Non human playable races and encounter balancing

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Susimetsa said:

... I merely used it as an indication that non-human races will be coming out ...

At least insofar as RQ is concerned, many non-human races are already out & playable (via the rules in the Bestiary).

My group of players was light on spirit side of things, so I used those rules to make a Trollkin shaman-apprentice.  He's a bit weak (IIRC racial-max POW & CHA are both woefully low for an aspiring Shaman), but he's just an NPC so he's meant not to stand out; however he can bolster that side of things for the players, at need.

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, Saki said:

Exactly what I mean by Eyeballing it.

What do you think Challenge Rating is? It's all "eyeballing it", with the possible exception of Tunnels & Trolls where you can fix the combat abilities of most foes by using a simple formula..There are way to many variables with characters (and their players) for any CR system to really work, especially outside of a ridgy structured game like D&D 3-5.

 

Any competent DM can easily design a encounter that can slaughter a given party of adventures but which is supposedly at the appropriate CR for that group. But being competent .DM's they don't. 

3 hours ago, Saki said:

 

Would you commit to TPKing the party because you as the GM made a mistake and made the opposition insurmountable to the party? 

No, but I wouldn't fudge to fix it, that is just following an mistake with an error.

If I made a mistake I'd actually tell the players that I did so and fix it. It wouldn't be the first time. I find it's much better being upfront and honest about mistakes than fudging to try and cover them up , which probably won't work anyway for an error that big. Most players notice when the dragon suddenly turns stupid and starts missing with natural 19s, or when the GM hides die rolls. Is there another reason for a GM to hide die rolls? If the players don't catch on to such fudging, well then their death probably wasn't due to the GM's mistake.

But the thing is few opponents in BRP are insurmountable, and it pretty hard to use one by accident. Note that there is also a big difference between a foe being insurmountable and a group failing to defeat one. I have no problem TKPing a party because they didn't play well, or some such. I fell bad for them if they die to to bad die rolls but it happens. It has to happen or else the die rolls become meaningless, and the players will quickly realize that they have no agency, and that everything is happening  by GM fiat.

 

I get the idea that a GM unfamiliar with a game might throw something too much for the group to handle, but that is part of the learning curve. If said GM starts fuding to fix that, then they will never really learn what the right level of opposition is for their group. 

 

If you want a quick and dirty guideline to go by:

• Start off with foes with about half the skill level, armor and magic of the PCs. Maybe a little less to start with (20% vs 10% isn't that much of an edge). You can up this later.
• You don't have to advertise the NPCs ineptness. For the most part the players won't notice that they outclass their foes they way the  would in D&D since hit points and damages don't change all that much. Ken the Incompetent can still take a PCs head off with a Scimitar, if he rolls good (and they don't).
• Keep damage dice down so that you can't inflict a major wound or take out a hit location on most PCs without a really good roll.
• Keep in mind that BRP combats are generally quick and brutal and don't try to extend it to "try and have a good fight". That will kill most groups.
• Also don't think that the players have to get injured for it to be a good fight. That will kill most groups too.
• You're not going to the same sort of attrition out of encounters that you do with class & level games. Instead of the group being slowly weakened they tend to go from having an easy fight of it to coming up short and dropping like dominoes.
• Avoid ambushing the group. While cool in D&D such things to be devastating in BRP. A good Ambush can drop most of the group before they even get ready their weapons, and most ambushes will drop (and possibly kill) at least one PC in the first round. I think I've killed more PCs with impaling arrows than anything else. 
• Avoid outnumbering the group. Overwhelming numbers usually overwhelm. A characters endurance is a fight has less to do with hit points than with their ability to defend. And few can defend well against multiple foes. 
• Don't go out of your way to target the PCs weaknesses. I don't mean the NPCs here, I mean the GM. For instance if you know the PCs have no protection against, say, Sorcery, don't throw sorcerers against them, since you know they can't handle them. But if an NPC knows a PC is vulnerable to sorcery and has a chance to exploit tit, that's another thing -assuming the GM doesn't engineer the situation. 
• Don't fudge any more that you think you need to, if at all. Players will catch on if you do,and it will erode their trust in you as a GM and their enjoyment.
• Admit to and correct you mistakes when you can. Player will respect you for it, and you will keep their trust.
• Don't be afraid of letting the players get an easy win. Nothing frustrated the players more than coming up with a solution to a problem only to have the GM fudge some sort of retcon to keep it from working because it would "spoil the adventure". This is coming from the GM who once forgot the PC could bypass most of his Star Trek adventure with this thing they call a transporter. Let the players get with win- they earned it. My Pendragon players still rave about winning a scripted battle that they were supposed to lose because they were on a roll than night and all the random events went their way (stood their ground and rallied a retreating army; beat two enemy commanders; fought their way to the enemy camp; and rolled great doing it)
• Note that a GM can bend or break most of these guidelines once they get more familiar with the rules, the PCs, and their players. But the above is a good start.

 

 

 

 

[svensson]

About 'eyeballing it'...

Firstly, it doesn't matter what icon or label you put on it, EVERY referee is going to set a challenge for their particular table. For a novice crew, a team of roughly equal opponents that outnumber the party by three people can be a real challenge. For rules-savvy players that fight will be almost annoyingly easy. The tactics and knowledge of the players will grossly effect the 'challenge rating' of the encounter.

Secondly, BRP/CoC/RQ has a HUGE range of challenges for player to fight, from a band of trollkin bandits [almost laughlingly trivial] to the Great Cthulhu itself [you WILL die in this encounter, what matters is how good you look doing it]. It can be hard to slap a challenge rating on such a wide range in a level-less system. It can be done, but it's hard work for a rather more nebulous result.

Edited June 11 by svensson

[Susimetsa]

13 hours ago, g33k said:

At least insofar as RQ is concerned, many non-human races are already out & playable (via the rules in the Bestiary).

My group of players was light on spirit side of things, so I used those rules to make a Trollkin shaman-apprentice.  He's a bit weak (IIRC racial-max POW & CHA are both woefully low for an aspiring Shaman), but he's just an NPC so he's meant not to stand out; however he can bolster that side of things for the players, at need.

Ah, yes. I've been stuck on waiting for details on the Telmori culture, so that was foremost in my mind with that statement. I forgot to look outside my own bubble. 😛But, yes, the Bestiary should provide a lot of good ideas on how to design other species and monsters.

[g33k]

7 hours ago, Susimetsa said:

Ah, yes. I've been stuck on waiting for details on the Telmori culture, so that was foremost in my mind with that statement. I forgot to look outside my own bubble. 😛But, yes, the Bestiary should provide a lot of good ideas on how to design other species and monsters.

Telmori are pp. 84-87 in the Bestiary; there is a (very) short-form Cult write-up included, and minor cultural notes.
They also get a mention on p.6, as one of the exemplars of "Intelligent Creatures as Adventurers"
By RQG standards, it's very minimal info for "playable PC" background; they don't even get their own "how to make a PC" sidebar (the way Dark Trolls do, and minor add-ons for Great Trolls & Trollkin, based on the Dark Troll template)...

The issue, of course (in regards the OP's ask) is that while RQ has plenty of non-humans playable, the "balance" of the species (or an adventure/encoounter) is simply not one of the issues under consideration.

Edited May 24 by g33k

[g33k]

On 5/22/2024 at 3:36 PM, shadythedevil said:

... developing my own system for understanding the threat or challenge of a monster at a glance ... It exists. I am looking at it. It wasn't easy, but its do-able ..

On 5/23/2024 at 2:49 AM, Susimetsa said:

... I hope you'll consider sharing the system at some point when you have tested it enough. 

Let me +1 on congratulating you for finding a system you're happy with, and  +  ... well, +lots on hoping you'll share your system here.

BRP has always been more of a "toolkit" game than a playable-right-out-of-the-book game; and more tools in the toolkit is always a good thing.

[Atgxtg]

17 hours ago, svensson said:

About 'eyeballing it'...

Firstly, it doesn't matter what icon or label you put on it, EVERY referee is going to set a challenge for their particular table. For a novice crew, a team of roughly equal opponents that outnumber the party by three people can be a real challenge. For rules-savvy players that fight will be almost annoyingly easy. The tactics and knowledge of the players will grossly effect the 'challenge rating' of the encounter.

Exactly. That's why "game balance" as people tend to view it is a myth. On paper something might seem to be a challenge, but that doesn't factor in for the skills of the actual players (as opposed to thier characters), the tactical situation of the encounter, or even the spells know or gear carried. D&D CRs worlk by assuming what a group of PCs will have at X level.

 

OD&D and AD&D didn't do that. It's why you see GMs grab an adventure that was supposedly for a higher level group if their players were really good.  I recall our old group beat the Slavers in  A3 (the PCs were supposed to lose) and the GM basically had to fiat that the PCs got captured so he could continue onto A4, where the PCs do a jail break. The guys got extra XP for that one.  

17 hours ago, svensson said:

Secondly, BRP/CoC/RQ has a HUGE range of range of challenge for player to fight, from a band of trollkin bandit [almost laughlingly trivial] to the Great Cthulhu itself [you WILL die in this encounter, what matters is how good you look doing it]. It can be hard to slap a challenge rating on such a wide range in a level-less system. It can be done, but it's hard work for a rather more nebulous result.

Yup, plus foes remain a challenge over a longer range than in D&D. That trival band of trollkin can still be pesky and somewhat dangerous to experienced adventurers in a way that they cannot be in D&D. Just ask Rurik!

[svensson]

@Atgxtg One of the things I tell new RQ players goes something like this:

"RuneQuest is a deadly combat system. There are no trivial or 'warm up' fights. The only hit points you'll ever get are on your character sheet right now. Use your power up spells! Your Magic Points and Rune Points are meant to be expended, so manage those resources... don't hoard them but don't forget to spend them either. And remember, even a trollkin with a short spear has a straight up 5% of killing you every single round. Combat in this system is not to be entered into lightly, so plan, prepare, and power up."

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, svensson said:

@Atgxtg One of the things I tell new RQ players goes something like this:

"RuneQuest is a deadly combat system. There are no trivial or 'warm up' fights. The only hit points you'll ever get are on your character sheet right now. Use your power up spells! Your Magic Points and Rune Points are meant to be expended, so manage those resources... don't hoard them but don't forget to spend them either. And remember, even a trollkin with a short spear has a straight up 5% of killing you every single round. Combat in this system is not to be entered into lightly, so plan, prepare, and power up."

Sounds good. In my experience the problem is that players pick up things from other RPGs and assume that they will port over to RQ/BRP and they usually don't. But since the players are experienced in those other games, they assume the fault must be with the new game or GM, and refuse to adapt. What tell new RQ players is more like Yoda:

"You must unlearn what you have learned."

I also got my "You'll never be a Star Destroyer speech, but that was player specific."

 

 

A lot of the PCs I killed in arrows died charging the archers across an open field. In D&D'AD&D that generally works since arrows do 1D6 or 1D8, characters can close the distance pretty quickly, and most fighter types can soak up two or three hits to get into melee range where they dominate. But in RQ arrows are nasty, and some PC get impaled, and then another, and by the time someone reaches the archers it turns into a one on three or two on four type of situation, which doesn't work out so well in RQ.. 

 

Edited May 24 by Atgxtg

[svensson]

On 5/24/2024 at 3:16 PM, Atgxtg said:

Sounds good. In my experience the problem is that players pick up things from other RPGs and assume that they will port over to RQ/BRP and they usually don't. But since the players are experienced in those other games, they assume the fault must be with the new game or GM, and refuse to adapt. What tell new RQ players is more like Yoda:

"You must unlearn what you have learned."

I also got my "You'll never be a Star Destroyer speech, but that was player specific."

 

 

A lot of the PCs I killed in arrows died charging the archers across an open field. In D&D'AD&D that generally works since arrows do 1D6 or 1D8, characters can close the distance pretty quickly, and most fighter types can soak up two or three hits to get into melee range where they dominate. But in RQ arrows are nasty, and some PC get impaled, and then another, and by the time someone reaches the archers it turns into a one on three or two on four type of situation, which doesn't work out so well in RQ.. 

 

It isn't so much that the arrows are more nasty, it's that you don't get any more hit points!

Those 3 hp in your arms, 4 in your head, abdomen and legs, and 6 in your chest are ALL the HP you're ever gonna get. And armor slows you down, so you have balance 'tanking up' with your ability to Dodge or move quickly.

And historically speaking, 'charging the archers' isn't a bad tactic. You only have two choices, charge or run. But you're gonna grow feathers either way.

[Atgxtg]

35 minutes ago, svensson said:

It isn't so much that the arrows are more nasty, it's that you don't get any more hit points!

That's a big part of it, but it's a combination. Arrows do more damage in RQ thanks to impales, but yeah fixed hit points make a difference. One good hit can (and probably will) drop an unarmored or lightly armored character, as opposed to D&D where fighters can be walking pincushions.

35 minutes ago, svensson said:

Those 3 hp in your arms, 4 in your head, abdomen and legs, and 6 in your chest are ALL the HP you're ever gonna get.

That's mostly true. You might be able to raise your CON, or use a hit point boosting spell or enchantment, but the effect will be pretty modest compared to D&D. Foing from 12 to 15 hit points in a BRP game is quite an achievement, but probably a bad hit point die roll in D&D.

35 minutes ago, svensson said:

And armor slows you down, so you have balance 'tanking up' with your ability to Dodge or move quickly.

It doesn't really slow you down much in real life, but ti does tire you out faster. It doesn't slow you much at all in most BRP games either. But still it's the impales and crits that tend to drop people. THat and the domino effect that kicks in once one PC drops and the bad guys get to double and triple up on the remaining PCs. 

35 minutes ago, svensson said:

And historically speaking, 'charging the archers' isn't a bad tactic.

You must be French.  

35 minutes ago, svensson said:

You only have two choices, charge or run. But you're gonna grow feathers either way.

No, you have more choices than tat. Getting behind cover is usually an option, and often the best one. Shooting back isn't bad either. I once ran a game session where the PCs got shot at while travelling along a tree lined road (I even used a battle map with the tress on it). Do you think any of the players tried to use trees for cover on the way up? Nope. And they started the fight out of bowshot, against horse archers. 

Changing the archers can be viable if you are close enough to reach them, and/or have some sort of protection (armor, shield RQ protection spell),and preferable a horse, but unarmored, anything more than a round away is probably not good. Two rounds if you aren't using strike ranks (because the archers will only get one arrow per round instead of two or three). Now admittedly sometimes you don't have a choice and have to play the hand you're dealt, but it should be your preferred option. 

But then I had players charge a fort, be totally surprised that the gate didn't open up when they reached it, and got shot down running away from said fort. The bad guys actually wanted some prisoners to explain to them just what the heck was going on. It was when the last PC (he refused to charge the fort, calling it suicide) took a shot at the guys that were sent out to bring back some bodies that the bad guys assumed it was all some sort of trick to get them to open the gate. 

And players did similar things against some guys with a .50 caliber heavy machine gun in Morrow Project. The tactic just doesn't port over. 

[Videopete]

Ah, the old argument of Balance in a BRP based game.  

First, we must ask, how are you running encounters, is it Combat as Sport or Combat as War.  In Combat as Sport the players are conditioned to think of any encounter as winnable through direct conflict, as the encounter is balanced against them.  In Combat as War, encounters are preferably engaged if one side has significant advantage over the other.  With the limited pool of HP and limited options for HP recovery depending on setting (some options restricting HP recovery to a single d3 from first aid per wound, and regaining only a small amount each week of rest), characters should be hesitant to use violence as the only option.  Hence the encouragement to have, offer and accept Ransom (cash or goods in exchange to leave the conflict and return home unmolested).

Also, most non human characters often have difficulties based on culture and physical limitations from trying to operate in an area designed for humans, and vice versa, sure a Centaur is faster and stronger than a human, but they need more food and the inn might not have accommodations for a large quadrupled.  

[svensson]

On 6/14/2024 at 6:48 AM, Videopete said:

Ah, the old argument of Balance in a BRP based game.  

First, we must ask, how are you running encounters, is it Combat as Sport or Combat as War.  In Combat as Sport the players are conditioned to think of any encounter as winnable through direct conflict, as the encounter is balanced against them.  In Combat as War, encounters are preferably engaged if one side has significant advantage over the other.  With the limited pool of HP and limited options for HP recovery depending on setting (some options restricting HP recovery to a single d3 from first aid per wound, and regaining only a small amount each week of rest), characters should be hesitant to use violence as the only option.  Hence the encouragement to have, offer and accept Ransom (cash or goods in exchange to leave the conflict and return home unmolested).

Also, most non human characters often have difficulties based on culture and physical limitations from trying to operate in an area designed for humans, and vice versa, sure a Centaur is faster and stronger than a human, but they need more food and the inn might not have accommodations for a large quadrupled.  

In a d100 game anybody who thinks of combat as the first choice and/or a 'sport' is seriously misinformed. Either that, or the referee hasn't given them a challenging combat encounter yet...

There are a lot of game systems out there that're pretty deadly. L5R is famous for making casual duelists seriously regret their choices. I've told players in an L5R game, "If the katana comes out, the odds are that somebody WILL die. That somebody could be you, so think carefully before you instigate anything." Every iteration of Twilight 2000 is nasty with malice and forethought. TOW missiles can and will ruin your whole day. RQ/CoC/BRP skews towards the bloodier end of that curve. All an opponent has to do is roll a critical hit to your head and you're back to the character generation chapter. That's an outright 1-5% chance every single time a bad guy rolls an attack. And that's not even getting into Special success results. Impales to the three auto-kill zones is ugly!

So if players in a d100 game are treating combat as casually as d20 players do, it's time for the referee to kill a PC or close ally of the PC group to set an example. There is no such thing as a 'warm up fight' in d100.

Edited September 12 by svensson

[Videopete]

1 hour ago, svensson said:

In a d100 game anybody who thinks of combat as the first choice and/or a 'sport' is seriously misinformed. Either that, or the referee hasn't given them a challenging combat encounter yet...

There are a lot of game systems out there that're pretty deadly. L5R is famous for making casual duelists seriously regret their choices. I've told players in an L5R game, "If the katana comes out, the odds are that somebody WILL die. That somebody could be you, so think carefully before you instigate anything." Every iteration of Twilight 2000 is nasty with malice and forethought. TOW missiles can and will ruin your whole day. RQ/CoC/BRP towards the bloodier end of that curve. All an opponent has to do is roll a critical hit to your head and you're back to character generation chapter. That's an outright 1-5% chance every single time a bad guy rolls an attack. And that's not even getting into Special success results. Impales to the three auto-kill zones is ugly!

So if players in a d100 game are treating combat as casually as d20 players do, it's time for the referee to kill a PC or close ally of the PC group to set an example. There is no such thing as a 'warm up fight' in d100.

Absolutely, when you run combat as War, it's such a rewarding experience

[Ian Absentia]

6 hours ago, Videopete said:

Ah, the old argument of Balance in a BRP based game.  

[...snip...]

In Combat as Sport the players are conditioned to think of any encounter as winnable through direct conflict, as the encounter is balanced against them.  In Combat as War, encounters are preferably engaged if one side has significant advantage over the other. 

And this is the difference in definitions of roleplaying as a "game".  A lot of expectations cultivated over the last two decades or so have leaned into a "game" as an even match-up, while many older mechanics favor a "game" as (please forgive me for re-introducing this elephant to the room) a simulation of relatively realistic encounters.  For the former, the joy is in the risk of a tactical fight; for the latter, the joy is in tipping the scale strategically.

I'm really just regurgitating what you've already described, but back to the OP, my response is: Don't worry about balance so much.  I know we're all trying to avoid the dreaded TPK, but s**t happens.  A smart GM will develop a sense of how to not throw too much at a group of players, and a smart group of players will learn to retreat and come back with reinforcements.

!i!

[Atgxtg]

20 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

And this is the difference in definitions of roleplaying as a "game". 

Yup. I think I've killed off three groups of starting  PCs that way just by having the locals warn them of the dragon that lives on a nearby mountain, not to mention countless similar situations. I've had groups cheerful march of to their deaths against overpowering foes  because I was an expected GM and thus wouldn't put anything into the adventures that wasn't "balanced" for their characters.

It's one of the not to hidden flaws of "game balance". Since the capabilities of the opposition are determined by the capabilities of the PCs, players will take greater risks based on the foreknowledge that the encounters are "balanced" (i.e. rigged in their favor). So when said players run into a situation that isn't rigged in their favor they get slaughter, and then blame it on the GM or game system. 

Some games are more forging of those sorts of mistakes than others, and some give you a lot more bounce back. 

 

[shadythedevil]

Wow, I am really happy to see the discussion continuing on without me.

Two unrelated things I want to address.

I want to apologize for my rather aggressive tone. A lot of that is directly related to reading the sentiments being echoed here over time. It is also probably related to the fact that i am a customer now, and i do feel entitled to make the product work how i want it to work without the general push back from the chaosium community.

It should also be noted that i totally dropped being an active community member here after responding to everybody after a few days to find out that (i believe 10+) posts had vanished into the ether. i didnt want to participate after that. one post a day seems way too restrictive. it should maybe just be 1 post per hour for new people. anyways, that is the explanation to my long absence here.

and to anybody i might have responded to in a not nice manner, please understand its not personal AT ALL. we dont know each other, but we can be passionate on the other ends of the spectrum in the nerdosphere.

[Atgxtg]

38 minutes ago, shadythedevil said:

Wow, I am really happy to see the discussion continuing on without me.

Two unrelated things I want to address.

I want to apologize for my rather aggressive tone.

Don't worry about it, I doubt you bothered anyone. Ususally, tone is rather hard to judge from text. Often we read something into it, that wasn't there, so it usually best to not assume it was there in the first place and just deal with the details.

38 minutes ago, shadythedevil said:

 

A lot of that is directly related to reading the sentiments being echoed here over time. It is also probably related to the fact that i am a customer now, and i do feel entitled to make the product work how i want it to work without the general push back from the chaosium community.

You are certainly allowed to make it work they way you want.  It's just that depending on what you want, the game mechanics might not help you. Often a people new to the system get some nasty surprises when something doesn't go the way they expected, and it ususally those more familar with the system will see coming. There is a lot of "if you do X, then Y will happen" sort of stuff. 

For example, I ran RQ with some gamers who were used to another game, and they considered a "good fight" to be one where they took at least half their hit points in damage. So they got mauled in RQ a lot because they expected to get much more banged up than an RQ group should. Losing half your hit points in RQ is close to dropping a character, anda group losing half thier hit points is hovering near the Total Party Kill mark.

It's just the game mechanics didn't meet their expectations.

 

38 minutes ago, shadythedevil said:

It should also be noted that i totally dropped being an active community member here after responding to everybody after a few days to find out that (i believe 10+) posts had vanished into the ether. i didnt want to participate after that. one post a day seems way too restrictive. it should maybe just be 1 post per hour for new people. anyways, that is the explanation to my long absence here.

THat sounds like some sort of technical glitch. I do know of anybody removing a bunch of posts here like that. I've heard of one of two posts being removed but that's rare and usually involves personal attacks.

38 minutes ago, shadythedevil said:

and to anybody i might have responded to in a not nice manner, please understand its not personal AT ALL. we dont know each other, but we can be passionate on the other ends of the spectrum in the nerdosphere.

Don't worry about it. There is a lot of that here, or at least there was. With the various versions and options of the BRP game system, there are a bunch of "camps" with players prefering certain rulesets over others. RQ2, RQ3, Strombringer, Elric! etc.all have (or had) thier own supporters. With Mythas, Open D100 and other new games, it's probably even more split than it was before. With all the subforms though, there is less crossoever than there used to be. 

[shadythedevil]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Don't worry about it, I doubt you bothered anyone. Ususally, tone is rather hard to judge from text. Often we read something into it, that wasn't there, so it usually best to not assume it was there in the first place and just deal with the details.

You are certainly allowed to make it work they way you want.  It's just that depending on what you want, the game mechanics might not help you. Often a people new to the system get some nasty surprises when something doesn't go the way they expected, and it ususally those more familar with the system will see coming. There is a lot of "if you do X, then Y will happen" sort of stuff. 

For example, I ran RQ with some gamers who were used to another game, and they considered a "good fight" to be one where they took at least half their hit points in damage. So they got mauled in RQ a lot because they expected to get much more banged up than an RQ group should. Losing half your hit points in RQ is close to dropping a character, anda group losing half thier hit points is hovering near the Total Party Kill mark.

It's just the game mechanics didn't meet their expectations.

 

THat sounds like some sort of technical glitch. I do know of anybody removing a bunch of posts here like that. I've heard of one of two posts being removed but that's rare and usually involves personal attacks.

Don't worry about it. There is a lot of that here, or at least there was. With the various versions and options of the BRP game system, there are a bunch of "camps" with players prefering certain rulesets over others. RQ2, RQ3, Strombringer, Elric! etc.all have (or had) thier own supporters. With Mythas, Open D100 and other new games, it's probably even more split than it was before. With all the subforms though, there is less crossoever than there used to be. 

thank you for the reply.

in regards to the technical issue, i think it was just that i was only allowed to post one time per day as a new user, even tho i can go through the motions with writing a whole post and hitting post (it just doesnt actually post). i just didnt notice until i got to the end of the page that it said only one post per day and when i went to refresh the page to see if my other replies had been posted, they had not. i was frustrated then and left.

[Nozbat]

6 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

one post a day seems way too restrictive.

That seems somewhat unfair.. particularly if you are involved in an ongoing conversation .. it also doesn't make particular sense in my view. Why can't new people post more than once per day? Is this a new thing? 

[Ravenheart87]

1 hour ago, Nozbat said:

That seems somewhat unfair.. particularly if you are involved in an ongoing conversation .. it also doesn't make particular sense in my view. Why can't new people post more than once per day? Is this a new thing? 

Probably an anti-spammer measure.

[Nozbat]

True .. but I'm not sure what the benefit for spammers on this forum lol.. they might find an argument has developed about the Lunar or Orlanthi view of the spam .. and give up trying to spam anyone

[Ian Absentia]

This may explain why new members apologise for posting extremely long posts with compound questions/discussions.  It must be exhausting.

!i!

[Atgxtg]

Maybe something like one post per hour instead of one per day would be a better solution to the spammer problem? 

That way a real person would be able to get a few posts in a day, and build up their rating to the point where they could post without restrictions. A spammer, on the other hand, isn't going to wait around half a day just to post a dozen times.

[g33k]

Yeah, the 1 post/day for new users is an anti-spam measure.

Changing it to 1/hour would IMO be too easy to escape with an automated 'bot... hit BRPC with your 1/hr spam during daylight in Pacific Ocean & Asia:  only Chaosium's Australian crew, I think, would be available to fight the spam...  Maybe 1per8hr?

***
Better, I think, would be to change the 1/day notification; make it a redirect or pop-up when someone who'd trigger it, so they get notified before they enter the Compose window...

Quote

NOTICE:  As an anti-spam measure, we prevent new accounts from posting more than once per 8 hours.  You can post in... H:mm
🆗 I'll wait a bit, thanks for letting me know!
🔲 Let me compose now anyhow, I'll loop back to hit "Submit" after the timer expires!

 

Edited June 17 by g33k