More comparative systemology...

[NickMiddleton]

This discussion was derailing Hound of Tindalos' Runequest... where to start? thread, so I thought it best to start a separate one. This is long, and a bit of a rant - and probably a storm in a team cup really: but as I get older I get increasingly annoyed by what I see as an obsession with "the new" and the concomitant assumption that "the old" is automatically less valuable / worthwhile / functional. So my apologies in advance for riding this particular hobby horse in public....

RosenMcStern made this assertion : "RQ2 is almost 30 year old, and even though its "atmosphere" was great, it contains game concepts that are terribly outdated."

I, and others queried this. He responded:

- No Power Points. This Temporary POW stuff can give you a big headache.

But other people find it perfectly acceptable and usable, and find the disconnection between POW and magic points inexplicable and fiddly to manage - personal preference, NOT fundamental game mechanical flaw.

- SIZ and INT rolled on 3d6 (no longer used in any BRP game)

Re-read the RQII rule book - there were other options there as well.

- skill increments in 5% steps only

Some liked the combination of easy maths from the 5 point steps whilst retaining the "made it, JUST! 64 out of 65!!" feel of rollingd100 - yes, it's purely a player perception, as there is no mechanical distinction between 61, 62, 53, 64 and 65:but the game rules are there to create a specific player perception. Some people may not like the 5 point step - but again, that's a preference NOT a fundamental mechanical flaw.

- artificial spell limits (Protection 4 is the top, even for the Ultra-High-Priest)

And how come Cleric's in D&D don't get Fireball? ALL rules have arbitrary limits - it's how they define the world(s) they describe. And, again, the Game Police never arrested anyone who allowed a Protection 5 (or 10) spell in their RQII game... The published RQII rules described a world with limits on battle magic - if one doesn't like them that's a perfectly fair thing to say: but it's a personal preference, NOT a fundamental mechanical flaw in the game caused by when it was designed.

- incompatible values for armours (incompatible with BRP1 I mean)

No one suggested that RQII and BRP were 100% identical - but the discrepancies in armour aren't huge, and the basic principle of armour in both systems is the same - and again, RQII's table is not inherently flawed simply because it's older.

- no ENC or fatigue option

RQII had its main encumbrance rules (page 15 in my copy) plus two optional variants at the back of the book.

Etc. etc. RQ3 is not perfect, but is closer to BRP as it is now.

Absolutely - and as I've said before elsewhere, personally I prefer RQIII to the point that I still run it regularly but can't really imagine a situation where I'd use RQII. But that's because my personal preference is for RQIII, not because there is anything wrong with RQII - and I'm disappointed to a degree that some RQII ideas (such as Defence) aren't available as options in the new BRP...

Take the game concept of Armor Class; it is outdated, as each and nearly all game systems other than That Game keeps it at bay for fear of appearing stupid. No sensible game designer would use it nowadays if starting from scratch.

On the contrary actually, many have. They call it some thing different, because of stupid prejudice over the terms perceived origin in D&D, but abstracting a person or objects ability to avoid harm (armour, manoeuvrability etc etc) in to a single defensive score is a perfectly reasonable abstraction and for certain styles of game (where detailed combat scenes are inappropriate) it makes perfect sense. Not using it because of a "fear of appearing stupid" is mostly a measure of incompetent game design: if it's the right solution, use it and if necessary, rename it "Defence Rating" or whatever.

Rolling 3d6 for SIZ or using a d100 like it was a d20 are wrong rules [there are still some in BRP, sadly], not "no longer fashionable" rules.

On what possible basis?! Why does the range of values for a characteristic being one thing have any intrinsic value over any other range? If DEX is 3 - 18, why not SIZ and INT? Or why not say they are ALL wrong and should all be on 1 - 20, or whatever?# And why is exploiting the ability to create the illusion of a fine grained scale whilst using a 1 to 20 scale any better or worse than any other dice mechanic? You may not like them, but that's hardly proof they are fundamentally flawed. Personally I find the Unknown Armies d100 mechanics really irritating, and GURPS use of 3D6 really dull - but both are still valid mechanics, just ones I don't personally like.

If you grok computer programming, it is like the goto statement. It is not "old-fashioned" programming that was popular in the '70s and will become popular again, it is a bad programming technique no one would use any more once the languages have introduced structured programming (barring some fanatics who like to code hieroglyphs).

Actually, you appear to be claiming that because C++ exists, not only should no one use Pascal, but that Pascal was never usable for writing programmes - and it's the retrospective reclassification bit that I'm arguing against.

You don't, personally, like RQII, and prefer RQIII's solutions to a lot of things. Fair enough: so do I, as it happens. But there is nothing in RQII compared to RQIII or even BRP that is inherently flawed that justifies saying "do not play that version of the game, play this version."

You other argument (play what is in print) I don't have a problem with: I think there is good material in for example the Moon Design reprints and that second hand material is sufficiently easily available that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand: but, despite my personal distaste for MRQ, I don't have a problem with the argument that MRQ or BRP are the sensible recommendations because they are in print. I do have a problem with the idea that "it was published x years ago and is therefore inherently a flawed game."

Now, where are my dried frog pills?

Cheers,

Nick

# A fair and valid criticism of RQII's SIZ scores would have been that the suggested weights and heights for the 3 - 18 range were hard to correlate with real human norms, as 1 in every 216 humans being 70cm tall and weighing 10Kg is, even in a fantasy setting, pretty incredible - but surely the logical response is that the table of heights and weights is wrong?

[RosenMcStern]

Ah, the Big Rants move to their own thread, at last. Now just wait till Frogspawner finds this one....

RQII's table is not inherently flawed simply because it's older.

I never stated these points were flawed, just superseded by a better version of the same rules. I should have used the term "outdated", not "wrong", but everyone complained about using the concept of "old as bad".

and I'm disappointed to a degree that some RQII ideas (such as Defence) aren't available as options in the new BRP...]

Interesting question for Jason. Did they consider it and find it wrong or did they just omit the option? I find it wrong, but that's just my opinion.

Why does the range of values for a characteristic being one thing have any intrinsic value over any other range? If DEX is 3 - 18, why not SIZ and INT?

snip...

# A fair and valid criticism of RQII's SIZ scores would have been that the suggested weights and heights for the 3 - 18 range were hard to correlate with real human norms, as 1 in every 216 humans being 70cm tall and weighing 10Kg is, even in a fantasy setting, pretty incredible - but surely the logical response is that the table of heights and weights is wrong?

In fact I meant option B. But it was rather lengthy to explain and just stated "3d6 for SIZ is bad" instead of "If you look at the table and consider that a linear progression of SIZ values starting at blah blah blah....".

Actually, you appear to be claiming that because C++ exists, not only should no one use Pascal, but that Pascal was never usable for writing programmes - and it's the retrospective reclassification bit that I'm arguing against.

This has absolutely nothing, and I say nothing, to do with what I said. Both C++ and Pascal are structured languages and there is still a lot of good software written in Pascal (Delphi), and there will be some for the decades to come. My point was that there are programming techniques (widely used in the past) that have been criticized so definitely that they are now considered wrong, not just old. The goto instruction is one of them. I can find you plenty of people who would still use Pascal over C if they had the option (at least one - me). Now go find me someone nowadays who would rather use Basica with line numbers instead of structured, object-oriented Visual Basic.

That is, gotos in computer programming are old because they are wrong, not wrong because they are old.

And please note that the software that handles both your and mine bank account is proably still 20-year-old COBOL written with liberal usage of hundreds of goto statements, so we have evidence that you can use a crappy programming construct and make workable software - as well as use crappy rules and make an enjoyable campaign. But it is still crap (conditional jumps, not COBOL).

And now I get to make a SAN roll for endorsing COBOL and Visual Basic.

You don't, personally, like RQII, and prefer RQIII's solutions to a lot of things. Fair enough: so do I, as it happens. But there is nothing in RQII compared to RQIII or even BRP that is inherently flawed that justifies saying "do not play that version of the game, play this version."

I have never suggested "Do not play". I have just suggested "Do not tell the newcomers to play old, unavailable versions". Which is different. See below.

You other argument (play what is in print) I don't have a problem with: I think there is good material in for example the Moon Design reprints and that second hand material is sufficiently easily available that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand: but, despite my personal distaste for MRQ, I don't have a problem with the argument that MRQ or BRP are the sensible recommendations because they are in print. I do have a problem with the idea that "it was published x years ago and is therefore inherently a flawed game."

Which I never stated. I just suggested that some points like the SIZ matter have been corrected over the years, which is another good reason to play the in-print version.

[vagabond]

That is, gotos in computer programming are old because they are wrong, not wrong because they are old.

You do realize that "goto" statements are alive in well in concept?

Inserting an "exit" statement in a switch or conditional statement is

the same as having a "goto end". And nobody would argue the validity

of doing so.

-V

[frogspawner]

Ah, the Big Rants move to their own thread, at last. Now just wait till Frogspawner finds this one....

I'd already found it, mate. But after Mr Middleton's opening salvo above, I knew the matter was in good hands - so now I can rest easy...

[RosenMcStern]

Hey, this is turning to a programming forum. Which is cool, because the only discussions that are more "religious" than those between gamers are those between programmers. Let the flames begin!

You do realize that "goto" statements are alive in well in concept?

Inserting an "exit" statement in a switch or conditional statement is

the same as having a "goto end". And nobody would argue the validity

of doing so.

Absolutely. That's why goto is not present in, say, Java or C#, but break and continue are. I was not talking about using goto to exit a compound statement, a practice blessed even by Niklaus Wirth in "Intro to Structured Programming." I was talking about using goto instead of control-flow instruction. You know, that good old practice in BASIC or the like of making end condition loops by putting an IF GOTO instruction at the end of the block.

My point stands. Find me one who is fool enough to insert a goto to a previous statement, and not to the end of a cycle. I'll find you perfectly working code written with gotos going everywhere instead of if and loop statements, something you would never do nowadays but that was commonly accepted some years ago. In fact, I am currently doing the porting of a bunch of this c*** from spaghetti code style to structured, at present. And even COBOL programmers say this is c*** since structured COBOL was invented.

It is not only "old", it is "wrong". Of course not everything that is old is also wrong. I would never compare RQ2 with spaghetti code. D&D, on the other hand.....

[deleriad]

On a more abstract level that has nothing to do with programming, it seems to me that the central issue is whether RPGs have improved over time or whether that is inherently impossible.

For example, one would have thought that special effects have improved over time due to better technology, more options and more experience. That's not to say that the SFX in every film released this year have been realised better than one released 30 years ago.

On the other hand, one probably doesn't want to say that poetry has improved over the last 2000 years. That said, there is undoubtedly a greater range of forms and techniques available to the modern poet.

Now it seems to me that the best of contemporary RPGs have learned various lessons about game design. You would have hoped that after thirty odd years of d100 based playing and conversation that the designers of a d100 based game would have a much greater knowledge about implementing the system. Of course, they could still screw it up.

For myself, I find the RQ2 rulebook to be the best written RQ rulebook out there. I re-read it properly for the first time in ages last year and was surprised by the dry humour, clarity of text and amount of material packed into it. Of all the RQ rulebooks it's the one that would most inspire me to delve straight into a game. Conversely I think the MRQ rulebook is the most usable of the rulebooks. Despite some glaring problems it succeeds in stripping away all the fat and getting you playing straight away.

Now, I wouldn't say there is anyway of objectively measuring which of RQ2 or MRQ is the "better" system because, simply, I'm not sure there is an objective scale. MRQ does definitely propose answers to things that were seen problematic in earlier editions of RQ games. In that respect it has the advantage over RQ2 as written. Whether or not you agree with the answers is another issue.

This risks being a woolly, post-modern post. However, I expect any rpg released these days to reflect the greater experience available to the authors. It's for that reason that I would forgive RQ2 for problems that I wouldn't forgive if I saw them in MRQ. To me it seems that systems like RQ2 or Basic D&D are somewhat like the 1950s classic movies. They're classics, they are watchable but they're also somewhat of their time. Depending on your viewpoint, a system like MRQ is either a bad reimagining of a classic or something like a re-release that's been remastered with improved special effects.

[sladethesniper]

A bit off topic and pure fluff...

as I get older I get increasingly annoyed by what I see as an obsession with "the new" and the concomitant assumption that "the old" is automatically less valuable / worthwhile / functional. So my apologies in advance for riding this particular hobby horse in public....

Bravo Nick!!

-STS

[Jason D]

But that's because my personal preference is for RQIII, not because there is anything wrong with RQII - and I'm disappointed to a degree that some RQII ideas (such as Defence) aren't available as options in the new BRP...

Interesting question for Jason. Did they consider it and find it wrong or did they just omit the option? I find it wrong, but that's just my opinion.

First off... there really wasn't much of a "they" in development of this book.

Sam wrote the skills chapter and the characteristics section, both of which I edited and rewrote heavily. He also took my request of "Write a lighter, tighter version of Call of Cthulhu sanity" and wrote a longer, more robust version of it... And aside from some advice, that was about the extent of his involvement. As for Chaosium, editorial involvement before completion really boiled down to Dustin saying "Hey again... when is it going to be done?" and Charlie saying "Hey, lets go for simpler powers or cut them altogether" or catching a bunch of minor issues during editing.

The core sources were Elric!/Stormbringer and Call of Cthulhu, which didn't use Defense.

I personally like the characteristic (RQ2 is my preferred RQ), but was trying to go for a simpler model for combat, and the always-present "characteristic that subtracts from every attack made against a character" always slowed combat down too much for my tastes.

Defense is also one of those characteristics that became all-important in every RQ2 game I played... everyone wanted it to be as high as possible, no matter what type of character they were playing. Everything in my game design sense tells me that über-characteristics are best avoided.

So it's on page 151 as a super power. There's no reason it can't be utilized independently of super powers, with minor effort for integration.

[Harshax]

Everything in my game design sense tells me that über-characteristics are best avoided.

Good call. Defense was broken, and Teach ran the newsletter.

[frogspawner]

I personally like the characteristic (RQ2 is my preferred RQ), but was trying to go for a simpler model for combat, and the always-present "characteristic that subtracts from every attack made against a character" always slowed combat down too much for my tastes.

Same here, on all three (or is it four?) counts.

Defense is also one of those characteristics that became all-important in every RQ2 game I played... everyone wanted it to be as high as possible, no matter what type of character they were playing. Everything in my game design sense tells me that über-characteristics are best avoided.

Ditto. But I salvaged Defence, making it similar to Dodge but usable all the time and increased only by role-playing. (My GM-awarded alternative to Hero Points. Yes it's an über-stat, and everyone wants it - so they have to role-play. That's the name of the game! )

[raymond_turney]

On a more abstract level that has nothing to do with programming, it seems to me that the central issue is whether RPGs have improved over time or whether that is inherently impossible.

This depends on whether RPG rules are primarily works of art or documents describing techniques. It's clear that they are both. As writing, RQ II still has a fair amount of appeal to people {you can tell this because it is still discussed on boards like this one}. On the other hand, a lot of ideas in game design have been tried since then, and some of the game design ideas that have been tried since are more effective than the ideas in RQ II. I'd say either BRP or Mongoose RQ have some rules techniques that are better for most purposes than some of the ones in RQ II, but I'm not sure either of them are better written. I know for a fact that the techniques described in Fire and Sword {my system, available under downloads} are better for the type of game I want to play than the techniques in RQ II. I'm not at all sure that Fire and Sword is better written than RQ II.

It is also worth noting that the whole RPG genre has diversified over time. When RQ II came out the role-play playing gaming population, in Robin's Laws terms was about 95-98% power gamers and butt kickers. To a considerable extent, RQ I and RQ II were attempts to write an RPG that would allow wargamers or SCAers to maintain suspension of disbelief. Nowadays, we have games like HeroQuest, which try to do things we did not even imagine back in 1978. Whether or not they represent progress probably depends on whether or not your game shares their objectives.

[Harshax]

Same here, on all three (or is it four?) counts.

Ditto. But I salvaged Defence, making it similar to Dodge but usable all the time and increased only by role-playing. (My GM-awarded alternative to Hero Points. Yes it's an über-stat, and everyone wants it - so they have to role-play. That's the name of the game! )

Clever! Not as versatile, but clever still. Kudos!