Here's another piece of mail I recieved in advance, as a topic for discussion:
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 87 11:30:35 EDT
> From: Charles Martin [email removed]
> Topic for discussion: the expanded service routines (in _Mercenary_, _High
> Guard_, _Scouts_, etc. Opinion: circular file.
> Using these skill generation systems usually results in a whole mess more
> skills than the basic system. _Mercenary_ is the worst offender, but I'll
> use it as a whipping boy; you end up with characters who have weapon skill
> after weapon skill. What happens in the game? These characters, naturally
> enough, end up dying (sometimes literally) to use these weapon skills.
> This turns the game into an endless series of shootouts which reminds me of
> the old hack-and-slash. Sure, there "really are" some skills which you
> might develop in the Space Marines and which might be valuable to a
> character, but why stop with _Mercenary_? Why not break Computer skill
> down into VLSI, Op Sys, AI, whatever?
> The original system had the *advantage* (in my opinion) of giving
> characters characters relatively few skills. I think this is a plus
> because (1) it gives players a free hand at coming up with a past history
> for their characters---no need to fill it out with lots of boring battle
> details. Come on, how much "color" does ACR-3 give a character? This
> leads to (2) players easily "encompassing" their character descriptions,
> having a solid idea of the character's background and talents, which
> contributes to roleplaying. Too many narrow skills leads to searching down
> a list for a relevant one which serves more as a "magic item" for the
> character rather than an integral part of the character's past. And (3) I
> think few skills leads to a basic assumption of competence for the
> character which contributes to fun gaming as characters are willing to try
> most anything. If you break Computer down into VLSI and Op Sys, then how
> feasible will it be for VLSI-2 to try to reason with the "smart bomb?"
> Look at the descriptions of favorite SF characters at the back of _1001
> Characters_; this strikes me as the right number and level of generality of
> character skills.
> Another gripe I have is the tendency for Traveller to end up looking like
> Tractics (old TSR WWII miniatures rules) in space. There's just way too much
> emphasis on weaponry and combat in all the GDW offerings for my taste. Look
> at the covers of the new books---they tell the story as far as what GDW is
> concerned with. I'd rather run adventures that deal with alien artifacts,
> political intrigues, or even plain space opera (blasters and light sabers).
> But these thirty-page weapon descriptions really get me down. Who cares?
> Do people really run games where the players go down in their armored air
> raft and take out rebellious populations with Gauss Guns? Boring.
I'll let the rest of you comment on this.
_ ___
| | / _ \ James T. Perkins, [email removed], 629-1149
| |__ | |_| | Tektronix Logic Analyzers, DAS System Software, Display
|[address removed]
Killed processes never die... They just go to the big Bit Bicket in the sky.