Fatigue...

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Another great proof of the elegance and realism of the RQ/BRP rules.
I dont know many systems which enable combats where the participants have to rest for a few rounds before continuing the combat. Reminds me a little bit to the lengthy sword fight scene between Arnold and Brigitte in Red Sonja.

Yup. And seeing your adversaries ducking to cover to retake their breath is both satisfying (because that means you're in good position) and dangerous (do you press your advantage and take the risk of being yourself out of breath, or do you also try to recover a little).
Fun, realistic, so good.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Another great proof of the elegance and realism of the RQ/BRP rules.
I dont know many systems which enable combats where the participants have to rest for a few rounds before continuing the combat. Reminds me a little bit to the lengthy sword fight scene between Arnold and Brigitte in Red Sonja.

Yes & no. For a one on one fight, such would be unlikely in real life, but would be unlikely in RQ3, too. Basically limited to fights better very experienced (rune level), or completely inexperienced combatants, probably will some decent APs and/or Protection.

For a larger skirmish or full fledged battle, then yeah, people would back off to rest up every so often.

FPs do provide some tactical options, as well. It is a viable tactic to use wolf pack tactics, switching out attackers to tire someone down.

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

...
FPs do provide some tactical options, as well. It is a viable tactic to use wolf pack tactics, switching out attackers to tire someone down.

Like roman legionaires who rotated units to always have 'fresh' units in front line lof combat, contrasting with the earlier phalanxes who were compact, and could not replace the losses.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

One reason why I like the give & take with various people on-line is that after a bit you can get a read on them, and where they are coming from/style of play. So I could see RMS going with a looser interpretation of things based on some of his posts over at the MRQ board.

Based on some of Nightshade's threads on this site, I believe you two have very different gaming styles.

That could be. I also wouldn't be surprised if we'd be much closer in actual practice than it sounds like online. Part of the deal here is that you're hearing all my GMing secrets. The players around the table don't necessarily know what I'm tracking and not tracking, what I'm fudging and not, etc.

I can sort of see both sides in this. On the one hand I'm a big fan of the rules adapting to the setting rather than the reverse, but on the other would not want to play in a campaign where the GM stopped/rewrote/or autofailed my actions because they didn't fit his story. As a player, I've played through both situations and didn't like either.

To be clear here, I in no way run with a story of my own. My stories are very much products of my players/characters design. Sometimes they know exactly what they want to do and we play that story...with all of the unknowns and twists that the world throws at them. If they don't have a starting point, I'll toss a bunch of possible plot hooks out there and develop whichever one they go with. It can be longterm, a session or even less than a session, or a complete red herring. The fun thing is I usually don't know until later. When I'm talking about consistency, I'm talking about the world. If magic works like X in the world (even if X is "completely random and variable") then it works that way. If it doesn't, then something is obviously up. That's independent of the story the players, and I, are telling. I'm about as anti-rail road, planned plot as you can get and have any structure.

When I do make interpretations of the rules that differ from written, I either inform everyone ahead of time (ie. clear houserule) or I let them know before they decide on a course of action. For example, if I'm going to rule that some skill will be at a negative, I assume the character has a better assessment of the situation than the player ever can and so would have a good idea of their odds of succeeding. The players always know the odds of doing something ahead of time, unless there's a very good reason to add a hidden modifier on there. Also, if someone declares an action and for any reason I rule that it's at a negative, or can't happen, or similar, I always allow the player to change their action to something reasonable and logical for the situation. I always assume that the characters have a good grasp on what's going on, even if my communication with the players doesn't translate it properly. For example, it's been mentioned in this thread that some players never get efficient with their characters magic. I typically would help such a player along because I don't know why the fictional character should be unable to effectively use his/her powers, just because the player can't master the rules.

If you read into my posts that I do something other than above, then maybe others are being misled by my posts. What I don't do is slavish follow the rules when they don't make sense for the situation at hand, or when they're too fiddly for what they return, which is obviously completely subjective.

Of course, every style is open to abuse, and each has it own strength and pitfalls. Chances are both of you can bring up the various weakness of each other's approach. All will probably be valid, too, depending on just who is running and playing.

My approach works for me and only for me, or that's all I'll guarantee. I've read about hordes of abusive GMs who'd be terrible running things as open as I do. However, I've never run into them, mostly because I've almost always GMed, and on the rare occasion that I play, I've generally played with people who learned how to GM from me.

But I suspect neither of you will see "eye to eye" on this issue.

Probably not, though I suspect if he sat at my table that he'd thoroughly enjoy himself. (How's that for complete arrogance about my ability to convert people to the dark side! )

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Yes & no. For a one on one fight, such would be unlikely in real life, but would be unlikely in RQ3, too. Basically limited to fights better very experienced (rune level), or completely inexperienced combatants, probably will some decent APs and/or Protection.

That's part of why I don't bother with them. In the vast majority of cases in RQ they simply don't come up. Fights are over with in a few rounds so there's no real reason to track them. Note: while I don't track FP, I do use RQII encumbrance rules so nobody over equips for battle.

FPs do provide some tactical options, as well. It is a viable tactic to use wolf pack tactics, switching out attackers to tire someone down.

That's the best rationale I've heard for using them to this point.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by RMS

That's part of why I don't bother with them. In the vast majority of cases in RQ they simply don't come up. Fights are over with in a few rounds so there's no real reason to track them. Note: while I don't track FP, I do use RQII encumbrance rules so nobody over equips for battle.

Yeah. When I was running RQ3, I used to let fatigue slide, unless I knew before hand that it would be a factor, such as when I has a big fight planned, or if people were overburdened and intro the negative FP points beforehand.

Originally Posted by RMS

That's the best rationale I've heard for using them to this point.

[/quote]

That would be the sort of situation where I wouldn't use them. In fact, with that sort of fight (a chase or maybe a PC, his back to tree, protecting an injured comrade, surrounded by hungry wolves, during a snowstorm), I'd probably try to make it more dramatic by having the wolves do less attacking and more circling so the player would start to worry about FP loss.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by RMS

That could be. I also wouldn't be surprised if we'd be much closer in actual practice than it sounds like online. Part of the deal here is that you're hearing all my GMing secrets. The players around the table don't necessarily know what I'm tracking and not tracking, what I'm fudging and not, etc.

Possibly. On-line conversations sometimes take a lot longer to work out that a quick face top face. I've had a couple of situations where I disagreed completely with someone over how they did something, but when we compared notes we were essentially doing the same thing, but from opposite directions. Sort of like do you cap off the power level of the PCs to fit the campaign, or adjust the campaign to fit the power level of the PCs? Same end result, different approach.

I can also see your point about what you are doing and what the players think you are doing. I do that as well. For instance, when things get dull I sometimes roll dice, or ask someone to roll dice, and then look at my character log with their stats and perception skills on it.

One thing I tried to explain to some fledgling GMs in my gaming group was just how often I screwed something up, just that I usually managed to cover it up or fix it before the players noticed. Experienced GMs can usually perform damage control faster the the PCs can spot the problem. It is something that can be intimidating to new Gms, too. They see things going smoothly, then go ito shock when they run for the first time, and it doesn't come off so easily.

Originally Posted by RMS

To be clear here, I in no way run with a story of my own. My stories are very much products of my players/characters design. Sometimes they know exactly what they want to do and we play that story...with all of the unknowns and twists that the world throws at them. If they don't have a starting point, I'll toss a bunch of possible plot hooks out there and develop whichever one they go with. It can be longterm, a session or even less than a session, or a complete red herring. The fun thing is I usually don't know until later. When I'm talking about consistency, I'm talking about the world. If magic works like X in the world (even if X is "completely random and variable") then it works that way. If it doesn't, then something is obviously up. That's independent of the story the players, and I, are telling. I'm about as anti-rail road, planned plot as you can get and have any structure.

When I do make interpretations of the rules that differ from written, I either inform everyone ahead of time (ie. clear houserule) or I let them know before they decide on a course of action. For example, if I'm going to rule that some skill will be at a negative, I assume the character has a better assessment of the situation than the player ever can and so would have a good idea of their odds of succeeding. The players always know the odds of doing something ahead of time, unless there's a very good reason to add a hidden modifier on there. Also, if someone declares an action and for any reason I rule that it's at a negative, or can't happen, or similar, I always allow the player to change their action to something reasonable and logical for the situation. I always assume that the characters have a good grasp on what's going on, even if my communication with the players doesn't translate it properly. For example, it's been mentioned in this thread that some players never get efficient with their characters magic. I typically would help such a player along because I don't know why the fictional character should be unable to effectively use his/her powers, just because the player can't master the rules.

Thant sounds about right with me. I've tweaked my share of RPGs (and then some) over the years. I think the important thing is to try to be fair and consistent. If something doesn't work as expected, there should be a reason, even if the reason is as simple as the PC being misinformed.

Originally Posted by RMS

My approach works for me and only for me, or that's all I'll guarantee. I've read about hordes of abusive GMs who'd be terrible running things as open as I do. However, I've never run into them, mostly because I've almost always GMed, and on the rare occasion that I play, I've generally played with people who learned how to GM from me.

Well, I'd say it works for you and your gaming group. As long as it works for the group too, I don't think there is a problem with the style. If it worked for you, and only you, and your group was miserable, that would be something else.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by RMS

The irony here is that it's only online that I've run into people who are longtime RQ/BRP players that have such a hyper-literal take on things. My experience "in the real world", as it were, is that most RQ/BRP players tend to play loose and free with things, just like I'm describing. The

All I can speak of is the people I've encountered, and most of them paid at least as close an attention to such things as seemed to come up and be practical. Certainly all the local GMs did, and in the heyday of the extended group we had, that probably included at least 7-10 GMs.

two biggest pluses for BRP that I constantly hear (in person and on line) is that it "fades into the background" and it's easy to houserule on the fly without breaking anything. Both of those fit my playstyle much more than what you describe. I'm not doing anything that's not quite common and haven't upset anyone or caught them off guard with my style.

I'd suggest you just haven't hit the right people. Some people are intrinsically more fussy in the area than others. Locally, for example, we're far more careful about playing fast and loose with rules in _most_ games, and we're if anything less tolerant about it in a gritty and potentially lethal game like most BRP varients than others.

I would argue that it's style too. What you describe is similar to using a battlemat with measured distances. Whereas what I do is draw up a map and describe things as rough distances. In fact, I'd argue that how I handle both is much more "realistic" as it provides the fog of war that's going to be missing when players know exactly when things are going up or down, exactly if someone is in range or not, etc.

While there's some virtue to that, all it really does is move it to your judgement, and there's nothing saying your judgement is, well, bluntly, the best to use here. GM common sense is often, frankly both counterfactual and inconsistent; the first is tolerable (rules tend to be counterfactual to some degree or another) but the latter, not so much.

Apparently, I was ruined for "normal" from the beginning. I remember reading in D&D, T&T, and RQ II how the rules were open for interpretation and that the GM could bend them to make sense, so I've just always done that. I'm completely mystified by people believe there's something sacred about the rules as written. Plus, I'm definitetly an immersionist, so I'm after getting the

I don't. I believe, however, the proper modify the rules is systematically int he form of houserules; and that in the end, anything else is at least asking for, if not delivering inconsistencies that serve no good purpose.

Still, my main reason for doing what I do is simply because I'm not willing to do the accounting. It's just like the fatigue system. It's not terrible, but not worth my time/effort.

As long as your players don't care, there's nothing wrong with that. Its just not what the rules say (and they say the rounds aren't any set length, but in practice, they never treat them that way).

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Based on some of Nightshade's threads on this site, I believe you two have very different gaming styles.

And I'll freely admit that to some degree this is an issue of a set of preferences on our part locally that aren't typical these days, and that vary a bit from system to system. For example, I've certainly played in games with durations in "scenes" (a few Storyteller systems for example) or where things were otherwise a bit subjective. I'm not entirely fond of them, but I'm more tolerant of them in games designed for certain purposes than others. I just happen to think their rigor has always been one of BRP, and specifically RuneQuest's virtues, so I don't see a point in importing it there; it would be moving away from what I think the strengths of the system are.

That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate places where too much is too much, and that there isn't room for disagreement as to where that is. I've noted I found the RQ3 fatigue bookkeeping more niggling than served any real purpose for example.

I can sort of see both sides in this. On the one hand I'm a big fan of the rules adapting to the setting rather than the reverse, but on the other would not want to play in a campaign where the GM stopped/rewrote/or autofailed my actions because they didn't fit his story. As a player, I've played through both situations and didn't like either.

Honestly, it doesn't even have to be that bad; I just don't find I like a game where the rules are overly plastic, because I never know what to expect from one time to the next. I don't consider offloading consistency on the GM to that sort of degree a virtue.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by RMS

That could be. I also wouldn't be surprised if we'd be much closer in actual practice than it sounds like online. Part of the deal here is that you're hearing all my GMing secrets. The players around the table don't necessarily know what I'm tracking and not tracking, what I'm fudging and not, etc.

Well, I have a personal ethic here that I generally dislike applying rules to players I wouldn't pay attention to myself; so for the most part, if I'm not bookkeeping something, the players know it because they aren't expected to either. And since I don't do their bookkeeping for them...

When I do make interpretations of the rules that differ from written, I either inform everyone ahead of time (ie. clear houserule) or I let them know before

Just to make it clear, I make plenty of houserules, depending on the system and my needs. I tend to avoid doing them on the fly as much as humanly possible, though, and I generally avoid rules (and systems that use rules) that are overly plastic in application; I'm not a big fan of subjectivity in rules application.

Probably not, though I suspect if he sat at my table that he'd thoroughly enjoy himself. (How's that for complete arrogance about my ability to convert people to the dark side! )

While I might not respond as negatively as some of my posts might suggest, I wouldn't put bets on that; I'm an awfully bad player because I GM so much, and my views as to rules extend into my play (to the degree I've seen GMs boggled because I argued against non-standard and non-houseruled rules interpetations in my favor).