game question

[lucy]

Game Question:
Do you prefer a *balance* between accuracy and game play in a rules system?
I mean, would you rather a ground skirmish between 2 groups take HOURS and
CALCULATORS, or fairly straight-forward, logical, not overly complicated?
I mean, a player can take so much damage before he dies. That's a given.
But should a game system factor in:
* wind
* rain
* hail
* weapon maintenance
* day or night
* standing, running, moving, walking, crawling (on your belly)
* shooting from a standing, kneeling, or prone position
* how many trash cans are in the way
If the target is hiding behind a table, can't I aim for the table and maybe
hit him?
If I have a .44 Magnum and it's a standard, thin plywood coffee table, I
think my bullet will penetrate it. :)
I *hate* getting bogged down in rules... they should be there to
*facilitate* game play, not be harmful to it...
Star Fleet Battles - used to LOVE it, until we had the BIG ships that could
actually (somehow!) survive 70+ internal hits... Then ya gotta roll 'em. I
tried writing a program to do it for me, but you have to factor in the
facing of the ship, which shield went down, what ship it is, etc. SO, I
stopped playing.
I tried an actual battle with some game (forget now), and we had to use
string to determine line of sight, and how many people BEHIND the intended
target got hit by artillery fire as well. It got very...complex.
While I don't mind a bit of realism and detail in designing ships, I don't
want to have to use a personal computer to do personal (or starship) combat.
Just interested in your opinion...
-Joel

[LukeCampbell]

Post by lucy
Do you prefer a *balance* between accuracy and game play in a rules system?
I mean, would you rather a ground skirmish between 2 groups take HOURS and
CALCULATORS, or fairly straight-forward, logical, not overly complicated?

This seems like a loaded question. I think we'd all rather have the
latter option, but some of us would like to combine the latter with an
accurate simulation of either real life or some particular genre as
well. A fast moving but realistic simulation would be ideal for me.

Post by lucy
I mean, a player can take so much damage before he dies. That's a given.
* wind
* rain
* hail

Me, I'd lump all these together into an environmental penalty, and
perhaps a vision penalty. No need to have long tables of atmospheric
conditions, you'll never get 'em all. Just wing it.

Post by lucy
* weapon maintenance

I'd usually neglect this, abstract it away as assuming that everyone
takes care of their gear. If it became important (trying to use that
rifle that had been sitting in the mud for a month of daily freeze-thaw
cycles, for ex) I might add a chance of equipment failure, but
otherwise, naw. It bogs things down to much.

Post by lucy
* day or night

Well, you've got to be able to see the other guy to shoot at him. If it
is questionable, I usually call for a vision roll, and if you can locate
your target, then blaze away!

Post by lucy
* standing, running, moving, walking, crawling (on your belly)

All these make for (IMO) interesting tactical options. Tactically
interesting options make for (IMO) a fun game.

Post by lucy
* shooting from a standing, kneeling, or prone position

Braced vs unbraced, otherwise all the same to me.

Post by lucy
* how many trash cans are in the way

Again, impose an ad hoc modifier for being able to see the opponent if
the trash cans obscure your view. Otherwise - are the cans filled with
nitroglycerin? Are the hostages you are trying to rescue tied up inside
the cans? If so, sure, figure out if you hit a can when you shoot.
Otherwise, who cares.

Post by lucy
If the target is hiding behind a table, can't I aim for the table and maybe
hit him?
If I have a .44 Magnum and it's a standard, thin plywood coffee table, I
think my bullet will penetrate it. :)

Go for it. Just assume the table gives armor and you are shooting blind
but in more or less the right spot.

Post by lucy
I *hate* getting bogged down in rules... they should be there to
*facilitate* game play, not be harmful to it...

I love to develop highly "realistic" rules that I then proceed to ignore
completely during play.

Post by lucy
Just interested in your opinion...

Now you have it.

Luke

[nunya311]

Post by lucy
Do you prefer a *balance* between accuracy and game play in a rules system?
I mean, would you rather a ground skirmish between 2 groups take HOURS and
CALCULATORS, or fairly straight-forward, logical, not overly complicated?
I mean, a player can take so much damage before he dies. That's a given.

You have presented one side as clearly biased here, and seem to be stating
your opinion, not looking for insigtfull coments. However, I will reply
anyway.

Would you rather a ground skirmish between 2 groups take 1 SECOND and 1 D6,
or a fairly straight-forward, logical, not underly complicated system.
(Yes, this is restating your statement from another viewpoint to show the
clear bias).

It basically comes down to how much detail is easy for you. If you can only
roll one die and the higher one wins, and anything more is too complex, then
use that system. For those that can handle more numbers than that easily,
they should use a better system.

Post by lucy
* wind

If its exceptionally strong, sure.

Post by lucy
* rain

If its exceptionally strong, sure.

Post by lucy
* hail

If its exceptionally strong, sure.

Post by lucy
* weapon maintenance

If the weapon is exceptionally prone to breakdown, sure.

Post by lucy
* day or night

It situations where it would make a clear difference, sure.

Post by lucy
* standing, running, moving, walking, crawling (on your belly)

Absolutely. Unless you cannot remember if you were standing or lying down
from one minute to the next (in which case you should probably be playing
something like "Go Fish", not an RPG)

Post by lucy
* shooting from a standing, kneeling, or prone position

If you can handle the detail, perhaps, not really a big factor IMO.

Post by lucy
* how many trash cans are in the way

Only if they clearly block the path, and your GM is willing to provide
detailed maps of the environment, but typically this is better saved for a
CRPG, unless you have a GM with lots and lots of prep time to make higly
detailed maps.

Post by lucy
If the target is hiding behind a table, can't I aim for the table and maybe
hit him?
If I have a .44 Magnum and it's a standard, thin plywood coffee table, I
think my bullet will penetrate it. :)

Definitely.

Post by lucy
I *hate* getting bogged down in rules... they should be there to
*facilitate* game play, not be harmful to it...

They should also not be too simplistic. This is for RP, but its also a game
where dice and combat tactics and such can be involved. As such, it would
be silly to just roll one die, and the highest person wins for all combat.
It's about balance. Balance between what you can handle, and what makes the
game more dynamic and FUN. Rules that lack any detail or logic can
certainly hurt the game, just as easily as can a game with far too much
detail. The difference is, in the game with too much detail you can easily
throw out rules you find slow the game too much, whereas with the game that
lacks any detail, you have to make up the game yourself if you want a decent
level of detail. I prefer to ignore a rule when I dont like it than to have
to stop the game and design an entire system because the original designers
decided a simple system would suffice.

Post by lucy
Star Fleet Battles - used to LOVE it, until we had the BIG ships that could
actually (somehow!) survive 70+ internal hits... Then ya gotta roll 'em. I
tried writing a program to do it for me, but you have to factor in the
facing of the ship, which shield went down, what ship it is, etc. SO, I
stopped playing.
I tried an actual battle with some game (forget now), and we had to use
string to determine line of sight, and how many people BEHIND the intended
target got hit by artillery fire as well. It got very...complex.
While I don't mind a bit of realism and detail in designing ships, I don't
want to have to use a personal computer to do personal (or starship) combat.
Just interested in your opinion...
-Joel

Thats fine for you, if you cannot handle the detail, play with others that
prefer a more simple system, and throw out any rules that make it to hard
for you. Much of this could however just be due to you being new to the
system. Many detailed systems may go very slow for a beginner, but after
you play them a few times, it becomes second nature, fast, easy, and most
importantly, FUN.

Most of the rules in GURPS are OPTIONAL. The basic combat system is very
simple, and IMO, if it were any more simple it would just be stupid and not
fun (I prefer to use most of the optional advanced rules, and am quite happy
they provide that OPTION). Rolling 1 D6, higher roll wins, with no options
for strategy is not fun to me.

[Daniel]

Post by lucy
Star Fleet Battles - used to LOVE it, until we had the BIG ships that could
actually (somehow!) survive 70+ internal hits... Then ya gotta roll 'em. I
tried writing a program to do it for me, but you have to factor in the
facing of the ship, which shield went down, what ship it is, etc. SO, I
stopped playing.

Kind of my feeling about SFB as well. After a few games with
dreadnoughts etc. (which was all the people I gamed with wanted to
use... bigger is better ya know) I just got tired with how long it took
to hurt those turkeys and force some kind of resolution, or even a sense
of progress, to a fight. Too much constant rolling, checking off of
boxes, referencing impulse charts, etc. Much preferred FASA's starship
game, which required more tactics and less slugging, because usually no
more than half dozen hits or so were enough to finish you.

[Chris D]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:26:14 +1000

Post by lucy
Do you prefer a *balance* between accuracy and game play in a
rules system? I mean, would you rather a ground skirmish
between 2 groups take HOURS and CALCULATORS, or fairly
straight-forward, logical, not overly complicated?

In some respects, speed equals realism. A faster system, even
though it might not cater for every possible factor, is more
realistic, because you have to think faster. In a real gunfight
or battle, you're not going to have 10 minutes to agonise over
the rules and the best way to take advantage of them in your
situation, you have to think fast.

Fistful of TOWs springs to mind - the Author has admitted in
some places that the rules are a little abstract, but that
speeds up gameplay significantly, giving more realism in the
long run. Sacrificing reality helps add to reality by adding
speed, and the need to think fast.

$.02 ExGST

-Chris D

[nunya311]

Post by Chris D
In some respects, speed equals realism. A faster system, even
though it might not cater for every possible factor, is more
realistic, because you have to think faster. In a real gunfight
or battle, you're not going to have 10 minutes to agonise over
the rules and the best way to take advantage of them in your
situation, you have to think fast.

I think you mean faster _gameplay_ _can_ be more realistic. Systems do not
have speeds, none that I have seen anyway. And it certainly does not
automatically make it more realistic, though at times, it can. Forcing a
PLAYER to think faster will make the CHARACTER do whatever the player can
think of quickly, however, characters are usually much more training and
experienced in the types of situations they are in, and while they will have
a short amount of time to think, they have experience to help guide them
into what type of action usually works.

Any game system I have seen can be fast or slow, whichever you prefer.
Unless there is one that has rules such as "You have 3 seconds to completely
state your characters actions, after that, nothing you say happens." Of
course, then you cant ask a DM for more detail about things your character
would see, and the game becomes more of a game between players, and not
between characters. Which is fine, that can be fun as well, but it is not
an RPG. Although the games listed here seem to be exactly that, games
between players, not RPGs... so I'm not sure what relevance they have in a
GURPS discussion.

[Chris D]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:53:55 -0700

Post by nunya311
Although the games listed here seem to
be exactly that, games between players, not RPGs... so I'm not
sure what relevance they have in a GURPS discussion.

Yeah, well I'm reading this on Aus.games.roleplay, and I'm not
really sure how it's relevant here either :)

I Agree, in and RPG, having time limits is certianly not
practical. Fistful of TOWs, which I mentioned, is a tabletop
6mm wargame, which DOES have a time limit of 5 minutes per
player turn imposed. It does make for a fast playing,
reasonably realistic, game.

-Chris D

[Gary Miles]

Post by Chris D
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:53:55 -0700

Post by nunya311
Although the games listed here seem to
be exactly that, games between players, not RPGs... so I'm not
sure what relevance they have in a GURPS discussion.

Yeah, well I'm reading this on Aus.games.roleplay, and I'm not
really sure how it's relevant here either :)

And it definitely doesn't belong in .marketplace, which is for SELLING
games only, not discussion of designing.

Gary

[Wayne Shaw]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:17:21 +0930, Chris D

Post by Chris D
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:26:14 +1000

Post by lucy
Do you prefer a *balance* between accuracy and game play in a
rules system? I mean, would you rather a ground skirmish
between 2 groups take HOURS and CALCULATORS, or fairly
straight-forward, logical, not overly complicated?

In some respects, speed equals realism. A faster system, even
though it might not cater for every possible factor, is more
realistic, because you have to think faster. In a real gunfight
or battle, you're not going to have 10 minutes to agonise over
the rules and the best way to take advantage of them in your
situation, you have to think fast.

However, in reality most of the commanders or individuals involved are
trained combatants, who make such decisions on a pre-conscious level,
unlike the players of such games. I consider that pretty much a wash.

[Thomas Tomiczek [MVP]]

Post by Wayne Shaw
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:17:21 +0930, Chris D

Post by Chris D
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:26:14 +1000

Post by lucy
Do you prefer a *balance* between accuracy and game play in a
rules system? I mean, would you rather a ground skirmish
between 2 groups take HOURS and CALCULATORS, or fairly
straight-forward, logical, not overly complicated?

In some respects, speed equals realism. A faster system, even
though it might not cater for every possible factor, is more
realistic, because you have to think faster. In a real gunfight
or battle, you're not going to have 10 minutes to agonise over
the rules and the best way to take advantage of them in your
situation, you have to think fast.

However, in reality most of the commanders or individuals involved are
trained combatants, who make such decisions on a pre-conscious level,
unlike the players of such games. I consider that pretty much a wash.

This is my primary argument for allowing "out of character" communication
between players in a fight, or timeouts and thinking strategy over.

The chars spend lots of time together (even when not playing a swat
situation) and have a much better knowledge of each other than the players
ever are going to have. I have yet to find a player which would not behave
like a tactical deadend when pressured - though his char may be a trained
marine of some analogy.
--
Regards

Thomas Tomiczek
THONA Software & Consulting Ltd.
(Microsoft MVP C#/.NET)
(CTO PowerNodes Ltd.)
---

Still waiting for ObjectSpaces? Try the EntityBroker today - more versatile,
more powerfull.
And something in use NOW. for the projects you have to deliver - NOW.

[Henry]

I have been GMing Gurps for oh .. 15 years I think it has become. In the
beginning we used the advanced rules for combat, and really got into it.
- A ten second long combat could easily take three hours of the gameplay.

Soon I noticed that the feel of the ROLEPLAYING went away, and the way we
used it - it was more like a strategy game of some kind. Every session, I
brought tons of books - and we used many, many, MANY times looking through
the pages finding what we were looking for.

However - it is with Gurps as it is with most RPGames - All the rules are
there to help you along.
GURPS is known for having many rules, but it has always been an
understanding that if there is anything you are not comfortable with ..
You are the GM - YOU deicde.

Today when we play a combat session is over quickly. We emphesize the
story, and the playing around it.
I notice that I introduce the players to a lot less combat than I used to
too, and when they do get into trouble - its usually like this.

"The guy jumped, and hid behind the wooden table."
- well, I shoot him before he gets to the table. My character is damned
quick.
"Well .. he made it anyway. What do you do now"
- darn .. ok, I still pull out my .44 and blast the guy behind the table.
"Alright - roll your skill."
[I decide quickly, that the table is so and so big, and the guy behind it
is size so and so.
I figure in my head that I will give the player an additional -2 to hit
the NPC after we
facter in range, speed, and all that - the player rolls.]
- I roll 13. My skill is 18. I am really good, yarr yarr!
[the player gets -2 for range, speed and size, and additional -2 to get
him on account of the table.
I might also roll a random hit location, just in case. And of course .. I
think about how important
this NPC is, or what not. in this case he wasn't important, and I'd like
to do the player proud.]
"You hear a thump from behind the table."
- Well, I carefully go check. I keep my .44 pointed in that direction all
the time!
- My character is very careful. He's not paranoid, just very very very
careful!
"Yes, I hear you. ok - you get to the other side of the table, you see
that the bullet
hole you put in the table actually shows had the bullet enter his brain
right between his eyes.
Oh, and there is a tiny stream of smoke coming out of the hole in the
guy's forhead."
- Smoke?!
"Yes, he .. uhm .. 's dead."
- Knew I would get him..
--------

This is just a dumb example, of course - but the point is. The gm decides,
but even though he is the boss of the game, he should get a feel from his
players on what they would like to do.

If you play and you feel there are too many rules, and the combat sessions
take TOO long. Talk to your GM about it, and the other players. Combat
doesn't have to slow you down.

I know my example here isn't the actual right way, but its right for me
and my players. A lot of players would go nuts over the "well .. he made
it anyway" comment above, and bring out their calculators and screaming
about page 37 in this and that book. - Well, let me tell you .. then its
not the GM slowing things down. Its the player.
You have to trust that the GM does what he feels is right, and that is
fair to the players. If he isn't you'll soon notice it, and he's a bad GM.
Then you probably shouldn't be playing with him anyway.

The group has to get on page, so to speak. - Trust eachother, and like you
said yourself .. let the rules help the flow of the game.

With certain groups this will never work. The players act like it's a
competition, and almost die from heartattack if the GM does anything
outside the tons of rules within the game.

I don't know .. it probably depends on the group you're with.

Find a solution - meet halfway - whatever it takes. The point is to have
fun, not to fight over rules.

Post by lucy
Do you prefer a *balance* between accuracy and game play in a rules system?
I mean, would you rather a ground skirmish between 2 groups take HOURS and
CALCULATORS, or fairly straight-forward, logical, not overly complicated?
I mean, a player can take so much damage before he dies. That's a given.
* wind
* rain
* hail
* weapon maintenance
* day or night
* standing, running, moving, walking, crawling (on your belly)
* shooting from a standing, kneeling, or prone position
* how many trash cans are in the way
If the target is hiding behind a table, can't I aim for the table and maybe
hit him?
If I have a .44 Magnum and it's a standard, thin plywood coffee table, I
think my bullet will penetrate it. :)
I *hate* getting bogged down in rules... they should be there to
*facilitate* game play, not be harmful to it...
Star Fleet Battles - used to LOVE it, until we had the BIG ships that could
actually (somehow!) survive 70+ internal hits... Then ya gotta roll 'em. I
tried writing a program to do it for me, but you have to factor in the
facing of the ship, which shield went down, what ship it is, etc. SO, I
stopped playing.
I tried an actual battle with some game (forget now), and we had to use
string to determine line of sight, and how many people BEHIND the intended
target got hit by artillery fire as well. It got very...complex.
While I don't mind a bit of realism and detail in designing ships, I don't
want to have to use a personal computer to do personal (or starship) combat.
Just interested in your opinion...
-Joel

[David Johnston]

Post by lucy
Do you prefer a *balance* between accuracy and game play in a rules system?

That's not really a question. It just looks like one.

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by David Johnston

Post by lucy
Do you prefer a *balance* between accuracy and game play in a rules system?

That's not really a question. It just looks like one.

That's true, and it's crossposted to buggery too.

Please set followups appropriately, folks.

Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

[Frogger]

Post by David Johnston

Post by lucy
Do you prefer a *balance* between accuracy and game play in a rules system?

That's not really a question. It just looks like one.

I think we get the idea though...

In answer- it's upto each group as to how many or how complex/simple a
rules base they use- so it truly IS a question of preference. If
you're just asking for different opinions (preferences)- I know in the
group I play in we tend to run it a bit more "cinematic". Rather than
breaking down each of the components of any given situation and adding
modifiers- we break it into "simple" actions(positive mod), "normal"
action (no mod) "difficult" (minor negative mod) "Very Difficult"
(Substantial Neg Mod) and "Impossible" (please roll the dice and
impress me/buy me a pizza)
Some times it easier to roll first and worry about modifiers if it's a
close call. It's not going to matter about the weather if you roll
really well or really badly anyway)
So- mechanics for mechanics sake- gross-
Mechanics for realism? hmmm... as long as they don't interfere with
the flow of the game.
I'm not sure how realistic I want my escapism to be... just a personal
preference of course.

Frogger

[David Meadows]

Post by lucy
Do you prefer a *balance* between accuracy and game play in a rules system?
I mean, would you rather a ground skirmish between 2 groups take HOURS and
CALCULATORS, or fairly straight-forward, logical, not overly complicated?
I mean, a player can take so much damage before he dies. That's a given.

Yes. But what, actually, are you talking about? A tactical wargame or an RPG
combat system? They both serve different needs.

I love Star Fleet Battles. I love spending three hours playing a single turn
of combat. I love fleet actions that take a holiday weekend to play. I love
halting play for 20 minutes to look up and argue a rules interpretation. SFB
is my favourite tactical wargame.

But when I'm playing an RPG (and I assume that's the thrust of your
argument, considering the groups you're posting to), I want to ROLE PLAY,
not fight a tactical wargame. While combat is often an important part of the
game, it's not why the game exists. SFB complexity would be unthinkable (to
me) in a RPG fight.

So, really, mentioning the complexity of SFB is meaningless -- it's
comparing apples with oranges. Both are nice but one day you want one, next
day you want another.