Subject:
|
Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2002 15:37:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3551 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Frank Filz writes:
> 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,
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.
> so the combat system needs to be at least somewhat forgiving. Being
> almost impossible to die though is bad.
I think the chance of dying should be real, if not certain, and the GM should
virtually never fudge things to keep the PCs alive. This puts a huge weight on
the GM though to plan encounters correctly. But I have no real problem with
erasing an entire party for going somewhere clearly dangerous and being
foolish. It's bad for the story line, but I think that not doing so is worse.
> 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.
Was this an SF setting?
> 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.
That does sound like a combination with potential.
> I do wonder how to motivate players to be heroic though. And what does
> heroic mean?
I've probably played the first edition of West End's Star Wars game more than
any published RPG aside from my early days with AD&D ('81-86). We didn't play
as goody-goody as the game intended but the mechanism of Force Points (as
we employed them)) worked really well.
Use of an FP enabled a character to do pretty amazing stuff for one round. If
you were doing something dastardly, you lost it essentially forever (and you
only begin a character with one). If you were doing something neutral, you got
it back at the end of the night. And if you did something wild, you'd get two
back at the end of the night. Wild was generally something either heroic
(sacrificial) or surprising (to the GM) and in either case, dramatic. The
criterion was bent on increasing the drama of the story line. So you didn't
have to be heroic (exactly), but the story was exciting and pushed forward by
the actions.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
| (...) I guess it's the wargamer in me which enjoys running tactical combats. I'll also admit to a bit of laziness (it's easier to throw a bunch of foes at the PCs than to come up with an interesting mystery). (...) I prefer not to fudge things, but (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
| (...) It's not that simple... the GM _has_ to fudge things to keep PCs alive. If the party is in the warp core engine room and someone chucks in a big ol' grenade, there's two choices-- someone throws himself on it and becomes goo, or nobody does so (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 3-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
|
|
|
|
