mrk

To introduce the Sentinels simply as a big giant head rolling out of the darkness was a huge let down. infact, after I saw that clip on line I didn't even go the the theatre and just waited till it showed up at my cruddy little DVD rental store down the street that you can rent movies for $1 buck. I still wish I could get my dollar back.

I FINALLY got mine today. I've looked it over at lunch and I have to say, Jason you and Sam did a real bang-up job! The book is written for beginners in mind yet made for seasoned gamers who want to branch out and don't mind doing some of the conversion work on their own. My only pet peeves--I wish there was a section on Priestly magic and that the major wounds table was a little more like the old Perrin/ Hargrave critical hit charts for those who don't want to use hit locations but like rolling a "01" and seeing what bloody mayhem transforms! None the less, thease are minor issues and can easly be adjudicated by any experienced GM.Five stars all the way! :):)

There's a lot of enfant terrible's in hollywood. Infact, he's not even the worst or that bad. It's the smaller guys who want to cheat and lowball you for every nickel they can get that makes life miserable. I'll take a hundred Brian Singers over one Charles Band any day of the week.

For Superman Returns, somebody must've been thinking, "We need a great director with a track record in this "superhero thing" to do it right." What a bummer. I wanted to see Supes do more than just move an iceberg and deflect a bullet with his eye.

To bad McG didn't make his superman movie. I saw some design art for it that looked very cool like Superman in outerspace fighting big robots. Some of the Terminators and bots are very cool in McG's new film. There's sort of a Quake feel to some of them. I've heard some funny Bryan Singer stories over the years. Quite a "funny" guy he is...

It's funny how Fanboys will hate someone they never met because they don't like some of their work. Bret Ratner is actually a nice guy. He did a Learning Annex seminar a few years back and was very open and cordial. I'm not a fan of all his movies, but I like some of his music video and commercial work and dug one or two of his movies( His Red Dragon was much better then Michael Mann's version). Yeah, I didn't like his X Men movie, but then again I didn't like ANY of the X-Men movies. Honestly, after Iron Man, I don't think I'll want to watch another bastardization superhero movie ever again--especially if you have Wolverine wearing a unisexual bodysuit.

Unless your Steven Spielberg, most directors don't have the pull to get a film into production. Look at Martin Scorsese, he's one of the greatist film makers of all time, but it took him 25 years to get Gangs of New York made. Most films usuelly start either with a screenplay or some intellectual property people are interested in or a bankable Actor wanting to work with the company on a project. Also, it's not just the director that makes a good movie but many other people as well who are involved as well. Anyway funguy, I'm sure you know this just as much as I do as we both live in LA and have some friends who work in that industry. :focus:

I agree partially with your point and certainly don't disagree that studios and producers are the driving force, but I have to disabuse you of that notion that they are free to go to production without the right director at the helm. Look at the Harry Potter films as an example of very canny staging of directors with pedigrees to fit the tone of each film. Studios simply won't fund $100 million CGI projects without a capable director to lens it. As upstart Marvel Studios have proven, the traditional insider producers have been elbowed offstage by Avi Arad and Marvel with "Iron Man." They couldn't have done it without J. Favreau and they wouldn't dare doing IM2 without him (see the controversy on that onine).

Studios can certainly greenlight films all they want, but they can wallow in pre-production for years with directors flitting in and out of availability (see the attempt to revive "Superman" and further back the abortive efforts to get "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" launched. Or worse, when they greenlight with a complete idiot behinds the lens--X-Men 3) I know this b/c of long-term acquaintances who helped in the three Spider-man films who gave me blow by blows on how a film like that comes to fruition. Sam Raimi held those films together in a way someone like Brett Ratner could never do because the studios had faith that he and Laura Ziskin's production company were on it. Even the "Incredible Hulk"'s reboot owes as much to the director/actor team of Leterier/Norton to make it work. There is no way they would have taken that big a chance without some confidence that this time it would really deliver the goods (though the Ang Lee "Hulk" was a moderate success and not as big a failure as some make it out to be--financially at least). Big gambles each one and the ones that worked were the ones that just didn't have studios passively greenlighting projects, but the ones they carefully selected directors for it. See the controversy over Peter Jackson's ugly split with New Line. Fans were ready to boycott "The Hobbit" before it even went into production. The compromise of Jackson as producer and Del Toro as director made the deal happen. Yes, you need the hammer, but you can't do it without the nail.

It's going to be hard prying directors away from comic book films now. Alot of the ones with promising credentials are already tied to film adaptations of superhero films and their sequels. LOTR didn not spawn the fantasy renaissance some were hoping for. JK Rowlings gets credit for spawning the young adult fantasy films, but as far as sword and sorcery goes, Conan never got revived, and Elric is looking more distant. Though I'd be happy to be wrong. (I still can't get the foul taste of "The Scorpion King" out of my mouth.)

Actually it's the studios and the producers who make the decisions on what is made or not. The new Lord of the Rings,Harry Potter and even Narnia films have made billions and that helps create interest in Hollywood to fund more fantasy based films, that with Iron Man making $500 million worldwide theatricaly, your going to see a lot alot more superhero and fantasy related movies for years to come ( so long as they keep making money). I only hope films like The Dark Knight ( which I saw last week and is the by far, grimiest comic book adaptation I have seen to date) and The Watchman do extremely well, as that only means th Film Industry will be more willing to take a chance on Adult themed graphic novels and comics and not try and sell us only on kiddy movies ( like the new crappy Journey to the Center of the Earth). BTW...a new revamped Conan series is in the works at a well funded company.

The Golden Compass is one thing, but Elric is a whole different matter. Now that HB 2 was no# 1 at the Box office and proves there's an interest in Adult-style Action/Fantasy in the film studios eyes, there's a chances Universal might be interested in the Elric books once again. I know Guillermo Del Toro has a multiple deal with Universal and is a huge fan of the series and even toyed with the idea of making an Elric film long ago.. Chances are, even if he wanted to direct them he couldn't with his commitment to doing The Hobbit, but I could easly see him maybe being an executive producer if he has the time. As for the Weitz Brothers, I doubt they would be invovled and probably the studio would hire another director instead. If it ever happens, I can only hope they can get someone like David Fincher or Christopher Nolan to come on board as director. Now or in the future, I'm sure it will happen one day that will see an Elric film. Afterall, Warner Brothers just bought the rights to Elf Quest.

An Elric film (or rather, the first in a trilogy) was announced around four years ago, to be directed by the Weitz brothers (Chris and Paul). They've since done The Golden Compass.

Michael Moorcock said a while back that an initial draft of the screenplay was complete and was acceptable to him. A year ago yesterday Moorcock posted that Universal had paid for another 18 months of rights to make the film.

I'm skeptical anything will happen, mainly because of the lukewarm performance to The Golden Compass. If it had been a huge hit, the Weitzs would be stuck making the second and third film in that trilogy. If Compass bombed, there'd be little chance anyone would put them at the helm of yet another big-budget fantasy trilogy. Instead, it performed in that grey area that can alternately be called a disappointment or a moderate success.

There isn't much other news floating around, though the fans haven't let that stop any speculation.

Even more reasons why to put out a zothique book :deadhorse: :focus:

Though when using some of the more hard-core options, its not like you really need big monsters to be a problem; back in the old RQ days, I saw an awful lot of characters killed just because they caught a critical from things like self-bow arrows in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I agree. Goblins are some of the most low powerd bad guys you'll ever face. But if you have ten of them slinging arrows at you at the same time that means the GM is now rolling TEN TIMES to see if any of them hit, and chances are, your going to get a crit or two from all those rolls being made. Seen it happen plenty of times...

I think with so much discussion on hit locations charts going on that, I think a tertiary hit location chart needs be be created. That is, a chart that covers EVERY bit of anatomy you possibly can hit. Even better, I would finally have a use for that D1000 I bought years ago.

I like Funguys' table. If anything Rosen, it's something to work off for your own gaming needs. You can't ask anymore then that from another GM.

It makes sense to do a REH supplement. Especially now with the video game being a big hit and a new series of Conan films in the works. However, after seeing Hellboy 2, it's only a mattter of time before an Elric film is announced.

Actualy the man was kicking at the other mans leg and like I mentioned is a common combat tactic used in Muay Thai. Also, if you look closely at the footage, the defender is almost striking the other man's leg with his own. Experienced Kickboxers condition their shins to make them harder ( almost like metal ) and will use them to their advantage for both kicking and defending an is the reason why the man literally shatterd the lower part of his leg after making contact on the other man's shin. It's no different then a shield used to break a sword.

, I don't think I'd give the defender the damage bonus since his defense was effectively static. Think of it as a "trap" to kick something you shouldn't be kicking. If anything, the attacker's Damage Bonus came right back at himself. Think of yourself walking into the corner of the table. Most of the harm came from you blundering into it. The faster, harder you come at the edge of the table, the more damage you take. Mr. Table wasn't really adding to the impact. Ouch.

A fumble, definitely. Like the old "Hit self, do maximum damage". In this case it's "hit someone else, snap own leg in two".

Although it could have been a failure and a critical parry.

I think Trifletraxor is right and that it is a parry. The Fighter raised his leg just as the other guy launched his roundhouse kick to block the incomming attack. It's a classic lower Muay Thai tactic that as you can see has the potentinal of doing some serious damage.

All roads lead to chicken..if you boil it long enough :focus:

Now I am a big fan of severed body parts and gushing blood - but I must say I 've never actually tasted the severed parts or blood. You are kind of scaring me.

What I'm saying is "tasty" in the sense that the visuals depicted in the hit location and major wounds chart make the combat rounds more exciting ( aka eye candy) not unlike if you were watching a gory action film like "Evil Dead" or "Kill Bill" (or maybe I should say "mind candy" as were not actually physically seeing any of this stuff ).

One problem BPR has is that it is sort of has to torch passed to it from several similar but different Chaosium games. What might be appealing to some players could very well alienate others. The controversy over hit locations and major wounds is one example.

.

And that's what's great about the rules. If you take out hit locations and major wounds, the core of the combat system is intact and still very much enjoyable to use. Severed body parts and gushing blood are all dandy and nice, but it's nothing more then then icing on the cake--tasy as it may be

I don't need to use Bonewitz' magic system because quite frankly I'm quite content with the one I already use. So long as your happy with the game mechanics, there's no reason to change. Like I previously mentioned, what I found interesting was the ideas he presented and the theory behind them and how it could all make sense in the real world. I own MANY game related books and hardly any of them I use (especially the rules ) but that doesen't mean I can't get something out of them. I haven't played D&D in over ten years but there's some D&D modules that I really enjoyed, inspired me and made me a better Player and GM. I'm open and embrace many ideas( so long as I like them).

Ah, did you ever actually try to use it, either as written or modified as a basis of a magic system? It really is unworkable for a game system. Just go look at some of the spell work-ups, look at how much math is there, and turn on your radar for "I-pulled-it-out-of-the-air" estimates. It's a freeform system with a lot of math to mask it (math that, IMO, make it even less useable).

But, the laws of magic are cool and useful, and there are several good "imagination starter" ideas. It's just a long way from being playable. A long way. I tried.

The snottiness on top of that foundation doesn't help either.

Steve

One thing about John Woo/ Heroic Bloodshed Cinema, is that both Heros tend to die just as much as the villians do. An no matter how important HP's and high combat and ability stats are for the PC's survival, there seems to be some variation of "fate" or " luck" points need to the mix as that seems to be part of the genre's mythus as well as a major aspect to Chinese/ Asia beliefs. If you look at the characters in all the films of John Woo, Tsui Hark, Ringo Lam and Johnny To, even if they get fatally "shot up" and "bloodied", they still make it out in one piece( or two) for the next big fight down the road. But once their "luck" runs out, it's pretty much over for them. Anyway, check out some of the books and articls written about this film genre and you'll probably get a better handle on running a game set in this "balls-to-the-walls" type world.

Hmm...not sure. Honestly, I think it's only recently that Chinese style weapons have been accepted in Japanese films and anime as you sure as hell woln't find them in old school Samurai Films. Besides, can you imagine THIS GUY using a silly little rope dart? LOL!

YouTube - Lone Wolf Ninja Encounter in the Forest

YouTube - beautiful

John woo style films ( aka Heroic Bloodshed) are basicaly over-the-top action movies with lots of blood and carnage. So in essence, running it as a superhero game with violence is the first steps.

Heroic bloodshed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps kickboxing is a better example (as almost the whole body may be targeted).

Have you seen this clip on youtube? It's one of the best examples of just how complicated combat situations and outcomes are in true life when applied to game terms. Is it a hit? a miss? a fumble? a crit? or all four?!! Don't watch this if you have a weak stomach.

YouTube - kick boxer breaks leg - [noparse]http://youtube.com/watch?v=rEVaRrWL4Hg[/noparse]

Yeah, I think your right as there's a slight bit of snottiness within the book, but then the guy does have some authority on the subject and at the time he wrote it magic wasn't very well rationalized in many of the FRPG's back in the 70's. None the less, I still think its' a good read and really gives you an understand of what exactly magic is ( or could be) from a realistic point of view and--even more important-- a foundation as how you want it to function in your own fantasy world.

Well, it's been a couple of years, and the book is packed away at the moment, so I may be talking completely out of my ass. I remember disliking the author's "know-it-all" style (I think he criticized how "most roleplaying games" handle the use of magic, when his criticism really only applied to D&D).

I don't, OTOH, remember getting anything useful out of it. Like, at all. (But then, I'm not a game designer.) As I said, YMMV.

(Snarky side comment: to explain how magic works in the real world is a really tall order when magic, well, doesn't work in the real world. Sorry, I'll shut up now. :innocent:)

As a GM, this is one weapon you just LOVE to see someone fumble with