Quote from: gleichman;546049I've read at least one of your intros, and gained nothing like I want to see in Designer Notes. In fact, when I latter tried to gain the information directly from you here- you dismissed the request and refused to answer.

This is because you have certain strongly held opinions on what this entails, and I have very differing opinions. There is a fundamental difference, then, with no actual communication really possible on that point. Further attempts would just be counterproductive.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;546055There is a fundamental difference, then, with no actual communication really possible on that point. Further attempts would just be counterproductive.

Oh I know that, but wanted to point out while you were making excuses and patting yourself on the back that some people want more of designer notes than you in you wisdom are willing to provide.

Beyond that, there's little communication to be done between us.

Quote from: gleichman;546060Oh I know that, but wanted to point out while you were making excuses and patting yourself on the back that some people want more of designer notes than you in you wisdom are willing to provide.

Beyond that, there's little communication to be done between us.

(Emphasis mine)

Our opinions differ. I see no need to insult you, but I also see this is not reciprocated.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;546069Our opinions differ. I see no need to insult you, but I also see this is not reciprocated.

It wasn't an insult, it is sadly a simple fact.

BSJ - I am sorry and profoundly apologize for participating in a side discussion which turned out to be detrimental to what was once an interesting discussion. I hope your thread can recover without my interference.

-clash

No apologies necessary! If nothing else I understand the perspective you're coming from. As far as design notes go, there doesn't seem alot to discuss, either.
 
Have read through TSG 76 DC Heroes notes now - gives some more appreciation here of the difficulty of creating the game, in that he had to go through alot of material before building the rules. More explanation of why there's a result table, design problems he encountered (undefinedness of character statistics under different writers, how final complexity was decided by compromising everyone's preferences. Why the action and result table are there (since in DC characters may be able to "succeed" easily but generate no result, and it varies drastically between characters - Batman punching the Empire State Building vs. Superman doing so). Also discussion of subplots, amd why the AP scale for attributes is logarithmic (Superman again).
Nothing here that radically changes my appreciation of the game, but not bad. At least one spot where I can see designer weaseling (or just logic error?)- he asserts that a comprehensive system better supports the different conceptions of a character by various writers, which I don't see any support for, particularly.

I've not written designer notes before, I will likely do so for H&S2E, and put them up for a download somewhere.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;546261At least one spot where I can see designer weaseling (or just logic error?)- he asserts that a comprehensive system better supports the different conceptions of a character by various writers, which I don't see any support for, particularly.

I think what Greg Gorden was trying to say that the system needed to be comprehensive in the sense that that it covered all possible superhero powers and all possible levels thereof.

Thus you could easily slide Superman up or down the scale for Strength and add or remove powers competely to reflect Golden Age Superman (lowest strength, didn't have Flight, etc) who was different than Silver Age Superman (could move planets, fly through space etc.) who in turn was different than Post-Crisis Superman (dropped some in power from teh Silver Age version).

And it seems he wante to handle even smaller bits of time- such as a specific writer's run on the comic.

Quote from: gleichman;546269I think what Greg Gorden was trying to say that the system needed to be comprehensive in the sense that that it covered all possible superhero powers and all possible levels thereof.

Ah OK, you may be right - I think I'm misreading him. The relevant quote here (for anyone who doesn't have the book).

Quote from: Greg GordenDid the game simulate portions of the DC Universe in detail, or was the game system general enough to be valid for most of the DC Universe? I felt that two important points favored a comprehensive game system:

1) Once a player or gamemaster has learned the system, all of the other rules should fit into that system. A well-designed comprehensive system gains more from simplicity than it loses in simulation detail.
2) The DC Universe has a "slipperiness" to it. Different writers have different ideas about the same characters. Characters gain and lose abilities, and the exact nature of a character's powers and skills will change from writer to writer. A comprehensive system is general enough to handle the variations. A GMin 1988 will not have to rewrite the system in order to play in the 1988 DC Universe.

I took comprehensive as meaning e.g. 'universal mechanic' but in its entirety he may be meaning as you say having an exhaustive list of powers, etc.
I don't think DC caters particularly well to 'slipperiness' in general - I think it would benefit from either looser/lighter mechanics, or a system that lets a GM (or player) re-spec a character as agreed upon - but OK, if that's what he means I retract my charge of shenanigans. Having the powers written that let you create any character does at least give the GM something to work with.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;546303I think it would benefit from either looser/lighter mechanics, or a system that lets a GM (or player) re-spec a character as agreed upon - but OK, if that's what he means I retract my charge of shenanigans. Having the powers written that let you create any character does at least give the GM something to work with.

You should also remember when the game was written, it was in the 80s about five years after Champions- and Champions basically owed the superhero gaming market. That was who they were gunning for.

It was a time of heavier systems. My own personal Golden Age in rpgs.

Also getting a kick out of TSG 42 - letter from Kevin Siembieda complaining about a review of the Palladium Fantasy Role Playing Game, where the reviewer apparently claimed combat would take forever because of armour SDC acting as extra HPs. Kevin complains this is untrue since a roll over AR means damage goes straight to hit points.
I found it amusing since of course later on (e.g. the next revision of PFRPG) of course all characters will be getting SDC built in

Quote from: gleichman;546312You should also remember when the game was written, it was in the 80s about five years after Champions- and Champions basically owed the superhero gaming market. That was who they were gunning for.

It was a time of heavier systems. My own personal Golden Age in rpgs.

That's something else which is good to get in perspective actually - and the complexity discussion in the same review helped with that. As a teenager I purchased the 3rd edition of DC Heroes after reading a review of the 2nd edition (which at the time had just ceased publication) in a back issue of Dragon (#165), which was already a few years old. Ran it once and ended up with a moderately burning hatred of it for awhile - or at least a love/hate thing. At the time I'd seen MSH (my preferred supers system still) but never actually seen Champions; eventually picked up the 6th Ed. of Hero, which puts DC back in perspective.

Hmm Man-to-man (for GURPS) design notes.

Some discussion of square vs. hex grids, how "action points" were considered and discarded. Principles here show Steve likes reasonably high-complexity games, but has tried to write in "multilevel" (modular) complexity system. Discussion of realism vs. playability as regards hit points (one shot kills not being fun, however realistic).  

Some stuff on history - TFT vs. GURPS. Steve defends GURPS as being different to TFT - probably since, well, otherwise its time for the suing... IMHO the lineage is very clear, although there are differences.  He has to do a detailed comparison to emphasize the differences - damage rules are different (no longer weapon based), turns are shorter,  more complex chargen, success rolls are similar although TFT uses  variable dice (from 2d6 to 7d6) while GURPS always uses 3d6..
One of the key points he's mentioned here is the addition of the Health stat - where strong characters in GURPS are not necessarily tough - interesting that by 4th Ed. GURPS hit points are again based on Strength.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;546347Hmm Man-to-man (for GURPS) design notes.

I thought what made those design notes particularly good was that he laid out the principles he was applying to the design fairly clearly and gave examples of the application of the principles, which is what I really like to see in design notes like that.  

Back in the day, The Space Gamer was my favorite gaming magazine (I own all of the PDFs that are now available and still have my print copies from 37 to the end of the SJG run).  In the pre-Internet days, the reviews, industry news, and eclectic mix of other stuff worked really well, though lots of it hasn't retained the value it once had (e.g., old Apple ][ and TRS-80 computer game reviews, industry news, etc.).  It's also not hard to find plenty of reviews online for the games they reviewed, though what made their reviews good was that they'd talk about the bad as well as the good and are, of course, written from the perspective of when those games were released.  There are still some real gems in there, like the article that I recommended #42, though.  Now, if I could only get all of the issues of Different Worlds in PDF and the first 100-150 issues of White Dwarf in PDF on a CD-ROM like the the Dragon Magazine archive, I'd be happy.

Quote from: John Morrow;546364I thought what made those design notes particularly good was that he laid out the principles he was applying to the design fairly clearly and gave examples of the application of the principles, which is what I really like to see in design notes like that.  

Back in the day, The Space Gamer was my favorite gaming magazine (I own all of the PDFs that are now available and still have my print copies from 37 to the end of the SJG run).  In the pre-Internet days, the reviews, industry news, and eclectic mix of other stuff worked really well, though lots of it hasn't retained the value it once had (e.g., old Apple ][ and TRS-80 computer game reviews, industry news, etc.).  It's also not hard to find plenty of reviews online for the games they reviewed, though what made their reviews good was that they'd talk about the bad as well as the good and are, of course, written from the perspective of when those games were released.  There are still some real gems in there, like the article that I recommended #42, though.  Now, if I could only get all of the issues of Different Worlds in PDF and the first 100-150 issues of White Dwarf in PDF on a CD-ROM like the the Dragon Magazine archive, I'd be happy.

I was always a Dragon guy, but yes its good magazine, and I may need to get more of them.  I did enjoy the Metamorphosis Alpha article - I never played it, but I played enough Gamma World to get it, I think. I liked his comments on how to make interesting monsters particularly.
And for the Man to Man notes in #76, yes I'd agree that Steve laid out his objectives really well here.  

Also in #76, the DC Heroes review following the design notes is quite good. Allen Varney also did the review in Dragon #165 that I mentioned above and commented that he actually really liked the game in his earlier review despite readers thinking he panned it --having read it now, I can see why they would think that.