GURPS Mecha!
Marshall Ryan Maresca
> We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
> Mecha. But we have a crucial question that needs your input: Do we include
> the basic robot construction rules from GURPS Robots or not?
(Much deleted)
I think the crucial questions that need to be asked here are these: What
will GURPS Mecha offer that is unique to it? How will it differ from
GURPS Robots? What about it justifies having its own book? What would
motivate someone who owns GURPS Robots to want GURPS Mecha? Will those
who want GURPS Mecha want it enough that GURPS Robots is worth purchasing?
Answering these questions might give the answer.
-Marshall Ryan Maresca
Jonathan Woodward
> We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
> Mecha. But we have a crucial question that needs your input: Do we include
> the basic robot construction rules from GURPS Robots or not?
-Well, either way you're going to upset some people, so go for
the route that allows there to be more material out there. The presence
of more GURPS material is a Good Thing, entirely apart from the issue of
who is made unhappy.
-JW
--
Jonathan Woodward wood...@ftp.com wood...@io.com http://io.com/~woodward
A! JW2 WAR++ P&B+++i SL+++!^ SK++ RI+++! RU++i P+++ Dpfo[s] $+++ Vrj++ TPinky
GCS/O H+ a- w+ v++ C++$ N++ W++$ t++ 5+ R++ G+++ tv b+++ T+++$ c++ e++ &r* y+
Scott D. Haring
We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
Mecha. But we have a crucial question that needs your input: Do we include
the basic robot construction rules from GURPS Robots or not?
If we include the construction rules, GURPS Mecha will be a complete,
stand-alone product, but it will have 50-60 pages that are essentially
duplicated from another book. People who already own Robots are likely to
find this unacceptable.
If we don't include the construction rules, GURPS Mecha will have 128
pages of new material (and there will be room for mulitple gameworlds and
stuff), but buyers will need to have GURPS Robots to play. People who
*don't* already own Robots are likely to find this unacceptable.
Whichever way we go, somebody's going to get mad. But who? Which approach
would *you* prefer? Let us know.
--
**************************************
| /\ |
| / \ Scott D. Haring |
| / ** \ Managing Editor |
| / \__/ \ Steve Jackson Games |
| /________\ |
**************************************
James R. Duncan
Scott D. Haring <sdha...@io.com> wrote:
>
>We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
>Mecha. But we have a crucial question that needs your input: Do we include
>the basic robot construction rules from GURPS Robots or not?
Well I hope the author is David Pulver since he's an excellent writer
and because he's rather familiar with Vehicles and Robots (not to
mention Ultra-Tech).
>If we include the construction rules, GURPS Mecha will be a complete,
>stand-alone product, but it will have 50-60 pages that are essentially
>duplicated from another book. People who already own Robots are likely to
>find this unacceptable.
If you must have this info to construct Mecha than definitely include
it. If Mecha can be constucted using GURPS Vehicles 2nd Ed. and GURPS
Mecha than I'd say leave it out.
>If we don't include the construction rules, GURPS Mecha will have 128
>pages of new material (and there will be room for mulitple gameworlds and
>stuff), but buyers will need to have GURPS Robots to play. People who
>*don't* already own Robots are likely to find this unacceptable.
Personally, I'd rather see NO game worlds. If you want to do a mecha
game world please put it in a separate book. I'd like to see lots of
new material just not stuff that's specific to any game world.
Having said you NEED to have Robots to play, I'd say definitely
include the material. If it is either Vehicles or Robots than leave
the material out.
>Whichever way we go, somebody's going to get mad. But who? Which approach
>would *you* prefer? Let us know.
Minor preference not having any futher information, I'd say include
the rules form Robots. This answer may change depending on how you
answer the other questions above.
- Jim
*-------------------------------------------------------*
* James R. Duncan | U.S. Mail: *
* | P.O. Box 566 *
* Illuminati Online: gri...@io.com | Greenbelt, MD *
* | 20768-0566 *
*-------------------------------------------------------*
Lynette R. F. Cowper
sdha...@io.com (Scott D. Haring) wrote:
>
>We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
>Mecha. But we have a crucial question that needs your input: Do we include
>the basic robot construction rules from GURPS Robots or not?
You have several products that build on another book-- Martial Arts Adventures
on Martial Arts, Grimoire on Magic, Fantasy Adventures on Fantasy, etc. I
don't see the problem with having Mecha build on Robots. The main thing is,
*be sure* that it is labelled as requiring the Robots book to use.
**********************************************************************
* Lynette R. F. Cowper * "If people never did silly things, nothing*
* lco...@io.com * intelligent would ever get done." *
* lco...@indy.net * --L. Wittgenstein *
**********************************************************************
* Moderator indynet.general, Mother, GURPS GM, INWO fan, cat lover *
**********************************************************************
Ryan David Simmons
: We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
: Mecha. But we have a crucial question that needs your input: Do we include
: the basic robot construction rules from GURPS Robots or not?
Please do not repeat pages. Hopefully, the idea of GURPS robots will be
intriguing enough to buyers and well-written enough that the thought
won't even cross their mind not to want that book in their libraries.
:) Besides, I think people who are interested in Mecha are naturally
going to be interested in robots too. Usually people aren't interested
in one and not the other. :)
Ryan Simmons
rsi...@umich.edu
Daniel J Frohlich
Since I fully intend on buying BOTH products, Iąd have to say a big NO on
the redundancy! Perhaps you could include a few sample designs though...
-Dan Frohlich
In article <sdharing-040...@garfield.io.com>, sdha...@io.com
(Scott D. Haring) wrote:
> We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
> Mecha. But we have a crucial question that needs your input: Do we include
> the basic robot construction rules from GURPS Robots or not?
>
> If we include the construction rules, GURPS Mecha will be a complete,
> stand-alone product, but it will have 50-60 pages that are essentially
> duplicated from another book. People who already own Robots are likely to
> find this unacceptable.
>
> If we don't include the construction rules, GURPS Mecha will have 128
> pages of new material (and there will be room for mulitple gameworlds and
> stuff), but buyers will need to have GURPS Robots to play. People who
> *don't* already own Robots are likely to find this unacceptable.
>
> Whichever way we go, somebody's going to get mad. But who? Which approach
> would *you* prefer? Let us know.
>
> --
> **************************************
> | /\ |
> | / \ Scott D. Haring |
> | / ** \ Managing Editor |
> | / \__/ \ Steve Jackson Games |
> | /________\ |
> **************************************
--
| Daniel.J....@nd.edu |
| Consultant/Analyst |
| Information Resource Center |
| Office of Universaity Computing |
| University of Notre Dame |
DAL...@vm1.ucc.okstate.edu
sdha...@io.com (Scott D. Haring) writes:
>
>
>stand-alone product, but it will have 50-60 pages that are essentially
>duplicated from another book. People who already own Robots are likely to
>find this unacceptable.
>
seperate books to be able to do mecha. I might not be interested in robots. I
can get access to all the worlds I want and would rather have non world specif
ic stuff. I'm not really a fan of robots but mecha on the other hand...
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Scott D. Haring <sdha...@io.com> wrote:
>
>We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
>Mecha. But we have a crucial question that needs your input: Do we include
>the basic robot construction rules from GURPS Robots or not?
[snip]
>Whichever way we go, somebody's going to get mad. But who? Which approach
>would *you* prefer? Let us know.
Well, you asked....
My opinion is that you should not include the robot construction rules. Of
course, this is from my own self-centered and subjective mind, since I will
definitely be one of those who also buys GURPS Robots (I'm an addict and
buy every new GURPS book that comes out).
--
Leif ("ignore my last name, can't spell it in ascii anyway")
GM d- H s++:++ g++(-) p10+ !au a- w+++ v C++ US P? L 3- E N++ K++ W-- M !V
-po+ Y+ t-- !5 !j R++ G'' tv b+++ D+ B--- e+ u+(*) h f+(?) r-(*) !n(+) y?
Everything is temporary.
Mike j DeSanto
: We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
: Mecha. But we have a crucial question that needs your input: Do we include
(deleted)
: Whichever way we go, somebody's going to get mad. But who? Which approach
: would *you* prefer? Let us know.
I seem to be one of the few that has no interest in GURPS Robots,
but would be very interested in Mecha. I would say include the rules,
but strip the hell out of them. 80 pages is far too much, but 20 would
be acceptable. There is a lot in Robots that is simply not necessary
for Mecha.
Assuming Mecha is based on things like BattleTech and RoboTech,
you can pretty much leave out everything about brains, non-fusion power
sources, and non-walking motive systems. Also, a nore round-numbers
design system would be good.
I have read the playtest for Robots, and frankly, if you use
those rules strictly, there is no need for a seperate book for Mecha,
except as a world book. If you are going to call it a Source Book, it
must have new information. If it is a world book (even a general one,
like Cyberpunk) it is still a World Book, and you should use the rules
from Robots.
I would prefer it to be a Source Book, with more limited but
quicker Mech creation and combat rules. If I'm going to have to spend
a long time counting points, I want to count them for the pilot, not
the Mech.
--
The Big D desa...@io.com
It doesn't have to work right,
It just has to work!
Sean Barrett
I would guess that anyone interested in Mecha would have already
bought Robots. Go for 128 pages of new stuff.
--
Sean Barrett, Epopt of Boskone Defeat is worse than \^/
ep...@io.com death, because you have \(o)/
sa...@netcom.com to live with defeat. \(o o)/
/_______\
Casey Clark
: > Whichever way we go, somebody's going to get mad. But who? Which approach
: > would *you* prefer? Let us know.
: My own preference would be to include construction rules, but *not* as a
: duplicate of the rules from Robots. Instead, the Mecha construction rules
: should be a rewrite of the Robots rules with a bunch of cinematic options
: writen into them as defaults. Why? A Mecha book should be, IMHO, unabashedly
: cinematic in tone, and using the standard Robot rules (either duplicated or
: refered to) will result in Mecha taking on too much of the deathly realism
: that is the GURPS default.
I'm with Erol. Given the VAST variety of mecha that have
been seen in Japanese Anime, not to mention the various
technologies that come with them, I don't really see how Mecha
can simply be treated as a variation of Robots. The
physics and costs that go into a Gundam style mecha are
NOT going to be in anyway tied with the costs of building
the Knight of Gold or the Gunbuster.
IMHO, Mecha needs to have a skeletal set of construction rules
with a LOT of enhancements and options. Furthermore, space
needs to be set aside for combining Mecha with other genres
(ie, Supers, Martial Arts...) In my ideal worl, GURPS Mecha
will have everything (either directly or by reference) I
need to build ANY mecha I've seen in ANY anime.
--
___ ___ ___ _ _ _ ___ __ _ ______
| o >| | o >| |_| | | | | \| | |_ __ _| Sheridan: Why am I here?
| o< | A | o< |_ _| |_| O | |\ | _\\//_ Kosh: You have ALWAYS been here.
|___>|/ \|___> |_| |___|___|_| \_| |______| cl...@io.com
Isaacs, Ross
I vote to keep the robot construction rules out. If you're interested in
Mecha, then you *should* be interested in GURPS Robots, 'cause *well* they'
re robots. The only thing I think you're going to have to worry about
are the people who don't want to have to spend money for two books to get
essentially one game. Is it possible to have stripped down Robot
construction rules in the Mecha book?
If not, then keep the two separate. I think if you're interested in Mecha,
then you're going to want the Robot rules.
Ross A. Isaacs
ekb
> We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
> Mecha. But we have a crucial question that needs your input: Do we include
> the basic robot construction rules from GURPS Robots or not?
> If we include the construction rules, GURPS Mecha will be a complete,
> stand-alone product, but it will have 50-60 pages that are essentially
> duplicated from another book. People who already own Robots are likely to
> find this unacceptable.
> If we don't include the construction rules, GURPS Mecha will have 128
> pages of new material (and there will be room for mulitple gameworlds and
> stuff), but buyers will need to have GURPS Robots to play. People who
> *don't* already own Robots are likely to find this unacceptable.
> Whichever way we go, somebody's going to get mad. But who? Which approach
> would *you* prefer? Let us know.
My own preference would be to include construction rules, but *not* as a
duplicate of the rules from Robots. Instead, the Mecha construction rules
should be a rewrite of the Robots rules with a bunch of cinematic options
writen into them as defaults. Why? A Mecha book should be, IMHO, unabashedly
cinematic in tone, and using the standard Robot rules (either duplicated or
refered to) will result in Mecha taking on too much of the deathly realism
that is the GURPS default.
If you *must* use the standard, uncinematic Robot rules as the standard
Mecha rules, I'd vote to not duplicate them in Mecha.
Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorow
(and member of the GURPS Cinematic Underground)
Grant Schampel
F. Cowper) wrote:
> In article <sdharing-040...@garfield.io.com>,
> sdha...@io.com (Scott D. Haring) wrote:
> >
> >We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
> >Mecha. But we have a crucial question that needs your input: Do we include
> >the basic robot construction rules from GURPS Robots or not?
>
> You have several products that build on another book-- Martial Arts
Adventures
> on Martial Arts, Grimoire on Magic, Fantasy Adventures on Fantasy, etc. I
> don't see the problem with having Mecha build on Robots. The main thing is,
> *be sure* that it is labelled as requiring the Robots book to use.
True. And you'll have only one place for errors to occur, and one place
to ask questions about. And when you have revisions or corrections, they
have only to be to one place. Refer, don't repeat
--
Grant Schampel
Laboratory Information Systems, U of MN Hospital & Clinic
Box 198 Mayo, 420 Delaware St. SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 626-3539
Mr. Blue
mecha would be better written with GURPS vehicles rules than GURPS robots.
Though I haven't yet had a chance to look at Robots in detail, it seems to
be about small scale 'bots and bots as PC's, yes? (Please correct me if
I'm wrong, here.) Now let's look at some possible models for a Mecha
campaign:
Gundam: mechs as vehicles for PC pilots. Same goes for Macross,
Orguss, Five Star Stories, Gunbuster, Dunbine, L-Gaim, Votoms, etc.
Giant Robo:Mechs as semi-sentient, indirectly controlled fighting
machines occasionally capable of independent action. The humans are the
PC's here, too. Robo's controlled by a ten-year-old kid. And the same
applies to Iron MAn 28 (aka Gigantor.) Can't think of any other examples.
Mechs as PC's... All I can think of is Transformers. Does anyone want
to be *that* complete?
Almost all mecha in anime or manga are vehicles for a pilot (the PC's
in a game setting). If anyone can think of any counter-examples, or come
up with specific reasons why the Robots rules would be more appropriate
than Vehicles, please reply!
Everybody's pal,
Mr. Blue
Brennan M. O'Keefe
>My own preference would be to include construction rules, but *not* as a
>duplicate of the rules from Robots. Instead, the Mecha construction rules
>should be a rewrite of the Robots rules with a bunch of cinematic options
>writen into them as defaults. Why? A Mecha book should be, IMHO, unabashedly
>cinematic in tone, and using the standard Robot rules (either duplicated or
>refered to) will result in Mecha taking on too much of the deathly realism
>that is the GURPS default.
Yes! Anyone who wants to build "realistic" mecha should be able to do so
with the normal Vehicles rules anyway, especially with the improvements in
the forthcoming second edition. I'd much prefer to see GURPS Mecha have a
less realistic and possibly simpler design structure built in. I'd once
again suggest making the systems fairly compatible (as Robots and Vehicles
2 look like they'll be) to give people with all the books more flexibility
and detail. Mecha from anime, Transformers, etc. probably should be
substantially different in design from realistic vehicles.
>If you *must* use the standard, uncinematic Robot rules as the standard
>Mecha rules, I'd vote to not duplicate them in Mecha.
I agree with this as well; don't duplicate the material if it's going to
be exactly the same. Still, I don't think that the realistic rules would
be well suited to recreating most of the mecha shows I've seen.
--
Brennan M. O'Keefe | Where you come from, is gone. Where you thought you were
bmok...@io.com | going to, weren't never there. And where you are ain't
| no good, unless you can get away from it.
Isaacs, Ross
>Yes! Anyone who wants to build "realistic" mecha should be able to do so
>with the normal Vehicles rules anyway, especially with the improvements in
>the forthcoming second edition. I'd much prefer to see GURPS Mecha have a
>less realistic and possibly simpler design structure built in. I'd once
>again suggest making the systems fairly compatible (as Robots and Vehicles
>2 look like they'll be) to give people with all the books more flexibility
>and detail. Mecha from anime, Transformers, etc. probably should be
>substantially different in design from realistic vehicles.
>>If you *must* use the standard, uncinematic Robot rules as the standard
>>Mecha rules, I'd vote to not duplicate them in Mecha.
>I agree with this as well; don't duplicate the material if it's going to
>be exactly the same. Still, I don't think that the realistic rules would
>be well suited to recreating most of the mecha shows I've seen.
Mr. O'Keefe makes a good point. Don't make Mecha 'realistic.' Mecha are
fun because they are implausible. I'd love to go stomping around in a
landmate from Appleseed, blasting giant space monsters with my autocannon,
jumping over small houses, etc. The writer should determine which rules
from Robots applies, and which don't - then provide stripped down mecha
creation rules. Mecha should be cinematic, not realistic.
Ross A. Isaacs
John Martin Karakash
Although I will probably get the Robots book, I must
vote on the side of NOT needing Robots for Mecha. Actually,
what I *really* want is vehicles to be 250+ pages long to
put in all the cool stuff, but that's just me! Two versions
of Mecha maybe? Mecha: Mecha stuff only, and Mecha: with robots
too! =) (That's a joke, btw)
-john-
--
Grant Schampel
or read comics; I gather that's where they exist. Is a Mecha
more-or-less a wildly implausible robot? My attraction to GURPS was its
plausibility; I don't want to go the other way.
Lynette R. F. Cowper
gr...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Grant Schampel) wrote:
>I guess I need an education: what is a Mecha? I don't and won't watch TV,
>or read comics; I gather that's where they exist. Is a Mecha
>more-or-less a wildly implausible robot? My attraction to GURPS was its
>plausibility; I don't want to go the other way.
A mecha is a mechanical humanoid-shaped robot-thingie of large size
(varies as to how large) with a person at the controls inside (sometimes more
than one, but it has no "mind" of its own). They are generally used for
combat. You won't see them much on American TV or in American comics, as they
are primarily from Japanese anime (animated TV, videos or movies-- not usually
kiddie stuff like animation in the US tends to be) or Japanese manga (comics,
likewise a lot of stuff aimed at adults, which the American comics do as
well).
They tend to be... not implausible, but cinematic at the very least and
part of a cinematic storyline.
Luiz Claudio Duarte
sdha...@io.com (Scott D. Haring) wrote:
>
> We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
> Mecha. But we have a crucial question that needs your input: Do we include
> the basic robot construction rules from GURPS Robots or not?
>
> stand-alone product, but it will have 50-60 pages that are essentially
> duplicated from another book. People who already own Robots are likely to
> find this unacceptable.
OTOH, there are two likely problems with this approach: (a) differences
between the two sets of rules, and (b) necessaru rules that will not
be included in GURPS Mecha.
One possible solution would be to add to GURPS Mecha a good many ready-
to-run mechs, something in a Car Wars-like format (base model with
options). This way, GURPS Mecha would be a stand-alone product, and
only players interested in designing their own mechs would need to
buy Robots.
Luiz Claudio Duarte,
arc...@io.com
Brasilia, Brazil
Tracy Ratcliff
Mecha. However, the suggestion about a quick-and-cinematic construction
system is a good one.
Tracy Ratcliff NBCS(1.9.1) B3 h f t w-- cd g-(++) (k?) s++
http://oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu/personal/tratclif.html
"When in doubt, deny all terms and definitions." -- Calvin
Eugene Nomura
background stuff of Mecha, as I am not that familiar with anime.
My < 0.02 worth,
Eugene Nomura
Alexander von Thorn
>
> > We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
> > Mecha. But we have a crucial question that needs your input: Do we include
> > the basic robot construction rules from GURPS Robots or not?
>
> > If we include the construction rules, GURPS Mecha will be a complete,
> > stand-alone product, but it will have 50-60 pages that are essentially
> > duplicated from another book. People who already own Robots are likely to
> > find this unacceptable.
>
> > pages of new material (and there will be room for mulitple gameworlds and
> > stuff), but buyers will need to have GURPS Robots to play. People who
> > *don't* already own Robots are likely to find this unacceptable.
>
> > Whichever way we go, somebody's going to get mad. But who? Which approach
> > would *you* prefer? Let us know.
I would like to see a very cut-down pick-from-these-menus version of the
basic construction rules in Mecha, something like the Magic rules in GURPS
Basic. This would be enough to make the book stand alone for those who
don't want to spend a lot of money right away. It shouldn't be more than
16 pages; those wanting the complete rules would be pointed to Robots.
People will be a lot less pissed off by this option than either forcing
people to buy two books or duplicating 60 pages.
Peter Meilinger
: We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
: Mecha. But we have a crucial question that needs your input: Do we include
: the basic robot construction rules from GURPS Robots or not?
: If we include the construction rules, GURPS Mecha will be a complete,
: stand-alone product, but it will have 50-60 pages that are essentially
: duplicated from another book. People who already own Robots are likely to
: find this unacceptable.
I don't plan to buy Robots, but I would like to buy Mecha. If I have to
buy Robots to use Mecha, I'll just skip it entirely. In general I don't
like having to own one supplement to use another, unless it's one of the
adventures supplements where you know you'll need the original supplement.
Pete
John Martin Karakash
|>Here's another person who's going to automatically buy both Robots and
|>Mecha. However, the suggestion about a quick-and-cinematic construction
|>system is a good one.
|>Tracy Ratcliff NBCS(1.9.1) B3 h f t w-- cd g-(++) (k?) s++
I like this idea. Let *Robots* be a supplement to Mecha
for people who want more detail.
-john-
--
cha...@eql12.caltech.edu
>> would *you* prefer? Let us know.
In article <3ltv4e$1...@illuminati.io.com>, e...@io.com (ekb) writes...
>My own preference would be to include construction rules, but *not* as a
>duplicate of the rules from Robots. Instead, the Mecha construction rules
>should be a rewrite of the Robots rules with a bunch of cinematic options
>writen into them as defaults. Why? A Mecha book should be, IMHO, unabashedly
>cinematic in tone, and using the standard Robot rules (either duplicated or
>refered to) will result in Mecha taking on too much of the deathly realism
>that is the GURPS default.
>
>If you *must* use the standard, uncinematic Robot rules as the standard
>Mecha rules, I'd vote to not duplicate them in Mecha.
I would add my endorsement for Erol's point of view. People who want to run
"GURPS Battletech" can buy Robots in addition to Mecha. A separate campaign
ideas book could be published as a companion product to Mecha, which would
have the traditional GURPS advantage of selling well to people who are
running other systems but buy it as a sourcebook.
Charlie Luce / cha...@eql12.caltech.edu / Mecha for a better tomorrow!
Captain Button
system for design. But note the semi-need for Robots on the back.
Will a sidebar address Mecha vs. Tanks Standing Flamewar?
Have I just set it off again? Where can I get the basic
concepts of this arguement summarized?
Thanks.
--
- Captain Button -- but...@io.com
"They think he is Insane. Yet, he outranks them." - Firesign Theatre
Socrates
>I seem to be nearly alone on this so far, but I feel that the average
>mecha would be better written with GURPS vehicles rules than GURPS robots.
>Though I haven't yet had a chance to look at Robots in detail, it seems to
>be about small scale 'bots and bots as PC's, yes? (Please correct me if
i also feel vehicles is a better choice. some material will have to be
added though, mostly cinematic in nature.
> Almost all mecha in anime or manga are vehicles for a pilot (the PC's
>in a game setting). If anyone can think of any counter-examples, or come
>up with specific reasons why the Robots rules would be more appropriate
>than Vehicles, please reply!
>
NukuNuku!
Christian Clason
|> In article <sdharing-040...@garfield.io.com>
|> sdha...@io.com (Scott D. Haring) writes:
|>
|> >
|> >
|> >duplicated from another book. People who already own Robots are likely to
|> >find this unacceptable.
|> >
|> seperate books to be able to do mecha. I might not be interested in robots. I
|> can get access to all the worlds I want and would rather have non world specif
|> ic stuff. I'm not really a fan of robots but mecha on the other hand...
|>
|>
of repeat material is *WAY* too much. This is dangerously close to a rip-off. It looks
like they're trying to sell the same stuff twice. I'd like to see *different* creation rules
for Mecha included. As someone previously pointed out, there's a great difference between
robots, androids etc. on one hand, and Mecha, Transformers, Battletech mechs on the other.
"Realistic" Robot creation rules would definitely *NOT* suit the Mecha genre, which is very
cinematic by definition.
Besides, as someone already mentioned, more of GURPS is always a Good Thing.
chris
--
----------------------------------------
@WHO MESSED WITH MY ANTI-PARANOIA SHOT??
----------------------------------------
Karen J. Cravens
cla...@hamster.appl-math.tu-muenchen.de (Christian Clason) wrote:
>like they're trying to sell the same stuff twice. I'd like to see
Thing is, if you reprint anything, you're trying to sell the same stuff
twice. Don't reprint, and you're trying to force people to buy two
books. Go figure.
Silver
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bushydo: the way of the shrub.
finger pho...@tyrell.net for information on online roleplaying
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
: We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
: Mecha.
David Pulver I presume. More on that later...
: But we have a crucial question that needs your input: Do we include
: the basic robot construction rules from GURPS Robots or not?
As this is *THE* GURPS book I've been waiting for and its
non-existance the reason I've been sliding away from GURPS for the
past year or two, I feel I have some input on the matter.
How GURPS Mecha turns out will probably literally decide the future of
my GURPS hobby. One customer, even an extremely faithful one like me,
won't matter much to SJG, but the issue is of great personal
importance to me.
First I must state that I haven't seen Robots yet (it takes a while
for gamebooks to reach this corner of the universe) and quite frankly,
I'm not too sure I'd buy it anyway -- the days when I bought every
GURPS release are long gone.
Thus, I'll have to assume the Robots construction rules are an
extrapolation of what we saw in Vehicles.
I like GURPS for two main reason: Realism and flexibility. You must
not sacrifice either for the other. Regarding GURPS Mecha, my
particular fear is that flexibility will be sacrificed for the
author's idea of what is realistic mecha.
Let's face it guys. Giant mecha slugging it out is inherently
unrealistic as a genre. In GURPS terms, *cinematic*.
A cinematic genre needs cinematic rules, don't you think?
If you start doing mecha on an overly realistic basis, you are bound
to fail. Keep Robots as the "realistic" version and revamp the
construction rules for the twisted laws of mecha logic.
You need new rules that will let one build mecha that won't be eaten
alive by more "realistic" war machines. See Pyramid 3/93 for a
particularly bad example: The Moonhawk fighter has a MR 22.75, giving
it an effective dodge of 14 against pretty much everything. The
Cyberwraith Assault Mecha are one TL lower, but raising them to TL10
wouldn't help their clumsy MR 3.5/4 much. The only way they'll ever
down a Moonhawk is with an anti-air missile (or a critical hit).
That may be realistic, but it's not very "mecha".
Another bad example: Years ago, I was running a Southern Cross
campaign based on Robotech. One character was flying his Logan at 4.8
Mach when he needed to turn around. Despite that the character was
literally born to be a fighter pilot and that we figured in G-seats
and every other conceivable advantage, it took him quite a long time
the pull a 180 without blacking out, according to GURPS Space
accelaration rules (1st ed.)
Realistic, yes. "Mecha", no.
There's no nice way to put this, but based on what I've seen in
Vehicles, I'm not sure David Pulver is the right man to do GURPS
Mecha. You need a real mecha head, someone who can write a whole new
set of cinematic mecha rules, preserving the unique flavor of mecha
action.
You need simple and flexible construction rules. Certainly much
simpler than Vehicles (if you can get that with pre-calculated
packages built according to Vehicles, so much the better). You need a
good meta-system instead of the clumsy shopping lists. The mecha genre
is especially bound to fail if you continue the "sorry, there's no
Wave Motion Gun in the list, you can't have it" bullshit.
You need combat rules that will capture the fast and fluid motion of
mecha combat, the multitude of corkscrewing missiles, the crisscross
of energy beams, the blinding saber slashes and the nimble dodges
without bogging down to calculate some ultimately insignificant detail.
: If we include the construction rules, GURPS Mecha will be a complete,
: stand-alone product, but it will have 50-60 pages that are essentially
: duplicated from another book. People who already own Robots are likely to
: find this unacceptable.
To re-state my sentiment, the rules need to be redone anyway, so there
won't be anything much to duplicate.
: If we don't include the construction rules, GURPS Mecha will have 128
: pages of new material (and there will be room for mulitple gameworlds and
: stuff), but buyers will need to have GURPS Robots to play. People who
: *don't* already own Robots are likely to find this unacceptable.
I don't buy game books for somebody else's lame ideas of what *my*
campaign world should look like. If the GURPS Mecha will be worldbook
instead of a sourcebook, label it so and I'll just leave it on the
store shelf.
I fully realize that old fashioned GMs like me who still like to
actually create their own worlds are in the minority. As a business,
SJG is naturally more inclined to put out something that appeals to
the majority.
--
max...@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) | A pig who doesn't fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 0 80926 78/SwOb 81/Voice | is just an ordinary pig.
Snail: Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | - Porco Rosso
Http://www.hut.fi/~maxxon/index.html |
Slaede Wilson
> > We've got an author lined up, and writing is about to commence on GURPS
> > the basic robot construction rules from GURPS Robots or not?
> >
> > stand-alone product, but it will have 50-60 pages that are essentially
> > duplicated from another book. People who already own Robots are likely to
> > find this unacceptable.
> OTOH, there are two likely problems with this approach: (a) differences
> between the two sets of rules, and (b) necessaru rules that will not
> be included in GURPS Mecha.
> One possible solution would be to add to GURPS Mecha a good many ready-
> to-run mechs, something in a Car Wars-like format (base model with
> options). This way, GURPS Mecha would be a stand-alone product, and
> only players interested in designing their own mechs would need to
> buy Robots.
IMHO Not a good idea. In a mecha supplement I want to see rules
on how to design/create new types of mecha. Even if they include 100+
examples, the likelihood of having all the ones I (and others) want is
next to zero.
David J. Snyder
Scott D. Haring <sdha...@io.com> wrote:
>
>If we include the construction rules, GURPS Mecha will be a complete,
>stand-alone product, but it will have 50-60 pages that are essentially
>duplicated from another book. People who already own Robots are likely to
>find this unacceptable.
50-60 pages is way too much to duplicate. Thats half the book!
If that much page count is required, Robots should be a necessity.
djs
--
"I have a degree from Harvard. Whenever I'm wrong the world makes
a little less sense." - Dr. Frasier Crane
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
: In article <grant-06049...@umhc-labs-1.umhc.umn.edu>,
: A mecha is a mechanical humanoid-shaped robot-thingie of large size
: (varies as to how large) with a person at the controls inside (sometimes more
: than one, but it has no "mind" of its own). They are generally used for
: combat. You won't see them much on American TV or in American comics, as they
: are primarily from Japanese anime (animated TV, videos or movies-- not usually
: kiddie stuff like animation in the US tends to be) or Japanese manga (comics,
: likewise a lot of stuff aimed at adults, which the American comics do as
: well).
: They tend to be... not implausible, but cinematic at the very least and
: part of a cinematic storyline.
Actually, it depends on the context.
In *this* context, your explanation is correct. However, in Japanese
animation, where the word originates from, mecha means pretty much
anything mechanical (car, plane, robot etc.)
Nystan
> If we include the construction rules, GURPS Mecha will be a complete,
> stand-alone product, but it will have 50-60 pages that are essentially
> duplicated from another book. People who already own Robots are likely to
> find this unacceptable.
If you really need to include this information, then, instead of
publishing two separate works, you should publish one big one. Like *The
Complete Book of GURPS Robots* or something like that. I don't know what
the costs involved in producing such a large volume are, so it may be an
unrealistic idea, but you shouldn't rule it out.
Nystan
John Sullivan
>: They tend to be... not implausible, but cinematic at the very least
and
>: part of a cinematic storyline.
>
>Actually, it depends on the context.
>
>In *this* context, your explanation is correct. However, in Japanese
>animation, where the word originates from, mecha means pretty much
>anything mechanical (car, plane, robot etc.)
>
But they're quite the cultural virus. Imagine how many present day
japanese engineers grew up watching giant robot shows and now want to build
them. I would be willing to bet that the Japanese will have workable mecha
eventually, even if more at the powered armor end of the scale than the
giant spacefaring thing with a sword end.
It's sort of the way Americans read Neuromancer and decided to create
cyberspace for real. Between the internet, 3D Web pages and VR goggles
we're already about halfway there.
john sullivan
Lynette R. F. Cowper
max...@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) wrote:
>Lynette R. F. Cowper (lco...@io.com) wrote:
>: In article <grant-06049...@umhc-labs-1.umhc.umn.edu>,
>: gr...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Grant Schampel) wrote:
>: >I guess I need an education: what is a Mecha?
>
>: A mecha is a mechanical humanoid-shaped robot-thingie of large size
>: (varies as to how large) with a person at the controls inside (sometimes
more
>: than one, but it has no "mind" of its own). They are generally used for
>: combat. You won't see them much on American TV or in American comics, as
they
>: are primarily from Japanese anime (animated TV, videos or movies-- not
usually
>: kiddie stuff like animation in the US tends to be) or Japanese manga
(comics,
>: likewise a lot of stuff aimed at adults, which the American comics do as
>: well).
>: part of a cinematic storyline.
>
>Actually, it depends on the context.
>
>In *this* context, your explanation is correct. However, in Japanese
>animation, where the word originates from, mecha means pretty much
>anything mechanical (car, plane, robot etc.)
True, but it's tended to be used by American anime people specifically to
refer to the giant robot-like combat vehicles, since we already have words for
cars, planes, and robots, but nothing for mecha.
Mecha anime isn't my favorite genre. About the only one I *really* liked
was Patlabor and that was because it was a neat mystery. Story line is pretty
much in the fore for me and the presence or absence of mecha isn't a deciding
factor.
Nonetheless, I've been dinking around with the idea of a game world with
mecha in it for a while. But, it has pretty much everything in it-- magic,
psionics, high tech, etc. Wonder if they'll address mana as a power source...
Slaede Wilson
> I seem to be nearly alone on this so far, but I feel that the average
> mecha would be better written with GURPS vehicles rules than GURPS robots.
> Though I haven't yet had a chance to look at Robots in detail, it seems to
> be about small scale 'bots and bots as PC's, yes? (Please correct me if
> campaign:
> Gundam: mechs as vehicles for PC pilots. Same goes for Macross,
> Orguss, Five Star Stories, Gunbuster, Dunbine, L-Gaim, Votoms, etc.
> Giant Robo:Mechs as semi-sentient, indirectly controlled fighting
> machines occasionally capable of independent action. The humans are the
> PC's here, too. Robo's controlled by a ten-year-old kid. And the same
> applies to Iron MAn 28 (aka Gigantor.) Can't think of any other examples.
> Mechs as PC's... All I can think of is Transformers. Does anyone want
> to be *that* complete?
> in a game setting). If anyone can think of any counter-examples, or come
> up with specific reasons why the Robots rules would be more appropriate
> than Vehicles, please reply!
I agree with you totally here. Mecha are not robots, they are
vehicles (Transformers are, in fact not mecha but robots - the definition
of Mecha is that it is an unthinking machine piloted by a sentient).
However, the current vehicles rules (I have yet to see Vehicles
II) would be absolute murder for the Mecha genre. The feel of mecha in
many series (Macross (Macross Plus especially), Gundham etc.) is more
that the pilot hsa grown to (however many) meters tall and sprouted guns
and armour. The flexibility and maneuverability of many mecha is
unmatched by any other vehicles. I don't believe the current Vehicles
rules would cover the genre well at all.
Slade.
(sl...@io.com)