Post by: Erik L on December 22, 2009, 10:39:47 PM
Assume that it is a system you have not tried, you have sufficient time to browse through a book, and the book is open (not shrinkwrapped or anything).
Post by: boggo2300 on December 23, 2009, 08:54:16 PM
Matt
Post by: Cassaralla on December 25, 2009, 05:40:13 AM
Post by: Sotak246 on December 25, 2009, 07:17:03 PM
Mark
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 26, 2009, 07:11:51 AM
Steve
Post by: ShadoCat on December 26, 2009, 04:47:58 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 26, 2009, 05:26:12 PM
Quote from: "ShadoCat"
I like mechanics. I have my own backgrounds and I look for or kit bash mechanics to implement my backgrounds.Good game mechanics are what keep me playing but background is what inspires me to read the mechanics in the first place
Steve
Post by: Erik L on December 28, 2009, 04:45:43 PM
Now let me ask this.
If you come across a pair of books, one setting and one mechanics, how likely are you to take an in-depth look at either? Presuming that at least one of the books piques your interest.
Post by: boggo2300 on December 28, 2009, 05:29:38 PM
Matt
Post by: Sotak246 on December 28, 2009, 07:47:23 PM
Mark
Post by: ShadoCat on December 29, 2009, 12:03:46 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
The game I've been working on most lately I'd planned to leave with no background or setting. Just the mechanics to let the GM fit into his/her own setting. I personally have always been like Shadocat, mechanics to bash into my own setting.
Unfortunately, I think that you and I are atypical. I think the market out there leans toward backgrounds. Just looking at the responses here in a forum that appeals to those who are predisposed to crunch over fluff, even this end of the bell curve prefers backgrounds.
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Now let me ask this.
If you come across a pair of books, one setting and one mechanics, how likely are you to take an in-depth look at either? Presuming that at least one of the books piques your interest.
Jumping up and waving from the far end of the bell curve... ...one lone vote for mechanics.
Post by: Erik L on December 29, 2009, 01:18:27 PM
I guess my goal is to create a system that a GM can put into his own setting, and as an adjunct create a setting for those who don't wish to, or don't have the time/skills/etc to do so.
Post by: Hawkeye on December 29, 2009, 02:01:34 PM
The background so fascinated me, I ordered the game without knowing anything about it aside from those two novels.
I have lots of AD&D, Traveler, Shadowrun, Renegade Legion,... Sourcebooks without ever realy playing them, I just love to read about interresting settings.
Of course, there is also stuff like Full Thrust on one of my bookshelfs, which is pretty generic (and Aurora, obviously, which I have to create the background myself too)
I think there is a middleground here. I just mentioned Full Thrust. It has sort of a background, but it is very brief and realy just for flavor. A gamesystem without _any_ background will be a hard sell to most people, I belive.
Also, the gamesystem in Full Thrust is rather simple which helps one, to concentrate on creating the background for a campaign. If the rules are very complex, I have to do enough to get them streight, at least in the beginning, so I appretiate it, not to have do both at the same time (yes, I am primarily a single player guy nowadays)
Edit: I could swear your post wasn´t there when I started typing, Erik, because what you are describing is exactely the Full Thrust approach.
Post by: boggo2300 on December 29, 2009, 04:18:05 PM
Im rambling a bit here, so back to the point, The Background is what will hook me in, the rules are what will keep me, I'm not 100% sure it will work publishing them in completely separate books though, I'd suggest at least a page or 2 of background in the rules book as a suggested setting maybe.
It always helps I think for people to have some hooks available to start their own background (I'm stilll cribbing from GDW's twilight war and rebuild from Twilight 2000, 2300AD for my Aurora settings)
Sorry for the stream of conciousness in this post. I got a little sidetracked
Matt
Post by: Erik L on December 29, 2009, 04:48:20 PM
I guess my biggest complaint with integrated rules/background games is that the rules use the background, and excising the background to fit it into your own cuts the rules by too much. A prime example of this would be prestige classes from 3.x/4 D&D. They are meant to represent members of organizations. That is great and all, but if the organization does not exist in the game world, then the prestige class has no meaning.
As for the system I am working on, there probably will be some background material, but the bulk of the initial book will be rules. If nothing else, to explain/expand upon the races and some of the creatures presented in the bestiary section.
Post by: Kurt on December 29, 2009, 06:14:21 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
When y'all are browsing through a game book in a store, what makes you decide to buy the book?
Assume that it is a system you have not tried, you have sufficient time to browse through a book, and the book is open (not shrinkwrapped or anything).
For me, with a science fiction game, I'm almost always looking for something with ship/unit design rules and with good tech research rules. After that, playability. Background is good, and can be vital to keeping my interest, but if ship design and technology isn't done well, I lose interest quick.
For example, Traveller had an excellent background, and good ship design rules, but was cumbersome to play on any scale beyond ship-to-ship and the technology levels were pretty basic. Full Thrust is simple to play, and has a basic background, but the ship design was way too simplistic and the tech stuff was rudimentary. Still, it was fun to fight out simple battles in that system, but the simplistic ship design stuff turned me off.
Really, Starfire had the best combination of medium to large scale playability, ship design, and technology of any game that I had experience with, which was why I kept coming back to it. Some games were more playable, others had more complex (and probably realistic) ship design stuff, but none had the combination of things that Starfire had.
Of course, I'm probably atypical, as I usually will evaluate a new system as to how it will help me develop my own background. If that system comes with a background, I'll usually look at it more to see if I like it and can use the concepts more than anything else.
Kurt
Post by: ZimRathbone on December 30, 2009, 07:55:38 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
When y'all are browsing through a game book in a store, what makes you decide to buy the book?
Assume that it is a system you have not tried, you have sufficient time to browse through a book, and the book is open (not shrinkwrapped or anything).
Background will generally get me to read the book, but the rules are probably the deciding factor in actually buying it. However, that said, much more important than either is personal recommendation - if someone else I know likes a particular system I'm much more likely to buy it (thats how I got into SFB & Starfire) if only because that gives me potential opponents.
I rarely start off with complex rule sets, I might grow into them but its usually not a selling point for me. I started with SFB way back in the days of the Designers Edition before the ziplock expansions, when it was often possible to throw together a game or two after a night at the pub (or the CompSci Labs), before all the complexities of the later editions. I no longer play it partly due to lack of opponents & time, and partly due to the fact that I lost the rulebook a few years ago (last seen in an orange VMS operating system folder somewhere in Sydney!), and cant work up the enthusiasm to buy a new one.
Post by: procyon on January 01, 2010, 03:20:29 AM
I guess when it comes down to it I want to write the story. I just want a good frame to hang it on.
Post by: Erik L on January 01, 2010, 09:12:49 PM
Post by: ShadoCat on January 03, 2010, 04:10:20 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
What I will most likely do for this is have a chapter towards the end of the book which details the "official" setting, and then have a supplement which expands it out more.
I would suggest a chapter at the front about the setting. Better yet, a fiction piece set in the official setting. Then put details in the back. That should get both the fluff puppies and the crunchsters.
Post by: Erik L on January 03, 2010, 07:47:21 PM
Quote from: "ShadoCat"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"What I will most likely do for this is have a chapter towards the end of the book which details the "official" setting, and then have a supplement which expands it out more.
I would suggest a chapter at the front about the setting. Better yet, a fiction piece set in the official setting. Then put details in the back. That should get both the fluff puppies and the crunchsters.
That's an idea. Right now the material is very rules heavy. I think there is only 3 or 4 sidebars. I want (in addition to other stuff) a blow by blow example of combat.
If anyone is interested in playtesting, or just providing feedback, let me know and I can drop you a copy (PDF format).
Post by: boggo2300 on January 03, 2010, 08:00:05 PM
A nice fiction piece to start it off, then some details of your "official setting" in a chapter at the back.
Blow by Blow combat descriptions are always very helpful as well.
Matt
Post by: Erik L on January 04, 2010, 04:48:00 PM
[attachment=0:1vghckd6]A000000.jpg[/attachment:1vghckd6]
Highest peak is just under 31,000 ft with a temperature of -76.6F.
Not sure of the lowest oceanic trench, but the hottest area is in the 125-130F range.