Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6660814" data-attributes="member: 177">The thing is, with Trek, fans have a list of appropriate nouns handed to us.&nbsp; But, imagine a non-engineer person trying to play a sci-fi engineer - how do you communicate what nouns work?&nbsp; Trek has &quot;power conduits&quot;.&nbsp; Does your GURPS Space game have them?&nbsp; Have you, as a GM, even thought about the lexicon of technology?&nbsp; Do you want your players to have to try to manage a lexicon?The Atomic Robo game has an interesting take on it.&nbsp; The GM does not decide how a science problem will be solved.&nbsp; The players do it, through a skill-challengey kind of system for Brainstorming.&nbsp; Every one rolls an appropriate skill - it is probably a science skill, but if you can explain how it might apply, other skills are allowed.&nbsp; The characer who exceeds the target number by the most, gets to stipulate one Fact about the situation (it cannot contradict anything you've already seen).&nbsp; Repeat twice more, and you have three facts.&nbsp; Then, the final roll determines who gets to link those facts together, into some sort of conclusion - in FATE terms, that conclusion becomes an Aspect on the target that the players may then exploit in whatever way they see fit.So, the GM can throw a giant monster at them, and have *no idea* what its secret vulnerability is.&nbsp; The players will make it up, and then exploit it as best they can.Another approach might be similar to GUMSHOE, in which the game assumes that finding the clues to a puzzle is not the interesting bit - *interpreting* the clues, and figuring out what action to take as a result, is where the fun lies.So, Gumshoe style, the GM would hand the players the list of elements they have to work with, and let the players hash out which of them seem most reasonable (or least risky, or what have you) to work with based on your description.&nbsp; But, this does require the GM to actually have a model for the tech/science in mind.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6660814, member: 177"] The thing is, with Trek, fans have a list of appropriate nouns handed to us. But, imagine a non-engineer person trying to play a sci-fi engineer - how do you communicate what nouns work? Trek has "power conduits". Does your GURPS Space game have them? Have you, as a GM, even thought about the lexicon of technology? Do you want your players to have to try to manage a lexicon? The Atomic Robo game has an interesting take on it. The GM does not decide how a science problem will be solved. The players do it, through a skill-challengey kind of system for Brainstorming. Every one rolls an appropriate skill - it is probably a science skill, but if you can explain how it might apply, other skills are allowed. The characer who exceeds the target number by the most, gets to stipulate one Fact about the situation (it cannot contradict anything you've already seen). Repeat twice more, and you have three facts. Then, the final roll determines who gets to link those facts together, into some sort of conclusion - in FATE terms, that conclusion becomes an Aspect on the target that the players may then exploit in whatever way they see fit. So, the GM can throw a giant monster at them, and have *no idea* what its secret vulnerability is. The players will make it up, and then exploit it as best they can. Another approach might be similar to GUMSHOE, in which the game assumes that finding the clues to a puzzle is not the interesting bit - *interpreting* the clues, and figuring out what action to take as a result, is where the fun lies. So, Gumshoe style, the GM would hand the players the list of elements they have to work with, and let the players hash out which of them seem most reasonable (or least risky, or what have you) to work with based on your description. But, this does require the GM to actually have a model for the tech/science in mind. [/QUOTE]

Verification