Atgxtg

Ah a couple of hundred buck was/is a lotta money for most RPG companies. Plus the big expense isn't the patent but protecting it. Once someone infringes on the patent, it is up to the holder to poney up the money to pay the legal costs. Yeah, TSR went after Dangerous Journeys. Unfairly too, IMO. The game is certainly more different from AD&D than, say Palladium, and TSR didn't go after them. But there was a lot of bad blood between Gygax, and his former co-workers at TSR. As for Palladium, the general consensus from those I've talked to is that is that Keven Siembieda is a jerk. Considering how heavily D&D "influenced" the Palladium RPG, he is really the last one to talk about IP. I agree that d20/"the one system" seems to be the way the mainstream RPG market is going. But, so what? It was like this when I got into the hobby, with other RPGs existingon the fringes, and it's that way again. These days with have the intert, PDF, desktop publishing, and a ton of indie games. It's a shame that RQ, DQ, and other games faded into obscurity. It a shame that the AH deal virtually killed off the 2nd most popular RPG at the time. It was the wrong move for all the right reasons. Had it went the way Greg had expected when he made the Deal, Chasoium would probably be the #2 RPG company today, and RQ the second most popular system. I think it is time for Chasoium to either get back into the industry or shut down. The big split a few years back, with Hero Wars/Glorantha, and Pendragon going off to new companies didn't help (They were the only products besides CoC that had successful product lines-and still do). I think BRP is either going to remake them or be their "last hurrah". While I think that they can exist indefinitely as a "boutique" publisher, I don't see them making any impact or growing by doing so.

Possibly. On-line conversations sometimes take a lot longer to work out that a quick face top face. I've had a couple of situations where I disagreed completely with someone over how they did something, but when we compared notes we were essentially doing the same thing, but from opposite directions. Sort of like do you cap off the power level of the PCs to fit the campaign, or adjust the campaign to fit the power level of the PCs? Same end result, different approach. I can also see your point about what you are doing and what the players think you are doing. I do that as well. For instance, when things get dull I sometimes roll dice, or ask someone to roll dice, and then look at my character log with their stats and perception skills on it. One thing I tried to explain to some fledgling GMs in my gaming group was just how often I screwed something up, just that I usually managed to cover it up or fix it before the players noticed. Experienced GMs can usually perform damage control faster the the PCs can spot the problem. It is something that can be intimidating to new Gms, too. They see things going smoothly, then go ito shock when they run for the first time, and it doesn't come off so easily. Thant sounds about right with me. I've tweaked my share of RPGs (and then some) over the years. I think the important thing is to try to be fair and consistent. If something doesn't work as expected, there should be a reason, even if the reason is as simple as the PC being misinformed. Well, I'd say it works for you and your gaming group. As long as it works for the group too, I don't think there is a problem with the style. If it worked for you, and only you, and your group was miserable, that would be something else.

Yeah. When I was running RQ3, I used to let fatigue slide, unless I knew before hand that it would be a factor, such as when I has a big fight planned, or if people were overburdened and intro the negative FP points beforehand.

Probably not so much lax, and friendlier. Back in the early days, the RPG community was just that, a community. Rather than trying to get rule systems to themselves, most early game designers were proud of what they did and were eagerly showing things off to others, and genuinely pleased when someone incoprated one of thier rules into an RPG. TSR was the exception. When Gygax took control, he was going for the money. The same thing with the literary tie-ins. Michale Moorcock gave both Chasoium AND TSR permission to use his works for RPGs in that light. As the hooby evolved/mutated into more of a business this started to fade away and get replaced with a more corporate approach. I think WotC patented certain terms (like tapping) rather than actually mechanics (tilting/rotating a card). I doubt such a tactic would have had much impact on most RPGs, since you can't patent rolling dice. You probably could patent specialty dice, so systems like FUDGE probably could have locked some stuff down if they wanted to. I doubt there is enough money in the RPG field to make the idea feasible, though. Especially for the early RPG makers. Most companies carved out a marginal existence as it was. throwing in the costs of patents would have broken anyone except, perhaps TSR. Then there is the expense of actually suing a company for patent infringement. If you notice, patents only seem to be effective if a big company holds it. If a small company owns it, then the big companies will get a knock off in the stores by the end of the year, and get away with it. In the RPG field, I suspect that if companies like Chaosium or FGU went after each other, the suing would probably go bankrupt first. With Mtg, the situation is different. MtG generates more money that probably the entire RPG market, so some patents were affordable. Even then, they didn't stop the flood of CCGs.

Definitely. :thumb: I can see elements of RQ3 and ElfQuest in it. The system is mostly RQ with a different damage system and more attributes. Even the skills breakdown and arrangement is similar to RQ3 skill categories with Phsycial, Communication, and Lore (Knowledge) skills.

Yes & no. For a one on one fight, such would be unlikely in real life, but would be unlikely in RQ3, too. Basically limited to fights better very experienced (rune level), or completely inexperienced combatants, probably will some decent APs and/or Protection. For a larger skirmish or full fledged battle, then yeah, people would back off to rest up every so often. FPs do provide some tactical options, as well. It is a viable tactic to use wolf pack tactics, switching out attackers to tire someone down.

That matches up fairly closely to my experiences with RQ3, too. Most fights were short and brutal, and smart players tired to keep around 5-10FP to avoid fatigue penalties. One guy figured out that one of the advantages of Spells like Strength and Vigor in a battle was the extra FP points. Vigor 3 and you were usually convered for the battle. Most of my long battles in RQ3 were along the lines of skirmishes and sitautions where one side had a defible position and the attackers would start an attack, pick off a couple of guards, then fall back behind cover and rest/regroup. In my eperience, if someone was constantly deep into the negative FPs he was usally just carrying around too much crap to fight. Or he had really poor stats. We had one guy with a 5 STR and 7 CON once. He usually had FP problems (he was the guy who figured out the Vigor 3 trick).

Not entirely true. Character could rest and regain some FPs. So, depending on the situation, it could be possible for some characters to stop and rest for a couple of rounds before continuing. If some side had a numerical advantage and the other controlled a "bottleneck" such as a doorway, you could indeed have some very long fights, with different character taking turns guarding a doorway.

One reason why I like the give & take with various people on-line is that after a bit you can get a read on them, and where they are coming from/style of play. So I could see RMS going with a looser interpretation of things based on some of his posts over at the MRQ board. Based on some of Nightshade's threads on this site, I believe you two have very different gaming styles. I can sort of see both sides in this. On the one hand I'm a big fan of the rules adapting to the setting rather than the reverse, but on the other would not want to play in a campaign where the GM stopped/rewrote/or autofailed my actions because they didn't fit his story. As a player, I've played through both situations and didn't like either. Of course, every style is open to abuse, and each has it own strength and pitfalls. Chances are both of you can bring up the various weakness of each other's approach. All will probably be valid, too, depending on just who is running and playing. But I suspect neither of you will see "eye to eye" on this issue.

:thumb::D:thumb: BTW, Happy Aniversary. Fine with us. Another day or two is fine, we weren't expecting instant results. Besides, who would answer our questions and post the preview if you wife throttles you for ignoring you anniversary. :eek: PS, Thanks Jason!! Oh, and Thank Charlie, too!

I know the feeling. One reason why I got ticked off at that group was the most of them were makeng two to three times what I was making at the time. And I was the only one with any sort of higher education. Like I said, "Alone in a hostile environment". Same with ammo or water, quantity isn't an issue until you could run out. I think that the adrenaline kicking in. I had to take ephedrine (adrenaline) for astha, and can personally attest that even if I was sick and tired, once the shot went through my bloodstream, I didn't feel tired. In fact, I felt panicked, and it took an effort to lie still instead of running around the room. Good thing that sidewinders don't carry neurotoxins instead of hemotoxins! Also, with snakes they don't inject a constituent amount of venom. From what I've read, about one third of the time they inject a "normal dose", another third of the time they inject little to no venom at all, and the final (pun! pun!) third of the time they dump all they've got. From what I've read, the mortality rate from snakes carrying hemotoxins is fairly low, generally less than 35% without treatment. Less than 1% with anti-venom. Nerotoxins are worse. Not so much because the poison is more deadly, but because it is faster acting AND impairs the nervous system, giving you less time to react and causing less localized damage. This nature lesson was brought to you by Empire of the Wyrms Friends.

Yup. But by going with less spefic measurements, it can make bookkeeping and running easier. For instance, is most battle magic spells lasted for "around" five minutes rather than 5 minutes, you can wing the time keeping. That why some games use terms like "last for the duration of the scene". That way if a spell is up, it can be considered up until the situation has changed. In many cases such rules can mitigate some of the lethality of an RPG. Like is people don't bleed to death right away, but "after the fight" then they are more likely to last around long enough to get first aid. It makes the game a little more forgiving and easier to play without making major changes to the rules.

I think BRP wasn't well suited towards Supers. That sort goes with it being more realistic. With the Sperworld options it worked, but was a bit clunky. Sort of like an overcomplicated HERO system. Yeah, but them most game system problems are. You can get any sort of result from nearly any RPG with a little tweaking. It depends on how much work you want to do to get the desired results. Superworld works to a point, but would not be my first choice to run a Supers campaign. Probably not even for a "street level" "reality with powers" campaign, although the latter would be easier. Yes and No. For a comic style super campaing, I think the rule is: Blunt weapons bach, knock out, edged, pointed weapons injure/kill. Massive overkill from blunt trauma (falling off a cliff, being beaten after the point of unconsciousness) MAY inflict lethal damage depedning on who is being hit and how much damage is being soaked at once. For a standard BRP RPG setting, pretty much anything without Superheores, then I think some sort of non-lethal damage system would make sense to handle brawls and fistfights. Even something as simple as making a "stun check" when hit, and fumbling means a KO result would work. Maybe add 1d3 real damage after the fight?

Just don't drool all over the preview.

I'm envious. Years ago, I had to twist arms to get most of my group to chip in $2 each to buy a new battle mat. Most people didn't buy the rules, and all this came up in the late 90s when I was claiming that CCGs were killing RPGs. I had one guy who LOVED Pendragon, When Chaosium stopped supported Pendragon to produced a CCG, and he asked why, I pointed out that had never bought a single book for Pendragon, yet had spent hundred of dollars on Magic cards. We are on the same page here. Every one in awhile in Bond, it would become important. Typically when we got to the "storming the bad guys fortress" part of an adventure. Lugging around a backpack full of C4 to blow down the steel doors tends to limit how many guns, grenades and other goodies you can take along. Still, it isn't as common as in fantansy RPGs where the players are usually carrying everything they own on their backs. Yup. I've done that too. Often I was fine until I noticed the injury, and THEN it started to hurt. Sort of like "Oh crap, I'm injured. That should hurt. Wait, now it does." Its that death spiral thingie. In the short term it takes something really nasty to take you out. If you are too stubborn or too stupid to notice or care, it makes you just that much tougher. That is why animals often fight on after being severely injured. They are just to dumb to lie down and die. People on the other hand see the injury go "Oh no, I'm dying" and give up. Sort of like Wyle E. Coyote in the old cartoons. Just don't look down.

Agreed. RMS has played some HeroQuest, so I think that sort of approach is second nature to him now. HQ "ruined" him for normal gaming. ;) Personally, I liked the way Ars Magica handled durations, putting then in terms that were easily measured by people without timepieces (whats a minute without a clock?) like Sun (works until sunrise or sunset). Makes magic seem less scientific and more arcane.

Note quite sure what you mean here. Please clarify. :confused: Oh yeah, I don't have a problem with the damage per say, in a Supers RPG (I do have a problem with it in most other settings), where martial arts can and do smash through brick walls and iron safes. But I do have a problem with Batman or Captian America breaking bones, smashing skulls and such with every other punch. Basically it's a combination of the laws of comic reality (blunt weapons beat people up, knock them out, instead of inflicting serious injury-at least most of the time), combined with one of the gaps/weakness of BRP than stems form its age. IE. lack on non lethal combat. For a supers campaign, I don't think you'd need an obvious place to stop. Personally, I'd probably go with something like damage past a certain amount (say a mutiple of HP) could be lethal. Or maybe swipe a rule from another RPG and give characters who take lethal damage from blunt attack the option of getting KO's instead for one round or minute per point of damage.

Yeah, but that mirrors the comics. Otherwise all those superpowers characters would have killed lots of people by now. If Batman got hit just ONCE by one of those high STR guys, it would be all over. Old superworld (WoW) didn't use energy the same way, though. I wonder if there is a nerf rule for fists? I'm really not keen on a martial artist, Superhero or not, kicking for 1D6+1D4 or even 2D6+1D6.

Sounds like most of us are thinking of a mix between the old RQ/fantasy Gateway Bestiary.

No it doesn't. It's a stylistic difference. Sort of what I was referring to about the difference in eras. Back with RQ was written, everything was spelled out in clear, consistent terms. Spells lasted exactly so many turns, fatigue penalties were X% and so forth. Now a lot of gamers take a more open approach. For instance, I'd be more inclined to have spells with a duration last for a "scene" rather than X minutes and so on. It greatly simplifies play, with little to no downside.

Yeah, we won't blame you if they say no. Thanks for the effort.If someone gives you flak the rest of us will back you up. Consider yourself warded (hey, I had to look through MW to get the right spell:D). :thumb: Oh, BTW, if Chaosium doesn't have space for a preview on their site, I think Triff might be persuaded to host a page or two here. Of course that would give him first peek, but I think he could handle that. Well, perhaps "persuades" is the wrong word. More like we have to beat him back with a stick to keep him from bitting your hand off with the (virtual) paper.

Yeah, that's just it. People do occasionally die from punches, but then more people probably die from slipping in the bathtub (more people die from accidents at the home than from gunshot wounds). I still wouldn't want to kill off a character that way, though. The idea of running a WWII Captain America or a Batman or Moon Knight, along with a group of normal characters interests me. BRP could just about pull it off.

I'm not sure. I'd like to think so. Haven't seen that particular people in years. I have fond memories of it, and it was talked about a bit in the years after. But, I think it is memorable because it was a one-off big event. It I had run fights like that all the time, it wouldn't have worked out as well. I know a guy who did run big fights all the time, and after awhile it just got boring. Run enough (too much) combat, especially the trading blows variety, and combat looses it's excitement. The good players can usually figure out the odds, and an experienced GM generally knew them before the battle started. So playing it out can become a formality. Plus with games like RQ, 50+ combatants works out to 2-3 criticals every round. Since the PCs are usually outnumbered, they are the ones who tended to be on the receiving end of a lucky hit that kills someone.