[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Enpeze,

The way Prince Valiant's cions thing worked (to the best of my reccolection)
-Each character had two stats Presence and Brawn, and divided up six points between them.
-Each character had 9 points to assign for starting skills, also on a 1-6 scale.

-When you did something you would toss a number of coins equal to your stat or stat+skill, if applicable, and count the number of heads. If you beat the difficulty, you won. Typically you could add modifers, like bonuses for equipment.
-A roll of all heads was a complete success and let you toss another coin (this was open ended).
-I think all tails had some some of "fumble penalty", usually making a bad situation worse, but I'd have to check.
-For opposed resolution, both sides would toss coins and compare the results. For an extended test, like combat, the loser would take the difference as a loss of coins. When one side was out of coins they were defeated.

Coins were chosen because anyone could play, since pretty much anyone has some spare change in their pocket. And a set of pennies is sure cheaper than a set of dice.

Many thanks for the explanation. of this system. Although it seems playable I would not like to play it. (In fact nowadays I would not like to play any rule set other than BRP)

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

As for BRP being one of the simplest games ever...

I think you might be tinting those glasses a little because you are so familiar with BRP (actually RQ. BRP is a fiction, but that's another topic). I used to run into a similar problem when trying to teach RQ/Strombringer/etc. to D&D players. Character generation took forever, people kept complain how hard the game was, and how AD&D was easier to understand. AD&D is actually one of the most complex RPGs, as virtually every game mechanic was tacked on with it own rules, rather than a unfired sysem, but to those guys, it WAS easier. Especially as each of them had a set of rule books on hand for reference, while we only had one copy of RQ to share among everybody.

I dont know D&D players well enough anymore (its 15 y ago that I played this game) but well....maybe they are suffering a bad influenced by their rule system? I mean, my nephew is 11 and he understood the basics of BRP without problem. (...oh this clever little brat )

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I'm a big fan of RQ and it's variants. That said, hands down Prince Valiant is an easier game, and a much better "pick up" game for non gamers to get. Try rolling up a character with your nephew and his friends, and running an adventure in a afternoon

Ah...no. I was never fond of PV or other too high fantasy. And tossing coins is not my thing. My nephew has no problem to understand BRP so I will continue to use it if I GM with him the next time. (next is a detectives story) The sooner he will come in contact with the best system out there the better.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Another reason why HQ seems hard to understand isn't that it is counter inuitive, but that it is so differernt from what you are used to.

Thats it. Its against any logic and also very "Greggy" (is this a word?) I simply dont like it. (but this means nothing, I also dont like baked potatoes)

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Storytelling Game,
The big difference is that with stroytelling RPGs the players usually have a lot more input into how the stroy unfolds. In a tradial RPG adventure the GM write (or buys) the adventure. The basic plot is set out and the isn't much the PCs can really do other than roleplay how their characters react to the events.

With a storytelling RPG the PCs have some sort of ability to add or alter the story.

In my games the players always had this ability. I was and I am ready to give them such powers. Anytime and without any but the most extreme limits. But only if I think that these powers contribute to something (the setting, the adventure, acting experience, immersion etc.) They are NOT entitled to it. So I guess making rules for player empowering is not my thing because its pure theoretical nonsense for me. I am old fashioned in my gaming stlye and my players like it this way.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

For example, in Prince Valiant, the players can occasion GM stuff and ahave certificates that allow them to chage the flow of events or add new elements to a story (i.e. "The villian's girlfriend falls in love with Joes character and unlocks the his jail cell, and gives him his charmed sword!".)

Certificates? Ala "He Bob, old chap, I am entitled to alter the story three times, because I have 3 tested and true Prince Valiant CERTIFICATIONS! from our last week session." (sorry but I could not withstand)

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

As for teaching the RPG
I think the point that your missing is that teaching something is a long term thing. Yeah, you give the players the game in increments, if you are expecting them to play again next week.

But what would you do for people you just want to play something "today", and might never game again? That is where Prince Valiant shines. Because there is so little to it, people who haven't played before can pick it up and start playing.

For me a roleplaying game is not a game, where I play this today with some randoms and tomorrow with some others. I am a careful GM. I plan the scenario carefully, I try to choose my players in advance and I give some attention to their personality, acting skills and private relationships to each other before I invite them to join in. In my over 20y experience as roleplayer I participated never in a game where some people just wanted to play something "today" and I doubt that I ever want to take part in such a game. In fact I would rather play a boardgame before playing in this way. (clash of different rpg styles?)