Concerns about the new RQ edition

[styopa]

17 hours ago, Zit said:

BTW, I hope the new rules kept the Metric measures which everybody understands in the World, in contrary to the local Imperial (don't ask me what is an acre). Or at least both. Long life to the Lunar Key Mile !

Then you'd really hate my campaign.  Since metric/decimal systems are so completely anachronistic for a quasi-medieval setting, I never use them ever. I'd far rather tell someone "that town is 6 leagues away" than tell them it's 30km.

Besides, if we're primarily concerned about making sure everyone can understand, when are all you guys all getting rid of your silly local languages and just standardizing to English?  

[styopa]

4 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

Curiously, Glorantha is still a new thing for me as I've never played or ran a campaign there. When I bought into RuneQuest, with Mongoose, the appeal was for a generic fantasy system. Mythras now fulfills that slot for me. Glorantha is not forgotten though - I just need to be sold on the idea a bit. .  

Ages ago I ran a campaign based on 1090 AD medieval Europe, where a great magical cataclysm had rifted mundane earth together with a magical dimension about 100 years before - long enough for the immediate-disaster thing to have settled out, but not enough time for social systems etc to have significantly changed.  People were basically still 'figuring it all out' (ie I could use medieval art, architecture, and mostly history without having to make too many wholesale changes to accommodate magic, etc.).

I'd always planned in that campaign that if anyone had tried to dimension-travel or investigate the 'magical dimension' that was the other side of the impact, it would have been Glorantha.  Didn't last long enough, though.

[Zit]

1 hour ago, styopa said:

Then you'd really hate my campaign.  Since metric/decimal systems are so completely anachronistic for a quasi-medieval setting, I never use them ever. I'd far rather tell someone "that town is 6 leagues away" than tell them it's 30km.

Don't they ask "and how many miles are 6 leagues ? " For the flair of the game, I completely agree with you. I would use Li when playing in China, verst for Mythic russia or milia passum for Rome. I'm using travel days for my Steppes campaign. Note that Glorantha is not a quasi-medieval setting, so leagues or km, it does not matter. May be the mesopotamian Beru would be ore appropriate. But every region in Glorantha would probably have its own system and not all use the Lunar KM.

But for the understanding of the rules mechanics, metric is more universal as measuremetn system. As English as a language.

 

1 hour ago, styopa said:

Besides, if we're primarily concerned about making sure everyone can understand, when are all you guys all getting rid of your silly local languages and just standardizing to English?  

But we already do (or at last try to) every time we want to address an international audience ! So text in English with Metric system, that's the perfect combination.

[Etepete]

7 hours ago, Mugen said:

The 4 elements plus Moon, in fact.

Yes - that's it! In aristotelean cosmology I believe the lunar sphere is the tresshold between the four elements and the quintessence/aether of the celestial realm - so I suppose you could argue it's all one

[styopa]

3 hours ago, Etepete said:

Yes - that's it! In aristotelean cosmology I believe the lunar sphere is the tresshold between the four elements and the quintessence/aether of the celestial realm - so I suppose you could argue it's all one

Except in Glorantha, the (red) moon plays a very specific cosmological role.  I'm not sure that translates?

[Pentallion]

How many shelves of D&D modules you can fill compared to how many shelves of RQ modules you can fill is directly proportional to how many people play D&D to how many play RQ.  And it's not because people don't play that modules aren't written, it is directly the opposite causality.  D&D mass produced modules for people to play.  RQ did not.  That is why, plain and simple, so many subscribe on reddit to D&D and so few to RQ.

Adventure modules take the burden off the GM and make playing easier.  You want more RQ players, start cranking out RQ adventures.  That is how they expanded their base.  I've been waiting forever for Chaosium to do the same, but adventures come out slowly, even after 35 years.

[Joerg]

5 hours ago, styopa said:

Except in Glorantha, the (red) moon plays a very specific cosmological role.  I'm not sure that translates?

The Red Moon is just one of several aspects of moonhood in Glorantha. Granted the most visible form, but not the extent of the moon rune.

[Simlasa]

I've got no interested in having 'storygame'/narrative mechanisms in my BRP games. None at all.

RQ and it's ilk scratch my 'simulationist' itch and do it well (and yeah, I also had a brief flirtation with Phoenix Command).
Storygames, to me, provide a particular sort of gaming that, if I want it, I know where to go. I've played those games, and will again. But it's not something I need/want in EVERY game. No more than I want hit locations or fatigue in EVERY game.

I don't think of storygames (or any games) as 'modern' or 'old' or  'evolved'... just different flavors... but such Narrative mechanics are a flavor that clashes with my reasons for choosing RQ. I already sensed such sentiments creeping into the new Call of Cthulhu and that's part of the reason I choose to stick with earlier versions.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Simlasa

[jux]

On 6/6/2016 at 5:59 AM, Vile said:

I thought this had settled down? From what I can tell, RQ7 will be BRP in Glorantha. Mythic Iceland will be BRP in, er, mythic Iceland. BRP Essentials (or whatever) will be a very basic generic system book containing the common denominators of both of those as well as future BRP books. Or am I wrong?

This is what I would think, but there is no (enough) official talk on this. Isn't it logical to start from BRP Essentials? Where are design discussions on that? We haven't have the combat chapter yet

[Mankcam]

.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Mankcam

[Mankcam]

5 hours ago, Simlasa said:

I've got no interested in having 'storygame'/narrative mechanisms in my BRP games. None at all.

RQ and it's ilk scratch my 'simulationist' itch and do it well (and yeah, I also had a brief flirtation with Phoenix Command).
Storygames, to me, provide a particular sort of gaming that, if I want it, I know where to go. I've played those games, and will again. But it's not something I need/want in EVERY game. No more than I want hit locations or fatigue in EVERY game.

I don't think of storygames (or any games) as 'modern' or 'old' or  'evolved'... just different flavors... but such Narrative mechanics are a flavor that clashes with my reasons for choosing RQ. I already sensed such sentiments creeping into the new Call of Cthulhu and that's part of the reason I choose to stick with earlier versions.

I really like having strong 'narrative' aspects to rpgs, but only if there is good mechanics backing it up if I need to use them. Some may call these mechanics 'simulationist', which is a fair call. What I don't like is when the term 'narrative' is used to justify poor mechanics, as has been the case in some rpgs during recent years.

Generally I think BRP can walk the line between 'narrative' and 'simulationist' quite well, although it obviously leans more toward the later, which is a good thing.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Mankcam

[aknaton]

13 minutes ago, Mankcam said:

I really like having strong 'narrative' aspects to rpgs, but only if there is good mechanics backing it up if I need to use them. Some may call these mechanics 'simulationist', which is a fair call. What I don't like is when the term 'narrative' is used to justify poor mechanics, as has been the case in some rpgs during recent years.

Generally I think BRP can walk the line between 'narrative' and 'simulationist' quite well, although it obviously leans more toward the later, which is a good thing.

I also like to have strong storytelling/narrative gears in a rpg. 

And I agree with you that the term 'narrative' has been used too often as an excuse for poor or non-existent mechanics. 

Edited June 7, 2016 by aknaton
Edit for clarity

[Joerg]

What I expect is a good set of rules and other handles for a simulation of the background of a character and their environment, in the good tradition e.g. of RQ3 Gamemasters Book(let). Rules for off-screen activities, like pursuing a craft, trade, or managing a farm, for maintaining a social position in mundane and cultic hierarchy, etc. Defining and managing dependents, patrons, ... - in the simulationist approach typical for RuneQuest, with a dose of Pendragon (Pass) mechanisms for "the rest of the year/season".

What I don't expect are mechanisms for DI lite by another name. I could arrange myself with something like hard-earned karma to spend (in advance) for a boost, approaching the concept of a hero point in Heroquest - especially when treading the Otherworld. And I won't take any pass-fail cycle ideas into a game of RQ outside of heroquesty tests of personality where the story (the myth) requires some faliure. And if there is a simulationist approach, a quest could (and should) go wrong if a character fails to fail, producing abnorm results like Yelmalians with a fire rune or Orlanth Moonfriend.

[Mankcam]

2 minutes ago, Joerg said:

What I expect is a good set of rules and other handles for a simulation of the background of a character and their environment, in the good tradition e.g. of RQ3 Gamemasters Book(let). Rules for off-screen activities, like pursuing a craft, trade, or managing a farm, for maintaining a social position in mundane and cultic hierarchy, etc. Defining and managing dependents, patrons, ... - in the simulationist approach typical for RuneQuest, with a dose of Pendragon (Pass) mechanisms for "the rest of the year/season".

Yep I totally agree with this

[jux]

To me "narrative rules" are not story-controlling meta rules, but rules that provide more flavor.

So if 'simulation' rules are the bare-bones dry physics engine of the game, for narrative rules I consider and look forward to stuff like sanity rules, corruption, combat (we have physics like armor/hp/dmg, but there can be narrative rules like courage/cowardness, moral, combat maneuvers, etc).

[aknaton]

I'm curious to know if people in this forum consider 13th Age too narrative (and lacking in mechanics)? 

[rust]

11 minutes ago, aknaton said:

I'm curious to know if people in this forum consider 13th Age too narrative (and lacking in mechanics)? 

Well, you know, it is certainly a matter of taste, and all that, but in my case ... sorry, yes, very much so. 

[RosenMcStern]

Aknaton and Simlasa, I see the point you are making here - from two opposing sides of the spectrum of personal preference. I think this is a subject well worth discussing. Cameron and Joerg have already provided some interesting alternative points of view that might lead to further discussion.

However, Jeff has already clarified, if I read his declarations well, that the new CRQ will not contain this kind of elements and mechanics. The discussion, then, does not belong to the RuneQuest forum, where we risk adding clutter and noise to threads that already have a definite tendency to going off topic. And we are already venturing into even-more-off-topic terrain, like 13th Age.

Would you like to split the thread and open something like a "Narrative mechanics in BRP" (or in BRP and 13th Age, perhaps) in the generic forum?

[Baulderstone]

44 minutes ago, jux said:

To me "narrative rules" are not story-controlling meta rules, but rules that provide more flavor.

So if 'simulation' rules are the bare-bones dry physics engine of the game, for narrative rules I consider and look forward to stuff like sanity rules, corruption, combat (we have physics like armor/hp/dmg, but there can be narrative rules like courage/cowardness, moral, combat maneuvers, etc).

I wouldn't consider any of those things to be narrative elements. A characters mental state is an actual thing within the game. Corruption is an actual thing. Combat maneuvers are actions the PC carries out. Narrative elements occur on a meta level. An example is Preparedness skill in GUMSHOE, where you can use it to pull something out of your backpack that you hadn't previously decided you had. It's a kind of tinkering on the authorial level to change the story. 

Hero Points could be seen as narrative too, granting plot immunity to the PCs for being the main characters. You can define Hero Points in a non-narrative way though. If you declare them to the favor of the gods, for example, they now represent a force acting within the game world. 

[davecake]

I think of 13th Age as almost two games in one. A loose, improvisational, simple and very collaborative narrativist game for everything but combat. And an almost pure gamist (shorn of any irritating pretence at simulationism) complicated and GM driven combat system that is the core of the game. Essentially, you could run a very narrativist game in it, but its the core of the game is about having big fights with a lot of detailed tactical choices. 

[davecake]

FWIW, I like a few narrative elements in my RQ, having lost the enthusiasm for 100% simulationist stuff long ago, but I appreciate the simulationist roots of RQ, and I'd really quite appreciate an optional rule or two rather than the game taking a very solid stance one way or the other. 

[RosenMcStern]

3 hours ago, davecake said:

I think of 13th Age as almost two games in one. A loose, improvisational, simple and very collaborative narrativist game for everything but combat. And an almost pure gamist (shorn of any irritating pretence at simulationism) complicated and GM driven combat system that is the core of the game. Essentially, you could run a very narrativist game in it, but its the core of the game is about having big fights with a lot of detailed tactical choices. 

The problem (?) is that you can replace the word "OS RPGs" for "13th Age" and your statement is still valid.

Classic games have always been "two games in one". You have to accept this fact, if you have been gaming for longer than - approximately - 10 years. And even those who started later have absorbed this tradition. Perhaps it is not so bad, after all.

[styopa]

5 hours ago, davecake said:

FWIW, I like a few narrative elements in my RQ, having lost the enthusiasm for 100% simulationist stuff long ago, but I appreciate the simulationist roots of RQ, and I'd really quite appreciate an optional rule or two rather than the game taking a very solid stance one way or the other. 

Pretty much the ethos behind BRP, no?  Fundamental rules framework, upon which is hung the different mechanics appropriate to whatever setting is being run.

(Note, this is slightly different than what GURPs tries to be: a rules set that encompasses everything possible.)

[rust]

10 hours ago, Joerg said:

What I expect is a good set of rules and other handles for a simulation of the background of a character and their environment, in the good tradition e.g. of RQ3 Gamemasters Book(let). Rules for off-screen activities, like pursuing a craft, trade, or managing a farm, for maintaining a social position in mundane and cultic hierarchy, etc. Defining and managing dependents, patrons, ... - in the simulationist approach typical for RuneQuest, with a dose of Pendragon (Pass) mechanisms for "the rest of the year/season".

Yes, this is what I would like to see, too. 

 

5 hours ago, davecake said:

I think of 13th Age as almost two games in one. A loose, improvisational, simple and very collaborative narrativist game for everything but combat. And an almost pure gamist (shorn of any irritating pretence at simulationism) complicated and GM driven combat system that is the core of the game. Essentially, you could run a very narrativist game in it, but its the core of the game is about having big fights with a lot of detailed tactical choices. 

And this is almost exactly the opposite of what I would like to have for my settings, where combat is extremely rare and could well be handled in a narrative way, while - see above - a good set of rules for handling everything else would be most welcome.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

19 hours ago, jux said:

This is what I would think, but there is no (enough) official talk on this. Isn't it logical to start from BRP Essentials? Where are design discussions on that? We haven't have the combat chapter yet

I've found that it's tricky to write the general base framework without looking at some specialised systems first. If you design the base in isolation it might become useless later as you find you need it to do something different for specific settings, a bit like the old 16-page BRP booklet. Hopefully after RQ7 and Mythic Iceland the Chaosium will have a good enough idea to be able to put together a useful BRP Essentials.