One of the things I consider inovative about Burning Empires is the split between mechanical effects and color effects is hard coded into the rules. That things can cross over is, if anything, the element that makes it work, the capstone on the pyramid, the feather in Luke's cap (love him or hate him).

For those of you unfamiliar with what I'm talking about:

Assume a character CAN HAVE a spaceship. So they do. They've got a spaceship, they describe it in any cool way they want to. It costs them nothing to have the spaceship, mostly because by itself it has no mechanical effect.

Until they need to use, lets say... the sensor system to detect bad guys sneaking into the system. BAM! Sensors are mechanicale effects, some thing that needs to be rolled, opposed.  The player then has to 'buy' the sensors that were otherwise just Color on his 'super cool ship'.  Assuming he has points/money/resources to put into his sensors he gets the sensors he needs and can now use them. While the ship itself remains 'color' the ships SENSORS are not, they are now and forever after 'hard tech'.



Like I said, I think this is a damn cool thing, a worthy thing, an innovation.


But: Do I want to use it?  Me, I'm a gadget freak, and I love GURPS.  More: GURPS and CHAMPIONS are very similar systems in many ways, but I love the Gear in GURPS and hate Gear in Champions? Why? Because of the rules. GURPS gear is like real objects, in the system gear is an objective object, seperate and distinct. In Champions, gear is an extension of the rules. It doesn't really exist per se.

Color tech is, to some extent, the same thing. Until you've paid for it it doesn't really exist, though you are expected to ACT like it does.  That puts me in a hard spot, one I wouldnt have to think about if I wasn't such a gadget freak.

Leaving it alone, I think a discussion of the concept is worthy, and I hope  I've tossed out enough meat to get the internet dogs growling and snapping.

I'm curious, or a little confused.  Is the innovation that the purchase doesn't happen until the player needs it?  Is the innovation that at the point of need, the player can (with the appropriate resources) purchase whatever is needed?  Is the innovation that there are things that are defined as color and others that are defined mechanical?

I'm honestly asking because I'm curious.  It seems to me that the big difference is when and how the mechanical or color is applied - is that right?

Well, to me the actual innovation occurs when the game makes the designation of objects that exist only to provide 'flash' as 'Color'. Everything else is built or expanded from that one point.  

Sure, having an object or item of trivial importance being 'free' isn't exactly new, but having it codified and explicit in the rules is. Expanding it outwards to include things like Spaceships certainly is.  If you never travel the stars, having a spaceship is as meaningful as having a feather in your cap.

Once you use the spaceship to do something, or pull that feather out to pull out a concealed lock pick (or use the feather to do something important) only then does it become important to establish what, if anything, the object can and can't do... and thus code it mechanically.

Have you considered this:

What about encoding what a character can do--when they chose to do it?

What about gear that is an extension of the character. After all a sword by itself lies there, it need a person to use it. If a piece of gear is integral to a character, wouldn't that make the gear more or less a trait of the person? (and thus perhaps a skill or attribute)

After all if you have ships sensors, but they don't search ON their own (due to A.I, or simple computer timers) then isn't it an extension of the person asking for the sweep in some way?

I think Luke is an excellent game designer, but I don't think this idea begins with him. Heroquest (Laws/Stafford) has a pretty similar approach and you see similar things in Dying Earth and Rune. I don't know if Laws was first but he did this sort of thing before Luke. And really even Champions winds up doing something similar in the end, as you point out.

That said, I think this is a bad way to go, and I don't have much interest in games designed like this any more. When I first saw this sort of approach I thought it was brilliant, and as an idea it's innovative, sure, but I think blurring the lines between what you're calling mechanics and what you're calling color is actually the best, most interesting, most fun thing about RPGs. The ability to negotiate hard effects purely through imaginative negotiation is no longer something I'm willing to give up.

Yeah, I'm sorry if I derailed here.  I wasn't, or didn't want to, question the innovative-ness of things.  I'm just trying to get handle on what/how it worked and why it was innovative...I'm just not getting this right...so...

I find this approach terrible.

A spaceship is not "color." A spaceship is a spaceship. If push came to shove, it's far more durable than a PC.

No Potemkin Villages. No hierarchy according to which the world revolves around the PCs like the sun around the earth. The world is a priori, the PCs are secondary (but are part of it). This existential parity must be expressed by mechanical equity. In a light game it will be light, in a heavy game (Gurps, MT), heavy.

Surely that's a statement of preference, Pierce?

I basically share the preference in question, though for play-related reasons rather than any preference for 'realism'. Our preferred approach is more conducive to effective use of imagination in the gameworld, is my thinking. But this surely isn't a universal requirement...

Quote from: Pierce InverarityA spaceship is not "color." A spaceship is a spaceship.

Ze point. You are missing her.

A Spaceship is color as long as all it does is make apearances to be cool and/or highlight your character concept. The Millenium Falcon illustrates how Han Solo is a down on his luck, rougish smuggler with ample tricks up his sleeves. Thats color.

What is not color is the hard mechanicalthings that ship can do, and when they are needed, BE makes those specific aspects transit from color to hard mechanics (or so I gather, I dont actuallyown BE).

Wether you, personally, like that approach is one thing. I totally respect a rejection of the concept as a matter of taste or preference.
But saying that a spaceship cant ever be color is wrong, atleast to me.

QuoteThe Millenium Falcon illustrates how Han Solo is a down on his luck, rougish smuggler with ample tricks up his sleeves. Thats color.

I pity all those who think so.
I really pity you.

Quote from: SettembriniI pity all those who think so.
I really pity you.

Why? I mean, really, why? Why pity?
What, in your opinion, is it about this that makes me worthy of pity instead of common disagreement?

Quote from: Templesaying that a spaceship cant ever be color is wrong, atleast to me.

See how this thing you have about "objective is bad, subjective is good" gets you into argumentative trouble, kid?

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySee how this thing you have about "objective is bad, subjective is good" gets you into argumentative trouble, kid?

Not at all. Kid.

Quote from: CalithenaSurely that's a statement of preference, Pierce?

I basically share the preference in question, though for play-related reasons rather than any preference for 'realism'. Our preferred approach is more conducive to effective use of imagination in the gameworld, is my thinking. But this surely isn't a universal requirement...

Nothing's universal. All there is is perspectives, massively invested views of the world, backed up by argument. To play an RPG is to strike up a certain stance towards a possible world. That stance can be analyzed, its implications pared down. That's why arguments about games can get so oddly heated, because there are actually huge stakes in the background, which sometimes come through.

You build a character, a rougish smuggler, down on his luck but with ample tricks up his sleeve. He needs a space craft, but your character only begin with 3D4 x 100 credits and the spaceship cost something like 25000 credits.

WEG solved this by allowing the character to be in debt to a crimelord, creating a storyhook. Which is fine to make a Han Solo. One solution.

Another is to say, here have a spaceship, it fits you character. If you need to go from A to B, or even have an adventure aboard it it is no big deal. BUT, if you want Hyperdrives that can make the Kessel run in less than 3 parescs, you have to pay for that detail. Roll them bones.
That is the difference between color and mechanics.

Both solutions give to kinds of different playstyles. One fits you, another may not. It is called taste.