Quote:
|
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.
