RE: Background? was Re: SGII Newbie Question

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-----
> From: bbrush@rev.state.ne.us [mailto:bbrush@rev.state.ne.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 September 1999 8:06 AM
> To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject: 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....
> 
> 
> 
> 
>