Subject:
|
Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2002 03:42:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3413 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Frank Filz writes:
>
> > Crud, you managed to respond to the one I realized was wrong and
> > canceled...
>
> Doh! Sorry.
>
> > I was thinking today, I
> > wonder if it was something patentable, that is the process of rolling
> > the sequence of d10s, obviously the table itself isn't patentable).
>
> I don't know about patents, but I have read several discussions that suggest
> that a game's core mechanics can not be protected IP, that only the turn of
> phrase with which they are explained and fleshed out can be copy-righted. But
> they may have been only talking about copyright.
Well, if computer algorithms are patentable, then the algorithms which
form the core of a game system should be patentable (after all, a game
system is just a "program" for "human computers"... Really, if you think
about it, what is the difference between a program for a computer, and
the rules of a game for humans?).
> > Sometime I need to do an analysis and figure out what the right number
> > of blows to disable an opponent is for my tastes (which run in the
> > direction of combat being possibly deadly, but rarely so, so it needs to
> > be several blows so you have a chance of bailing if your opponents are
> > lucky or you misjudged things).
>
> So your players need to whack each orc twenty times before it goes down?
Generally no. Most encounters will be with opponents who the PCs
ultimately outclass. Also, 20 blows is definitely more than I see
necessary.
On the other hand, I have seen some combats take an incredibly long
time.
> > One of the problems I have with GURPS is
> > that I feel you can be taken out too quickly (which is realistic, more
> > than a couple good blows should take down an opponent).
>
> I never felt any empathy for the GURPS system, I only use it as idea fodder.
>
> But the majority of games that I've played for the past decade have been games
> where death could come quite suddenly. I very much like the feeling of being
> afraid that I might die by engaging in combat. The only real down side that
> I've identified with this is that it leads the characters into ignoble
> behaviors. It's much easier in my friend Aaron's game to kill someone in
> combat if you've shot them in a dark alley first. The opposite of this was
> Deadlands, in which it's almost impossible to die.
I think there's a balance. The balance also needs to be tuned to the
type of game you like to run. I like to have the PCs engage in combat,
so the combat system needs to be at least somewhat forgiving. Being
almost impossible to die though is bad. Actually, one thing I really
liked about the system my friend wrote was that it provided a fairly
easy mechanism to "preserve" a downed comrade for healing back in town.
There was a limited amount of time to get the character in stasis (I
forget if it was 4, 6, or 10 rounds) and pretty much the PCs had to hold
the field to recover comrades. This allowed a significant chance for a
PC to go down, but unless the PCs were stupid (or I threw something at
them which was just way too powerful), usually no one died. I think in
general, I strike a good balance, though I did have one player complain
that one game's tone changed from being deadly to being not deadly
enough (I forget why things changed, I know part of it was the campaign
started out with a bunch of folks unfamiliar with the system, so deaths
were frequent, at least one PC died in each of the first few sessions,
and even after the players started to get a feel for the system, several
PCs died over the course of the next 10-20 sessions).
I do wonder how to motivate players to be heroic though. And what does
heroic mean?
> > Perhaps the ideal is actually something where you have like between a 55
> > and 75 percent chance of landing a blow (so a skill level would just
> > give you a 2 or 3% bonus or so), and then like 5 blows being necessary
> > to disable and opponent (with critical hits throwing some randomness
> > in). Of course the problem would be that people would feel that their
> > skill increase wasn't worth much (even though a one skill level
> > advantage might still tip the odds to 55/45). Of course the counter
> > danger in such a system would be that there would be no real "wimp"
> > encounters, but that might not be a bad thing (do you really need to
> > play out battles where the PCs will win in 3 or 4 rounds with no
> > injuries? Do such opponents even need to exist?).
>
> They're called children. And they do exist, but it's not much fun to beat up
> on them. And usually the treasure isn't worth the hassle.
Good thoughts on that. Another possible benefit of such a system is that
a starting character might be easier to play in an experienced party.
Most systems make it hard to start new characters once the campaign has
run long enough.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
| (...) Why? Is it just exciting to imagine it? (I like fight scenes in movies.) I particularly seek to reward my players for solving problems without combat. (...) I think the chance of dying should be real, if not certain, and the GM should (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
| (...) Doh! Sorry. (...) I don't know about patents, but I have read several discussions that suggest that a game's core mechanics can not be protected IP, that only the turn of phrase with which they are explained and fleshed out can be (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
