Simlasa

I agree, which is why I generally don't go for games that are trying to emulate books, movies, comics. If I do, I am after some aspect of the setting I enjoy, not trying to recreate it. I like Stormbringer for it's weird fantasy flavor, not because I want to play in Elric's world. But I think Superheroes are even worse for it, because of they're a such a wide field with such a long serialized history... so many characters with so many different abilities, abilities that often come and go as the plot desires. It's almost like trying to make an 'anime' game, or a 'television' game... it's too wide and diverse of a category. Sherlock Holmes is just one proto-superhero, and fairly consistent... but comics are a HUGE mish mash that can't really be satisfactorily described by any one set of rules. Better to focus on one particular corner of it, IMO... or play something with hardly any rules at all, just let people do whatever fits their expectations... 'bang, you're dead!' So no, Superworld isn't the system for emulating the whole wide range of comic book heroes all at once. What system is? But Superworld does work if you focus, remove some/many of those comic book tropes and go with what it does well. .

As has been mentioned, comic book supers are a problem for RPGs in general. It always seem a folly to me to emulating a written medium where whatever needs to happen for the plot can be made to happen... there are no rules to what Superman/Batman/Plastic Man can do except for what the writer needs them to do. I'm more interested in a setting and supers who are designed with BRP specifically in mind... I'd shun invulnerable (and plot-immune) characters altogether and focus on PC supers who have a special advantage, but can still be taken down by a bullet, blade or bomb if they're not careful. Ignore CGI movie physics and keep to the somewhat more 'realistic' leanings of BRP. (one of the things I loved in City of Heroes were all the monuments and stories of fallen heroes. Much more moving than a bunch of still-thriving unkillable celebrities.) Give them a solid setting, maybe something in the 30s/40s... with mostly non-powered villains. Make the PC have to think a bit, rather than just punch their problems in the face.

I was actually thinking about that this morning... wondering how long it would take me. IF I do it, I'll let you know when I'm finished.

Whatever drawings I gave you for the alchemist book are yours to use. If you need me to sign something I will. Apparently Magic World has also disappeared from the online store... so maybe they're just disappearing it altogether, as some nagging bit of the past.

I'm glad to hear Osprey is going to bring out more stuff for Jackals. I'll assume it's all of use for BRP even if not used for Jackals itself.

'Anything goes' implies, to me, a higher power level... just so the PCs won't be overwhelmed by the 'anything' when it shows up. I'm thinking kitchen sink settings like Rifts. Not that a multiverse HAS to be that way... but they often seem to lead there. It's not BRP but one multiversal setting I like is Astulae, which is a series of setting books describing an ancient 'dungeon' of connecting realities. It has its own laws of operation, factions, mysteries... but is generally on a manageable power scale. No worlds full of superheroes or giant mecha... not from what I've seen of it. Or maybe a more fantasy styled take on Luther Arkwright (Jerry Cornelius)... or Stargate. PCs as agents of some group that is actively engaged in intrigue on multiple planes/worlds/dimensions.

I think Magic World is still 'The New Magic World' as far as I'm concerned... in that I wasn't looking for a replacement. Also, Osprey seems to only put out further support for a few of their games... Frostgrave being the main one I see. The rest seem to be one-shot rulebooks, which is fine.

I assume 'trippy 70s vibe' would riff off Moorcock and Zelazny? Fairly high-powered stuff that touches elbows with god/godlings? Maybe because I've been reading lots of fairy tales lately but I could go with something less 'epic' than a lot of modern fantasy seems to me... less caught up in vast military intrigues, more about the lives of common folks and their brushes with the uncanny. But I suppose that's less about world-building and more about constructing scenarios/situations.

I've always liked the idea of hit locations, but not always how they're implemented... depending on the nature of the attack.

I'm NOT a fan of the changes CoC 7e brought... in tone or mechanics. If I were to borrow anything from other BRP-related games it would be some of the magic options from Mythras/Legend, like Blood Magic.

So you felt the need to repeat back to me what I'd already said? Also, I'm not so sure about your assumption about people not creating their own worlds though... I certainly see plenty of homebrew settings in local games around here, and in the gaming blogs I read. I'm not sure it's a mainstream part of D&D these days though. Magic World's 'Southern Reaches' setting is distinct from Moorcock's so I'm not sure what you're on about there. There's not really enough to it to judge it 'dated'... which seems like a lazy term to use for such things anyway. Maybe just not your taste?

Yeah, I do realize that the formative decisions about Magic World were not Nu-Chaosiums. That there were larger issues that played a bigger part than any qualities of the game itself.

I said I felt I was the only one who loved the NAME, not "game"... but I DO love the game as well. Even its sketch of a setting is interesting to me... has potential. It sets up a interesting situation, with some mystery and conflict and plenty of room for exploration/discovery. Oh well...

No one buys a game if they don't know there's a game to buy. Magic World wasn't promoted or supported in any significant way. So why would sales be anything but low? Most of us only knew about it because we were already BRP fans and tuned in... so I don't think there's a case for saying it really got a fair chance. Anyway, it's not a failure on my end... since I'm playing it. Your loss is not mine.

I seem to be the only person on Earth who LOVES the name. To me it's near perfect for a generic fantasy game that's not aiming super aggrogrimdark (Mork Borg) or super cutesy anime (WOTC D&D? HAR!)... the name leaves a whole lot of interpretations and possibilities wide open. Are people ragging on Apocalypse World for its name? Dungeon World? Not that I've seen. It's not the name that failed it... it was Chaosium's lack of promotion and support. But then, seeing where they've gone since the Nu-Chaosium crew took over I am sort of glad Magic World is a 'dead' game... if Nu-Chaosium did it... well, for sure it would be prettier... but that's the least of my concerns.

Not pathetic at all! Sounds fun to me... though I have only a passing familiarity with Rifts, based on its initial rulebook. It appeals to me a lot more than something like Torg, where the different impinging realities didn't seem to mix that well. Rifts, in its chaos, seems more cohesive, somehow. Which is what I'd want out of a game multiverse... variety, but not a feeling that I was shifting to a whole different game. A Stormbringer multiverse feels different from a Luther Arkwright multiverse from a Runequest multiverse... at some point you need to pick a rail and ride it.

Thing is, magic is imaginary, make-believe, so it can be whatever you want...

Magic can be such a big part of describing a setting, its metaphysics and how it operates. Not all magic is created equally, the purposes of its users and their capabilities come into play. I prefer spells for Clerics to match the nature of whatever god(s) they worship. Not just choosing willy nilly from a big list but prayed for an granted. Similarly, I think it matters what culture a Wizard hails from and that worldview. People from the desert will develop different magical practices than people from the frozen north. Some magic might be outwardly seem similar between different traditions, but I'd like there to be variables I can tweak to better suit one or another.

500 spells is a lot of spells... are they actually all that unique from each other or are they slight variations... 'speak to plant', 'speak to rock', 'speak to squirrel', 'speak to dog', 'speak to cat'?

I used Leviathan in a Gamma World game... as a place the PCs ended up after messing with a teleporter/gateway relic. The existing crew was not particularly welcoming.

I'm not sure how I'd make the case mechanically, but having explored caves with a single light source I can say that, even nearby, it's a lot less useful that having overhead light sources or multiple lights. I walked off a substantial cliff... fell about 4 feet, because a single lantern's light distorted my read of the ground. I don't think search skills could be used at full strength either.

I'm thinking that, for some people, the way orcs and other humanoids are sometimes depicted in games might be a reminder of how they feel the real world has treated and continues to treat their own ethnic group. So making an effort to not endorse the notion that 'all X are evil' or 'all Y are thieves' is worth a paragraph or two. Same with including rules for wheelchairs or whatever. It's doesn't take up a huge amount of space to mention how certain disabilities would effect a PC. I've played disabled characters in games before and appreciated having some mechanical framework to reinforce that aspect of the PC. People can be overzealous in their demands, sure, but outside of that... why does it bother you so much? Since you have the option of just ignoring those rules if you don't want to use them.

I'm not sure it's 'broken' if that's what Players want and expect from it. It's not my taste, but from what I've seen all the powers and feats and widgets are a big part of the draw. Our local group plays it weekly and meh... I don't play my PC like a superhero so he doesn't feel that way, but another guy at the table is a hardcore min-maxer and that's where it's fun for him. As for it's 'wokeness'... I don't like the 'purity test' mobs either, but I understand the 'orcs are racist' argument. They've often been presented as a monolithic evil/subhuman 'other' that can be destroyed without moral qualms. Not that they represent any specific racial group, but it plays into similar patterns that real people have suffered through ("The only good Indian is a dead Indian!"). At best, it's lazy and unimaginative depiction to feed a power fantasy. One of the many things that drew me to Runequest in the old days is how the monsters were presented as more than just sword fodder, having their own cultures and worldviews. What's wrong with a wizard in a wheelchair? Ever read The X-Men?

I remember seeing The Lion In Winter and coming away with the idea of medieval royalty not being too far removed from organized crime families, ala The Godfather.

I grew up, for whatever reason, thinking of knights as bullies who treated their 'lessers' poorly. So I'd probably want to keep aspects of that, with some being fair-minded, but most being entitled jerks... like drunken frat boys on a night out. https://www.history.com/news/chivalry-knights-middle-ages