g33k

Testing, Testing... (now following this thread; also following SDLeary). (Edit -- not seeing my own stuff... but maybe that's me?)

Damn. I mean... dice, cards, jenga-towers... now I gotta add a campstove to resolve actions & conflicts ???

I think all 4 initial products (I'm sure that most) have a teaser-y bit already showing in that thread, if you want to get teased.

The Cradle of Heroes is your friend. It is not a bear. Suggestions of hair, fangs, claws, or hibernation are all Treasonous. Please report Treason to the nearest Cradle instance, preferably the one in your pocket. Failure to have a Cradle in your pocket is Treasonous. Thank you.

I think you need to rethink this point: Up above, Jeff stated (RE the MRQ line): the core rules sold ok (although much fewer than RQG has sold during the initial release period) each supplement sold about 50% of the sales of the previous book until sales were less than 100 units for books Which meant the line was dead So the MRQ model was, in fact, NOT successful in getting people to buy.

OK (I mean... this isn't a RPG session where we've all agreed to the X-Card, but this is a great example, so I'm fine to roll with it). As per the X-card, you don't have to explain further, you're under no obligation; but you are allowed to. And if I find your use of the X-Card ambiguous (which I do) then I'm supposed to ask for clarification. May I ask: what specifically are you X-Carding? What topic or tangent or detail or.... or whatever? Or was it just a rhetorical "I disagree"? In which case, of course, it's NOT an X-Card, and the exercise is pointless... Which is its own whole lesson, about how NOT to use an X-Card... 😉 (Note here -- I said something, you X-Card'ed; so you are claiming some distressing content that you want stopped; I don't understand in detail, don't know WHAT to stop, so I ask for clarification. This is all per normal X-Card. Note further that we each now have a certain common frame of understanding & expectation about proceeding -- I understand you have found something distressing enough to X-Card, and you understand that I don't have enough details to reliably avoid further distressing you; but we both know the X-Card is in play, which informs how we approach this.)

I've played since 1977... and I have encountered such problems (thankfully, only a very few times). * I have been asked to intervene by a woman who felt unable to deal with a harasser, back in the 80's. Sounds like a very X-Card-y situation, in retrospect: she wasn't able to address the issue with the problem person. I don't know if there was anyone else she could/would have turned to if I wasn't there; I expect she would have just left. * I was REALLY unhappy & uncomfortable, many years ago, with a GM who forced every PC to roll on some rando-table they had, that imposed sundry personality quirks and flaws (with a strong emphasis on sexual topics); I only played in that group because I wanted to see some unfamiliar mechanics in play, and I left after a few sessions). I would have been VERY happy with an X-Card. * Somewhere in ... hmm... the late 90s? (hard to pin down the date) ... I was about to speak up when the GM went too far (with rape as simile for an invasive mind-scan spell), but several other people at the table beat me to it; later, at another game / another table, that person went too far and was kicked out of the group (and in fact several friendships ended that night). Would the X-Card have helped there...? I'm not sure; I don't think so... but I do think Lines/Veils could have helped, could have addressed some of the issues earlier, more smoothly & gracefully. * I've personally spoken to 3 different women whose FIRST experience of gaming & gamer culture was of crude sexual humor (that felt to them like harassment), and they either didn't join or left after the first session or two, despite being very interested. I have read similar accounts online, from several other women (and a couple of accounts by gay guys who left to avoid homophobia).I honestly doubt that the gamers at those tables ever even realized that they KEPT AWAY other would-be gamers, or chased away gamers who had joined them (and I wonder now, about those times when someone gamed only once at my games... did something happen I didn't recognize?) Would these "safety tools" have helped? Well, not if those folks had never sat down at the tables... except MAYBE: because just the idea that such tools may exist, may be used, may be needed at some tables? Just that awareness may help... Except if you're so busy denying that they could EVER be useful or appropriate, busy resenting that they even exist; and ridiculing them, or the people who like them.

Don't forget that Chaos is infinitely mutable, including that it can sometimes present as "volatile-but-possible-to-bargain-with". And it IS possible to bargain with... until it isn't. I consider most "civilized Broo" as simply not currently expressing their primal Chaos. Of course, Chaos can produce ANYTHING... including beings of limited Chaos who are normally/usually agents of almost limitless Chaos. It can even produce "controlled Chaos." But nobody can really tell -- not for certain -- if it's actually controlled, or just not-yet-expressing... Always a risk!

TYVM! Have you played with the system, sufficient for us curious BRP heathenry to pick your brains? Braaaaiiiinz.... must have your braaaaiiiinz.... maybe we're not heathens, but BRP zombies? <looks nervously over shoulder for modClerics>. Anyhow, moving on... I usually call this kind of subsystem "professions as skills." Are the abilities strictly linked, e.g. "Thief" = "deception + security systems + sleight of hand + stealth" and nothing else such as (for example) "evaluate treasure" or other ways to spot fake gems/etc, know what's WORTH stealing (when you've got 2 seconds to grab ONE item from a trove and sleight-of-hand it into hiding); or "streetwise" info about where are the best hidey-holes, which guards are most bribe'able, which gang's are the most violent/territorial; etc etc etc? Or is "Thief" more along the lines of "everything it makes sense for a thief to be good at"? Can you take any of these Skills in any combo's, in a semi-multiclassing manner? Is there any particular reason -- known bugs, etc? -- a campaign should avoid skills going above 6 What happens when an "ability" goes over 100? What is combat like? Is combat just another "ability" like in the Skills system, or is combat a separate subsystem? Are there tactical elements like "flanking"? Reach/range for things like long weapons vs. short weapons, or differentiated damage such as "piercing" vs "bludgeoning," etc etc etc? Is it just "bag of HP" damage, or is there a "wounds" system or hit-locations; are there things like being "stunned" (half-ability or can't act for a round, etc)? What is the magic like? Is it strictly spell-lists like in D&D or RM? Or is there more free-ranging results like "spontaneous" magic in Ars Magica, or RQ Sorcery? I'm sure we'll have LOTS of questions now that we've found a victimolunteer ! 😁

That material has been (AFAIK) a pre-publication / rough-draft, assembled from KoS and other bits. I expect they have been tweaking and adjusting and massaging it for years. Sometimes more along the lines of "major surgery" than just "adjusting" it! It wouldn't surprise me (at all!) to learn they were still adjusting it. Presumably, the "select audience" is (mostly) authors & freelancers working on projects where it's relevant. Chaosium is finally getting ready to release it, it seems... as the Argrathsaga aka "RQG Campaign Guide," or some such hifalutin' thing. Presumably at that point, a bare timeline without fluff -- or a region-by-year table -- will be in an appendix or supplemental doc, or some such.

Actually, we do. We very much do have this. Are you unaware that virtually every country in the world has laws and regulations about TV & cinema? They levy fines, they prevent stuff from ever showing on screen, they require up-front content warnings, etc etc etc. Mind you... some of the rules are really old-fashioned and obsolete, in some places; other places have rules that may seem draconian to you or I; etc. Again, this is VERY MUCH a false equivalency. For technological reasons, TV/Film/Literature has always been unidirectional. A realtime gaming session, with a live DM, is anything BUT; and gaming shouldn't be limited to that old model. CYOA books were different from prior "literature" and RPG's are different from both wargames and from acting/improv (arguably the two most-relevant antecedents). Your argument, "A player is telling the GM what they can or cannot do..." seems predicated on the GM-as-god model, that it's fundamentally the GM's game: take it or leave it, players can suck it up or get out. I'd argue that it's everybody's game: everyone at the table (or VTT, or whatever). That everyone at the table bears some responsibility to everyone else... to contribute to the fun, etc. And if a GM (or anyone else) goes somewhere not-fun... or worse, anti-fun... then players should be allowed to protest, and yes even veto ("censor," if you will) that direction of the GM's.

I can't really elaborate, no: I don't know the system; hence, my curiosity,...and this thread! There's some decent reviews if you Google 'round. Publisher DwD has their own forum, but it's pretty slow; last time I looked, it was over a week since the last post. Still, it seems to be open to browse without registering, and there is SOME action... if you register & post there, you may get a flurry of "fresh meat!" activity.... I've realized there is no "perfect" or even "best" RPG... not even for the singular target of my own tastes! Sometimes I want a deeply crunchy mechanical system that I can engage with technically, find optimal methods, etc. Sometimes I want a lightweight minimum that will just get out of the way of the story, dammit. It seems possible to me that d00lite may indeed contribute usefully to my own private toolbox of games & BRPfamily mechanical widgetry.... hence, this thread. 😁

It rather sounds like you're throwing up your hands, going "we can never know for sure, so don't bother trying; or at least don't bother putting in much effort, which will mostly be wasted." If that's your position... yeah, gonna disagree. If that's NOT your position... I apologize for the misunderstanding, and invite you to expand my understanding. Honestly... the reverse (that the person experiencing a problem with the content should be equally-responsible for settling things down) only sort of holds true. If you have -- for example -- a trauma-survivor with PTSD having a flashback or panic-attack you absolutely cannot expect them to "try to understand ... the GM." By the very nature of what they are going through, that may be impossible for them in the moment. Something that engages the survival instinct that directly and intensely can totally short-circuit all sorts of rational thought [*] . Sure, many folks can "merely" be offended or hurt, they can suck it up and address the issue rationally... or decide that the offensiveness was so extreme as to make "repairing" the situation untenable, and leave. As you say, best if someone who's offended by any given term should avoid RPGs/settings where that term is an official part of game-play, a term of art for PC's and other key elements; and for people with phobias to avoid phobia-triggering movies. But likening those situations -- where someone has an obvious marker of problem content, such as an arachnophobe going to the movie Tarantula -- to the relative "anything goes" of a game-world that's as wide-open as the real-world... that is a false equivalence. Because "adventurers" (pretty much by definition) often deal with violence & traumatic events, the odds of a game straying into problem areas (so as to avoid same-y "yet another village endangered by monsters from the woods / monsters from the hills / monsters from the lake / monsters from..." plotlines) grows larger and larger, the more you game (and likely to stumble across someone who will react badly to SOMETHING, the more people you game with). So having -- and using -- those safety-tools just seems like common sense; at least, for everyone who isn't in a long-settled group that's already worked through the sensitive topics and offensive tendencies that crop up at their table. BTW -- Likening "dwarf" with "midget" is (so far as I can tell) roughly equivalent to likening "black" with "nigger." Dwarf (and "dwarfism") is a medical term and a socially-acceptable term. Midget is different; objecting to the later isn't an extremist position; nor is claiming it is just another "term" which only "some people" object to... (from https://www.lpaonline.org/the-m-word ) I suggest that anyone who understands what this term means -- to the people it affects -- should probably object to the term... if they object to denigrating terms at all. [*] I have personally faced someone in this state (not in a gaming context); they literally cannot think rationally then. I have been HIT by someone in this state, for the provocation of having been being rational (with the rational position being "don't do that irrational thing"). Having been in this situation (in a non-gaming context) I'm now highly-reluctant to do a 'Con or other open-table RPG event, unless some sort of safety-tools are available & explained up-front.

Actually... there are a fair number of soldiers coming home who've fought Daesh & related groups (groups who've been known to conduct decapitation (among other atrocities)). Lots of soldiers pursue gaming in their downtime, and then keep it up when they get home. So before I included any Thanatari plotlines, I'd actually do a check-in with any new-to-me gamers... (just noting, as I write this, that I am kind of appalled at the situation we live in these days, where this sort of thing is common enough to be a reasonable consideration (just saw we had another school shooting, which... FUCK))

Like mileage, intuition may vary... Something may be very intuitive to me, and counter-intuitive to you. Which of us is "right"? Well... both of us. Until we try to argue that ONLY our position is right (or is "more right); then we're wrong.

I don't think "unique" is the apt term for a d100 roll-under skills-not-classes system. 😁 Not identical to the others, but hardly "unique!" As per the review quoted above: "00" is a low (zero) roll, not high (hundred)... so 0-99 is the range. This fixes some asymmetrical crit-vs-fumble odds when "doubles" marks crit/fumble. Skills are very limited, simplifying the game further. "Simple" (aka "lite") seems to be a primary goal; I think this is where it differentiates itself. I'm unclear how much "simpler" it is than, FrEx, OpenQuest. I can't really answer very many questions about it because... well, I just don't know the game (hence my starting this thread!) They also have a "Covert Ops" game. FrontierSpace is (I think) their first game, and (I'm pretty sure) is very much based on the old (early 80s) TSR game Star Frontiers... I'm unsure, but Covert Ops may also be very much aimed at an old TSR game, Top Secret... And that puts BareBones Fantasy as a OSR/D&D entry... 😉 All running d00lite.

I suddenly realized that we don't see much of this mechanic discussed here. It's clearly a variant of BRP -- skillcentric, roll-under d100 with "classic" D&D-esque stats -- though it has its own quirks and is IMHO one of the more-varied variants. Is there any sort of "bad blood" or other "history" on this? Or is it simply a matter of being variant-enough to have less crossover potential with other BRP games, and hence less interest here? Or ... ?

Her joining up with Louis in the first place was also a bit discordant, a waitWHAT? interaction. Leaving him even moreso. Niven was (I always thought) attempting -- badly; character-driven stories aren't his oeuvre -- to show Teela as being essentially driven by and a victim of her "Luck," not really having self-determination. Floating through life following her whims, with the proddings of "Luck" being the strongest.

The Teela Brown / Louis Wu romance elements, I presume. It always seemed a bit forced to me, from a character standpoint; but kind of critical to the arc of the stories.

Yes; but my point that not every figure in the Torah / Old Testament is universally averse to pissing-off an angel... (edit: presuming that the offer to wrestle does indeed annoy the angel)

I think smaller spirits have a small purview -- they are interested in only a very narrow slice of things, only the things they were already interested in. Bigger spirits are equally "only interested in what they're already interested in," but their greater power gives them both more stuff to be interested in, and a broader grasp of what may be relevant to the things they're (already) interested in. But if it's outside their spiritual identity, then it's as irrelevant to the spirit -- small or large -- as you or I would find it irrelevant how many grains of sand are on the 15th-largest beach in Madagascar.

(unless you're looking for a wrasslin' match, a la Jacob)

I've gotta point at MRQ/Legend's "Land of Ice & Stone" here! The mechanics are about 92.5% Mythras (the directly-ancestral system). @soltakss might have more to say... 😉 ? I agree that one shouldn't add non-weapons into a "Combat Style," however... At what point do you just slide down to have a single skill, e.g. "Hunter"? Some Hunters will be better with weapons-use; some will be better at tracking; some will have better field-skills with twine and glue and field-repairs; etc etc etc ... What is it you want to achieve by rolling other skills into the Combat Style (and thus reducing the number of Skills the characters have, other niches than Weapons/Fighty Guy)? There's some odd crossovers in this space, too... e.g. "hunting" vs "fishing" vs "trapping." All get meat to eat, but ... Spearfishing looks a lot like "hunting," while hiding with a net and then throwing it when someone flushes birds your way sits neatly in a hunting/trapping intersection; net-fishing and weir-fishing are pretty much trapping in the water; etc... "Coastal" vs. other waterside tribes: I expect they will ALL have some form of boats. The bigger the water -- and that includes big lakes -- the more likely to include sails, though oars will always remain a thing, of course!

Look into Kolat. I have a hard time understanding why Kolat is a "Spirit" and not a "God" ... At some point, I think these beings just get to CHOOSE a role...

AFAIK, a shaman following a "cult" will have a primary focus (reverence, veneration, & sacrifice; even actual Worship) upon one God/dess, or maybe a pair (such as Twins), etc. They get Cultic Bennie's, but suffer Cultic Restrictions. But the fundamental Shamanic role is addressing the Spirit World, and a Cult affiliation isn't actually required. I confess I'm still a bit fuzzy on the precise differences between a "God" and a "Great Spirit." I think that's OK, though... I think some of the deities & spirits of Glorantha are also a bit fuzzy on the differences...