Jump to content

mrq1


Daxos232

Recommended Posts

Oh, and this? This is silly. Limiting the number of rolls does not make the game a classed game,

Yes it does. If players are limited to a certain number of development rolls then they can only advance in a certain mmber of skills. So what you end up with are characters who decide to develop as a fighter, thief, mage, or whatever. You end up loosing the diversirty and breth that go with a skill based game.

The idea wasn't to make the roll a GM reward, but to prevent every signle use of a skill, no matter how trivial, from resulting in ia skill check. It also helped to discoruage some silly forms of skill check hunting, like someone wrting his name of a piece of paper in order to get a check in Read/Write, or increasing his Spot and Search skills by finding his car keys each morning. Otherwise, we7d all have Computer at 2000%+ just from all the posts.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is only the case if you set the number of rolls too low. Set it at, say, six to eight per check cycle, and normal users will almost never even notice it, and it won't noticably channelize people.

Raising the number of rolls certainly helps, no doubt about that. It still chyannels the character but is not nearly as restrictive as the 3 roll limit. It is still an artificial limit, and I don't see it as an improvement over the tradtional method.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I'd always felt that MRQ design choice about handing out Improvement Rolls had more to do with giving the GM's more control over improvement than 'fixing' skill check hunting. It is a way of allowing the GM more control over the rate of progression/improvement and can be used for rewarding good roleplaying (as can Hero Points).

Possibly. The feedback on thre MRQ boards in the early days of MRQ wasn't conclusive either way. I think that to those who didn't like the RQ experience system, for either reason, it was considered an improvement, and Mongoose was happy that it pleased both camps..

Personally, I'm not that fond of the GM handing out improvments, as it tends to promote one dimsensional characters. I've been seeing it in a few other RPGs, where character get points to imrpove thier characters after adventures. Since it is generally better fora group to have a master swordsman and a master wizard that a couple of guys who are medicore at both, I tend to see players focus on narrow arears.

One of the original RQ designers (I can't remember which) once said somewhere they regretted the way you only improved skills by succeeding - when in reality you often learn more from your mistakes (failing). The MRQ system allows you to learn from failures too. In the MRQ1 Rules you had to practice/train to 'spend' IR's, but you could spend them on skills you'd used during play without practice or training. Quite sensible really.

I agree with the though behind learning fron ones's mistakes. At times I7ve been tempted to reverse the check procedure (that is getting a check for failing a skill roll). That way, really skilled characters would get checks only by trying more difficult things.

I don't really see the MRQ method as leaning from one7s failures as much as making improvment unleated to skill use. I see the same thing in d6 Star Wars. A character goes through an adventure where he is constantly using certain skills. He stubs his toe and puts on a medpac and at the end of the adventure he spends the points to imrpve first aid, even though he used it once, and several other skills multiple times.

I would like to see improvment be tied to the extent that a skill was (or was not) used. Maybe something like getting a bonus to the imrpvement roillfor multiple checks. I could even see combining methods. SOmething like the checks keep accumulating until the character makes an improvment roll. More checks means a geater chance for improving.

I don't have a strong preference either way, I use traditional skill checks with BRP and IR's with MRQ. I don't feel the skill checks in BRP are broken (I always had a bigger problem with the practice rules - once characters became wealthy enough they wanted to spend all their down time practicing and training, 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. Sheesh...), but the MRQ way has some advantages.

There is a easy and simple solution to the train-a-holics. Make them play it out. It get especially good if you make them sit out some game time while other characters are adventuring. Chances are, if you make training and studing just one one hundredth of the pain it is in real life PCs will stop abusing it and decide to play instead.

We'll see what you say when finish training that Humakti Trollkin! Just think a Trollkin with Sever Spirit! :P;D

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It" doesn7t create the problem, the players do. Look, if you had a player who repeatedly did something self descrtuctive, would you change the game system to prevent it?

If I'd seen multiple players, in different groups, do the same thing over the years, damn right I would. I'd conclude the game system was passively encouraging a behavior bad for the game as a whole (which I consider most self-destructive behavior to be, because it inevitably splashes on other people).

How is it harming the game as a whole? If the players keep dying and can7t figure out why, tell them. If they argue about it, keep reminding them whenever they get killed for it.

Groups are dependent on each other. If one character goes down from this behavior, he's not available when he's needed. In addition, he's potentially not the only one who pays for it up front; if someone has decided to try and sneak into a guard post in the middle of the night that everyone else has decided to bypass just to try out his stealth and perception skills, when the post is alerted, they're not going to not look around to see what else might be about.

Characters don't exist in perfect, encapsulated worlds distinct from one another.

In addition, when someone gets lucky and this works out for them, the behavior tends to be contagious, and since people, as you note yourself, have rotten senses of probability in most case, when it then does blow up on them, they're not going to automatically associate the problem with the behavior, but in many cases just with "bad luck".

Do you believe the GM should have altered the game system to prevent iai strikes just becuase this guy kept messing up?

If I kept seeing people do it over the years inappropriately, and found a way to modify it a way to discourage that while doing no appreciable harm to anyone else, you bet I would.

I don't see anything that supports your argument here.

It would help if you would engage with what I'm actually discussing rather than focusing overly on some idea I'm protecting individual players from bad decisions, rather than trying to address what seems from observation more than an isolated behavior, and one that often hurts more than just the person indulging in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it does. If players are limited to a certain number of development rolls then they can only advance in a certain mmber of skills. So what you end up with are characters who decide to develop as a fighter, thief, mage, or whatever. You end up loosing the diversirty and breth that go with a skill based game.

This basically says that GURPS, the Hero System, JAGS and every other point based, skill centered game is a class based game. Are you really sure you want to go there, Atgxtg? Because I think that's ludicrous on the face of it. Nothing forces you to shove all your points into one narrow focus in those games, and nothing does so with development rolls. It may be attractive to do so, but a BRP game with any appreciable training time is attractive in exactly the same way.

The idea wasn't to make the roll a GM reward, but to prevent every signle use of a skill, no matter how trivial, from resulting in ia skill check. It also helped to discoruage some silly forms of skill check hunting, like someone wrting his name of a piece of paper in order to get a check in Read/Write, or increasing his Spot and Search skills by finding his car keys each morning. Otherwise, we7d all have Computer at 2000%+ just from all the posts.

And yet, if you're concerned about a GM gaming process to provide rewards and penalties, it allows him to do that with the process just as easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raising the number of rolls certainly helps, no doubt about that. It still chyannels the character but is not nearly as restrictive as the 3 roll limit. It is still an artificial limit, and I don't see it as an improvement over the tradtional method.

That's your choice, but it still means your concern about excess channelling isn't a consequence of limiting rolls, but limiting them excessively. Its not an objection to it as a system but an objection to a degenerate case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a easy and simple solution to the train-a-holics. Make them play it out. It get especially good if you make them sit out some game time while other characters are adventuring. Chances are, if you make training and studing just one one hundredth of the pain it is in real life PCs will stop abusing it and decide to play instead.

If you're going to do that you might as well just remove it as an option rather than being passive-aggressive about it. And in my experience, when there's time to train and money to do it, everyone does it, not just one character; they'll just do it in different areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see the MRQ method as leaning from one7s failures as much as making improvment unleated to skill use. I see the same thing in d6 Star Wars. A character goes through an adventure where he is constantly using certain skills. He stubs his toe and puts on a medpac and at the end of the adventure he spends the points to imrpve first aid, even though he used it once, and several other skills multiple times.

Though as I mentioned, it was pretty clear (though often missed due to the scattered rules snippits in MRQ1) that you could use IR's on skills you used during the game, success or failure, without any training or practice, while spending an IR on a skill you did not use in play required just such an investment. So skill improvement was not completely disassociated from skill use during play.

Help kill a Trollkin here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'd seen multiple players, in different groups, do the same thing over the years, damn right I would. I'd conclude the game system was passively encouraging a behavior bad for the game as a whole (which I consider most self-destructive behavior to be, because it inevitably splashes on other people).

Wow! I've got some idtio players who I'd like to send your way. Maybe you7d give them a hug and a cookie when they screw up?

Extending your line of reasoning to a logical conclusion why not get rid of combat from your gaming?

I completely disagree with you here. I believe that " if I'd seen multiple players, in different groups, do the same thing over the years" and they keep dying for it, then the fault is with thier behavior.

Groups are dependent on each other. If one character goes down from this behavior, he's not available when he's needed. In addition, he's potentially not the only one who pays for it up front; if someone has decided to try and sneak into a guard post in the middle of the night that everyone else has decided to bypass just to try out his stealth and perception skills, when the post is alerted, they're not going to not look around to see what else might be about.

Characters don't exist in perfect, encapsulated worlds distinct from one another.

Yup, but that is no reason to change a rule. If player A does something srtupid that gets Player B killed, it is up to player A (and the others) to learn from that mistake.

Case in point, a few years back I was running a Star Trek campaign. At one point one PC was desparely trying to figure out how to prevent the ship from blowing up. Another PC had figured things out, but didn7t say a word, instead enjoying seeing the other player sweat. The player didn7t think it was funny (or fair) when I pointed out that he was literally in the same boat, and that if the ship bloew up he'd be just a dead as the less knowlesgable PCs.

Again, I'll stess if a player is choosing to consisteny do something that comes back on him and/or the group, it is up to the player to chance his behavior.

In addition, when someone gets lucky and this works out for them, the behavior tends to be contagious, and since people, as you note yourself, have rotten senses of probability in most case, when it then does blow up on them, they're not going to automatically associate the problem with the behavior, but in many cases just with "bad luck".

Then they suffer for thier lack of prcepacity. That is life and gaming. It happens all the time and it is up to the PCs to figure out someone is up when "bad luck" keep reoccruing.

Here is an example from something that I did as a player. In one campaign, my character, armed with a rapier, rushed a guy who was armed with a (blackpowder) pistol. I got lucky when the GM fumbled. LAter on, I was in a similar situation, charged again, and, much to my surprise, the GM fumbled again! Now this happened a couple of more times, and the tactic has become ingraned with that character. Do you think the GM should change the combat rules to accomondate my reckless and stupid decision to repeated rush forward into the face of a loaded firearm? After all, the behavior meets all your crtiera above. Would you eliminate fumbles so I couldn't take the risk anymore, or would you change things so the NPC can't shoot me?

Thankfully, my GM didn7t change an thing, and was willing to let me charge into firearms until the day somebody blows my fool head off.

If I kept seeing people do it over the years inappropriately, and found a way to modify it a way to discourage that while doing no appreciable harm to anyone else, you bet I would.

I would too. In generall it is called advising them where they went wrong. But changing the rules to prevent players from making poor decisions doesn7t discorage the behavior, it simply prohibits it. And it does do harm to everybody else. The other players suffer becuase the GM dumbed down the game. THe player who scred up is harmed becuase he lot the opportunity to improve as a player.

It would help if you would engage with what I'm actually discussing rather than focusing overly on some idea I'm protecting individual players from bad decisions, rather than trying to address what seems from observation more than an isolated behavior, and one that often hurts more than just the person indulging in it.

Help, whom? Frankly, the GM protecting players from bad decisions is a moreimportant itopic than just about anything else on this forum. It'S one of the worst things a GM can do. If you protect them from bad decsions then there is no point in thier making decesions!

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This basically says that GURPS, the Hero System, JAGS and every other point based, skill centered game is a class based game. Are you really sure you want to go there, Atgxtg? Because I think that's ludicrous on the face of it. Nothing forces you to shove all your points into one narrow focus in those games, and nothing does so with development rolls. It may be attractive to do so, but a BRP game with any appreciable training time is attractive in exactly the same way.

TO some extent it does, and yeah, I WILL go there. Now where he other RPGs you mentioned differ from MRQ is in how the points are applied compared to improvment rolls. Now there are a few differences though it how most point based games handle improvment comapred to MRQ.

For one thing, GURPS, HERO and most such games allow character to imrpove abilities through training, actually earning more points in the process. MRQ, by contrast requires IPs to improve. A guy who spends six months traqining in RQ/BRP, GURPS, Hero,m and such will probably improve. But no so in games that require the character to get the points before allowing imrpovement.

Another difference is that most point based systems allow a character to get a reasonably decent skill rating (>50% success chance) for a modest amount of points. Typically 2 points in GURPS or HERO will do the job.But with MRQ it takes a lot of improvment rolls to get a starting skill over 50%. So it takes a much greater investiment from the character. A character is GRUPS or HERO can becme a compentent rider (over 50% success chance) after an adventure or two. In MRQ, it would take something like a dozen IP rolls to accomplish the same thing. That is a big difference, and what ultimately results in narrow focus characters.

And yet, if you're concerned about a GM gaming process to provide rewards and penalties, it allows him to do that with the process just as easily.

ANd is entirely unecessary if you not "protecting your players from bad decisions". You don't need to invent new rewards and penalties if you let the players benefit (or suffer) from thier actions. Good gaming is self rewarding, both is terms of charaqcter imrpvoement and if social effects on characters.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's your choice, but it still means your concern about excess channelling isn't a consequence of limiting rolls, but limiting them excessively. Its not an objection to it as a system but an objection to a degenerate case.

I don't object to point or reward based characrter improvment in general, I just don't consider the specific ("degenerate case?";D) method used in MRQ1 to be superior to BRP's "skill check" method.

AI also don7t think that simply increasing the number of IP rolls hlps much, since it an IP roll doesn7t have as singincant an impact on improvment as character points/experience points do. In most reward based games, you spend the points and get the reward. In MRQ you spend the IP to get a chance for a reward. Even then the effect on animprovment isn7t as great as in other RPGs since the base chances are lower and it takes a long time to get to a competent level of skill.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to do that you might as well just remove it as an option rather than being passive-aggressive about it.

Not being passive-agrressive at all.I'm simply saying that is the players spend two years in game time training the GM shouldn't simply skip ahead and pick thegs up two years later. Likewise, the rest of the game worldshouldn't be hled in stasis while the PCs are traning.

If players want to act like gradulate students and train for 16 hours a day for months on end, they should be given the same sort of challenges that such people have to deal with in real life.

And in my experience, when there's time to train and money to do it, everyone does it, not just one character; they'll just do it in different areas.

Yup. I don't see a problem with it either, unless the players push it to unrealistic levels.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though as I mentioned, it was pretty clear (though often missed due to the scattered rules snippits in MRQ1) that you could use IR's on skills you used during the game, success or failure, without any training or practice, while spending an IR on a skill you did not use in play required just such an investment. So skill improvement was not completely disassociated from skill use during play.

No not completely. But mostly. Training time is only a factor when you don7t have any. As far as skill use went, it doesn7t matter what skills you attempt or how often. So MRQ is just as vnlerable to "skill check" hunting if PCs have no time to train and want to improve something specfic. For example, if someone wants to improve thier First Aid skill, they can start going out of thier way to find an opportunity to make a skill roll.

Another flaw is that this approach really hurts modern and advanced settings, since characters aren't likely to use the more advanced skills as often as combat skills.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy this thread seems to have degenerated into atgxtg's one true way of gaming and become distinctly off topic. I suggest that maybe a discussion of the pros and cons of improvement rolls vs skill checks would be better in another thread.

The key problem with MRQ1 for me was that it made many changes but rarely implemented them properly or with an eye to the knock-on effects on other parts of the system. Improvement Rolls were one example of that. There were more obvious problems. The combat system appears to have been rewritten late in the day but various tables plus a 2 page example of combat weren't updated meaning that it was hard to figure out how combat was actually meant to work; a pretty major failing given that RQ had always prided itself on the combat system.

Finally, it bears stating that many regulars in BRP land have emotional allegiances to Chaosium or a particular flavour of BRP, bad experiences of Mongoose's hap-hazard playtest or a suspicion of mongoose's way of doing business. Add this to the many flaws of the system and failings of the publication model where a large number of thin, shoddy hardbacks were rushed out of the door at high prices and you get a pretty toxic mix. You should realise that this board was born because its owner expressed pretty vitriolic dislike of Mongoose RQ repeatedly on the Mongoose boards getting banned in the process. So there is quite a deep cultural antipathy to MRQ around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely disagree with you here. I believe that " if I'd seen multiple players, in different groups, do the same thing over the years" and they keep dying for it, then the fault is with thier behavior.

If its common enough, I couldn't care less if its their behavior. I just want to fix the problem, and I don't have any faith in fixing human nature.

Help, whom? Frankly, the GM protecting players from bad decisions is a moreimportant itopic than just about anything else on this forum. It'S one of the worst things a GM can do. If you protect them from bad decsions then there is no point in thier making decesions!

Protecting other people from their decisions is more important to me than trying to fix the people, which I have little evidence will happen. I'm perfectly comfortable saying that a rule that creates enough bad results is a bad rule; acknowledging human nature is something I think a rule set should do if its doing its job correctly.

Or, put another way, I'm not interested in fixing people; I'm interested in setting up the game so that it doesn't cause problems, and I think that the open ended tick system does that often enough to justify changing it. If yours is otherwise, that's your gig, but I'm a mechanic, not a theologian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TO some extent it does, and yeah, I WILL go there. Now where he other RPGs you mentioned differ from MRQ is in how the points are applied compared to improvment rolls. Now there are a few differences though it how most point based games handle improvment comapred to MRQ.

For one thing, GURPS, HERO and most such games allow character to imrpove abilities through training, actually earning more points in the process. MRQ, by contrast requires IPs to improve. A guy who spends six months traqining in RQ/BRP, GURPS, Hero,m and such will probably improve. But no so in games that require the character to get the points before allowing imrpovement.

GURPS has a primitive training system as I recall, but Hero certainly doesn't, and few others do (I don't recall if CORPS does or not). The majority of point build systems are stylized enough in their assumptions training would be nonsensical, because the costs aren't based on difficulty of ability but presumed utility anyway.

Another difference is that most point based systems allow a character to get a reasonably decent skill rating (>50% success chance) for a modest amount of points. Typically 2 points in GURPS or HERO will do the job.But with MRQ it takes a lot of improvment rolls to get a starting skill over 50%. So it takes a much greater investiment from the character. A character is GRUPS or HERO can becme a compentent rider (over 50% success chance) after an adventure or two. In MRQ, it would take something like a dozen IP rolls to accomplish the same thing. That is a big difference, and what ultimately results in narrow focus characters.

That's more an argument about progressive cost systems than points or not, though, or alternatively an argument about degree of resource. You get that result in any system that limits experience strongly; as I've noted, limited training time in BRP will do the same thing.

ANd is entirely unecessary if you not "protecting your players from bad decisions". You don't need to invent new rewards and penalties if you let the players benefit (or suffer) from thier actions. Good gaming is self rewarding, both is terms of charaqcter imrpvoement and if social effects on characters.

And I simply degree that's even close to adequate in many cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't object to point or reward based characrter improvment in general, I just don't consider the specific ("degenerate case?";D) method used in MRQ1 to be superior to BRP's "skill check" method.

AI also don7t think that simply increasing the number of IP rolls hlps much, since it an IP roll doesn7t have as singincant an impact on improvment as character points/experience points do. In most reward based games, you spend the points and get the reward. In MRQ you spend the IP to get a chance for a reward. Even then the effect on animprovment isn7t as great as in other RPGs since the base chances are lower and it takes a long time to get to a competent level of skill.

Yeah, but if you can't stack them up (i.e. by the time you can try a roll again you'll have the point to do it again) then its not going to channel people much.

(The reason I use the term "degenerate case" is that's the term used for outlayers in other fields that are sometimes pointed to as problems; you can find problems in almost anything if you focus on the extremes of the process).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not being passive-agrressive at all.I'm simply saying that is the players spend two years in game time training the GM shouldn't simply skip ahead and pick thegs up two years later. Likewise, the rest of the game worldshouldn't be hled in stasis while the PCs are traning.

If players want to act like gradulate students and train for 16 hours a day for months on end, they should be given the same sort of challenges that such people have to deal with in real life.

I'd argue that for rich people, most of the challenges aren't things we pay attention to in any game. I don't disagree about having events eventuate while they do this, though; that's usually the limiting factor on training time IME anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy this thread seems to have degenerated into atgxtg's one true way of gaming and become distinctly off topic. I suggest that maybe a discussion of the pros and cons of improvement rolls vs skill checks would be better in another thread.

Well, I'd argue the reasons for one of MRQ's rules was at least somewhat on topic, but I'll agree its bloated up something fierce.

The key problem with MRQ1 for me was that it made many changes but rarely implemented them properly or with an eye to the knock-on effects on other parts of the system. Improvement Rolls were one example of that. There were more obvious problems. The combat system appears to have been rewritten late in the day but various tables plus a 2 page example of combat weren't updated meaning that it was hard to figure out how combat was actually meant to work; a pretty major failing given that RQ had always prided itself on the combat system.

Finally, it bears stating that many regulars in BRP land have emotional allegiances to Chaosium or a particular flavour of BRP, bad experiences of Mongoose's hap-hazard playtest or a suspicion of mongoose's way of doing business. Add this to the many flaws of the system and failings of the publication model where a large number of thin, shoddy hardbacks were rushed out of the door at high prices and you get a pretty toxic mix. You should realise that this board was born because its owner expressed pretty vitriolic dislike of Mongoose RQ repeatedly on the Mongoose boards getting banned in the process. So there is quite a deep cultural antipathy to MRQ around here.

Which, I suspect from the reports I've seen may be more than a little unfair to MRQ2. But as you say, some of its genuine dislike of some of the features of even this edition, some is "once burned, twice shy" and some of its, well, to be blunt, kneejerk emotionalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which, I suspect from the reports I've seen may be more than a little unfair to MRQ2. But as you say, some of its genuine dislike of some of the features of even this edition, some is "once burned, twice shy" and some of its, well, to be blunt, kneejerk emotionalism.

Pretty much why I stopped commenting after page 3 or so... :)

121/420

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its common enough, I couldn't care less if its their behavior. I just want to fix the problem, and I don't have any faith in fixing human nature.

So you are saying that if the players kept repeately dying due to thier own actions you would change the game to eliminate that possiblity.

So when are you going to emilinate combat? Most PCs seem to die in combat.

Protecting other people from their decisions is more important to me than trying to fix the people, which I have little evidence will happen. I'm perfectly comfortable saying that a rule that creates enough bad results is a bad rule; acknowledging human nature is something I think a rule set should do if its doing its job correctly.

Again, the rulke doesn't create the problem, the players do with thier decisions. Practically any rule can lead to a high PC mortality if the players continually do something stupid with it. If someone starts drinking posion regularly, or tries jumping across a 30 meter wide gap, would you elimiate poison and falling damage to protect the PCs?

Or, put another way, I'm not interested in fixing people; I'm interested in setting up the game so that it doesn't cause problems, and I think that the open ended tick system does that often enough to justify changing it. If yours is otherwise, that's your gig, but I'm a mechanic, not a theologian.

No, you7re not a mechanic. you7re a despot. People abuse something so you eliminate the something rather than let people learn from this mistakes.

Edited by Atgxtg

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd argue that for rich people, most of the challenges aren't things we pay attention to in any game.

In real life or in an RPG? Real Life wise, certainly.But then the same holds true for those people who aren't rich, too. Most people don't get into sword or gun fights on a regular basis.

As far a characrters go in an RPG, it depends on the GM and the playing stle of the group. I7ve seen GMs who have had great difficulties daling with rich PCs. On the other hand I've seen Gms not worry about money at all. Money is more of a problem in games where players can freely shop for "goodies" (magical or other), especially in combant dominated games.

I don't disagree about having events eventuate while they do this, though; that's usually the limiting factor on training time IME anyway.

Indeed. I've seen a few groups ignore events (or at least try), too. One group decided to ingore the assassin who was after them. It't was hard to improve thier sword skills while busy dodging poisoned crossbow bolts.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...