Traveller comparisons to self and Alternity and other sci-fi

Try: GURPS

It's Generic!
It's Universal!!
It's Roleplaying!
It's a System!
 >> Stay informed about: Traveller comparisons to self and Alternity and other sci-fi 

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:47:53 -0700, "Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast RemoveThis @cox.net>
wrote:

>It's a lot different. Mechanically they have nothing in common at all.
>Setting wise they have a little in common- GT is set in the Imperium at its
>height, TNE is set centuries after the Imperium has fallen.

Seventy years, actually.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn RemoveThis @paradise.net.nz>
 >> Stay informed about: Traveller comparisons to self and Alternity and other sci-fi 

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:28:01 +1300, tussock <scrub.DeleteThis@clear.net.nz>
wrote:

> And I must warn you, if you think d20's got slow, fiddly combats,
>you're /not/ going to like GURPS.

I don't find that to be the case. In fact, they take about the same
length of time to play out.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn.DeleteThis@paradise.net.nz>
 >> Stay informed about: Traveller comparisons to self and Alternity and other sci-fi 

Rob Kelk wrote:
> tussock wrote:
>> news.RemoveThis@celticbear.com wrote:
>
>>> And until circa 2001 we almost never used minis or were concerned
>>> about range and such minutiae that requires 1" grids and minis to
>>> resolve combats in more than an hour per combat. =/
>> So throw out the mini's and battlemat and go back to approximate
>> marks on the sketch map like the old days.
>
> Or trust the GM to not be out to hose you, and go with descriptive
> combat (no maps at all).

True enough, though I get stuck with too many questions to go that
way all the time. I've run fully mapless with groups at times, but some
players just can't follow my descriptive style and get decision-lock
without the basic visual cues.
Basically, it's often quicker to draw than talk.

>> And I must warn you, if you think d20's got slow, fiddly combats,
>> you're /not/ going to like GURPS.
>
> I can run a combat in GURPS in half the time it would take in xD&D.

Admittedly I haven't really GM'd it with experienced players enough
to know for sure. I suppose for speed it's best to use the system you
know best (or go for a rules light system that handwaves everything).

> The "contests of skill" mechanic in GURPS cuts the number-crunching
> time down substantially.

I disagree, but let's not go there. 8]

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
 >> Stay informed about: Traveller comparisons to self and Alternity and other sci-fi 

Elvis wrote:

> Try: GURPS
>
> It's Generic!
> It's Universal!!
> It's Roleplaying!
> It's a System!

Eh, try TWERPS!
 >> Stay informed about: Traveller comparisons to self and Alternity and other sci-fi 

Ross Winn wrote:
> In article <1141774268.349243.76460 RemoveThis @j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Liam" <news RemoveThis @celticbear.com> wrote:
>
> > Ophidian wrote:
> > > news RemoveThis @celticbear.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ophidian wrote:
> > > >
> > [..]
> > > >>Doesn't sound at all like DL.
> > > >>Does sound like Storyteller...
> > > >>(Except for using more than just d10, maybe it's like Deadlands?)
> > > >
> > > > Sorry. All I know is that it's the same publisher.
> > >
> > > The publisher of Dragonlance was bought out by Wizards of the Coast.
> > > Who publishes Serenity?
> > >
> > Margaret Weis Productions
> > Her company I guess was the one bought by Wizards.
>
> Wow, someone who can't even begin to comment intelligently spouting off
> on the internet.
>
> Who'd have thought?
>
> Thanks, you are completely wrong.

You're quite welcome, you exagerating, hyperbole abusing, arrogant,
elitest, who comes into a thread to offer nothing useful other than
derision and insults.
Thank YOU for your uselessness and bringing a smile to my face. =)
Have a great day.
 >> Stay informed about: Traveller comparisons to self and Alternity and other sci-fi 

In article <1141774268.349243.76460 RemoveThis @j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Liam" <news RemoveThis @celticbear.com> wrote:

> Ophidian wrote:
> > news RemoveThis @celticbear.com wrote:
> >
> > > Ophidian wrote:
> > >
> [..]
> > >>Doesn't sound at all like DL.
> > >>Does sound like Storyteller...
> > >>(Except for using more than just d10, maybe it's like Deadlands?)
> > >
> > > Sorry. All I know is that it's the same publisher.
> >
> > The publisher of Dragonlance was bought out by Wizards of the Coast.
> > Who publishes Serenity?
> >
> Margaret Weis Productions
> Her company I guess was the one bought by Wizards.

Wow, someone who can't even begin to comment intelligently spouting off
on the internet.

Who'd have thought?

Thanks, you are completely wrong.
 >> Stay informed about: Traveller comparisons to self and Alternity and other sci-fi 

From reading this thread so far, these questions come to mind:

What constitutes a more _realistic_ game system?
- Genericity and points, rather than specificity, classes and levels?
- A moving away from miniatures tabletop combat?
- Works well without elaborate visual cues, like maps?
- Avoidance of drama, opera and cinema?
- Lots of supporting sourcebooks that fit together, or stand alone?
- Is a skills and attributes system more effective then?

How big a share, does such a realism add anyway, to a successful,
enjoyable system?


--
Alan Heah
 >> Stay informed about: Traveller comparisons to self and Alternity and other sci-fi 

Alan Heah wrote:
> From reading this thread so far, these questions come to mind:
>
> What constitutes a more _realistic_ game system?
> - Genericity and points, rather than specificity, classes and levels?

Well, generally the former can do both realism and fantasy, while the
latter can only do what its parameters where designed for.

> - A moving away from miniatures tabletop combat?

Debatable.
Miniatures create a simulation that shows the action visually.
It's harder to 'cheat' cinematically.
But no ammount of combat rules will cover every situation, eventually
leaving "The GM has to wing this one".
So if visualizing the spatial relations helps, go mini's.
If using common sense is a strong suit drop rule intensive systems.

> - Works well without elaborate visual cues, like maps?

That really applies to players, not systems.
IMO.

> - Avoidance of drama, opera and cinema?

Real life has drama. Good fiction often does even when true to life.
But losing the operatics and cinematics increases realism.

> - Lots of supporting sourcebooks that fit together, or stand alone?

It's better that they work well together, but if you have a solid core
rule set you don't per se _need_ sourcebooks. Patchwork worlds can
become quickly unrealistic, genre breaking, and contradictory in their
rules.

> - Is a skills and attributes system more effective then?

IMO, no.
But for me that's a balance issue, not a realism issue.
Just make sure the character stats are within "realistic" ranges no
matter what sort of system it is.

> How big a share, does such a realism add anyway, to a successful,
> enjoyable system?

Little, IMO.
I like systems that provide a solid basis for Suspension Of Disbelief,
but I also want the ability to exceed the limits of "reality".
I mean, I can play "Real Life" without a rulebook!
 >> Stay informed about: Traveller comparisons to self and Alternity and other sci-fi 

Alan Heah wrote:
> From reading this thread so far, these questions come to mind:
>
> What constitutes a more _realistic_ game system?
> - Genericity and points, rather than specificity, classes and levels?
> - A moving away from miniatures tabletop combat?
> - Works well without elaborate visual cues, like maps?
> - Avoidance of drama, opera and cinema?
> - Lots of supporting sourcebooks that fit together, or stand alone?
> - Is a skills and attributes system more effective then?
>
> How big a share, does such a realism add anyway, to a successful,
> enjoyable system?
>
Excellent questions!!
Of course, it's all relative and subjective. What's realistic for one
may not be for another.

For me, realism should not preclude drama and cinema! You can have very
dramatic and cinematic scenes and events that are not unbelieveable.

Maybe I've been a bit hard on d20, after all, D&D has always said
"these rules are a guideline, not set in stone" and 3.x is no
different.
If not for the fact that when 3.0 came out I became imersed (sp) with
running "Living" D&D games that require full adherance to d20 rules,
I'd probably have grown into d20 as I did AD&D and pick and chose the
rules that make for a type of game I appreciate.

To whit, examples of d20 rules that both remove drama and realism would
be issues of facing (or no facing as the case may be.) Also the various
rules for AoO and some of the feats are all geared toward 1"-square
grids and miniatures and not dramatic combat and role-playing. No, MOST
of the feats are geared toward 1"-grids and miniatures and have nothing
to do with either drama or realism. Just balancing the tactical
advantages of miniatures combat.
 >> Stay informed about: Traveller comparisons to self and Alternity and other sci-fi 

Liam wrote:
> ... ... ...
> To whit, examples of d20 rules that both remove drama and realism would
> be issues of facing (or no facing as the case may be.) Also the various
> rules for AoO and some of the feats are all geared toward 1"-square
> grids and miniatures and not dramatic combat and role-playing. No, MOST
> of the feats are geared toward 1"-grids and miniatures and have nothing
> to do with either drama or realism. Just balancing the tactical
> advantages of miniatures combat.

Thanks to you too, Liam; this grants me yet another point for thought.
I get to revise here what I realise about D&D 3.x:
its more open rules now, can still force players to fit the system,
rather than the system and rules fit interested players.

Oftentimes then, flexible systems win out better all around,
as seen in the many examples of GURPS, Alternity, White Wolf systems,
Dragonlance SAGA, Blue Planet (Fantasy Flight Games) ...
Looks like while d20 and OGL (Open Gaming Licence) may stay dominant,
there will always be alternative game systems to challenge monolithic
giants.
I enjoy SJG's GURPS continuing to stand tall like a thumbs up, amidst
the d20 landscape.

--
Alan Heah
 >> Stay informed about: Traveller comparisons to self and Alternity and other sci-fi 

Alan Heah wrote:
> From reading this thread so far, these questions come to mind:
>
> What constitutes a more _realistic_ game system?

Depends on what one means by _realistic_. I'll assume you mean a
game such that characters can do what real people can do to within a
small margin, and note that such games don't exist.

> - Genericity and points, rather than specificity, classes and levels?

Open point systems always struggle with characters being much
better off using unforseen synergistic set of abilities, where
class/level systems struggle allowing characters outside one of the
pre-packaged sets to exist at all.
Either way, the character building system needs to let you play the
characters you want to play without inordinate penalty.


Games with neither, that let characters be arbitrarily powerful and
give them equal screen time regardless are the most realistic, as you
get a strong natural variation in the team without players missing out
on the fun.
Few such systems are designed around realistic characters.

> - A moving away from miniatures tabletop combat?
> - Works well without elaborate visual cues, like maps?

As long as the mini's and maps aren't stopping people doing
realistic things it shouldn't matter. Exact measurement tends to fail on
the realism stage, as real things are tricky to measure in typical
roleplaying scenes, but the systems that ignore measuring things can be
much worse.

> - Avoidance of drama, opera and cinema?

Avoidance is bad; real life's full of emotional impact on people.

> - Lots of supporting sourcebooks that fit together, or stand alone?
> - Is a skills and attributes system more effective then?

Irrelivant.

> How big a share, does such a realism add anyway, to a successful,
> enjoyable system?

None. Good systems make it easy to do what you want, so realism is
good in a system that demands it, and painful in a wire-fu game.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
 >> Stay informed about: Traveller comparisons to self and Alternity and other sci-fi 

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:37:59 +1300, tussock <scrub RemoveThis @clear.net.nz>
wrote:

>Alan Heah wrote:
>> From reading this thread so far, these questions come to mind:
>>
>> What constitutes a more _realistic_ game system?
>
> Depends on what one means by _realistic_. I'll assume you mean a
>game such that characters can do what real people can do to within a
>small margin, and note that such games don't exist.
>

Ordinarily what players mean by "realistic" is "gives a somewhat
detailed explanation of what is going on, and doesn't allow the
blatantly impossible without some kind of plot device like magic, chi
powers, or whatever."
 >> Stay informed about: Traveller comparisons to self and Alternity and other sci-fi