[Rq-rules] Re: SF BRP

[David Gordon]

Simon below.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Phipp" <soltakss at yahoo.com>
To: <rq-rules at crashbox.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 10:53 AM
Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: SF BRP


> David Gordon:
>
> I played Traveller for a bit, but didn't like the rules system. The worlds
> and background were OK, but not fantastic. I prefer my Sci Fi more
flexible.

Yeah - but it was the first for RPGs so it has a certain feel to it.  I
still love it but long to have my own sci-fi background (which I am working
on) and I enjoy playing in other worlds.  I liked Blue planet but didn't
like the rules.
>
>
> Basically, the problem with skills in a Sci Fi setting is that we don't
know
> what skills would be needed. Look at the world today. If you'd have asked
> somebody 100 years ago what skills someone would need to have in the 21st
> Century, then they would not have included IT skills or Telecoms skills,
> which are fairly important. Scientists then would never even have heard
of,
> or imagined, genetic engineering, cloning, semiconductor manufacturing or
> such like. So, we are guessing what skills there would be, based on our
> current knowledge.
>
I agree but we shouldn't let that stop us.  It's looking more and more, if
you believe in the singularity that's supposed to be coming, that the future
written by most SF authors just would not be.  If we thought that way - no
SF would be written.  Same is true for RPGs.  But your concern is noted and
thanks, I think we should take that on board.

> Also, there is a huge bias towards scientific skills for a Sci Fi game,
which
> is not particularly vaid. Most people today do not have scientific or
> engineering skills. People can drive a car or use a computer or mobile
phone
> without extensive knowledge of engineering, computing or telecoms.
Similarly,
> people in a Sci Fi setting could operate spacecraft without vast knowledge
of
> Astrophysics or Engineering, could use a blaster without knowledge of
> solid-state physics and could use a VR-Sexbot without knowing about
Computing
> or VR-Graphics.

I agree with you but in a recent game in Traveller, Streetwise and Liason
did more for my group than the usual science skills.  I want to move to a
more holistic approach.  It might be that we just have a Science Skill and
it's up to the GM to decide if he wants more choice there or not.

>
> In my opinion, most characters in a Sci Fi game do pretty much the same
> things as characters in a Fantasy Game. They run around their extended
world,
> whether that world is a planet, galactic empier or country. They solve
> problems. They shoot people, albeit with blasters and phase cannon rather
> than arrows and javelins. They try to make money. They get involved in
> rebellions, against the Sith Lords or the Federation rather than Lunars.
>
True - I don't dispute that at all.  Just the background is different.  I
like both fantasy and SF, but I know some who can't abide Fantasy and will
only play in Modern era, or World of Darkness or SF backgrounds.

> The basic skills are very similar. People still need to jump, swim,
bargain,
> fast talk, speak languages and so on. OK, so some skills have changed in
that
> you have Drive Motor Vehicle, Ride Motorcycle, Ride Pod Racer, Pilot
> Starfighter and so on, but they are simply variants on the Ride (Animal),
> Drive (Cart) type of skills. Replace Lores with techno skills and you have
a
> Sci Fi skillset.

Yep - agree entirely.  Good point.
>
>
> Well, it depends. Taking a book such as Radix, for instance, there is a
> fairly strong element of magic in that, although it could be interpreted
as
> psionic. Certainly the magic in Star Wars is based on religions, but could
> also be psionic. I like my Sci Fi with a bit of fantasy thrown in, so
whereas
> there would be a lot of psionics in Sci Fi settings, I can't see why they
> can't meet a shaman or a wizard who can use magic of some kind. It would
> confuse them and act as a challenge to their own powers, if they have any.

Noted - I suppose we could just point to the DBRP rules and say "Fantasy
magic systems have already been adequately mapped in DBRP, please refer to
that system for guidance.  Some ideas for how to integrate magic into an SF
background are...."

>
> > I happen to like Elric! more than I do RQ (though I love RQ2 more than
3).
> > I liked original Stormbringer but you couldn't be anything else but
> > chaotic.
> > :-)  I like the simplicity of Elric!.  I recently played in a game of
RQ3
> > and
> > realised what pain hit locations were again - and the occupation
generation
> > for PCs for RQ3 was not very good.  You end up with mediocre characters
> > that
> > fail far too often.  I'm running a game with Elric! right now - with a
> > different magic system on the Gwenthia world building project - much
prefer
> > it to RQ.   I'm envisioning that hit locations would be available and
the
> > option would be not to use them.  I need to revisit the combat round and
> > how
> > we measure actions.  Make sure that the Impulse system in RWRPG is the
> > right
> > one to use.
>
> I like Hit Locations as they are grittier than not using them. I like the
> idea that I can shoot someone in the arm with a blaster. OK, SRs are a bit
> clunky, but I haven't seen anything that is far supoerior to them.

I like the idea of criticals needing hitlocations, but I understand what you
mean.  I find that they slow play, but that is my personal taste and not
something I would enforce in the new generic rules.  I know of a number of
GMs who hate locations and so would prefer to drop them (in such cases it's
up to the GM if they feel comfortable with the extra book keeping or if they
can wing it without the players realising that they aren't actually
following the rules for hit-locations - just giving the appearance that they
do).  Games like Exalted don't have them and the game doesn't feel any worse
for their absence.

>
> Very Travellerish, I always thought that the classifications of planetary
> governments, economies and so on was way over the top. Anyone can invent a
> system of government without a load of tables to do so. Maybe it wouldn;t
> work in practise, but this is a game not a socio-economic model.

Do see what you mean but even GURPS Space gives suggestions - doesn't mean
one has to have a code for each government or that we need a universal
profile for each planet.  Some GMs may be imaginatively challenged at times
and some pointers on government types could help to spark the imagination.

>
> > Classification of Tech levels and such classifications
> Ditto, although it is useful to detail what technology a planet is likely
to
> have.

Again - these are just yard sticks.  It depends on the background.  In a
huge galaxy wide campaign then such things may become important, or after a
dark age where the players are trying to make contact with lower tech worlds
on behalf of a higher tech starfaring nation.  But in a background like
Cthulhu Rising or Babylon 5 perhaps such tech level information is not
needed as it's taken for granted that the majority of worlds will be of a
certain tech level.

>
> > Starship design and starship combat are going to have to be designed
from
> > the ground up.
>
> >From my own experience, starships have hit locations (!), physical armour
on
> those locations (bulk plates), extra armour (forcefield protection), hit
> points (hull integrity etc), a SIZ, some basic skills (based on AI),
weapons,
> hyperspace capability, speed, agility and so on. They are virtually PCs
all
> on their own. When we played Traveller, the other players spent ages
trying
> to improve their ship, fitting alien devices left, right and centre.

Hmm.  Interesting. I suppose it depends on the group.  Some like to get into
that micromanagement, while others prefer to role play extensively without
stats and dice ever making an appearance.  We have to provide for all
eventualities I would guess.

>
> >
> > Recent research has shown that even brown dwarfs have planets of a kind
> > (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18121)
>
> I've never really bothered with such detailed world-building for Sci fi
> games. As far as I am concerned, most alien planets will have been
> terraformed at some stage and will be able to support life. Those that
can't
> might have life in domes, underground cities or whatever. I am not at all
> bothered about the physics of whether life can be sustained on a
particular
> planet.

Again - it's all down to choice and whether you have a Space Fantasy or Hard
SF background.  It's really up to the GM and players to decide that.  The
Generic SF BRP rules should account for all eventualities or it wouldn't be
generic.   I love both Star Wars and Known Space, but they are two different
levels of SF (though George Lucas did say, at first, that Star Wars was a
Space Fantasy and not SF at all).

>
>
> But then you run into problems when detailing worlds in fiction or on
screen.
> There are loads of excellent Sci Fi settings out there, but many of them
are
> protected by copyright. Having a sourcebook for each of the worlds would
be
> great, but probably unrealistic.

Are thinking of a propriety based set of rules with a tailored background
from the outset?  I'm thinking of a generic set of rules that would help GMs
design what they want. Not suggesting that we have source book for each SF
background - don't think I stated that at all, just xpansion books that
would detail certain things that could not be detailed more fully in the
generic rules because of space constraints (such as more technology for
those techno-heads that want it).   :-)

>
>
> Simon
>