Topic: How to make SM:P Better?

[markc]

This is a thread split from a topic of the same name in the RM2/C/X section. I have added a thread of the same name in the RMSS/FRP section and here in the SM:P section. The reason for this is so a player of one system is not answering how to make RMC better if they play only RMSS. But since RMSS and SM:P are closely linked you can answer the "How to" queston either in the RMSS/FRP section or here in the SM:P section. I just wanted to be sure to give everyone a chance to respond and be heard.

"How do I make SM:P a better system? How do I make my SM:P game run smoother and faster?"

MDC

[David Johansen]

Weapon Ranges for vehicles!!!

More projectile Weapons!

More setting material and adventures!

Also I'd like Tech Law back in a single book.

[Dark Mistress]

All what Dave said but the Tech law split which I am fine with.

I think the biggest failing of SM:P was it feels very tied to the setting and it should have been like RM and been setting neutral. Not that it is a bad setting but it takes more work to break it away if it's not your thing. Same with all the other books.

But then I am in the camp of SMC is what we need

[David Johansen]

I think a setting free core book would have been excellent.  With more generic and less powerful versions of cat, dog, bear, bug, and hamster people.

I also think the Privateers setting would benefit greatly from anime style art.  As soon as you do people stop complaining about the animal people and super high technology level.  I know Robert doesn't really agree with me here but I really believe it would be a great fit.

What are the guys who drew for R. Talsorian, Dream Pod 9, and Guardians of Order doing these days?

[Defendi]

We tried to figure out a way to make the game setting independent, but couldn't.  There is no default scifi setting assumptions like there are with fantasy (basically, there's no Tolkien to fall back on).

[David Johansen]

I dunno, Traveller's always done well with a pastiche of Niven, Asimov, Piper, and Drake.

I mean, default relationships for races can be pretty simple.  Fur suits are basically sf's elves, dwarves, and orcs.  Dogs and cats don't get on well, the bugs are scary and so on.

The problem with the Privateers races is that they are so specialized and powerful that it's hard to drop them into other settings.

I like the Privateers setting and feel it got a bad rap from a certain narrow range of fans who want only hard sf in the strictest sense.  A while back Mega Minis did a limited edition run of 200 blister packs of Vargr (dog man pirates) for Traveller, they sold out in a week.  Then they did K'kree (zealous vegetarian centaurs) and newts (lizard beaurcrats) and neither of those has sold out in the last years.  So much for the vocal hard sf crowd.

[Defendi]

Traveler isn't anywhere near setting independent.  That's my point.    I think what you are looking for is a more generic setting, not the absence of one.

[Defendi]

BTW, I'm not arguing over your point.  Your point seems to be a good one and every bit of data helps, I'm just making sure we have exactly what your point is.  For instance, if you say, "no setting," well we know from experience that's not possible.  So instead of  just ignoring the comment, I'm trying to dig in and find out what you're actually looking for that could actually be done.

Didn't want you to think I'm trying to be argumentative. 

[David Johansen]

No problem I've got the market on argumentative cornered!

I think what I'm saying is that you CAN be pretty generic.  Traveller's setting was originally little more than a set of technological assumptions there weren't even aliens in the core book and when they did add aliens they were originally pretty plain.  You do it by providing lots of options.  The Tech Law books are pretty setting independant there's really no reason the core book couldn't be.

I'm afraid I'd scrap the setting material from SM:P for a bunch of the stuff from Future Law being in there.

I'd still like a setting book.  Heck I'd still like any Spacemaster support at all.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

The campaign specific stuff should have been dealt with in a specific "setting" book.... with examples of other tech level campaigns in others.

I like the core rulebook apart from that, the non-humans do seem a mite overpowered because, (unless I'm reading things wrong) they get special racial abilities in addition to backgound/talent points.

I'd also like the Categories/skills mesh seemlessly with RMSS (this is mainly a problem with RMSS, but in my opinion both systems should use the same core rulebook.

[David Johansen]

Putting the setting in the core book was a disservice to both the setting and the rules.

Which isn't to say I didn't love Spacemaster: Privateers, I just think it would have cut the complaints down.

[Dark Mistress]

I think the best way to do scifi setting netural is just cover a wide range of stuff. Which of course means a bigger book. Like under faster than light drive have 3-4 different ways it works and the players can pick which one works for them.

The good is this lets the game appeal to a wide range. The bad is the book eats up a lot of room on options that would rarely be used together. So i can see why ICE didn't go that route.

I am high on pain killers right now so not going to try and get into it more at the moment but after i see a dentist monday and hopefully feel better i will comment more then.

[markc]

 I would like to comment on the things I think makes SM:P better for me.
1) Good skill mesh with RMSS to simmulate Fantasy, Modern or Space Games or a crazy time travel game.
2) Psi skills IMO work great and I can even throgh them in to a Modern or Fantasy game and keep them different from magic.
3) I enjoy the skill split for medical and tech skills but I do not think it is necessary for a fantasy game to have the split. [in fact that is one way to customize your game, decide on how to split skills for what ever your campaign, world or universe is.]
4) Can be used with a little adjustment with SM2 stuff or SM2 stuff can be added in with a little rule ju-jitsu.
And the most important of them all.
5) It works for the games I want to run.

MDC

[David Johansen]

Ah but Marc we're not discussing why it's already better.  That's just the ineffible truth.

We're just looking at ways to make it sell better or appeal to more people.

And yes as with RMSS I'm still convinced that a proper clean-up job could unify the divide where a revision of RM2 never could.  You can't convince RMSS fans to give up all the wonderful features it integrates, but you can streamline RMSS without giving up those same features.

[Dark Mistress]

Ok really high on pain meds so hopefully this will make sense to those reading it.

I always wanted to see ICE take the best aspects of RM2/SM and RMSS/SM:P and combine them. Both systems i think have some very good aspects and both systems I think could have used idea's from the other one.

Like buying catagories is nice to give that generalist feel but it adds so much to the character creation and leveling process that I don't think the benifits outway the draw backs. That is something that could be streamlined I feel to help out.

Ok I was going to say something else and i am pretty sure i thought it was pretty insightfull but poof it is just gone. This Oxycodone is kicking my ass. Anyways will post more later.

[David Johansen]

Except that buying categories doesn't have to add so much more difficulty to character creation.  In fact if it's set up right it could allow you to buy just the category when you want to generalize and thereby GREATLY REDUCE THE EFFORT INVOLVED IN CHARACTER GENERATION.

One of my great fears is that in attempting to please everyone, ICE will produce a big, fat unwieldly tool kit game that routinely fails to be compatible with itself and really only supports the lowest level of complexity.

What I want is a clean, clear, well integrated system from which detail flows effortlessly.

[Dark Mistress]

Yeah but very few players want to be a generalist. Most want to be very good in a few select area's and then decent in some others. Making them buy both to be very good and then adding the cat to the skill for a final total.

This is just from my groups i have played with but that is typically the number one thing everyone doesn't like about RMSS/SM:P the general feeling is while it is a neat concept that the benifits don't outweigh the drawbacks of it.*shrug* Just giving feed back.

[markc]

 I tend to liek the fact that a player has to think a little bit on what he has to spend DP on. I also have tried slimed down games with small skill systems and it is starnge to me to have a broad skill apply to so many things because in life that is not the way it happens. And I am generally trying to simmulat life in a situation and not killing, treaseure, room hopping etc. I am not saying that if you do not agree with me that that is your game style or that is bad. But only that I try for another type of game and storytelling.

 Our group right now is not playing any ICE game but we have in the past. But I can say one of these reduced skill games have brough on may a good laugh when someone asks how to do something.

MDC

[croakerdogboy]

Hmmm.

In a nutshell, better vehicle/space combat rules. Right now, with the abstract pull away/close and fire chase system I don't have the same fuzzies for it that I do for say Fasa Star Trek or Mechwarrior.

I like the hex map, ship modification, lots of odd malfunctions sort of thing. I mean really the only table for critical ship damage also applies to ground cars. I would like a better more detailed treatment of vehicle combat.

[markc]

DJ,
 I think the one big think I would like to see is a chart from the SM:P EQM put in all the books that deals with using RMSS:AL and the armor types from RMSS:BO in SM:P, and the reverse.

MDC