Superhero games

[Atgxtg]

While I don't entirely disagree, I think that both medium and genre matter; TV superhero shows don't look entirely like comic ones, nor do movies, so making some adjustments for games to not look entirely like their genres in other medium is no greater evil.

But with RPGs part of the fun is simulating a setting. Of course, you can always model a superhero camaign off of a TV show or film adaptation.

I think what I'm doing is delicately suggesting that this is less an issue of maturity than whether one's tastes change over time. Some of the most role-playing intensive groups I've ever seen were fairly young, but I'd hardly have qualified them all as "mature"; they were simply focused on a different part of the game. Its quite easy to have a roleplaying adventure that's not combat oriented but still pretty immature in any general meaning of the term.

I can accept that too. When I was younger I ran a camapign where we had, of all things, a girl. At one point much of the campaign was fouced around some players "conquering" the girl (both in and out of character), than combat or any other aspect of the camapign. While role-playing was heavy, said group was far from mature. We were also 14.

I'm still unconvinced that for _group_ participation, much else is.

Sure, lots of thing are. It isn't the combat that is exciting, its that combat is presented as a challenge, and has risks. If something is presented as a challenge and with risks and rewards, it can work effectively.

For example, many CoC adventures aren't focused around fighting Mythos nasties, but preventing such a conflict. Likewise PCs aboard a run away train, or trapped in a buring building can all be good alternatives to combat.

Its the conflict and elements of risk, danger and reward that are exciting.

[drohem]

When I used the term 'RPG maturity,' I wasn't refering to chronological age. The RPG hobby is at point now where new recruits didn't go through the whole dungeon crawl mapping, severely chart-based concepts, and wargame-esk era to finally break-on through to role-playing that didn't involve charts, dungeon crawls, or board-tied adventures.

I think that people that started playing RPGs in the 70's and 80's kind of went through phases or stages of role-playing.

This is only an opinion and severe generalization. Of course, there are always exceptions. Personally, I kind went through this type of catharsis in my role-playing style and tastes.

As a young role-player, I needed charts, pre-made adventures, and rulebooks in order to GM or play.

These days, I can take as little or as much from a rulebook and modify to my tastes. I can create senarios and campaign settings without any outside influence or reference. I can create adventures based upon roleplaying with no combat, or based upon non-combat skills. I can adapt, modify, or create completely new rules for an existing game, or none at all. If I have as little as BRP booklet, I can create a vibrant game and setting with no problem today. I can wing-it as a GM now and run my games with confident fluidity, whereas, twenty years ago I would have floundered.

[Atgxtg]

drohem,

Oh, I agree with you. As a long time RPGer, I went through most of the same phases. A few years ago I ran acorss one of my early scenaruios. Pure Room/Monster/Treasure, but it was something written a long time ago.

Today, many player can and do bypass a lot of that. It's been quite a long time since graph paper was a required tool. But, since most gamers play D&D, and D&D hasn't evolved at the same rate that other RPGs have (D&D is just now reaching the 80s), most gamers aren't much different.

[seneschal]

OK. After seven thread pages of sound and fury I just want to know one thing. Which of you RQ/CoC/Superworld mavens is going to write the NEXT great BRP superhero product? With the advent of GORE, you don't have to wait to put your decades of experience to good use.

[drohem]

OK. After seven thread pages of sound and fury I just want to know one thing. Which of you RQ/CoC/Superworld mavens is going to write the NEXT great BRP superhero product? With the advent of GORE, you don't have to wait to put your decades of experience to good use.

Kudos for making me look up the word maven.

[TriOpticon]

OK. After seven thread pages of sound and fury I just want to know one thing. Which of you RQ/CoC/Superworld mavens is going to write the NEXT great BRP superhero product? With the advent of GORE, you don't have to wait to put your decades of experience to good use.

I would definitely like to contribute to this project if it ever happens. I do not think I have the experience to lead the project, though.

[Nightshade]

But with RPGs part of the fun is simulating a setting. Of course, you can always model a superhero camaign off of a TV show or film adaptation.

I don't think that means it has to work out precisely like the setting to be effective; a set of PL 12 Mutants and Masterminds characters might not have as varied a power level as some versions of the JLA, but that's not going to change the feel of the setting materially. And frankly, some settings just make bad games for any number of reasons (the biggest being that they don't support group play, which I still maintain is a necessary component for most gaming groups).

I can accept that too. When I was younger I ran a camapign where we had, of all things, a girl. At one point much of the campaign was fouced around some players "conquering" the girl (both in and out of character), than combat or any other aspect of the camapign. While role-playing was heavy, said group was far from mature. We were also 14.

I was dancing around a bit, but that is sort of what I was refering to. Honestly, most of the time when I see someone talking about the "maturity" of their play style, it usually translates into an opportunity to look down their nose at styles they no longer play. To say that makes me roll my eyes a bit is--an understatement.

Sure, lots of thing are. It isn't the combat that is exciting, its that combat is presented as a challenge, and has risks. If something is presented as a challenge and with risks and rewards, it can work effectively.

For example, many CoC adventures aren't focused around fighting Mythos nasties, but preventing such a conflict. Likewise PCs aboard a run away train, or trapped in a buring building can all be good alternatives to combat.

Its the conflict and elements of risk, danger and reward that are exciting.

The problem is that most of those things when examined are one or two people doing anything that matter, and the rest trying not to get killed while they do. That sort of thing palls quite quickly for most people. Its actually very hard to find a useful activity where a group all actually _contribute_.

[Nightshade]

OK. After seven thread pages of sound and fury I just want to know one thing. Which of you RQ/CoC/Superworld mavens is going to write the NEXT great BRP superhero product? With the advent of GORE, you don't have to wait to put your decades of experience to good use.

Well, honestly, there's two good game systems on the market that already serve the superhero needs pretty well, so I'd have to find a subset that would actually be _especially_ well served by a BRP version. Past that, it wouldn't be hard to spruce up the full fledged Superworld with some of the more refined systems from the upcoming combined BRP; I'm just not sure there's much of a market for it. The original, which was, in the end, not a bad game, failed, after all.

[Atgxtg]

OK. After seven thread pages of sound and fury I just want to know one thing. Which of you RQ/CoC/Superworld mavens is going to write the NEXT great BRP superhero product? With the advent of GORE, you don't have to wait to put your decades of experience to good use.

More like if that who will.

Before anyone put their head on that chopping block, I think we need to actually have a copy of the BRP rules.

IMO opinion, it would probably be better for someone to update and revise Superworld than do a new BRP Superhero RPG.

[Atgxtg]

I don't think that means it has to work out precisely like the setting to be effective; a set of PL 12 Mutants and Masterminds characters might not have as varied a power level as some versions of the JLA, but that's not going to change the feel of the setting materially. And frankly, some settings just make bad games for any number of reasons (the biggest being that they don't support group play, which I still maintain is a necessary component for most gaming groups).

Depends on what you are trying to model. If I was playing a game set in the Marvel or DC Universe, or any campaign based on an established setting. I would expect things to work like they do in that setting, and be disappointed if they did not. Few things ruin a supers game more that seeing Batman or Spiderman getting gunned down in the first fight.

[Simlasa]

I don't know how relevant it is but...

The old Whispering Vault game sometimes gets described as being an odd sort of superhero game...

In the game the heroes each had powers and alliances that could help with the overall goal... but there were also powers that only functioned for the group as a whole... some of those were automatic... others required active participation to pull off. There was also something of a building up of group experience... as they worked together, and got to know each other better, new powers for the group became available.

I don't know that I've seen that sort of thing in other games... or maybe it's common and I just keep missing it.

[drohem]

d20 Deeds Not Words has a similiar mechanic. As a team functions together, they gain bonuses that apply only when the majority of the team is present. The Team bonuses are tiered as well. The longer a team operates together, the better the bonuses. They call it a Team Bond.

Also, Deeds Not Words has the concept of the Omega characters (i.e. villians); whereas, it would take a whole supers team or several to stand toe-to-toe with a villian of this magnatude. This is something similiar Galactus.

[Nightshade]

Depends on what you are trying to model. If I was playing a game set in the Marvel or DC Universe, or any campaign based on an established setting. I would expect things to work like they do in that setting, and be disappointed if they did not. Few things ruin a supers game more that seeing Batman or Spiderman getting gunned down in the first fight.

I'd argue that the animated JLA compressed the power level of the characters in the comics considerably, but people didn't seem to have a problem with it. Similarly, I've never seen people have a big deal over the fact their team doesn't have wide variations in power. In the end, unless you're just an incredible authenticity-uber-alles junky, why would you? You care if it has the right feel, and that's not a necessity for that.

I've seen some of that, too.

But I try not to put that as an accusation where it may not be warrented. I note there's been one member of this board who's been pretty blunt about that being the case in his case in the past, and I haven't hesitated to bust his chops about it, but I don't care to jump to conclusions regarding others on it.

No more so than combat. Unless you are running a hack & slash campaign, the adventuring group usually has one or two characters who are doing things and the rest acting in a supporting role.

I've never seen that to be the case. Some characters might be superior combatants, but they couldn't handle the job by themselves. That's not true of the guys disarming the bomb, the guys climbing up to take control of the computer system, or any number of other things. That's because combat normally has multiple problems that are needed to be handled _in parallel_, where other sorts of things, even if they're multi-step, are handled _in serial_.

I'll also add that once you get past 4 or 5 players you get the same problems, only worse.

Again, never seen it; most combats can't be handled by only the combat specialists; they may be the spearhead, but the rest is necessary, and necessary at the time.

The reasons why combat is front and center isn't that it keeps everyone more involved, just that it is the easiest thing to run. Toss a half dozen

And I'm afraid I simply disagree. I think, and nothing in my history in the hobby has shown me otherwise, that it _does_ keep everyone more involved. And its not like I haven't been at it a while.

[Atgxtg]

I'd argue that the animated JLA compressed the power level of the characters in the comics considerably, but people didn't seem to have a problem with it. Similarly, I've never seen people have a big deal over the fact their team doesn't have wide variations in power. In the end, unless you're just an incredible authenticity-uber-alles junky, why would you? You care if it has the right feel, and that's not a necessity for that.

JLA didn't compress things much. Especially once you got to the expanded roster with different heroes guest starring every other episode. The major "compression" of power in the DC universe was Crisis. Compared to that, everything else is minor.

Where comics and comics RPGs work is in enfircung the reality of comics. For instance,m when superstrong character hits human strength character he sends him flying or unconscious rather than snapping his neck, spine, crushing his skull, collasing a ribcage, or any of the more realstic effects that go with it.

I've never seen that to be the case. Some characters might be superior combatants, but they couldn't handle the job by themselves. That's not true of the guys disarming the bomb, the guys climbing up to take control of the computer system, or any number of other things. That's because combat normally has multiple problems that are needed to be handled _in parallel_, where other sorts of things, even if they're multi-step, are handled _in serial_.

Really. I've see a lot of it. I've also seen a lot of bad players who bite off more than they can chew. The typical adventuring group tends to hanve a couple of tough melee fighters, a support fighter or two, and some characters whose strengths are elsewhere. Typically take out the two frontline fighters and the group becomes vulnerable.

I once screwed up a D&D campaign (D&D being the best example of such, since the class structure spells it all out) by messing around with party duities and putting the second string fighters up front.

Again, never seen it; most combats can't be handled by only the combat specialists; they may be the spearhead, but the rest is necessary, and necessary at the time.

I'd like to see some of your groups. It sounds like you are doing a lot of fighting (hard to pull off with RQ/BRP) or you have a unsual group.

And I'm afraid I simply disagree. I think, and nothing in my history in the hobby has shown me otherwise, that it _does_ keep everyone more involved. And its not like I haven't been at it a while.

I've probably been gaming as long as you have, so we can take "time in hobby" out of the picture. It just seems that we have different experiences in gaming. I'll disagree with you, and there are many RPGs that can back up the non-combat approach, since it has been done, and it does work. I ran a Star Trek campaign for over three years with very little combat (a combination of no one in the group being good at it, combined with weapons that can disintegrate). As long as there is some worthwhile goal, and consequences for failure the game can be fun and exciting for all. I've run adventures where uncovering a plot or story goal (like who assassinated the ambassador) was far more interesting and exciting than the fight to capture the guy responsible.

It is all in just what you write and how interesting you make it, and how involved you can get the PCs.

[Nightshade]

JLA didn't compress things much. Especially once you

I can't agree; the difference in power between, say, Superman or Green Lantern and the other founding members in the comics is quite a bit more pronounced than it is in the cartoon; I'll give you there's a bigger gap with the expanded roster members, but its not a coincidence that most of those signficiantly weaker than the founders don't appear in episondes with them very often; when you see them, its normally with each other (other than a few like Captain Atom who are clearly in the same weight class as the originals)

got to the expanded roster with different heroes guest starring every other episode. The major "compression" of power in the DC universe was Crisis. Compared to that, everything else is minor.

While I won't disagree that Crises lopped off the top of the power curve, I stand by my opinon above about the cartoon. You see the cartoon Superman bothered by things that no version of Superman since the 50's would be.

Where comics and comics RPGs work is in enfircung the reality of comics. For instance,m when superstrong character hits human strength character he sends him flying or unconscious rather than snapping his neck, spine, crushing his skull, collasing a ribcage, or any of the more realstic effects that go with it.

Well, yes, but that's a genre convention, not an issue of power per se; superhero comics are intrinsically unrealistic in their handling of physics and biology.

Really. I've see a lot of it. I've also seen a lot of bad players who bite off more than they can chew. The typical adventuring group tends to hanve a couple of tough melee fighters, a support fighter or two, and some characters whose strengths are elsewhere. Typically take out the two frontline fighters and the group becomes vulnerable.

Vulnerable perhaps, but not hopeless. That's not true in most other areas of specialty. And it doesn't change the fact that the specialists in combat can't handle the problem by themselves in the majority of cases, while the specialists in intrusion don't usually need anyone else (in fact, you usually don't even need more than one).

This is no different than most other adventure-fiction genres; in almost all of them, whatever else anyone can do, they're at least competent fighters. Barring specialized subgenres (mecha or fighter jock environments for example) you can't say that about virtually any other field of endevor; some will be completely hopeless, and its unusual for more than one or two to be more than at best competent. Even the occasional exception tends to change over time when it comes to the random noncombatant.

I'd like to see some of your groups. It sounds like you are doing a lot of fighting (hard to pull off with RQ/BRP) or you have a unsual group.

Given I've seen the same pattern in a dozen groups, some with no overlapping members over the years, I don't have any sign its unsual. And _all_ the local RQ groups did this back when RQ was a going concern. Its not at all hard to pull off with BRP or RQ; you just take a fair bit of casualties until characters get to a certain level of competence, and then you take the occasional one thereafter.

I've probably been gaming as long as you have, so we can take "time in hobby" out of the picture. It just seems that we have different experiences in

No, we really can't. Even if we'd done it the same time, what that does is eliminate the idea that my experience is aberrational. That's why I brought it up, not as an appeal to authority. Short durations in the hobby can sometimes lead to insular experiences; longer periods with a variety of other players makes it a much less convincing explanation.

gaming. I'll disagree with you, and there are many RPGs that can back up the non-combat approach, since it has been done, and it does work. I ran a Star

No, it works for some people. My claim is that those people are in the minority, and I'm afraid its going to be next to impossible to convince me otherwise, for reasons I indicate above; it goes against more than 30 years of experience in the hobby. You're welcome to disagree, but at that point I think we have a fundamentally irreconcilable difference of premise.

[Atgxtg]

I can't agree; the difference in power between, say, Superman or Green Lantern and the other founding members in the comics is quite a bit more pronounced than it is in the cartoon; I'll give you there's a bigger gap with the expanded roster members, but its not a coincidence that most of those signficiantly weaker than the founders don't appear in episondes with them very often; when you see them, its normally with each other (other than a few like Captain Atom who are clearly in the same weight class as the originals)

That is more of a issue of limited time to teel the story. In the comics, you can split off with such characters for a subplot. With 22 minutes and 6 main characters, you can't do that. Also, for a Super TV show, things revolve around fights. The same is true with comics in general.

While I won't disagree that Crises lopped off the top of the power curve, I stand by my opinon above about the cartoon. You see the cartoon Superman bothered by things that no version of Superman since the 50's would be.

I still say crisis. Pretty much every film and TV version of Supers since the 70s is bothered by such things. Supers now has to strain to stop a train or falling 747.

As for "compression", you can do that a bit more with characters like Superman because they are so powerful, that they can be scaled down quite a bit without most people noticing a difference. For instance, only comics fans are aware of Crisis and how post-crisis Superman is significantly weaker that pre-crisis. As long as he is bullet proof, can fly, has X-Ray and HEat vision, can crash through wall, and can pick up a car or truck, it is enough for most people to say, "That's Superman!".

Well, yes, but that's a genre convention, not an issue of power per se; superhero comics are intrinsically unrealistic in their handling of physics and biology.

[./quote]

Yes, but from the RPG standpoint, a comics based RPG needs to mirror that paradigm.

We disagree here. I'd like to see some of your gaming groups, since in my experience the best way to whack a group is to take out the front rank fighters. Generally the first rank fighters are better than the typical monster, but the second rank fighters aren't.

No, it depends on genre and style. It is just that most RPGs emphasis combat. If other skills aren't that important is is becuase that is what the GM/style is encouraging.

Again, style. Fist off, most of your casualties in RPGs are based on player competence rather than character competence. In most of the groups I've played in, it's the same people getting killed each week, regardless of characters.

Yes we can. How long someone has been doing something doesn't necessarily mean that someone is skilled or experienced. As I pointed out earlier,. I know a group that's been playing the same crummy way for over 25 years. They make all the same mistakes, the same people keep dying, and they have the same complaints week after week.

Playing the same way for a long time, doesn't validate your argument. It is the diversity of your RPG experience that would apply here. I've played and run RPGs that don't revolve around combat. They work. If you haven't, that doesn't mean that they don't. Just that either that you haven't done so, or that it didn't work for you.

On a similar tact, most gamers I've talked to think that classes, levels, increasing hit points, and lots of magic items are the only way to game, and that other methods "don't work.".

Of course they are in the minority. Anyone who isn't playing Room/Monster/Treasure D&D is in the minority. But if all you want to do is fight, why not play D&D. Or just play a wargame. I know a lot of people who play computer "role-playing" games. Most of them have no actual "role-playing" experience whatsoever. It just a first person shooter with customizable character. Not role playing.

It is that most people don't bother to try anything other than what they have been told is "they way" that such is the minority. Its the same reason why RQ/BRP is in the minority, and will stay there. Same reason why D&Ders who "know" how to game, keep getting slaughtered whenever they try RQ.

[Nightshade]

That is more of a issue of limited time to teel the story. In the comics, you can split off with such characters for a subplot. With 22 minutes and 6 main characters, you can't do that. Also, for a Super TV show, things revolve around fights. The same is true with comics in general.

The first isn't really relevant; it'd explain why you don't see them _all_ at the same time, but it wouldn't stop them from having an episode where you'd see, say, the Shining Knight and Wonder Woman as the starts. But you don't see much of that; but you see very little of that. Most of it is people in the same approximate weight class operating together. When the founders show up with others, its almost always types in the higher power class, like Captain Atom. You do get the occasional exception (Supergirl in the episode where she was with Green Arrow and the Question) but they're distinctly the unusual cases, and even there you usually see that the gap is not as large as you'd expect.

[qutoe]

I still say crisis. Pretty much every film and TV version of Supers since the 70s is bothered by such things. Supers now has to strain to stop a train or falling 747.

[soltakss]

You can have cavern-crawls in different kinds of games with no problem whatsoever. In Sci-Fi games they are Bug Hunts, in SuperHero games they involve hitting the Super Villain's Secret Complex and so on.

The old-style Dungeon Crawls are a bit different in that you had vastly different creatures in close proximity with no logical reasons why they'd be there. Hopefully, people put more thought into the reasons why things are in complexes. But, there's nothing inherently wrong with going through a complex like a dose of salts.

I've got a real problem with the attitude that such-and-such a scenario-type is bad and so-and-so is good. I've played excellent scenarios of many different kinds and bad scenarios of many different kinds. Personally, I don't particularly like playing in detective scenarios, but I have done some that were really good.

The best scenarios are a combination of several scenario-types.

Also, combat-light scenarios are not always about roleplaying. They can turn into problem-solving or detective or gadget-making scenarios instead.

It's hard to generalise over what is a good roleplaying scenario, except to say that a good scenario is one that the GM and players enjoy.

[TRose]

I've got a real problem with the attitude that such-and-such a scenario-type is bad and so-and-so is good. I've played excellent scenarios of many different kinds and bad scenarios of many different kinds. Personally, I don't particularly like playing in detective scenarios, but I have done some that were really good.

The best scenarios are a combination of several scenario-types.

Also, combat-light scenarios are not always about roleplaying. They can turn into problem-solving or detective or gadget-making scenarios instead.

It's hard to generalise over what is a good roleplaying scenario, except to say that a good scenario is one that the GM and players enjoy.

And I agree with that 100% I played at times in scenarios that could be only called silly( Such as the time whe had to deal with the purple people eater)

to ones that where highly complex espinage ones. the important things is to have fun.

[Nightshade]

I've got a real problem with the attitude that such-and-such a scenario-type is bad and so-and-so is good. I've played excellent scenarios of many different kinds and bad scenarios of many different kinds. Personally, I don't particularly like playing in detective scenarios, but I have done some that were really good.

The best scenarios are a combination of several scenario-types.

Also, combat-light scenarios are not always about roleplaying. They can turn into problem-solving or detective or gadget-making scenarios instead.

It's hard to generalise over what is a good roleplaying scenario, except to say that a good scenario is one that the GM and players enjoy.

That was really part of my point above; groups that don't do much roleplaying amidst their combat aren't going to do so just because there's less combat; they'll just focus on the mechanical/game parts of whatever's being done instead. Conflating combat/non-roleplaying and noncombat/roleplaying not only doesn't match reality, I think it misses the point.

And the point is that people get different things out of roleplaying games. For some, they _are_ primarily games with a patima of roleplaying on them and some characterization to give the game context. For some they're essentially just a dollop of resolution mechanics on top of a largely roleplaying and interactive experience. And spaces in between. But to refer to one or the other as "more mature" or "more sophisticated" is to confuse one's own taste with a universal value, and I really think the hobby would be better if people got over that.

[drohem]

/lastword

There!

[Atgxtg]

That was really part of my point above; groups that don't do much roleplaying amidst their combat aren't going to do so just because there's less combat; they'll just focus on the mechanical/game parts of whatever's being done instead. Conflating combat/non-roleplaying and noncombat/roleplaying not only doesn't match reality, I think it misses the point.

And the point is that people get different things out of roleplaying games. For some, they _are_ primarily games with a patima of roleplaying on them and some characterization to give the game context. For some they're essentially just a dollop of resolution mechanics on top of a largely roleplaying and interactive experience. And spaces in between. But to refer to one or the other as "more mature" or "more sophisticated" is to confuse one's own taste with a universal value, and I really think the hobby would be better if people got over that.

I think you are missing the point. Your whole argument in this thread and in the Kepping MAgic from overpowered fighters thread is that balanced power levels are needed to make an RPG work. THey are not.

Everything should not be power balanced just because SOME people only want to fight. That is them forcing their style of play upon everyone else, including game designers.

I never said that people should, or have to play one way, only that there are other ways to address problems outside of keeping everything balanced. Play balance is an illusion, anyway.

[Nightshade]

I think you are missing the point. Your whole argument in this thread and in the Kepping MAgic from overpowered fighters thread is that balanced power levels are needed to make an RPG work. THey are not.

Everything should not be power balanced just because SOME people only want to fight. That is them forcing their style of play upon everyone else, including game designers.

And I think game designs that don't pay attention to that are serving most of their end users badly. What more do you want out of me?

I never said that people should, or have to play one way, only that there are other ways to address problems outside of keeping everything balanced. Play balance is an illusion, anyway.

And I disagree with that, too, or that the other ways on the whole are good ideas. That's the bottom line here--I say what I do because I think its the case. I explain why. Repeating your disagreement doesn't change my opinion, because I've heard the reasons before. Its not new to me. Its not a surprise. And bluntly, it frequently sounds just like telling someone that the only reason they don't know this is because they haven't been exposed to it. Its perfectly possible to have seen these sorts of thing in operation and conclude that for most players they don't work. And when the response to that is to suggest that most players are immature, I know no way to read it _but_ to be setting the speaker's style above others. If that's not what you're intending, then I have to suggest in this thread you have done a poor job of what you are intending.

[Atgxtg]

You are the one who is setting your style above others.

You kept stating that combat is the primary goal and that not focusing on it (youtr style, apparently) does a disservice to most "end users".I'm saying that there are other ways to approach situations in gaming besides fighting. You're the one saying that RPGs should be devoted to combat, and that any other way is some sort of exception that won't work for most people.

If that's what you think, why don't you just play D&D? Sounds to me like it has everything you desire. A game that based around combat, and play flows from one fight to the next, and better still is supported by the majority of gamers.

From what you have been stating, I don't see why you would want to play a game like RQ/BRP that wastes so much time and pages on things like skills, cults, and cultures, all of which detract from the thing that you hold above everything else, combat. Just think how much more fighting you'd get in an RPG with with a lot more "encounters" each session.

[Lord Twig]

You are the one who is setting your style above others.

Actually, no, he is not. He is saying that a lot of people enjoy the tactical or mechanical side of RPGs and that it is no better or worse than the Role-Playing aspect.

You kept stating that combat is the primary goal and that not focusing on it (youtr style, apparently) does a disservice to most "end users".

Again, no, he did not say that combat was the primary goal, he said that "game designs that don't pay attention to that (combat) are serving most of their end users badly". Saying that you should not ignore combat is far different than saying that it is the primary goal.

I'm saying that there are other ways to approach situations in gaming besides fighting.

And as far as I can tell Nightshade is saying that it is perfectly fine to do so if that is what you want to do.

You're the one saying that RPGs should be devoted to combat, and that any other way is some sort of exception that won't work for most people.

He didn't say that RPGs should be devoted to combat. Where did he say that? He did say that RPGs that didn't focus on combat don't work for most people (but not all). Again that is different than saying that RPGs should be devoted to combat.

If that's what you think, why don't you just play D&D? Sounds to me like it has everything you desire. A game that based around combat, and play flows from one fight to the next, and better still is supported by the majority of gamers.

From what you have been stating, I don't see why you would want to play a game like RQ/BRP that wastes so much time and pages on things like skills, cults, and cultures, all of which detract from the thing that you hold above everything else, combat. Just think how much more fighting you'd get in an RPG with with a lot more "encounters" each session.

This is just being rude.

First, there is nothing wrong with D&D. I never liked AD&D 1st and 2nd edition, but found the update to 3rd to be a vast improvement. Others would disagree, that doesn't make anyone wrong. It just means we have different tastes.

Second, it seems you are implying that he should go play an inferior game (D&D) because he is not advanced enough to play RQ or BRP. Please correct me if I am wrong! But the tone I am getting from your post is not very polite.