Jump to content

Shawn Carpenter

Member
  • Posts

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Shawn Carpenter last won the day on May 31 2020

Shawn Carpenter had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Shawn Carpenter

  • Birthday 07/08/1962

Retained

  • Game Designer Bum and General Layabout

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    I've been RPGing since 1976 and I've played just about everything released between then and the late 80s. In 2007, I branched out and wrote a set of miniature wargaming rules, Ambush Alley. I'm now one of the Directors of Ambush Alley Games, a company that has produced three Origins Award nominated products.
  • Current games
    RQG, Heavily modified Heroquest Glorantha, 5e D&D
  • Location
    Enid, OK, USA
  • Blurb
    Damn the rules! Full speed-ahead!

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    www.ambushalleygames.net

Recent Profile Visitors

703 profile views

Shawn Carpenter's Achievements

Participant

Participant (2/4)

342

Reputation

  1. I've been following this thread as a lurker for some time and I'll return to lurking after this comment. I have xxx observations to make: 1. Since RQG is primarily geared to gritty, granular combat, players of combat oriented (and maximized) characters outnumber noncombatant characters in most RQG games. Shifting to a format that was at least 50% social in nature would put those players in the the same status that non-combatant players are now half the time. In the long run, players would adjust, of course. In the short run, though, it might feel more like sharing the misery than increasing the fun. 2. Saying "that's just how it is for women in Glorantha" and changing the fictional approach to embrace that still leaves women who want to play a warrior but aren't keen on the few options available to them in the lurch. That's going to be off-putting to most women even if the don't want to play a combat oriented character. Why should their options be so limited in make-believe-fun time? I'd feel the same way if I were told that most cults in the game wouldn't let me play a male character that wasn't combat oriented. 3. Most importantly, Glorantha is undergoing other sea-changes as it eases into the Post-Stafford era. This is the ideal time to introduce lesser known female warrior cults or sub-cults in a way that doesn't derail the existing fiction - unless that fiction truly is rooted in a binary men fight/women nurture approach to gender. Just my two bolg's worth. Sling 'em if you don't like 'em! 😉
  2. I'm pretty sure that Chaosium isn't keen on the discussion of the merits of National Socialism on their Pendragon forum. Just saying . . .
  3. Yes, yet in all games people have to accpet the rules and setting that they exist in. I disagree. RPGs require everyone involved to accept the rules they and setting parameters they agree with. Nobody runs a game exactly as written. If one can make exceptions because a rule seems out of balance, they can certainly make an exception to the setting. Nothing stops you from running your campaign with male knights only. Why do you think the rules shouldn't support other approaches? Indeed, and that includes keeping existing customers. Putting the existing customer base ahead expanding the customer base is suicide for any company. A growing company must be willing to accept the loss of existing customers to pursue more and younger customers. Failure to do so results in sales contraction and, eventually, the greying out of the company as a whole. Existing customers should be considered, but they should not be the deciding factor in product design of any type, Yup, and if they aren't interested in Pendragon already what makes you think they will be if you add female knights? Because women like cool games, too. They just don't like to be told they have to play a man. The same is true of male players. Remember, it's a game. People play it to enjoy themselves. It is not historical reenactment. Is it your opinion that there's something about Pendragon that makes it a peculiarly male game? And many are just fine with playing male characters in a male dominated setting. But many aren't. If we can imagine a world in which exceptional knights clad in grossly anachronistic armor fight ogres and witches while searching for a magic cup, why can't we imagine that some of them were women? More importantly, if a human player wants to play a make-believe Joan of Arc at a game table that you will never see, why should you care? You are free to run your male-only knights version with your pals, after all. That's yet to be confirmed by the rules., and slightly more emphasis isn't a problem. It the increasing push turn the game into modern day with swords. I believe that female knights are already mentioned as options. Also, allowing female knights doesn't transform Pendragon into the modern world. That's an overreaction, particularly when you can still run your game however you wish. I don't see why you'd care what some poor benighted group of gamers in darkest Utopia are doing at their table when you can do whatever you want at yours. No, all the existing Pendragon gamer who don't like the change can just go back to playing a previous edition of the game. Unlike other forms of entertainment, RPGers do not have to continue on with the new version to continue enjoying new adventures. Now maybe a version of Pendragon where half the knights are female and there are of LGBTQ+ characters around will sell to enough people to offset the potential losses, but judging from how that trend has worked out for other media, I doubt it. Sure! You can do that! Or you can use the parts of the new game you like and ignore the parts you don't. I don't care what other people do at their own table. If you like the old rules better, more power to you! But your assumption that being more inclusive is somehow a risky gamble for Chaosium - well, that's just your Original Gamer syndrome talking. Games move on past their original consumers, as all media does. The number grognards dwindles every day, literally. Eventually we (I include myself - I started playing Pendragon with the 1st edition) will all be gone. If any media is to survive, it must embrace change and grow. Any game company that bases its strategies on fear of losing the Old Guard is being managed as a social organization, not a business. The world has changed. You don't have to change with it, but your games, TV shows, books, music, and movies will. If you're comfortable withdrawing with your relics, that's aces with me. Enjoy! No judgement from me at all, and why would you care if there was? For me, though, I love seeing tables fill up with exited gamers who are there to tell a story. I don't care what the faces look like, I'll make their characters fit in my game. Also - you don't think there were gay Romano-Britain knights? Come on!
  4. A. It's a game. Games are supposed to be fun. B. It's the product of a game company. C. Game companies like to make sales. D. At least half of the RPG market is now female. E. Like men, many women like the option of playing characters of their own gender. F. The game now puts slightly more emphasis on female PCs. G. If this bothers you because you feel that it is historically inaccurate, discredits the source material, or in some other way runs afoul of your vision of Pendragon, refer back to A.
  5. Here's my take on lethality in any game, be it RQ, QW, D&D, BitD, Y0, you name it: Dice don't kill characters, players do. I don't kill characters unless their player thinks it's a good day to die. That blow that crushes a PC's skull? It looks worse than it is. The PC will wake up later, probably in captivity, and facing a new adventure! But what if you're trying to reduce how newb PCs go down, not just how often they die? Well, I can't really give much advice on RQ specifically, because I'm not an aficionado of those rules, but the most obvious answer is to apply a thick layer of fudge to the problem. Fudge NPC hit and damage rolls to reduce lethality or near lethality. Let the PCs develop a sense of competence until they actually ARE competent. Then take off the training wheels, or don't. That's up to you. I know a lot of people will be revolted at the idea of fudging rolls, but it's a simple solution that doesn't require a lot of extra rules or limitations. If you don't like it, don't use it. It's a valid method for a lot of GMs, including myself. Something I used to do in my old Pendragon games might work, too. I used to give players a token that they could spend to get a Lucky Hit or force a Lucky Miss. It could be spent after the dice were rolled. New PCs might get 2 or 3, while more experienced knights might get one or none. Wise rookies would save theirs to avoid instant death. Hopefully this is useful to some of you!
  6. Canon for authors of official products is useful and beneficial. It helps keep a product on course, maintain its "voice," and preserve consistency. Canon wielded by consumers is a narrow gate in which one old grognard can hold off hundreds of potential new adapters of a setting. Combine canon with a deep lore, much of which is no longer in print or was never available for general sale and there's the potential to create an insular sandbox, populated only by old cats and their own cherished products. Internal canon helps build great games. Canon wielded by consumers is a game killer.
  7. Ducks are okay. There are several operating at Black Spear Village and the Anmangarn never participated in the Duck Hunts.
  8. That's cool! Thanks! Have fun with 'em!
  9. If you're not writing an official supplement for Chaosium, Glorantha canon is nonsense. No setting survives contact with actual play. This is true of all games and all settings. Don't waste hours researching who the thane of Whozitstead is according to canon. It's your game. The thane is who you need it to be. Don't like how a cult is written up? Change it in your game. Change ANYTHING that doesn't fit your vision of YOUR Glorantha. Have fun running your game and your players will have fun running it. Leave laborious research, synthesis of disparate sources, and thesis writing to the halls of academia. It's not required to run a game for your friends. I'll bet far more RQ games have NOT been run due to worries about canon than have actually BEEN run. Don't fall into that trap.
  10. When I ran RQ, I did as has been suggested and gave PCs until the end of the next round to heal their fallen comrades. That still has a tactical impact on combat and introduces some tension without being murderous, particularly to characters who drop to 0 at the end of the round. I honestly assumed the RAW was a typo of some sort, because it's pretty unfair to PCs who are taken out in later SRs.
  11. I take a pretty simple and admittedly simple-minded approach this sort of thing: Never let the rules get in the way of the PC doing something cool. It's a big part of why they play the game. If the Movement Rune seems logical to assist in moving up a wall, let 'em do it. If some of your players don't think that's restrictive enough, they're perfectly free to only use Water for Agility skills for their own PC.
  12. Maybe you can become one of Argrath's warlocks!!
  13. YES! This is an awesome tactic to use. Give the PCs a chance to influence the story without spending any Hero Points. That's a great suggestion, that I'll definitely start using!
×
×
  • Create New...