulator and integrating a
campaign system with a tactical system is a whopping big challenge.
Your comment about taking back your Russian campaign game is (I hope)
rhetorical. I did not, nor would I, presume to claim that playing a
dictatorial repressive nations role would not appeal to anyone. I think most
people would choose the role of the "good guy" over the "bad guy" if given a
choice. Maybe that's my rural American upbringing showing, so take that for
what it's worth.
As far as your statement about me over-generalizing, well that's your
opinion and your welcome to it, but I don't think I am. I think a large
proportion of gamers prefer a published background produced by a 3rd party. I
think that the reason you see so many people here doing their own thing (which
I applaud most heartily) is because a large proportion of people are attracted
to GZG games by the fact that doing your own thing is encouraged! I used to
play 40K back in the Rogue Trader days, and one of the biggest reasons I quit
is because doing your own thing became less and less acceptable, and was
certainly discouraged by the company. I do think that as more and more
background for the GZG universe is made available the number of people who
like the games, but aren't interested in making up new stuff will increase.
Bill
Laserlight <laserlight@cwix.com> on 09/14/99 06:03:48 PM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Bill Brush/InfSys/Revenue)
Subject: Re: Background? was Re: SGII Newbie Question
> Also, in general, great books do not necessarily make great
So design the game that way. Quantity vs quality is always fun.
> Also, you have the problem of who is
You mean I should send back my Avalon Hill Russian Campaign (Hitler vs
Stalin)?
> It may seem odd to some people (myself included) that
I think you're overgeneralizing here. _Some_ people don't
want to--so they buy GW. Then there are the GZG listers,
who are busily designing their own planets, star systems, societies, etc etc.
See the GZGPedia for details. St^3 Jon has provided a framework but it's not
really necessary, just convenient. I grant you, creativity flourishes more
within a framework than without it; and is fostered by discussion. I don't
know that I'd have done all the work I have, if i didn't expect someone to
read it.
Actually I have to admit I that when I made the statement about the Slammers
opponents surrendering I was more speaking from the standpoint of an enemy
commander in one of the books/stories. The way the stories are told the
Slammers are pretty much unstoppable. From a game standpoint it could be fun,
for a couple of times, but even I get tired of getting my ass handed to me.
Bill
John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com> on 09/14/99 11:04:21 PM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Bill Brush/InfSys/Revenue)
Subject: Re: Background? was Re: SGII Newbie Question
> Another
Just to play Devil's Advocate.... If I, as a player, was told: "You are going
to defend a small, but wealthy, government from foreign agressors. The enemy,
cowardly dogs that they are, have hired Hammer's Slammers to do their fighting
for them. You can spend X points on men and vehicles, but no more than 250
pts. on any one AFV. You cannot purchase powerguns or iridium armor for your
force, and air units are pretty much a terrible idea. You will have access to
prepared defenses, including mine fields. Good luck."
I'd go for the idea like a shot. And I would probably lose, but it would be a
heck of a lot of fun.
On 15-Sep-99 at 01:06, bbrush@rev.state.ne.us (bbrush@rev.state.ne.us)
wrote:
> Your comment about taking back your Russian campaign game is (I hope)
if
> given a choice. Maybe that's my rural American upbringing showing, so
Try playing devils advocate. It can be really fun being the bad guy.
***
What you mean there's people that don't like playing the bad guys or
underdogs?
Los
***
Well, I think I've finally found someone interested in FT using Star
Trek, NG/DSN, ships. And, to tell the truth, I think there will be
GREAT interest in being a Cardassian with a shot at a Federation
Star Base. Even BEFORE the Cardassians became sort-of-good-guys. ;->=
The_Beast
> Los wrote:
[About the difficulties of creating a game for the HH universe]
> OTOH Weber's Starfire books (which I like very much) have a very
A rather different kettle of fish, though.
The Starfire books by Weber & White are based on the game scenarios
which later became the "Crusade" and "ISW-4" scenario modules.
In spite of this, these novels play fast and loose - *very* loose -
with the Starfire game rules Weber wrote and White playtested Many of the
tricks described in the novels are flat contradictions of the game
rules :-( As for the assumptions they made about the Bugs' starship
designers... <shudder>
Later,
> A pretty good read, but in a game, would you ever want to play
What you mean there's people that don't like playing the bad guys or
underdogs?
> bbrush@rev.state.ne.us wrote:
> Actually I talked to David (Weber) last year about designing a game to
He
> concluded by saying he didn't think you could make a _fun_ game out of
OTOH Weber's Starfire books (which I like very much) have a very strong
following on the gaming side.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> In spite of this, these novels play fast and loose - *very* loose -
I agree. There is a problem writing fiction based on game rules though. A
wargamer's AAR covering the specifics of time periods rnage bands and rules,
just don't always cross over well to a good story telling. (especially to the
vast majority of SF readers that are not wargamers) This requires bending the
shape of events or specifics to make the fiction work, which is the main
priority of the exercize.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Los wrote:
> > A pretty good read, but in a game, would you ever want to play
This reminds me of a "Squad Leader" scenario I once played. (Squad Leader for
those who don't know is the predissesor to Advanced Squad Leader. Both by the
old Avalon Hill.) We were playing the first scenario. (It covered the
paratroop drops just prior to the normany invasion by the americans.) I was
playing the american paratroopers, and my friend played the german defenders.
Talk about an unbalanced scenario! The only way the germans can lose, is to
move their units out of their starting positions (various villages)!
I don't mind playing villians either, I just refuse to play a scenario where
my side has no chance at all.... Its ok if I have a chance, it then becomes a
challenge.