The things that I am griping about

[Enpeze]

I heard it was going to be a fusion of tabletop, computer, miniatures, and card game heavily supported by necessary on-line material (which is NOT going to be free, even the PREVIEWS starting at the beginning of the year). And there is going to be up to seven each PHBs, MMs, AND DMGs. No joke. Some wag over at Troll Lord Games dubbed it 'Dungeons and Dragonballz'. Yum.

Dungeons and Dragonballz, hehe. Great.

I would not say that I dont like the way D&D goes now. I even find it better than the previous 2 editions. But maybe thats just me and my love of using technology in an new, innovative way.

4.0. goes a step farther than other roleplaying games and evolves in a real modern 21st century game. I looked at some interviews and videos (from youtube) where they explained 4.0.

Well lets look what a real 4.0 player will need

-4.0. miniatures (the old 3.5er minis are not fully usable in 4.0. as an employee from WotC meant in an interview),

-a laptop with internet connection,

-a blizz..ähem WotC subscription

-of course the 4.0. core books and adventures

They dont offer a conversion kit to update characters from 3.5 to 4.0, because they said that the editions are too different. Instead they said that the D&D GMs should finish their 3.5. campaign in the next several months and then begin the new 1st level 4th ed. campaigns.

I am sure D&D will become a great hybrid between board, computer and roleplaying-light game.

Anybody wondering why I still prefer BRP?

[Atgxtg]

I guess Greg Stafford is not the biggest BRP fan anymore. He seems to prefer the HQ game. And Steve Perrin wrote some interesting posts on rpg.net after the release of MRQ, where he complained that he didnt get a cheque from Mongoose for MRQ. Mongoose posted too and then sent him the cheque. (really big cinema )

No, but that goes back aways. Probably to Prince Valiant. The story Greg gave in Prince Valiant was that some people stopped over (non gamers) and wanted something to do, said "Hey Greg, why don't we play one of your games?", and Greg had to say no, as it takes too long to learn enough BRP to be able to really play it to make it worthwhile as a pickup game.

I think a big problem too was that the guys at Mongoose didnt understand the spirit of BRP at all. They have been in their little D&D tainted world and where too overconfident to be able to make a "new RQ" without much effort. At least it would explain why they didn't hear at the playtesters comments. Many of them seem to be not very long in the hobby or in game designing at all. I mean I dont design an elegant piece of clothing for Armani if I am a trainee from Walmarth, no?

I think that the fundamental problem was that the guys who wrote MRQ were not RQ/BRP players. I mentioned that way back when on the Mongooose boards, and thus started the flame wars. Practically every change makes the game more like d20. If you have people used to writing D20 stuff work on an RPG, it is no surprise if it has a strong d20 feel to it.Take a look at magic. In RQ, everybody knew some magic, and usally had at least Heal 1 by the time they got through character generation (or spend tham money from the CHA loan). In MRQ only dedicated spellcasters start off with any magic, just like d20.

Nothing Mongoose changed made RQ feel "less" like d20. I wound't say they were inexperienced, just that a lot of the experience wasn't applicable. Many RPGs were D&D derived, so if you are familiar with D&D, you have a grasp on how those game work. RQ was one of the exceptions. It is very alien in concept to D&D. THe playtest drafts did have some RQ savvy input, but it got dropped. D20 gamers tend to have different priorities than RQ gamers.

[Enpeze]

No, but that goes back aways. Probably to Prince Valiant. The story Greg gave in Prince Valiant was that some people stopped over (non gamers) and wanted something to do, said "Hey Greg, why don't we play one of your games?", and Greg had to say no, as it takes too long to learn enough BRP to be able to really play it to make it worthwhile as a pickup game.

Really? Happened this Prince Valiant story at a con? He refused to explain BRP rules to newbies? Because he meant that they are too complicated? Wtf.

I think that the fundamental problem was that the guys who wrote MRQ were not RQ/BRP players. I mentioned that way back when on the Mongooose boards, and thus started the flame wars.

I remember. Initially I was not very fond of your critical arguments. But the more I experienced the mediocreness of MRQ (by playing it) the more they became true. Sadly.

[Atgxtg]

Really? Happened this Prince Valiant story at a con? He refused to explain BRP rules to newbies? Because he meant that they are too complicated? Wtf.

Prince Valiant was an RPG that Chaosium relased in the late 80s. It was based on the Hal Foster Strip and used an Arthurian Setting. The rules were fairly simple (tossing coins).

In the book, Greg explain just how he game came to be. The story went that some freinds of his (non gamers) were over and wanted to do something. Somebody said something like "Hey, Greg's written a lot of games, why not play one of his?". The Greg sort of got caught trying to deal with the situation. Something like RQ, Pendragon, or CoC is not the sort of thing where you can get a bunch of newbie up to speed to be able to play for the afternoon. So Greg wrote up PV as a RPG with a shorter learning curve.

I think he decided to stick with that trend, especially since he is more into storytelling than simulation (PV was "the storytelling game"). HQ does appear to continue in the same trend. Even BRP originally was a simplification of the RQ rules to reduce the learning curve.

I think Steve Perrin and Ray Tourney are more resposible for the RPG system we all love than Greg Stafford.

I also think Greg had a valid point. Much as I like RQ, it's not the system that I'd grab for a one shot or a pick up game. By the time everyone got characters together and understood the rules enough to be able to play, it would be time to quit. Remember, we're not talking newbies, but people with no RPG experience whatsoever. The ones who ask "Which one had a hundred sides? What's a damage bonus? What to I roll to hit with a sword? Where is that on the character sheet? What does this [%} symbol mean, can't I attack at my full value? What do you mean I didn't hear that? I'm sitting right next to you? It takes a WEEK to get there--should we come back next Sunday?!? What's a hit point? Can I buy more? I rolled a 47 did I hit? No I don't know what my skill is, how can I tell? Oh, is 40% good? Did my 47 hit?"

etc., etc., etc, etc.

Having been then and tried that, I can see his point.

Not to many people were fond on my posts. I generally don't make a good first impression or something. I seem to be a catalyst and provoke some very strong reactions. A lot of the people I chat with now are those that I met on opposite sides of an argument. I guess I just don't think quite the same way as most people or something. :confused:

[Sorloc]

I couldn't keep up with it. I was involved for a while, but just couldn't wade through all the crap - and now, I am so glad I didn't. It would be like watching a pet get tortured to sit and watch them destroy one of my favorite games.

p.s.: if you've actually had a pet get tortured, I apologize for using that particular metaphor.

[soltakss]

As for why MRQ came out the way it did,

Well, I had heard from some people from the playtest groups as well as some Mongoose employees that the rules were much more BRPish up until the last draft, when Matt Sprange rewrote everything. I also heard that pretty much all the complaints about the system were pointed out by the playtesters, too. If you can mug a playtester and look at some of the playtest drafts you will see a RPG that looks a lot more familar. MOngoose orginally advertised the game as the return of RQ, and played up the involvement of Stafford and Perrin in the desgin on the new edition. I don't know why Stafford doesn't write anything for MRQ, or why Perrin left the playtest. But neither had a hand in design of the game as originally advertised.

There were two playtests.

The first was a Yahoo Group that had various versions of the rules, of which the last version was the closest to a BRP-style game. Earlier discussions were on things such as "Do we need a D100 or should be use another dice rolling method".

The rules that I saw were so full of holes it was unbelievable. I couldn't take anything from those rules and use them in RQ3. In fact, I started a RQ campaign using the playtest rules but my players asked me after the fourth session to use RQ3 as the new rules just didn't work. I kept a variant of Hero Points and Experience Points and a variant of Steve Perrin's magic system which needed a lot of work and isn't satisfactory even now.

Steve Perrin was invited on board to create a magic system based on Runes and Questing for them (Rune-Quest, geddit? No, neither did I) and he came up with a half-arsed system that didn't work as written, in my opinion. (For example, he wrote the cults of Uleria as a Moon Goddess because she had emotion-affecting spells and emotion came under the Runic Powers of the Moon and Waha the Butcher as an assassin cult) There was then a period of playtesting dead time, enlivened only by an exchange between Steve Perrin and Matthew Sprangue where emails were meant to be sent privately but accidentally sent to the forum. The gist of it, as I recall, went something like "I haven't been consulted or paid" and "Did you expect to be paid for what you had written", then things went downhill quite badly.

The second was a closed group for specially invited people, of which I wasn't one, that rewrote the rules and developed them into what is now RQM.

The DBRP Playtest went a lot better, I thought, with actual dialogue between playtester and co-ordinator and ideas being written back into the rules.

[badcat]

You were in the playtest for this? Can you answer any questions about it?

[Trifletraxor]

Steve Perrin was invited on board to create a magic system based on Runes and Questing for them (Rune-Quest, geddit? No, neither did I) and he came up with a half-arsed system that didn't work as written, in my opinion. (For example, he wrote the cults of Uleria as a Moon Goddess because she had emotion-affecting spells and emotion came under the Runic Powers of the Moon and Waha the Butcher as an assassin cult) There was then a period of playtesting dead time, enlivened only by an exchange between Steve Perrin and Matthew Sprangue where emails were meant to be sent privately but accidentally sent to the forum. The gist of it, as I recall, went something like "I haven't been consulted or paid" and "Did you expect to be paid for what you had written", then things went downhill quite badly.

Hehehe, oh the drama!

Steve Perrin is the "creator" of BRP, which gives him a lot of credit. His "Steve Perrin's Quest Rules" wasn't that much to shout "hurray" for though (IMO).

Sverre.

[soltakss]

You were in the playtest for this? Can you answer any questions about it?

I was in the original playtest group, not the new one that playtested the actual game.

The version I playtested was nowhere near complete, was full of holes and was drastically changed for RQM.

I can answer some questions, depending on whether I get told I can't.

I've kept all the documents and the emailed digests since I joined the playtest, for what they are worth.

[Enpeze]

Prince Valiant was an RPG that Chaosium relased in the late 80s. It was based on the Hal Foster Strip and used an Arthurian Setting. The rules were fairly simple (tossing coins).

Tossing Coins? Really? What a cr... I am not wondering that I never heard from this "game". :eek:

In the book, Greg explain just how he game came to be. The story went that some freinds of his (non gamers) were over and wanted to do something. Somebody said something like "Hey, Greg's written a lot of games, why not play one of his?". The Greg sort of got caught trying to deal with the situation. Something like RQ, Pendragon, or CoC is not the sort of thing where you can get a bunch of newbie up to speed to be able to play for the afternoon. So Greg wrote up PV as a RPG with a shorter learning curve.

This I cannot understand. BRP is one of the simplest game ever. Eg. its definately NOT necessary to explain every finesse of the ENC rules to a newbie. (or even the difference between the different magic types, or even magic at all)

I am able to explain BRP to my little nephew in under 5 min. "You are mighty warrior with a 1d8 broadsword. this is a d8 and if it shows seven then you rolled a seven. This is a d100 and and the red dice shows 4 and the yellow 1 then you rolled 41...etc." Roll under your skill to be successful and if your HP are 0 you are dead. Thats all. Lets begin. Whats the difficulty? Or is Greg more the type of "explaining everything" before the game begins? I guess there are good teachers and bad ones in life.

I think he decided to stick with that trend, especially since he is more into storytelling than simulation (PV was "the storytelling game"). HQ does appear to continue in the same trend. Even BRP originally was a simplification of the RQ rules to reduce the learning curve.

You mean HQ, no? Why does everybody think that HQ is so simple? I had to read the rules three times till I fully understood them and recognized how odd and strange the gaming concept is. Its everything else than intuitive and what I am expecting from a good roleplaying game.

BTW I dont know whats all the fuss about this artificial cathegory "storytelling game". I mean I am sure that my games are telling good and dense stories (at least according to my players) So I am not sure why storytelling games should have other rules than so-called simulative games. So for me a rpg rule is a rpg rule. There is no differenciation between different styles, because there are not just 3 styles out there. There are 300k styles out there. Obviously the cathegories have been made at some point by bloated self-acclaimed "experts" which think to know the whole truth about the hobby. (Sorry but these things make me a little bit mad)

I think Steve Perrin and Ray Tourney are more resposible for the RPG system we all love than Greg Stafford.

Yeah. It seems so. SP is my hero too.

I also think Greg had a valid point. Much as I like RQ, it's not the system that I'd grab for a one shot or a pick up game.

Maybe if you want to explain every RQ rule before you begin to play you are right. But this is from the teaching point of view a big mistake. Explain the 10 most important rules and then begin to play. You will see the rest will easily incorporate.

[Simlasa]

This is aimed back towards the original post...

Just some opinions...

Whenever I read people talking about 'updating' BRP it seems that what they're on about is making it more like some other game... I mean, GURPS is fine, I like GURPS... but I don't want BRP to be more GURPS-like... if I want to play GURPS I'll just play GURPS.

I really don't want changes to BRP just for the sake of making it 'modern' or making it 'marketable'... I'd want fixes only if something is broken or there is some obviously better way of doing a certain thing. Any other motivation just leads to the wrong path IMHO.

I've read where the new book will have advice on how to make the combat less lethal if that's what you want... but I'd really rather it stay away from hard and fast systems of fate/karma/drama points... and the same with more detailed combat maneuvers. That stuff is readily available in other games that were built on them from the get-go. I see no reason to jury-rig them into BRP just for the sake of being a kitchen sink of RPG ideas.

Same thing goes for advantages/disadvantages... I don't think that they make the game completely and obviously better to any degree near what I'd need to think they belong as an inherent part of BRP. Some people love them... but does BRP NEED them? Personally I don't want them, ads/disads are one of the reasons I prefer BRP over GURPS (though I like GURPS plenty). Might not the people who want them so badly not better be served by playing GURPS or somesuch?

I guess I just think it's futile to try to make one game be all things to all people and that in trying to do so you're most likely to just end up with a mess.

Just my opinion.

[Enpeze]

This is aimed back towards the original post...

Just some opinions...

Whenever I read people talking about 'updating' BRP it seems that what they're on about is making it more like some other game... I mean, GURPS is fine, I like GURPS... but I don't want BRP to be more GURPS-like... if I want to play GURPS I'll just play GURPS.

I really don't want changes to BRP just for the sake of making it 'modern' or making it 'marketable'... I'd want fixes only if something is broken or there is some obviously better way of doing a certain thing. Any other motivation just leads to the wrong path IMHO.

I've read where the new book will have advice on how to make the combat less lethal if that's what you want... but I'd really rather it stay away from hard and fast systems of fate/karma/drama points... and the same with more detailed combat maneuvers. That stuff is readily available in other games that were built on them from the get-go. I see no reason to jury-rig them into BRP just for the sake of being a kitchen sink of RPG ideas.

Same thing goes for advantages/disadvantages... I don't think that they make the game completely and obviously better to any degree near what I'd need to think they belong as an inherent part of BRP. Some people love them... but does BRP NEED them? Personally I don't want them, ads/disads are one of the reasons I prefer BRP over GURPS (though I like GURPS plenty). Might not the people who want them so badly not better be served by playing GURPS or somesuch?

I guess I just think it's futile to try to make one game be all things to all people and that in trying to do so you're most likely to just end up with a mess.

Just my opinion.

Fully agreed with everything you said. Except maybe a simple basic version for disads/ads - maybe included with the power rules of superworld. But if yes only as option and please not in the core rules.

[Trifletraxor]

BTW I dont know whats all the fuss about this artificial cathegory "storytelling game".

Have you ever had a look the published HQ scenarios before? They need A LOT of storytelling to fill in the gaps btw the opposed rolls. With BRP, the game tells the story - a fight for example, goes on for several rounds where you attack, parry, take & give damage to different locations, cast spells, etc. till one fighter remains standing. In HQ you just roll an opposed roll (that is my impression at least, correct me if I'm wrong). So... what happened really? Well, to make this system work, you need a really good storyteller GM...

I really don't want changes to BRP just for the sake of making it 'modern' or making it 'marketable'... I'd want fixes only if something is broken or there is some obviously better way of doing a certain thing. Any other motivation just leads to the wrong path IMHO.

Don't fix it if it's not broken is an excellent rule of thumb. A number of optional spot rules is no bad idea though, allowing people to add the extra realism & complexity they want.

Sverre.

[Simlasa]

I'm fine with options and sidebars... even the basic ads/disads of the Superworld book... but I think they need to keep them as simple and unobtrusive as the core system... and clearly as options.

One of the biggest gripes you hear about GURPS is about how many rules there are... how 'complicated' it is... when most all of the bulk is options and the core system is pretty clear and uncomplicated.

I'd hate to see the BRP fans get all factionalized over the importance of ads/disads or use of fate points... cause I think those things are flavors/spices rather than being the main course.

[badcat]

I agree as well. The main attraction of BRP for me is how you can play it and not even think about the rules, they just work and they don't intrude. As Sverre said, they help you tell the story in the process of using them. I don't know of many games that are even close to BRPs 'smoothness' of play, I guess you could say. I always wonder why anyone suggests 'fate pts.' at all for BRP, too, because it already has such a factor built in, the Luck roll. And it's a renewable resource, in a way fate points are not. And you can use the Luck stat as a backup for do-or-die skills. PC is climbing a cliff, 100 feet up (we all know what that means in BRP if he falls, right?) misses his mid-climb skill roll, you let him have a Luck roll to see if he catches that outcrop...

So I very much agree that BRP is fine as is, and all the extras are better left in side-bars as options to be added or deleted to the rules as wanted or needed, rather than included as necessary parts of the main rules. That way everyone comes close to getting what they want. And excellent compromise, that may widen the system's appeal without ruining what makes it such an excellent rpg.

[Atgxtg]

Enpeze,

The way Prince Valiant's cions thing worked (to the best of my reccolection)

-Each character had two stats Presence and Brawn, and divided up six points between them.

-Each character had 9 points to assign for starting skills, also on a 1-6 scale.

-When you did something you would toss a number of coins equal to your stat or stat+skill, if applicable, and count the number of heads. If you beat the difficulty, you won. Typically you could add modifers, like bonuses for equipment.

-A roll of all heads was a complete success and let you toss another coin (this was open ended).

-I think all tails had some some of "fumble penalty", usually making a bad situation worse, but I'd have to check.

-For opposed resolution, both sides would toss coins and compare the results. For an extended test, like combat, the loser would take the difference as a loss of coins. When one side was out of coins they were defeated.

Coins were chosen because anyone could play, since pretty much anyone has some spare change in their pocket. And a set of pennies is sure cheaper than a set of dice.

As for BRP being one of the simplest games ever...

I think you might be tinting those glasses a little because you are so familiar with BRP (actually RQ. BRP is a fiction, but that's another topic). I used to run into a similar problem when trying to teach RQ/Strombringer/etc. to D&D players. Character generation took forever, people kept complain how hard the game was, and how AD&D was easier to understand. AD&D is actually one of the most complex RPGs, as virtually every game mechanic was tacked on with it own rules, rather than a unfired sysem, but to those guys, it WAS easier. Especially as each of them had a set of rule books on hand for reference, while we only had one copy of RQ to share among everybody.

I'm a big fan of RQ and it's variants. That said, hands down Prince Valiant is an easier game, and a much better "pick up" game for non gamers to get. Try rolling up a character with your nephew and his friends, and running an adventure in a afternoon

About HeroQuest,

Actually the HeroQuest system is simple. The explaintion of the rules isn't. Glorantha isn't simple either. People who are told that they are playing one of King Arthur's Knights, or a Viking, have some idea of what that means. `People who are told that they are playing a herotland weaponthane and follower of Orlanth Vingot, don't have any thing to go one, UNLESS they are familiar with Glorantha.

Another reason why HQ seems hard to understand isn't that it is counter inuitive, but that it is so differernt from what you are used to.

Storytelling Game,

The big difference is that with stroytelling RPGs the players usually have a lot more input into how the stroy unfolds. In a tradial RPG adventure the GM write (or buys) the adventure. The basic plot is set out and the isn't much the PCs can really do other than roleplay how their characters react to the events.

With a storytelling RPG the PCs have some sort of ability to add or alter the story. For example, in Prince Valiant, the players can occasion GM stuff and ahave certificates that allow them to chage the flow of events or add new elements to a story (i.e. "The villian's girlfriend falls in love with Joes character and unlocks the his jail cell, and gives him his charmed sword!".)

This can make the story more dynamic since it becomes more of a clloaborative effort, and this can enhance the session, since you can get a lot more good ideas from six people then from one.

I'd recommend looking at an RPG called FATE. Especially the Spririt of The Century RPG. Check out the SRD. IMO it actually pulls off what HeroQuest tried to do, but failed.

As for teaching the RPG

I think the point that your missing is that teaching something is a long term thing. Yeah, you give the players the game in increments, if you are expecting them to play again next week.

But what would you do for people you just want to play something "today", and might never game again? That is where Prince Valiant shines. Because there is so little to it, people who haven't played before can pick it up and start playing.

[badcat]

You know, last year I taught a group of 12 year olds the basics of BRP (Magic World, specifically) and got in a full one-shot in one evenings' play. These kids had been playing Blue Rose. I find BRP very easy to teach. Also to complete novices, as it was the 'entry drug' for my wife, the game I got her to try. Why? Because she picked up the concepts quickly, which she definitely did not when I tried teaching her 2e AD&D a year earlier. Nope, it may not be as simple mechanically as Prince Valiant and such, but it is still a breeze to teach others or learn. Really.

[Simlasa]

BRP is a lot more intuitive than things like D&D... stuff works roughly how you'd expect it too... and percentiles are a readily understood expression of how good your chances are.

I've never had trouble explaining it to someone... or felt stupid doing it (the way I did way back when with D&D armor classes and such).

[Atgxtg]

I7ve found that BPR is easier to teach to those with no RPG experience that those with a lot of experience in a different system, especially D&D.

What happens is that novices listen. Experienced players figure that they know what they are doing, and tend to bring along a bunch of preconcied ideas that don't necessarily make sense outside of the confines of their former RPG. When things don't work they get frustrated and blame it on RQ/BRP rather than accepting that they need to adapt their style of play.

For instance, D&Ders have a habit of conducting head on charges against missle troops. In D&D it works, since most grunts don't do much damage and D&D heros have lots of HP. In RQ, two or three arrows will stop anybody who doesn't have heavy armor and or Protection up.

Likewise D&Ders have learned through years of experience to keep slugging away an never surrender. This makes sense for a game where prisoners tend to be tortured and eaten. In RQ, there are times when throwing down you sword and annoucing your ransom (or vice versa) is the best option.

To quote Yoda, "You must unlearn what you have learned."

On the other hand, when RQers play D&D, they might be a bit cautions, but some of their experience seems to cross over. In my local area, I'm the best player at handling mixed fighter-wizard type characters. I did a job on a D&D campaign with a bladesinger, and I owe it all to RQ and Glorantha. RQers integrate swords and sorcery better.

[Enpeze]

Enpeze,

The way Prince Valiant's cions thing worked (to the best of my reccolection)

-Each character had two stats Presence and Brawn, and divided up six points between them.

-Each character had 9 points to assign for starting skills, also on a 1-6 scale.

-When you did something you would toss a number of coins equal to your stat or stat+skill, if applicable, and count the number of heads. If you beat the difficulty, you won. Typically you could add modifers, like bonuses for equipment.

-A roll of all heads was a complete success and let you toss another coin (this was open ended).

-I think all tails had some some of "fumble penalty", usually making a bad situation worse, but I'd have to check.

-For opposed resolution, both sides would toss coins and compare the results. For an extended test, like combat, the loser would take the difference as a loss of coins. When one side was out of coins they were defeated.

Coins were chosen because anyone could play, since pretty much anyone has some spare change in their pocket. And a set of pennies is sure cheaper than a set of dice.

Many thanks for the explanation. of this system. Although it seems playable I would not like to play it. (In fact nowadays I would not like to play any rule set other than BRP)

As for BRP being one of the simplest games ever...

I think you might be tinting those glasses a little because you are so familiar with BRP (actually RQ. BRP is a fiction, but that's another topic). I used to run into a similar problem when trying to teach RQ/Strombringer/etc. to D&D players. Character generation took forever, people kept complain how hard the game was, and how AD&D was easier to understand. AD&D is actually one of the most complex RPGs, as virtually every game mechanic was tacked on with it own rules, rather than a unfired sysem, but to those guys, it WAS easier. Especially as each of them had a set of rule books on hand for reference, while we only had one copy of RQ to share among everybody.

I dont know D&D players well enough anymore (its 15 y ago that I played this game) but well....maybe they are suffering a bad influenced by their rule system? I mean, my nephew is 11 and he understood the basics of BRP without problem. (...oh this clever little brat )

I'm a big fan of RQ and it's variants. That said, hands down Prince Valiant is an easier game, and a much better "pick up" game for non gamers to get. Try rolling up a character with your nephew and his friends, and running an adventure in a afternoon

Ah...no. I was never fond of PV or other too high fantasy. And tossing coins is not my thing. My nephew has no problem to understand BRP so I will continue to use it if I GM with him the next time. (next is a detectives story) The sooner he will come in contact with the best system out there the better.

Another reason why HQ seems hard to understand isn't that it is counter inuitive, but that it is so differernt from what you are used to.

Thats it. Its against any logic and also very "Greggy" (is this a word?) I simply dont like it. (but this means nothing, I also dont like baked potatoes)

Storytelling Game,

The big difference is that with stroytelling RPGs the players usually have a lot more input into how the stroy unfolds. In a tradial RPG adventure the GM write (or buys) the adventure. The basic plot is set out and the isn't much the PCs can really do other than roleplay how their characters react to the events.

With a storytelling RPG the PCs have some sort of ability to add or alter the story.

In my games the players always had this ability. I was and I am ready to give them such powers. Anytime and without any but the most extreme limits. But only if I think that these powers contribute to something (the setting, the adventure, acting experience, immersion etc.) They are NOT entitled to it. So I guess making rules for player empowering is not my thing because its pure theoretical nonsense for me. I am old fashioned in my gaming stlye and my players like it this way.

For example, in Prince Valiant, the players can occasion GM stuff and ahave certificates that allow them to chage the flow of events or add new elements to a story (i.e. "The villian's girlfriend falls in love with Joes character and unlocks the his jail cell, and gives him his charmed sword!".)

Certificates? Ala "He Bob, old chap, I am entitled to alter the story three times, because I have 3 tested and true Prince Valiant CERTIFICATIONS! from our last week session." (sorry but I could not withstand)

As for teaching the RPG

I think the point that your missing is that teaching something is a long term thing. Yeah, you give the players the game in increments, if you are expecting them to play again next week.

But what would you do for people you just want to play something "today", and might never game again? That is where Prince Valiant shines. Because there is so little to it, people who haven't played before can pick it up and start playing.

For me a roleplaying game is not a game, where I play this today with some randoms and tomorrow with some others. I am a careful GM. I plan the scenario carefully, I try to choose my players in advance and I give some attention to their personality, acting skills and private relationships to each other before I invite them to join in. In my over 20y experience as roleplayer I participated never in a game where some people just wanted to play something "today" and I doubt that I ever want to take part in such a game. In fact I would rather play a boardgame before playing in this way. (clash of different rpg styles?)

[soltakss]

You mean HQ, no? Why does everybody think that HQ is so simple? I had to read the rules three times till I fully understood them and recognized how odd and strange the gaming concept is. Its everything else than intuitive and what I am expecting from a good roleplaying game.

OK, to completely hijack the thread .....

Basic rules of HQ:

1. You have skills, keywords and affinities each of which has a Rating.

2. Ratings are described as a number then a mastery symbol (either W or M depending on the setting - don't ask!) and another number.

3. You roll a D20 below the first number on your skill, if you are being opposed by someone else, they roll on their skill.

4. You get 1 - critical, equal or below skill - success, above skill but below 20 - failure, 20 - fumble.

5. For every number of masteries (number after the mastery symbol) higher than your opponent, you can move your result one place to the left (towards a critical) or if you already have a critical, move their result one place to the right (towards a fumble).

6. If you have any Herio Points, you can use one of them to move the result one place as well.

7. You compare the results as follows:

1. Results are the same (critical/critical, success/success, failure/failure,

fumble/fumble) then the person who rolled the lowest has a Marginal

Victory.

2. Results are one level apart (critical/success, success/failure,

failure/fumble) then you have a Minor Victory

3. Results are two levels apart (critical/failure, failure/fumble) then you

have a Major Victory

4. Results are three levels apart (critical/fumble) then you have a Complete

Victory

5. The reverse gives you a Marginal/Minor/Major/Complete Victory

8. Results of a contest depend on what the contest was, what the aim of

the contest was, what the stakes were and the situation.

9. Generally, the better the victory the better the results.

10. You can help a skill by augmenting it with a similar skill. For every 10

points in a skill (Masteries count as 20), yiou add +1 to the skill to be

augmented.

11. Certain situations can help or hinder a skill, you get a bonus or a penalty

to the skill

12. Certain activities are harder to do, this is reflected by having a different

opposing score depending on what you are trying to do. Most things have

an opposing score of 14.

13. Skills are increased with 1 Hero Point, Keywords and Affinities with 3 Hero

Points

14. Affinities contain multiple feats, you can add a feat to an affinity by

spending 1 Hero Point

15. The Narrator gives you 1 Hero Point at the start of a session and a

number of Hero Points at the end of a session/scenario

And, basically, that's about it.

Very simple, very scaleable, very easy to use and very quick.

It's all the junk and subrules and special circumstances and magic systems that blow it up into a complicated game. Mythic Russia took a lot of the junk out, but didn't make it as simple as they could have, unfortunately.

BTW I dont know whats all the fuss about this artificial cathegory "storytelling game". I mean I am sure that my games are telling good and dense stories (at least according to my players) So I am not sure why storytelling games should have other rules than so-called simulative games. So for me a rpg rule is a rpg rule. There is no differenciation between different styles, because there are not just 3 styles out there. There are 300k styles out there. Obviously the cathegories have been made at some point by bloated self-acclaimed "experts" which think to know the whole truth about the hobby. (Sorry but these things make me a little bit mad)

True. Any game can tell a story and any game can be used for power-gaming hungeon hacks, including HeroQuest. But, many of the things about HeroQuest can be narrated so I see why they call it a story-telling game. It isn't, though, as you still need to roll dice and that determines the outcome of any situation. But, it is a lot more flexible than many other games and I have found that I run RQ differently having played and Narrated HeroQuest.

But, this is a BRP forum not a HeroQuest forum, so apologies about the threadjack.

[Sorloc]

OK, to completely hijack the thread .....

...But, this is a BRP forum not a HeroQuest forum, so apologies about the threadjack.

Maybe it should be.

The main page has but one lonely forum, Basic RolePlaying. It seemed... well, I don't know why one would have a list of forums only 1 item long, but...

Perhaps in addition to BRP, there should also be forums on the main page for HQ and RQ / Glorantha?

[badcat]

I'd have to vote 'no' on that, gently.:cool:

[Simlasa]

Yeah, I agree... I have no interest in seeing MRQ or HQ specific sections here.

[Guest the Bromgrev]

Let me add my voice to that. MRQ has it's own in-house forum, and HQ is not BRP, Gloranthan connections notwithstanding.