Background? was Re: SGII Newbie Question

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
>  claim that fluff is what makes a game GOOD.	If the backstory is
good, so
>  they say, it will redeem even the worst of rules.  And no matter how
good
>  your rules are, they aren't worth anything if they don't have a good
>  background behind them.

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....