Jump to content

Ian Absentia

Members
  • Content Count

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

137 Excellent

About Ian Absentia

  • Rank
    Self-Actualised Gigantopithecine

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Ages of playing BRP games, several years of writing for at least one of them, one day resuscitating it.
  • Current games
    RQG, HQ, and occasional odd FATE-based things
  • Location
    Seattle
  • Blurb
    Audentes Fortuna Iuvat

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I asked about consumer satisfaction with regard to development and delivery schedules across the industry. You quoted profit curves. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but you've made your point several times over. !i!
  2. Yeah, and how's that been working out for the video game industry? I don't feel a wealth of confidence eminating from the fan base in general. !I!
  3. Having recently played through my first heroquest, I reckon this is dead-on. The major obstacles in heroquests aren't opponents whose abilities are several orders of magnitude greater than the player-characters', but rather the characters' ability to gain admittance to the mythic stages of the quest in the first place. If you ever manage to engage with a myth that includes the likes of Orlanth or Yelm, you'll be on relatively equal footing with them -- inferior characters need not apply. Lesser characters start out pursuing lesser myths (like the clan legend that our characters re-enacted) and maybe work their way up the ranks. I used to get all hung up on the whole scaling issue, not being able to wrap my head around the notion of a mortal taking on the gods in a conventional stand-up fight when crossing over into the God Plane. But I've seen the light, and no longer think that's how it works. !i!
  4. Emphasise that it's fun to fail! Seriously. What I mean is that Pendragon is all about the dynamic between intent and nature -- the player's ambition within the game and the character's actual personality. The two are not necessarily the same and are often at odds. Sometimes it plays more like the Sims as you watch your character do something foolish because, well, he's actually kind of a fool that way. That's a feature, not a bug. In a recent game, my character was neck-and-neck in a horse race with another player, and the only chance I had to win was to invoke a Passion for inspiration -- Love of his courtly amour, who was watching the race -- for a bonus to the roll and pull ahead at the finish. I failed the roll, fumbled it, actually. My character let up too soon while trying to grandstand for her, couldn't get his amour's attention until the wrong moment, lost the race, and his Love score plummeted as she hid her face in embarrassment. It was a stunning cascade of failure, culminating in Madness, and entirely in character in a way that I probably wouldn't have chosen as a player. And it was fun, because it was the character who was failing, not me as a player. There's been a lot of grousing over the years by players not comfortable with giving up directorial control over their character's thoughts and feelings (as opposed to, say surrendering directorial control when it comes to swinging a sword or breaking down a door), which is part of the dynamic of Pendragon and what makes it the game that it is. !i! [P.S. Combat mechanics are different from RQ, but that's the least of your worries. Pendragon is all about Personality Traits and Passions. You'll have some familiarity with those from RQG's Passions rules, but read through those sections a couple of times. You could feasibly jettison all the physical stats and play a game based entirely on the paired Personality Traits table.]
  5. And there are so many different systems for Tékumel. Pick the one with the most evocative spell names -- Swords & Glory is great for overall flavor, and HQ can help pull it out of the deep, deep weeds. !i!
  6. Was that an official genre pack, or just talk of homebrewed adaptations? !i!
  7. Wow. I uploaded a scan of the entire raw Selenim translation with editorial? What was I thinking? Oh, yeah, I was thinking that it was never going to see the light of day. And, besides, the French books were always available to the polyliterate. That upload was, what, 2005? Fortunes were very uncertain at that point. Dim, even. But look what's happened in the decade since! !i!
  8. 😐 🤔 🤨 Granted, but not consistent cross-culturally, regionally, sub-culturally, etc. I've always found APPearance problematic in play as a result, and have leaned into APPeal/CHArisma. While it's more vague, that vagueness has allowed more flexibility. And I still generally don't use it. !i!
  9. I'm thinking to 20 years back when Pagan Publishing was switching the code of the customary Lovecraft-esque Call of Cthulhu adventures. Not always even-handed and definitely not all leftie-liberal-squishiness, they turned a hairy eyeball toward Lovecraft's dated sensibilities several times. They turned the tables on a classic Anglo-Saxon touchstone in their Golden Dawn book and its hideous interpretation of the King Arthur myth. Their inclusion of Tcho-Tcho-Americans in Delta Green: Countdown was a brilliant and savage take on US immigration policy (among other issues). Point being, gamers who love Call of Cthulhu have been moving past Lovecraft for years now. It turns out this precious goose ain't that fragile. And it ain't that golden, either. And -- here's a poorly-kept secret for you -- the Mythos didn't start with Lovecraft, and it hasn't ended with him. The game will change with the times. The game will survive. Chaosium will survive. Whether or not you want to change is up to you. !i!
  10. Well, he is invisible. So you like to watch, do you? All joking aside, yeah, I'm glad to see that Malkionism/sorcery won't inadvertently get short shrift by including a truncated rendition in CoG. !i!
  11. I hope readers have been keeping score in the preceding posts, but I thought I should add this one to the rhetorical scorecard: "Let's you and him fight." Carry on. !i!
  12. And since we're cataloguing rhetorical double-speak... "Let's begin an argument by agreeing that my opinions are 'objective' and sensible a priori." "Everything was going fine until you felt safe enough to complain about it." "I genuinely admire how your people held up under the oppression and exploitation of my people. You should be proud of yourselves instead of playing the victim." "He channeled his objectionable opinions and behaviors into a pursuit that I can enjoy without taking responsibility for encouraging him and others." "There were very fine people on both sides." Those are good ones. !i!
  13. A common tactic employed against liberals, progressives, and other socially-sensitive and -inclusive softies is to adopt a hand-wringing, beleaguered posture and demand recognition, sensitivity, and inclusion with no intention of reciprocating. It's a win-win for the trolls, and a lose-lose for the home team. If you acknowledge their POV, they've scored legitimacy; if you deny them recognition, they claim hypocrisy and undermine the legitimacy of your POV. Note: This tactic is employed on both the reactionary and the revolutionary ends of the spectrum. Protecting the rights of those who're determined to exploit yours is ever the slippery slope of liberty. !i!
×
×
  • Create New...