[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

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".

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

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.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

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)

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

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.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

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.