AsenRG

To me, it's never been a question of Legend OR RQ6/Mythras, not anymore than it is a question of Mythras OR the BGB, Bloodlust, RQG, Maelstrom Domesday, Unknown Armies 2e and Revolution d100, for example. I'm going to run a mix of them all in the end, anyway, possibly mixed with other d100 systems as well. Speaking of which, are the Legend Stormbringer supplements no longer available, or is it just me who can't find them on RPGNow?

Sometimes, not often. Yes. Complete enough that I never wonder what an NPC has to roll. Knowing how the setting works, and who the NPCs are, including their plans. The rest is extra work. Basically, yes, though to me, that's the same as Situation;). No, unless the NPCs having plans and pre-determined relationships counts as a plot. See "Sandbox";). No maps except those I find with Google. Flowcharts see limited use. But mostly, physical locations are described according to what I think makes sense IC. OOC reasons don't come into play. Yes, but as I use simplified NPC tracking method, a score NPCs easily fit on half a page. That's complete with major Passions. Well, the variation is simply enormous:D! I know full well many people prepare in quite different manners.

And with that, I can officially use RQ6 for modern campaigns, or worlds where guns are part of the setting. For some reason, I keep wondering what stats I should give to a flamewand;). Either way, congratulation to the Design Mechanism crew for the outstanding job!

Wait, what, GURPS 4e basic set isn't a rulebook to pick options from? Because that's how I remember it worked last time I ran it;D! BTW, Savage Worlds also has options to pick from in the corebook, so I guess this difference applies mostly to D&D and maybe HERO;).

This thread keeps reminding me how long it has been since I last used a GMing screen;).

I also study martial arts with a slight preference for modern and historical European ones, and try to apply that to RPGs, although I'm not on the HEMA forums;). As for my experience with various systems, TRoS and MRQ2/Legend are among the best takes on the armed combat subject, indeed, closely followed by ORE, "classical" BRP, GURPS and Savage worlds. Surprisingly, the new LotW would do a good job for historical combat, and with the right group, the small RPG Enemy Gods by John Wick and even some FATE games would work;D!

Let me focus on the bolded parts. How is this rolling a die to swing a sword and describing how you're doing it less imaginary than saying the words of an imaginary person to another imaginary person? Describing is an absolute requirement in my games, BTW, with no ways left around it. Did he or she really roleplay the situation? Most players tend to play people more skilled in the social area than themselves, just like my swordsman is likely to be more skilled with a blade than me. They'd probably fail to play out to the extent their character would. Even if he or she said the right words, he'd quite likely miss the right tempo, botch the pauses, and lack the practised body language* of the PC specialist. It is however well-known that non-verbal communication carries more info than the words! As such, the player not only didn't roleplay it out, his or her performance was misleading without the die roll;). Same as with combat, really, where most players couldn't describe it adequately. So, combat and social conflict are actually the same situation, thus the game mechanics to handle them have to be at least somewhat similiar, and preferably use the same "engine" for skills, initiative and the like. One should also take in account that the player of a combat specialist often is or feels personally involved in physical conflict situations beyond what the game mechanics rule for the outcome of his character's actions. If these guys can rule their attachment in to accept the result of the dice, so can everyone! These are just my thoughts as well. *Strict character immersionists who have their voice and body language changing when playing a different character are an edge case here. Most people don't get to such levels of immersion, though. In fact, at least some of them feel more immersed during combats! Yes, I know such people, am I to allow them to just describe their actions and decide based on this? Weird, than, that I regularly hear in martial arts schools "fighting is like a conversation", isn't it;D? See above in this post for the reasons why I disagree. You don't "just roll Fast-talk" in any system, unless yes, you want a fast resolution and that's it:). Modifiers also exist, BTW. Yes, not all social situations need to be roleplayed the same way. Often, you still use the simple roll with maybe a difficulty. But then, we often use that for unimportant fights as well, say when only pride is hurt. There's no "rule-playing" being proposed in this thread. There are, however, people that tend to label this way any attempt at a more involved social mechanic, possibly as a reminder of the "roll-playing vs role-playing" fallacy;).

Yeah, that's exactly it. If it wasn't for the force of habit, some players would probably want to ignore the combat system as well;). Actually, there are quite a few such players, but let's not get into this;D! Sure, let me use a non-descript system. I'll assume the lawmen are a clear victor here. Lawmen NPCs: "We don't want to hurt you, we just need you to put down those weapons. We don't question armed people, and we need you for questioning on a murder!" PCs: "No way you're getting our weapons!" Opposed rolls ensue, people on both sides are getting stressed and nervous. Finally, the lawmen triumph by at least a little. "You know you're not helping your case here. Be more cooperative, neither of us wants to fight, but you gotta follow the procedure and hand those guns over! We're going to give them back, promise!" He seems honest as well. Now, the PCs can't find a reason to oppose handling their weapons, other than admitting they're feeling guilty and nervous. At the same time, they know right isn't on their side and know these guys are just doing their jobs, not intending to mass-rape them in the cells! (That's assuming they're the kind that would care about not shooting people for just doing their job. If they aren't, they're just not sure whether they couldn't have avoided it). If they decide to shoot nevertheless, they get a -10- to -30 on their Fast-Draw, depending on how badly they failed the social conflict, and a subsequent -10 on their attack rolls. This alone would make many players far more likely to go along with the results! Of course, the choice is still theirs. OTOH, if they do come with the lawmen, they'd avoid this if they are unrightfully imprisoned and are trying to break out. Actually, the guards might well have the same penalties for resisting players' attempt to influence them if it turns out they were mislead by the boss! "Hey, you lied to us (activating an Aspect or some such that says they were promised to be safe, if there's something like this in the system)!" "The boss lied to us, too!" "So how about setting it straight? Open this cell and let us go! Come on, we did disarm at your request, remember? We could have tried to run!" "We would have shot!" "We had weapons to shoot as well, is that what we get for entrusting them to you?" With the same bonus they had as a penalty last time, this time, it's likely to go in favour of the players;). Yes, no mechanic can solve a problem with a problem player. But then, if a player insists the PC is beyond psychology and social behaviour, what's the difference with insisting he's also beyond physiology and psychology during combat? As in, his PC keeps fighting through the pain, no matter how many rounds he's got into his body. It can open new outcomes for less problem-prone players, though;). Screw alignments, they rate highly in the list of most stupid mechanics ever;D! OTOH, your example is what the personality traits in some systems would do, not prohibiting the attack, but making it harder:). They have their own reasons, but IME, the most compelling one is that they like it that way. And yeah, I can't see a compelling reason for the differences either.

Maybe it doesn't address it for you. But frankly, I find your suggestion that PCs are unable to back down unless they succeed about as weird as the e-mail the OP got from his player. Yeah, I find your reasons especially telling. 1) They didn't do it, actually. Someone else has. 2) So they always go about armed? Why not in bulletproof vests, too? 3) And weapons give them control over their fate? How about being overwhelmed despite being armed? Honestly, the expectation for "balanced" fights just needs to die. 4) "We play the game to shoot people, so why not these ones?" Honestly, is that what you're saying? Yeah, that's the root of our disagreement, really. I disagree with them;). Yeah, and I pointed out it's due to people not really knowing how social mechanics work in the first place;). In Pendragon, I've found mechanics give you incentives to act a certain way, but very rarely prescribe a certain way to act. Same thing with social mechanics, nobody can kill you with words, but they can dishearthen you and make you hesitate, giving penalties on your skill rolls if you later decide to escalate to a fight. This way, it doesn't become a "free roll to avoid a fight, because NPCs are bound by the results, but we fight anyway if we don't get our way" as some other posters seem to be suggesting;). Also, I can point you to a well-known, widely accepted mechanic that limits player freedom quite a bit. It's called "hit points", and opponents affect it by winning a skill contest with PCs;D! For some reason, most people see nothing wrong with it, so why would it be different with social rolls?

Sometimes they are. For something they're ready to negotiate 4 hours of real time? More involved is a better bet. But with a more involved social conflict system... there's always another way;). I'm not asking how many involved systems for social interactions you know. I'd like to ask you whether you've read this thread, though. See this quote? So, frogspawner, who's taking control of what characters;D? I think I figured it out why your current title says "Alephtar pimp";).

I think this argument deserves its own name. Probably "argumentum ad computergamum" will work;). It will probably be a surprise to you, but you can do that in a game with rules as long as 3 pages. Want examples:)? Yes, but it's not to invent games during play. There are enough in game events to track, you know;)! Both social and physical conflicts are forms of conflict. And both can kill you. Am I pushing my product as well? And if his rules work, they're a good thing. Otherwise, he might be better served by some other rules. That's assuming he has dealt with his problem player already, of course. Are your combat rules there to supplement or to replace the combat descriptions? If the latter, I see it as a waste of dramatic roleplaying opportunity for the players as well. You don't stop roleplaying during combats, you know? Well, at least I don't, haven't played with you;D! Yeah, and people told you it's likely not to work with a problem player. No mechanic helps that, other than the social conflict mechanics in Real Life 1.0 the RPG;). The alternative might work, but then the player is still essentially making you avoid a whole slew of situations. Are you fine with that?

Really? I've also played Exalted, LotW, A Dirty World, FATE, Heroquest 2 and a couple other systems with social conflict mechanics. And I've played Pendragon, Unknown Armies, Artesia, CoC and Gumshoe, so maybe I have some idea about personality mechanics as well and how they differ from social conflict;). Now, can you point me to where I said Pendragon's passions are a social conflict mechanics? Because what I said is the same players that dislike Pendragon are likely to dislike social conflict as well. That's simply my observation, and they raise similar objections. "But what if my character wouldn't do that?" As you say, social conflict isn't about mind-control, so the answer is "then your PC wouldn't do it". At most, you can get some penalties for the nagging doubt inside your character's mind that maybe, just maybe, he or she is making a mistake (not in all systems, though). But, largely thanks to Exalted IMO, social conflict is often viewed as mind-control (nevermind that charms are actually mind-control). So, the same players that hate Pendragon, are the most likely to object. And I used Pendragon as I figured Greg Stafford's games are most likely to be known around here;D! Yes, that's my experience with it as well, so we're actually not in disagreement;). And it's also why I've noticed the existence of such clear procedures makes trigger-happy players less likely to resort to violence. FWIW, I'm with you here.

While I agree with this, see again this line. So, a mechanic might solve the problem, or the players might just hate the mechanic. This simply means you can't skip the "talk to the group" part, at least not without risking to have your decision making the problem worse;).

I already commented on the problem. Talk with the group and see how they feel about it and whether they all back the e-mail writer, then work from there. You can even tell us what they said in this thread, and we could be more useful then:). But if you feel you gto the weaker hand, change the deck;D! By which I mean not the group, stop assuming that only the GM is responsible, or even more responsible, for having a fun time! If they chose to discuss, it's because they find it fun, as far as I'm concerned, so there is no problem to begin with;)! If they don't find it fun, they should have opted for another solution, like running away, or buying everybody a round of drinks to talk then and there, or anything appropriate! A mechanical solution is good unless your group is one of those that would hate Pendragon because of the Passions. BTW, inspired by the example but more general, when you resist people with authority for a long time, they tend to assume you're challenging their authority, so escalation should always be on the list!

To any potential GMs, the offer still stands;)!

Yeah, I'd like any news as well, and especially to hear that it's not put on the backburner in favour of the Far West or some other game;)!

The discussion concerns secret societies by now, but we're still looking for another GM;). Otherwise, I'd run it, of course. But I really prefer playing:D!

Did they really say this one? Because it implies they could kill the baron, in front of his men. At this point, violence would have shifted to "logical choice" for the NPC in question, at least in my games.

It's certainly kosher for me that some players wouldn't want the characters to be captured alive. Some characters might not allow it, either, even if the player doesn't mind. When a player like this plays with a GM that thinks it's not a big deal, it's just a clash of expectations. So you should talk it out. And that's the issue that needs to be resolved, IMO. BTW, that would have been my response, although most games I play allow for incapacitation without death and given modern medical response and average dicerolls, most of the PCs that didn't get a sniper round would have waken up in hospital;).

As another player in this game, I should point out that I'm in Bulgaria, Europe. The time distortion between me and the US is also significant;). Luckily, it's a Play by Post game, and I've played with enough Australians before to know it's usually not a problem:).