dragonewt

Under the particular circumstances where a session is run with a title of "Introduction to Role Playing Games", that Pathfinder Society approach is only valid for the Pathfinder Society, and people who would be happy with Pathfinder. And only that. It is valid if you consider indirectly lying to your audience and manipulation them to your agenda is valid. It is not valid from the audience's point of view if they want to know more about role-playing, instead of just Pathfinder and only Pathfinder from a controlled perspective. It does not respect people who want to know about role-playing as a whole and what options are out there (genres, styles of play, systems, options, choices). It might provide a starting point, but other options should also be suggested in order to show the audience some respect.

Marketing -> Appeal to, or shape popular culture and social assumptions. Pathfinder Society seems remarkably active. I have seen them give talks about "what is role-playing" but only provide PFRPG as the example, which is either honestly naive, or done with a conscientious (and ultimately disingenuous - what if a potential player wants something else?) agenda.

The problem is when people "the masses" do not (cannot, will not) see past a thin veneer. What D&D promises (or used to promise) is a generic Tolkien-type world (even if it is not that, it seems to be what it is assumed to be). Which is something that most people can relate to via popular culture. This has extended onto WoW, which now partially defines the popular culture that people expect, assume and want to relate to. Again, I am generalising, but this seems to represent the bulk of what I observe, and what defines current popular culture. Is it true that most people like and feel more comfortable to "level up" rather than hand-craft a more granular and "realistic" character? We assume that most people want to or are capable (and aware in the first place) to strip away a thin veneer to get at a system they can use for other things. I think most people in this forum take that for granted and do it all the time (as meta-gamers, writers, experienced GMs, with a broad and worldly view). I am guessing that a lot of other people want something out-of-the-box that is closer to their expectation and assumption (and ease of entry). CF+ BRP Essentials would provide both a good set of flexible rules and the D&D WORLD feel. How can I convince others to try this, when they can do this "world" in D&D and have the perceived advantages of; friends have it, already 'popular', tons of books they can spend money on for prefabricated books just like their friends have where they don't have to think for themselves or be as creative, they can level-up and create a character without having to be as imaginative in a war-gamey kind of way? Savage worlds benefits from this as well. It is golden when you find a person who, after showing them something other than D&D, says excitedly: "What? You mean I don't have to be limited by Class, and I can create a character just like my heroes in books and movies?". None of this imagination killing discussion of: "So, is Conan a fighter/thief multi-class?". This isn't to say that D&D and its way of playing is bad (it makes some game styles easier). To me it is bad when it becomes the only thing people know and they are unable to see outside it and make a choice.

There are so many versions (free and paid, supported and not) of "d100" out there, what is going to make the world sit up and say "Hey! We want to play that d100 system with those source books!"? Will another round of d100 variations (free and paid) make a difference? How can I convince the plethora of local players to try something other than D&D or Pathfinder ("Wow", they say, "D&D5 is the best thing evar!", yet ignoring a transformation that forked from D&D in the late 70s - RQ/BRP). The sad thing is that many people are happy to stay in (or are unable to leave) their known comfort zone (which some marketing knows how to manipulate, or circumstances set in stone). Ironically, Magic World might be one of the better "gateways" into BRP, because it might be the "feel" that your "average" role-player might be able to relate to. But what is going to motivate people to play something different when they only need D&D (which their friends already have and know) to play "D&D" type games? Sometimes "Levels and Classes and Alignments" are all some people need in order to convince themselves they are using their imagination and that they are "roleplaying"; they might not be able to see beyond that. What made RQ popular and second to D&D in the early days?

Maybe you can blend some Unhallowed Metropolis or Kerberos Club into the mix.

Next time, use a Boar Spear.

That would be the new heroic elf champion known as Glade.

Have a look at Reavers from the Firefly series and Serenity movie: Firefly Wiki (here). Wikipedia (here). To quote one of the main characters regarding reavers: "If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing – and if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order."

Exterminate!

Which brings us full circle to the original poster's point. In RPGs in general, it is often the case that the skill labeled 'Athletics' does not actually represent the full complete scope of athletics (competitive running, jumping, throwing, and walking). I think the use of the term "athletics" is an overly generic way to cover "endurance and traveling terrain, with a bit of hand-eye coordination". However, while most people conveniently assume the smaller sub-set (an almost unwritten and convenient RPG convention), it is not really an accurate use of language. The reason for this is that unless explained, some players may assume that the meaning of the term is that defined in common language and not by some RPG specific short-hand. Is using the RQ6 combat style approach for non-combat skills something that needs to be house-ruled (although derived from the 'style' logic that is already inherent in the rules; specifically the combat rules)?

This means that skills sets are treated inconsistently, with too much focus on combat. Why not just have a "I hit it with my generic weapon" skill? This is in light of the degree of differentiation that is provided between weapon types and combat styles. This can depend on what players, GMs and game designers see as important for a a chosen genre and tone of play. However this potentially provides a skewed view, which can potentially trap many people in a given mind-set of "melee/missile combat is the only solution". Or alternatively, the players who invests fewer 'points' in the broader non-combat skills can gain a some very potent game influencing abilities (assuming the game isn't a simplistic dungeon bash). "Charisma" is never a "dump stat", when used properly, and the game genre and tone allows for (or demands) this. It is fairly easy to have a consistent skill tree system that treats combat in the same light as oratory, politics, medicine, athletics, and so on. Eg: some of those things developed in the classical age (as well as before and after - what are some of the qualities a classical Greek or Celtic hero are known for?). Have a look at the way Action! System provides a fairly consistent yet scalable system. Want skills-light? Then only use the broad category. Want detailed granular skills? Then use the sub-categories, or both. Want very granular specializations? That is available as well. An example of the full scale would be: 40% in firearms, +20% with pistols, +10% with .44 Magnum. Or: 40% with 'social', +20% with lie, +10% with ballroom intrigue. The narrower skills have less scope, but are "cheaper" (point cost, training time, or however a particular system handles developing skills). The top tier above 'broad skills' would be stats, perhaps with something below 'stats' such as 'occupation', or 'class'. D100 systems can also benefit from this approach.

"Athletics is an exclusive collection of sporting events that involve competitive running, jumping, throwing, and walking." "In throwing events, athletes are measured by how far they hurl an implement, with the common events being the shot put, discus, javelin, and hammer throw." That's a lot of skills under one label. It also covers a large variety of missile weapons. It's almost as versatile as the "thumb" skill. Does this mean that my Olympiad character can perform all of these sub-skills equally well, and compete effectively at the Olympics in many many events (that normally take dedicated effort from one person for one event)? I think the use of the term "athletics" is a lazy way to cover "endurance and traveling terrain, with a bit of hand-eye coordination". However, while most people conveniently assume the smaller sub-set, it is not really an accurate use of language. When using a system that has "skill groups", "athletics" is a good top level "broad skill" to cover the many sub-skill categories.

Citizen, the Party finds your use of rational thinking to be offensive. Please report to the Ministry of Truth.

Or building another Reich or Empire (or street gang), and using that to crush your enemies.

Here's one:

I also found some potential Broo here: Broolian Beastmen (Victoria Miniatures)

That is where the villain's skill points (and character points, or points of 'value') go, hence they are actually tougher from a general survival perspective (but comparatively weak from a purely "physical-combat-is-the-only-way" type of RPG approach).

Treasure Factor or Threat Rating can be used to determine the approximate threat (the "level") of a LONE creature (which is what I suspect is the basis of your question). Again, the threat depends on the context of a conflict - Eg: purely physical combat (with or without battle magic), or social conflict, etc... So you could use a method that calculates based on the context (only accounting for abilities that are relevant to a given type of conflict - and have a short-cut of one for Combat, and maybe one for Pure Magic, and one for Social). If you take into account group dynamics and strategy (and overall Group Threat Rating), then you would need to scale the TR accordingly (almost similar to increasing the threat rating per extra attack). This could be a multiplier, or some kind of ratio. Such that 4 times the number of a given enemy might equate to about 8 times the Threat Rating, and 8 times the enemy would be maybe 24 times. However you would need to adjust this based on play-testing. You could also multiply the TR for Group Morale, Commander Tactics and (for those who want this detail) effectiveness of communication for a commander to communicate requests and for the troops to understand them (player strategy could involve things like disrupting communications, killing a standard bearer, "sending someone in to negotiate", etc...). This would provide a rough tool-kit for obtaining an estimate "level" per creature (for a given types of conflicts), and way to account for multiple entities (groups of a given dynamic). Again, some GMs instinctively do this in their head based on feel. However, if the metrics were formalized, you might end up with something such as this. PS: You would also need to account for how many individuals in a group can bring their attack to bear on single target (for "normal" circumstances). This would be a contextual TR against a given target.

You could use something similar to the original Treasure Factor from the original RQ2. You would need to update this to account for other skills and abilities. The TF calculation seems to only focus on combat capability (which overly represents combat masters such as the dwarven axe-berserker, but discriminates against other skills areas, such as the subversive political snake-tongue Krasht worshiper who could decimate your player character group with nothing but a few manipulative words). The TF would represent a "Threat" or "Capability" Level, which can be used to compare the "levels" (general effectiveness) of Creatures, PCs and NPCs. A monster gets 1 treasure factor for each of the following (which is used to calculate treasure on an RQ2 treasure table): Each 5 points of hit points or fraction thereof. Each 25% chance to hit, or portion thereof. Each extra die of damage done by the monster. Each point of armor protecting the monster's whole body. Each combat spell possessed by the monster. Each special power of the monster. Each 5 levels of poison potency used by the monster. Each extra attack the monster has. PS: It is interesting to note how many gems are in the original rules that were lost (and perhaps 'rediscovered' in 'modern' RPGs).

Looking forward to my order arriving.

"Next week will see the last teaser before pre-order is launched. What mecha would you like to see?" Doraemon

Man: Run! It's Godzilla! Man 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEJm0uIVwUc. Man: Still, we should run like it is Godzilla! Man 2: Though it isn't. Do it:

I think you will agree with me here; Battletech is neither Anime, nor even "mecha" in the true sense of the genre. It is walking tanks for westerners. I think that both free-form and point-buy systems work well with Anime and Mecha genres (in general). Again this depends on the exact genre and focus of each game, as well as the style of play that the GM and group are happy with.

Mekton Empire might also be what you want. And it will also work with and compliment BRP Mecha quite nicely.

A mini BRP/RQ6 comparable to the scope and coverage of Mini Six would also be feasible. The amount of content covered in a few pages is impressive. Found here: Mini Six at AntiPaladin Games. Given that the license used for both Mini Six and MRQ/OQ is the same (OGL) one could use the layout of Mini Six and transpose the rules and stats with MRQ/OQ equivalents (and keep the same page layout).