Fatigue...

[Atgxtg]

Wow! I've never bothered with tracking everything like that. PCs track their own MP. NPCs have whatever MP they need to power whatever they should logical have. Magic wears off when it makes sense to wear off. I'm certianly not clicking off melee rounds to 5/10/15 minute points. For one thing, it's magic, so I assume that it's not mechanistic at all. That 5 minutes is an approximation IMO, so magic goes down whenever it seems reasonable that it's gone down.

Now, that doesn't mean that my players haven't used the short duration of magic in RQ tactically. Over the years, different groups at various times have suckered their foes into throwing up magic, only to run away or stay at missile range until the foe's magic has gone down. Then the PC's turn, power up and fight. Orlanthi equipped with Mobility can really be nasty with this type of tactic.

Ideally I woundn't have to track it for the PCs either. Unfortunately, few of my RQ players ever got the "knack" for battle magic. On multiple occasions the group spoiled an attack when a couple guys stopped moving to cast battle magic. Since I could handle it and the players couldn't, I sort of had to walk them though it a bit until they got up to speed. For the most part, despite having most foes beat "on paper" the group inability to use their battle magic put them at a disadvantage. In the end, I ended up running a low-magic campaign, as only one or two players ever got good enough with battle magic to use it. One guy was even starting to get clever with it.

Plus that was 20 years ago, when a more, "by the numbers" approach was more common with RPGs in general, and my style in particular. Part of RQ strategy was trying to time things so that the other's guys fireblade was down. At one I I recall running an epic battle with 70 characters or so, round by round, Strike Rank by Strike Rank, over the course of several sessions.

Nowaday's I'd run thing differently, and use a few more shortcuts.

[RMS]

Ideally I woundn't have to track it for the PCs either. Unfortunately, few of my RQ players ever got the "knack" for battle magic. On multiple occasions the group spoiled an attack when a couple guys stopped moving to cast battle magic. Since I could handle it and the players couldn't, I sort of had to walk them though it a bit until they got up to speed. For the most part, despite having most foes beat "on paper" the group inability to use their battle magic put them at a disadvantage. In the end, I ended up running a low-magic campaign, as only one or two players ever got good enough with battle magic to use it. One guy was even starting to get clever with it.

You've certainly had a different experience than mine. My players generally have been very efficient and very clever with magic use. I have to guide them through things the first few sessions but they have generally run with it after that.

Plus that was 20 years ago, when a more, "by the numbers" approach was more common with RPGs in general, and my style in particular. Part of RQ strategy was trying to time things so that the other's guys fireblade was down. At one I I recall running an epic battle with 70 characters or so, round by round, Strike Rank by Strike Rank, over the course of several sessions.

The irony here is that I was just remarking to someone the other day how I thought RPG players in general are much more literal with rules now than I remember in the "old days where we'd just wing it". It might just be me though. I bought the original games, read them, and taught them to everyone and have GM'd 90% of the time, so it might just be me and my impatience with looking things up, tracking things, and all things fiddly. (To be fair, I would have gone into more detail 20 years ago too. Time constraints now make me even more impatient with minutia.)

Most of my RQ groups have been on the smaller end (2-4 players). I can't even imagine running for 70 characters. Our big battles might get into the 20-30 range with allies, followers, etc. on both sides but that's it.

[Atgxtg]

You've certainly had a different experience than mine. My players generally have been very efficient and very clever with magic use. I have to guide them through things the first few sessions but they have generally run with it after that.

I wish. Most of my players have been painfully thick. To give you an idea, at one time I asked people to show up each week with their character sheet, and dice. That was all I expected. I even gave people sets of dice. Yet for months the same people would show up each week and either not have their character sheet,the latest set of dice I gave them the previous week, or both. If they couldn't accomplish that, you can imagine how well they were "in character."

The irony here is that I was just remarking to someone the other day how I thought RPG players in general are much more literal with rules now than I remember in the "old days where we'd just wing it". It might just be me though. I bought the original games, read them, and taught them to everyone and have GM'd 90% of the time, so it might just be me and my impatience with looking things up, tracking things, and all things fiddly. (To be fair, I would have gone into more detail 20 years ago too. Time constraints now make me even more impatient with minutia.)

I think it is sort of a cycle. Early on, the books were thinner and the rules more sketchy, so we tended to wing it more. Then, by the mid 80s, games got very detailed oriented, and regimented. Later, rules were simplified over roleplaying and storytelling. With d20, there has been a trend towards detail for D&D. Still I think most old time GMs, especially those for non-d20 systems are probably more comfortable "winging it" as we had to do it more. Same with writing adventures, due to the relatively limited number of adventures published for most RPG. We had to do it for ourselves more, so we are less worried about following what's written in the book.

Most of my RQ groups have been on the smaller end (2-4 players). I can't even imagine running for 70 characters. Our big battles might get into the 20-30 range with allies, followers, etc. on both sides but that's it.

[Kloster]

That would be nice, but for me it would go something like this: "Have you remembered to tick your fatigue tally? Please tick the tally! Remember to tick the fatigue tally every round. TICK THAT BOX YOU MORONS!!!"

And I'd get responses like, "Yeah, yeah, [tick!]", "I keep track in my head..." and "But it doesn't matter anyway".

I want a better system. Ticking every single round takes time.

SGL.

We didn't had this problem but I understand your point.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

I will put bets this just means in practice it gets missed fairly often.

No, it just means that most of combat didn't last a long enough duration to reach negative points, or if they do by 1 or 2, there was no roll on which that change anything.

My last character had about 5 FP free before combat start. Most fights were less than 10 MR, which means I finished at -5%. If no roll is above my skill minus 5%, there is no change.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[threedeesix]

Now I'd probably just do a quick roll of dice for each stairwell and if someone blows his skill roll, he get hurt, two failures and he drops. Probably get results similar to doing it out the long way, too.

But I bet your players still look back on that battle in a way they wouldn't have if it was finished with just a couple of skill rolls.

Rod

[TRose]

I used the RQ3 fatigue and did not have much of a problem. And my main character at that time started in the negative with a bastard sword, full suit of Chain and shield. I just remembered what my starting penalty was and remembered to subtract one every turn.

[Kloster]

I think mostly becuase it is very, very easy. I'd say easier than most other fatigue systems. Probably not that useful, but easy.

IMO, fatigue isn't as big a deal as (over)encumberance.

...

That's also what we thought, and that's why we used the default rule:

easy to use.

...

It's a solid method. A few games use fatigue levels, and that works out okay, too. Doing something strenuous requires a test, and the more strenuous the more difficult or often the test.

I also liked the way the James Bond RPG handled it. You got so many minutes of activity, based on stats, and then you were exhausted and suppered a penalty (about 1/2) to rolls. In extreme cases (like in the outback on a hit day) exterion counted at a faster than normal rate.

...

It also works.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

You've certainly had a different experience than mine. My players generally have been very efficient and very clever with magic use. I have to guide them through things the first few sessions but they have generally run with it after that.

...

Except for 1 player (in around 20 years), same for us. Some tactics were very tortuous and required coordinations between several characters.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Atgxtg]

But I bet your players still look back on that battle in a way they wouldn't have if it was finished with just a couple of skill rolls.

Rod

I'm not sure. I'd like to think so. Haven't seen that particular people in years. I have fond memories of it, and it was talked about a bit in the years after.

But, I think it is memorable because it was a one-off big event. It I had run fights like that all the time, it wouldn't have worked out as well. I know a guy who did run big fights all the time, and after awhile it just got boring.

Run enough (too much) combat, especially the trading blows variety, and combat looses it's excitement. The good players can usually figure out the odds, and an experienced GM generally knew them before the battle started. So playing it out can become a formality. Plus with games like RQ, 50+ combatants works out to 2-3 criticals every round. Since the PCs are usually outnumbered, they are the ones who tended to be on the receiving end of a lucky hit that kills someone.

[Nightshade]

It wasn't a tactical problem, just a bookkeeping one. It worked like this. Let's say the PCs were setting up to attack a foe. The foe has guards, but isn't aware of the PCs.

-First the PCs maneuver/sneak in close enough so that their spells won't wear off before they reach the foe.

-Then they spend 2 or 3 rounds getting their magic up. GM has to note exactly which spells are cast on which round/SR to know when stuff is going to wear off.

-Now a minute or so gets used up as PCs try to coordinate for a simultaneous attack.

-The fighting breaks out. The PCs usually cut through the guard pretty quick. About 2/3rd go down in one round, with a couple of guys holding on for a round or two due to failed rolls, bad luck, etc.

-The the real fight breaks out. The rest of the NPCs are usually alerted by the fighting and stat doing their spells and other preparations ad hoc. More bookkeeping. People start popping in at odd turns and SR, and there is some maneuvering for position, delays and such.

-All this requires keeping track of spell durations, and MP expenditures. Since virtually everyone had some battle magic in RQ, it usually meant more bookkeeping than ticking off fatigue points.

-Toss in allied spirits, POW crystals and Divine Magic spells and Fatiue points were usually the last thing I was worried about. I was more cornered about when the Bladesharp, Countermagic, and Protection spells were due to wear off.

Ah, I see. You were stuck managing everyone else's bookkeeping too. That explains a lot.

Well, it was for a game system in which ENC is not a big issue. Fatigue in that game was more in terms of how long can you keep running, or how many hours you can travel cross country without sleep? In that game the asnwer was important to determine if you could escape the people who were chasing you.

Well, honestly, most non-gritty spy games don't typically need to deal with encumberance at all, so I get your point.

Fatasy RPGs tened to need more fatigue and ENC rules as some players will "tank" it up, and others like to carry the kitchen sink.

Some SF games too; any game where the presence or lack of gear can make a signficant difference in your chance of success risks this. Especially if long travel without vehicles or mounts is possible.

From what I've seen working at a hospital, yeah they do. Its part of the adrenaline dump thing. When you get scared/excited/injured the adrenaline kicks in and you go into hypermode. Once it wears off, you crash. Someone who is already injured is already on the crash part of the cycle. Even worse, an injury acts as a constant distraction, so they susally don't rest back up to full stamina.

Fair enough.

Not in hand. But I think I can find some. Proving that being injured reduces stamina seems like an autokill to me. I'll dig for some evidence if you want.

No, if it fits with your personal experience in that context, I'm willing to take it at least provisionally. That question was more in the light of "why do you think this?" than "Show me."

[Nightshade]

Wow! I've never bothered with tracking everything like that. PCs track their own MP. NPCs have whatever MP they need to power whatever they should logical have. Magic wears off when it makes sense to wear off. I'm certianly not clicking off melee rounds to 5/10/15 minute points. For one thing, it's magic, so I assume that it's not mechanistic at all. That 5 minutes is an approximation IMO, so magic goes down whenever it seems reasonable that it's gone down.

That's got just about nothing to do with what the rules actually said to do, though. In fact, the rules refered to the duration of spirit magic both in terms of real time and melee rounds.

[Atgxtg]

That's got just about nothing to do with what the rules actually said to do, though. In fact, the rules refered to the duration of spirit magic both in terms of real time and melee rounds.

No it doesn't.

It's a stylistic difference. Sort of what I was referring to about the difference in eras. Back with RQ was written, everything was spelled out in clear, consistent terms. Spells lasted exactly so many turns, fatigue penalties were X% and so forth. Now a lot of gamers take a more open approach. For instance, I'd be more inclined to have spells with a duration last for a "scene" rather than X minutes and so on. It greatly simplifies play, with little to no downside.

[Nightshade]

You've certainly had a different experience than mine. My players generally have been very efficient and very clever with magic use. I have to guide them through things the first few sessions but they have generally run with it after that.

There are always players who just never grasp the mechanics of some game concepts; while we've got a generally very gamist sort of group (and I'm including the extended membership we've had over three decades here) there have always been people who just couldn't grasp strike ranks in RQ, couldn't manage how to roll normal dice in Hero, or whatever. Some of them still didn't seem to know how after, well, years.

The irony here is that I was just remarking to someone the other day how I thought RPG players in general are much more literal with rules now than I remember in the "old days where we'd just wing it". It might just be me though. I bought the original games, read them, and taught them to everyone and have GM'd 90% of the time, so it might just be me and my impatience with looking things up, tracking things, and all things fiddly. (To be fair, I would have gone into more detail 20 years ago too. Time constraints now make me even more impatient with minutia.)

That'd never fly, locally. Consistency of rules is considered a virtue around here, and things like the GM having to fake it are considered an unfortunate occasional necessity. And we're a pretty big bunch of grognards (the average age in the hobby is probably 20 years at this point).

There was a period with some of the very early games where you had little choice; OD&D or even original Traveller were so sketchy in spots that you were completely on your own if you hit something unusual, but there's a reason we moved away from games like that.

Most of my RQ groups have been on the smaller end (2-4 players). I can't even imagine running for 70 characters. Our big battles might get into the 20-30 range with allies, followers, etc. on both sides but that's it.

I have to admit that's--boggling. 70 RQ characters, even most of the cookie-cutter--wow.

[Nightshade]

No, it just means that most of combat didn't last a long enough duration to reach negative points, or if they do by 1 or 2, there was no roll on which that change anything.

I still think in groups where it _was_ relevant, it probably just got forgotten a lot of the time (and I'm really suprised by how fast some people's combats went; at the low end, people could spend a lot of time just flailing around locally (after all, when you only have 30%, you're only going to hit one round in three; and even if they don't parry, if anyone's got any armor at all its not that likely a single hit will put them down), and at the higher end there was usually enough healing and protective magic to cause things to take a little while. I rarely saw an RQ fight of any account over in less than 10-15 rounds, and some went noticeably longer.

[Atgxtg]

Ah, I see. You were stuck managing everyone else's bookkeeping too. That explains a lot. [q/uote]

Not everyone's, but close enough. In the same light, ONE guy bought a copy of the RQ3 rules, and it helped immensely. A lot of the reasons why RQ was considered "tough to learn" and D&D was considered "easy" had to do with the fact that when we played AD&D everybody had their own rulebooks, but when we played RQ we all had to share one set.

Even the gritty ones usualy don't. The thing that probably needed the most bookkeeping was how much ammo people had left.

THe spy genre benefits from the fact that since the PCs have to keep a low profile, at least some of the time, walking around in Class IV body armor and toting LAW rockets is counterproductive. Besides, unlike a fantasy world, most of the timPCs can stop into a local store and pick up the extra coil of rope, flashlight, rode flares, Swiss army knife, lethaman, the almighty duct tape or what not.

With the exception of specialized gear (it sucks to loose the watch with the built in gieger counter), the only time equipment and encumbrance factor in is when people get cut off somewhere in the wilderness.

Yeah, space without a vacc suit, sucks.

Basically it boils down to the "alone in a hostile environment" situation. The type of RPG is really just a variation on that theme. Since the modern world has rapid travel and fewer isolated spots, the theme isn't run as often. Likewise you don't get as many exploration or encountering new beings stories in modern day games.

Okay. I would think that to some extent it would fit in with other peoples personal experience too. Even things like a fever or bad toothache have affected my stamina.

[Nightshade]

Not everyone's, but close enough. In the same light, ONE guy bought a copy of the RQ3 rules, and it helped immensely. A lot of the reasons why RQ was considered "tough to learn" and D&D was considered "easy" had to do with the fact that when we played AD&D everybody had their own rulebooks, but when we played RQ we all had to share one set.

Well, no wonder then. Other than one specific player who's been chronically poor over his whole life, we pretty much took it as a given that once you played in a game for any length of time you were going to have at least the basic rules.

Even the gritty ones usualy don't. The thing that probably needed the most bookkeeping was how much ammo people had left.

You can run into issues with the gritty ones because they sometimes shade into commando games, so how much gear people could haul in those situations sometimes mattered, especially if the characters were freelance or quasi-freelance and thus controlled their own equipment load-outs.

With the exception of specialized gear (it sucks to loose the watch with the built in gieger counter), the only time equipment and encumbrance factor in is when people get cut off somewhere in the wilderness.

That can come up quite a bit in the above games, though.

Okay. I would think that to some extent it would fit in with other peoples personal experience too. Even things like a fever or bad toothache have affected my stamina.

I wouldn't have argued regarding illness, but on the occasions when I've been injured, even in ongoing pain I didn't notice this problem (at least immediately; it can come up over time just because such things interfere with your ability to rest, but that's not an immediate effect). In fact, in my 20's, this sort of thing came up several times when I was hiking and would have thought I would have noticed it. But ancedotal evidence is the weakest kind, so...

[Nightshade]

No it doesn't.

It's a stylistic difference. Sort of what I was referring to about the difference in eras. Back with RQ was written, everything was spelled out in clear, consistent terms. Spells lasted exactly so many turns, fatigue penalties were X% and so forth. Now a lot of gamers take a more open approach. For instance, I'd be more inclined to have spells with a duration last for a "scene" rather than X minutes and so on. It greatly simplifies play, with little to no downside.

I'm not so convinced. While I'm not intrinsically hostile to that sort of structure in some games, I think it works better when there's a stylistic bias in the rules toward the dramatic and abstract than in something like RQ, which is biased toward the concrete.

[Atgxtg]

I'm not so convinced. While I'm not intrinsically hostile to that sort of structure in some games, I think it works better when there's a stylistic bias in the rules toward the dramatic and abstract than in something like RQ, which is biased toward the concrete.

Agreed. RMS has played some HeroQuest, so I think that sort of approach is second nature to him now.

HQ "ruined" him for normal gaming. ;)

Personally, I liked the way Ars Magica handled durations, putting then in terms that were easily measured by people without timepieces (whats a minute without a clock?) like Sun (works until sunrise or sunset). Makes magic seem less scientific and more arcane.

[Atgxtg]

Well, no wonder then. Other than one specific player who's been chronically poor over his whole life, we pretty much took it as a given that once you played in a game for any length of time you were going to have at least the basic rules.

I'm envious. Years ago, I had to twist arms to get most of my group to chip in $2 each to buy a new battle mat. Most people didn't buy the rules, and all this came up in the late 90s when I was claiming that CCGs were killing RPGs. I had one guy who LOVED Pendragon, When Chaosium stopped supported Pendragon to produced a CCG, and he asked why, I pointed out that had never bought a single book for Pendragon, yet had spent hundred of dollars on Magic cards.

You can run into issues with the gritty ones because they sometimes shade into commando games, so how much gear people could haul in those situations sometimes mattered, especially if the characters were freelance or quasi-freelance and thus controlled their own equipment load-outs.

We are on the same page here. Every one in awhile in Bond, it would become important. Typically when we got to the "storming the bad guys fortress" part of an adventure. Lugging around a backpack full of C4 to blow down the steel doors tends to limit how many guns, grenades and other goodies you can take along. Still, it isn't as common as in fantansy RPGs where the players are usually carrying everything they own on their backs.

I wouldn't have argued regarding illness, but on the occasions when I've been injured, even in ongoing pain I didn't notice this problem (at least immediately; it can come up over time just because such things interfere with your ability to rest, but that's not an immediate effect). In fact, in my 20's, this sort of thing came up several times when I was hiking and would have thought I would have noticed it. But ancedotal evidence is the weakest kind, so...

Yup. I've done that too. Often I was fine until I noticed the injury, and THEN it started to hurt. Sort of like "Oh crap, I'm injured. That should hurt. Wait, now it does."

Its that death spiral thingie. In the short term it takes something really nasty to take you out. If you are too stubborn or too stupid to notice or care, it makes you just that much tougher. That is why animals often fight on after being severely injured. They are just to dumb to lie down and die. People on the other hand see the injury go "Oh no, I'm dying" and give up. Sort of like Wyle E. Coyote in the old cartoons. Just don't look down.

[Nightshade]

Personally, I liked the way Ars Magica handled durations, putting then in terms that were easily measured by people without timepieces (whats a minute without a clock?) like Sun (works until sunrise or sunset). Makes magic seem less scientific and more arcane.

Well, in the end, most units of measurement are there for the convenience of the players, not the characters.

[Nightshade]

I'm envious. Years ago, I had to twist arms to get most of my group to chip in $2 each to buy a new battle mat. Most people didn't buy the rules, and all this came up in the late 90s when I was claiming that CCGs were killing RPGs. I had one guy who LOVED Pendragon, When Chaosium stopped supported Pendragon to produced a CCG, and he asked why, I pointed out that had never bought a single book for Pendragon, yet had spent hundred of dollars on Magic cards.

Well, it probably didn't hurt that throughout most of my gaming career, I've probably been one of the lowest budget people in my gaming group; if I could afford to buy the damned books, it wasn't going to make much sense for other people to balk.

We are on the same page here. Every one in awhile in Bond, it would become important. Typically when we got to the "storming the bad guys fortress" part of an adventure. Lugging around a backpack full of C4 to blow down the steel doors tends to limit how many guns, grenades and other goodies you can take along. Still, it isn't as common as in fantansy RPGs where the players are usually carrying everything they own on their backs.

True. Modern transportation is a bit more forgiving in that regard. Its probably not a coincidence that the second most common place I've seen this be a real issue is post-holocaust games.

Yup. I've done that too. Often I was fine until I noticed the injury, and THEN it started to hurt. Sort of like "Oh crap, I'm injured. That should hurt. Wait, now it does."

Well, some of it was that. But in some cases (such as when I fell down a flight of steps and bruised the living hell out of my thigh when I was in my twenties) I was in all kinds of pain and at least some impairment; it just didn't immediately seem to fatigue me more.

Its that death spiral thingie. In the short term it takes something really nasty to take you out. If you are too stubborn or too stupid to notice or care, it makes you just that much tougher. That is why animals often fight on after being severely injured. They are just to dumb to lie down and die. People on the other hand see the injury go "Oh no, I'm dying" and give up. Sort of like Wyle E. Coyote in the old cartoons. Just don't look down.

Had a really--amusing--version of one of those once. I got bit by a sidewinder while hiking, and just thought I'd poked myself with a sharp branch while working through some brush. Didn't realize the degree of the problem until I got home and noticed my bloody sock. I was also a little feverish, but just wrote that off to the heat (this was in Arizona). Good thing sidewinders don't carry a particularly big load of venom as pit vipers go, and that I seem to be a bit more tolerant to it than typical...

[Atgxtg]

Well, in the end, most units of measurement are there for the convenience of the players, not the characters.

Yup. But by going with less spefic measurements, it can make bookkeeping and running easier. For instance, is most battle magic spells lasted for "around" five minutes rather than 5 minutes, you can wing the time keeping. That why some games use terms like "last for the duration of the scene". That way if a spell is up, it can be considered up until the situation has changed.

In many cases such rules can mitigate some of the lethality of an RPG. Like is people don't bleed to death right away, but "after the fight" then they are more likely to last around long enough to get first aid.

It makes the game a little more forgiving and easier to play without making major changes to the rules.

[Atgxtg]

Well, it probably didn't hurt that throughout most of my gaming career, I've probably been one of the lowest budget people in my gaming group; if I could afford to buy the damned books, it wasn't going to make much sense for other people to balk.

I know the feeling. One reason why I got ticked off at that group was the most of them were makeng two to three times what I was making at the time. And I was the only one with any sort of higher education.

True. Modern transportation is a bit more forgiving in that regard. Its probably not a coincidence that the second most common place I've seen this be a real issue is post-holocaust games.

Like I said, "Alone in a hostile environment". Same with ammo or water, quantity isn't an issue until you could run out.

Well, some of it was that. But in some cases (such as when I fell down a flight of steps and bruised the living hell out of my thigh when I was in my twenties) I was in all kinds of pain and at least some impairment; it just didn't immediately seem to fatigue me more.

I think that the adrenaline kicking in. I had to take ephedrine (adrenaline) for astha, and can personally attest that even if I was sick and tired, once the shot went through my bloodstream, I didn't feel tired. In fact, I felt panicked, and it took an effort to lie still instead of running around the room.

Had a really--amusing--version of one of those once. I got bit by a sidewinder while hiking, and just thought I'd poked myself with a sharp branch while working through some brush. Didn't realize the degree of the problem until I got home and noticed my bloody sock. I was also a little feverish, but just wrote that off to the heat (this was in Arizona). Good thing sidewinders don't carry a particularly big load of venom as pit vipers go, and that I seem to be a bit more tolerant to it than typical...

Good thing that sidewinders don't carry neurotoxins instead of hemotoxins!

Also, with snakes they don't inject a constituent amount of venom. From what I've read, about one third of the time they inject a "normal dose", another third of the time they inject little to no venom at all, and the final (pun! pun!) third of the time they dump all they've got.

From what I've read, the mortality rate from snakes carrying hemotoxins is fairly low, generally less than 35% without treatment. Less than 1% with anti-venom.

Nerotoxins are worse. Not so much because the poison is more deadly, but because it is faster acting AND impairs the nervous system, giving you less time to react and causing less localized damage.

This nature lesson was brought to you by Empire of the Wyrms Friends.

[RMS]

That's got just about nothing to do with what the rules actually said to do, though. In fact, the rules refered to the duration of spirit magic both in terms of real time and melee rounds.

Sure it does. IMO the rules are very clear: Personal/Battle/Spirit Magic lasts a while, Divine/Rune Magic lasts a lot longer (and has a much longer range), and Sorcery lasts for however long it was boosted too. Yes, the rules give specific numbers because some people need that kind of detail, but I don't so I don't use it. I interpret to roughy 5 minutes (or two minutes in RQII) or 15 minutes, but I'm not about to waste time/energy actually tracking it. If I want to do accounting I balance my check book or something....not spend my fun time doing that.

There's no doubt that I'm very happy to read between the lines and go for the spirit of the rules (as I interpret them) rather than take them literally. It's an RPG so I never felt that need. If I play a war game, sure, but not for an RPG.

That'd never fly, locally. Consistency of rules is considered a virtue around here, and things like the GM having to fake it are considered an unfortunate occasional necessity. And we're a pretty big bunch of grognards (the average age in the hobby is probably 20 years at this point).

I've never had a single complaint about my GMing, and frankly I doubt most people would even understand what I'm winging and not, if I choose not to tell them. However, if I get someone who's more interested in rules than having fun playing an RPG I have absolutely no problem throwing them to the curb: BTDT. I have zero tolerance about rules lawyering, questioning rulings, etc. Sounds like a young group!

There was a period with some of the very early games where you had little choice; OD&D or even original Traveller were so sketchy in spots that you were completely on your own if you hit something unusual, but there's a reason we moved away from games like that.

I've never seen a game that's tight enough that it didn't need winging on a regular basis. I'd probably be bored stiff as a GM if my players weren't constantly trying to do things not specificly adjacated by the rules. One of the things I love about BRP/RQ is how easy this is to do because the mechanics are so transparent and logical.

I have to admit that's--boggling. 70 RQ characters, even most of the cookie-cutter--wow.

My longest running campaign did have a couple of very big battles, but these were involving hundreds and then thousands of people, lead by the PCs. Obviously, I wasn't going to use RQ. I ended up using a homebrew fantasy war game, but it broke out into individual RQ combats with PCs or important NPCs (run by a player) that had direct affects on the battle field, and stretched into the heroplane. It lasted for several sessions as we had three separate encounters before the finale in Pavis where the PC's army forced the Lunars out of Prax.