Jump to content

Shawn Carpenter

Member
  • Posts

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Shawn Carpenter

  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!
  14. Investigation rolls are a great time to use costly automatic successes. This allows you to ensure that the players get the info they need to move the story forward, while potentially suffering for bad rolls or benefitting from great rolls. I usually assume that any result gets them the info they need, but failures include some potentially misleading information and brilliant successes allow them to deduce something else that increases he value of the clue. If my players are investigating something that doesn't impact the story (although they may THINK it does), I have them make normal contests and narrate the results however I see best. Frequently that involves me messing with their minds. I like false rumors better than "you don't uncover any useful information." It keeps my players on their toes.
  15. Also anything stupid that Minion1stClass says the GM does or says in this campaign is completely fabricated and libelous!
  16. PCs taking on NPCs as PCs! It sounds almost like troupe play!
  17. Nobody else has character art to share? Anybody want to commission some?
  18. Here's what her back tattoo would look like (although on a significantly more feminine back).
  19. No worries. I wrote my response in a rush, so I probably wasn't as clear as I could have been! In a simple contest of any kind, the prize states the overall outcome of the scene, which is narrated based on how well or poorly the contest went for the PC. In an extended contest, there should be a prize for each exchange. AP bids should reflect the nature of the prize. The more ambitious the prize, the more it exposes the PC to harm. Since each player's turn order is firmly established, there's no problem with narrating the result of each of their contests in the exchange as they happen. This has the effect of allowing players to build on the tactics of the previous player(s). When the opposition (or the PCs) reach zero APs, it will be due to aggregate outcomes of each exchange. Remember, the goal of an extended contest is to allow the PCs to use (and establish competence with) a wider array of abilities by freely using different tactics for each exchange. This is as close as HQ/QW gets to traditional RPGs' process based combat. Now, let me share how I handle "big scenes" in my home game, combat or non-combat. I establish how much of a pain I want the opponent to be and whether I want the PCs to win regardless of contest results (I don't share either of these things with the players). I let the players know this is going to be a multi-contest scene so they can set their prizes accordingly. I've established with them that I'll signal them when victory or defeat seems eminent so they can state "finishing move" or "run away! run away!" prizes. I run two or more group simple contests, each of which builds on the outcome of the last. This allows for the tide of fortune to run in and out and makes the scene more exciting. The more difficult the opposition, the more contests I run, but I usually run 3 to 5, max. If I feel like the outcome of a contest merits it, I'll give the PCs a bonus or penalty for the next contest, ranging from -9 to +9 in increments of 3. I may also simply narrate the outcome of the next contest with the outcome of the last contest in mind, though. When the scene hits a tipping point where I believe victory or defeat has arrived, I tell the players that the next contest is the climactic conclusion contest and brace myself for the suitably dramatic final prize they dream up. Granted, that's seat of the pants GMing, but my players like it. It also means they only have to remember one mechanism: the Group Simple Contest.
  20. Wow! Thanks! It takes some adjustment as both a player and a GM. One thing that I did to ease myself and my players into it was using group simple contests for most combats. That seems counter-intuitive, but bear with me. After running several combats, I got players used to giving me more descriptive descriptions of what they were attempting and the specific prize they were after. They also started setting each other up for success, i.e., player A's prize would give player B an advantage. Then I'd narrate the outcome and let the players interrupt if they wanted to say what they thought "really happened." If what they said worked for me and the other players seemed okay with it, I'd weave it into the narration of the outcome. Once I had them used to that approach, I introduced them to extended contests. These are a little trickier. You (and your players) have to think on your feet. I think of each exchange as a typical RPG "combat turn." I describe the situation and everyone reveals their bids. I ask the players what prize they're shooting for and how they intend to achieve it. If their description doesn't line up with their bid, we fix that. Those prizes are how you get to the statuses you're looking for (me, too). Prizes like, "I use a spell to slow him," are perfectly legit. Narrate the outcome based on how many points the player bid and how well they succeeded. Then you can either use "benefits and consequences of victory or failure" to reflect how much the slow spell is impacting the bad guy, or just use your GM's discretion (that's what I do - I hate tables). The prize stated in an extended combat shouldn't normally be "I push him over the cliff." They should be stepping stones that build up to shoving him over the cliff when the contest is won. Hopefully the above makes sense and helps. My main advice is make the game your own. Run it the way that works best for you and your players. You paid for it, do what you want with it! BTW, you can find the QuestWorlds SRD free online. It has includes the current version of Extended Contests (with bidding) and Consequences/Benefits. Thanks again for your kind words about Valley of Plenty!
  21. What do you think is lacking in QW for combat oriented games or scenes? That isn't an ambush question or anything. I'm really interested to hear what you think about QW and combat heavy scenes.
  22. Godspeed, Mr. Holloway. Your illustrations fueled the inspiration of a whole generation of escapist kids. You'll be missed.
  23. My Anmangarn are a small, semi-nomadic hunter gatherer clan. They maintain the village of Blackspear to provide a safe haven for children and elders who are unable to withstand the rigors of living in the wilds. The clan is responsible for maintaining the safety of the Black Spear, which they do through a special warrior society called the Black Spear Guard. Only Anmangarn or those adopted into the clan as Anmangarn can join the BSG, and they still must survive the society's rigorous initiation tests.
×
×
  • Create New...