The things that I am griping about

[Atgxtg]

Enpeze,

I wasn't thinking of a rewrite so much as paragraph in the new/improved spot rules. Something like the SB5 brawling rules wouldn't be too bad.

I think we are pretty much onthe same page. The important thing is to get BRP out of the shelves where gamers can see it. Then worry about alterations and upgrades.


As for why MRQ came out the way it did,

Well, I had heard from some people from the playtest groups as well as some Mongoose employees that the rules were much more BRPish up until the last draft, when Matt Sprange rewrote everything. I also heard that pretty much all the complaints about the system were pointed out by the playtesters, too. If you can mug a playtester and look at some of the playtest drafts you will see a RPG that looks a lot more familar. MOngoose orginally advertised the game as the return of RQ, and played up the involvement of Stafford and Perrin in the desgin on the new edition. I don't know why Stafford doesn't write anything for MRQ, or why Perrin left the playtest. But neither had a hand in design of the game as originally advertised.

And yeah, you can tell what RPG system Matt is used to writing for. I think a LOT of the changes and problems weren't so much by design but fallout form removing all the checks and balances that the system had. Steve hid a lot of the plumbing for RQ away. Tweaking one part of he game almost always lead to unforeseen changes in how other aspects of the game played out.

I think there is a point about dated RPGs. Chess did change an evolve over centuries. Newer RPGs often have new options and such that the designers of eariler games would have used if they had thought of it I seriously doubt we have all those neat polyhedrons to roll if Gygax and friends had ever though of using mutiple D6 the way Hero, GURPS or WEG did. Or an AC system, and increasing HP for that matter.





BTW, Maybe the D&D thing should be spun off for it's own topic? There is certainly enough to say about it, especially with it's new RQ inspired skill system..

[Sorloc]

We borrowed a page from Champions... My Path of Immanent Mastery character, Umeko, was doing 2d6+1d4 damage from Martial kicks... Average damage, 9.5. Average human has 4 HP in the head, 6 in chest...

So... we ruled that natural weapons attacks like fist, kick, grapple, bash did 'stunning' damage. 1 HP per die was 'real' damage, the rest just 'bashing' damage; it would fade rapidly (1 HP/MR). Max damage in an area would render it unusable until the damage disipated. However, if you took max HP in the head, you're KO'd. IRL, people get KO'd from blows to the head that do not necessarily kill them. This system allows a person to get KO'd by a punch to the back of the head, then wake up later having only taken 1 or 2 HP.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Enpeze,

I wasn't thinking of a rewrite so much as paragraph in the new/improved spot rules. Something like the SB5 brawling rules wouldn't be too bad.

I think we are pretty much onthe same page. The important thing is to get BRP out of the shelves where gamers can see it. Then worry about alterations and upgrades.

Thats it.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

As for why MRQ came out the way it did,

Well, I had heard from some people from the playtest groups as well as some Mongoose employees that the rules were much more BRPish up until the last draft, when Matt Sprange rewrote everything. I also heard that pretty much all the complaints about the system were pointed out by the playtesters, too. If you can mug a playtester and look at some of the playtest drafts you will see a RPG that looks a lot more familar. MOngoose orginally advertised the game as the return of RQ, and played up the involvement of Stafford and Perrin in the desgin on the new edition. I don't know why Stafford doesn't write anything for MRQ, or why Perrin left the playtest. But neither had a hand in design of the game as originally advertised.

I guess Greg Stafford is not the biggest BRP fan anymore. He seems to prefer the HQ game. And Steve Perrin wrote some interesting posts on rpg.net after the release of MRQ, where he complained that he didnt get a cheque from Mongoose for MRQ. Mongoose posted too and then sent him the cheque. (really big cinema )

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

And yeah, you can tell what RPG system Matt is used to writing for. I think a LOT of the changes and problems weren't so much by design but fallout form removing all the checks and balances that the system had. Steve hid a lot of the plumbing for RQ away. Tweaking one part of he game almost always lead to unforeseen changes in how other aspects of the game played out.

I think a big problem too was that the guys at Mongoose didnt understand the spirit of BRP at all. They have been in their little D&D tainted world and where too overconfident to be able to make a "new RQ" without much effort. At least it would explain why they didnt hear at the playtesters comments. Many of them seem to be not very long in the hobby or in game designing at all. I mean I dont design an elegant piece of clothing for Armani if I am a trainee from Walmarth, no?

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

BTW, Maybe the D&D thing should be spun off for it's own topic? There is certainly enough to say about it, especially with it's new RQ inspired skill system..

Well, we dont know how 4.0. will be. I heard that they want to go along World of Warcraft MMORPG with simpler rules, subscription model, computer aided support and heavy "focus" on 4 different roles in game. (tank, damage dealer, hybrid and healer) When I read this I was very amused. So who knows if they have RQ inspired skills at all in 4.0? It could also be a "craft system" with templates and receipes or whatever. (and maybe you have to conduct a "corpse run" if you die )

[badcat]

I heard it was going to be a fusion of tabletop, computer, miniatures, and card game heavily supported by necessary on-line material (which is NOT going to be free, even the PREVIEWS starting at the beginning of the year). And there is going to be up to seven each PHBs, MMs, AND DMGs. No joke. Some wag over at Troll Lord Games dubbed it 'Dungeons and Dragonballz'. Yum.

[Atgxtg]

I heard that 4.0 (again, maybe it needs it's own thread) was going to be very similar to the new Star Wars rules. WotC is trying to simplify things as 3.5 got over complicated with all the tacked on stuff.

Plus it give WOtC a chance to make some money selling the core books again. From what I hear the OGL has backfired on them a bit. They didn't wind up with the early 80s level of market share that they thought OGL would have provided. Between pdf and large 3rd party companies like Mongoose, the majority of d20 products are not produced by WotC.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by badcat

I heard it was going to be a fusion of tabletop, computer, miniatures, and card game heavily supported by necessary on-line material (which is NOT going to be free, even the PREVIEWS starting at the beginning of the year). And there is going to be up to seven each PHBs, MMs, AND DMGs. No joke. Some wag over at Troll Lord Games dubbed it 'Dungeons and Dragonballz'. Yum.

Dungeons and Dragonballz, hehe. Great.

I would not say that I dont like the way D&D goes now. I even find it better than the previous 2 editions. But maybe thats just me and my love of using technology in an new, innovative way.

4.0. goes a step farther than other roleplaying games and evolves in a real modern 21st century game. I looked at some interviews and videos (from youtube) where they explained 4.0.

Well lets look what a real 4.0 player will need
-4.0. miniatures (the old 3.5er minis are not fully usable in 4.0. as an employee from WotC meant in an interview),
-a laptop with internet connection,
-a blizz..ähem WotC subscription
-of course the 4.0. core books and adventures

They dont offer a conversion kit to update characters from 3.5 to 4.0, because they said that the editions are too different. Instead they said that the D&D GMs should finish their 3.5. campaign in the next several months and then begin the new 1st level 4th ed. campaigns.

I am sure D&D will become a great hybrid between board, computer and roleplaying-light game.

Anybody wondering why I still prefer BRP?

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

I guess Greg Stafford is not the biggest BRP fan anymore. He seems to prefer the HQ game. And Steve Perrin wrote some interesting posts on rpg.net after the release of MRQ, where he complained that he didnt get a cheque from Mongoose for MRQ. Mongoose posted too and then sent him the cheque. (really big cinema )

No, but that goes back aways. Probably to Prince Valiant. The story Greg gave in Prince Valiant was that some people stopped over (non gamers) and wanted something to do, said "Hey Greg, why don't we play one of your games?", and Greg had to say no, as it takes too long to learn enough BRP to be able to really play it to make it worthwhile as a pickup game.

Originally Posted by Enpeze

I think a big problem too was that the guys at Mongoose didnt understand the spirit of BRP at all. They have been in their little D&D tainted world and where too overconfident to be able to make a "new RQ" without much effort. At least it would explain why they didn't hear at the playtesters comments. Many of them seem to be not very long in the hobby or in game designing at all. I mean I dont design an elegant piece of clothing for Armani if I am a trainee from Walmarth, no?

I think that the fundamental problem was that the guys who wrote MRQ were not RQ/BRP players. I mentioned that way back when on the Mongooose boards, and thus started the flame wars. Practically every change makes the game more like d20. If you have people used to writing D20 stuff work on an RPG, it is no surprise if it has a strong d20 feel to it.Take a look at magic. In RQ, everybody knew some magic, and usally had at least Heal 1 by the time they got through character generation (or spend tham money from the CHA loan). In MRQ only dedicated spellcasters start off with any magic, just like d20.
Nothing Mongoose changed made RQ feel "less" like d20. I wound't say they were inexperienced, just that a lot of the experience wasn't applicable. Many RPGs were D&D derived, so if you are familiar with D&D, you have a grasp on how those game work. RQ was one of the exceptions. It is very alien in concept to D&D. THe playtest drafts did have some RQ savvy input, but it got dropped. D20 gamers tend to have different priorities than RQ gamers.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

No, but that goes back aways. Probably to Prince Valiant. The story Greg gave in Prince Valiant was that some people stopped over (non gamers) and wanted something to do, said "Hey Greg, why don't we play one of your games?", and Greg had to say no, as it takes too long to learn enough BRP to be able to really play it to make it worthwhile as a pickup game.

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.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I think that the fundamental problem was that the guys who wrote MRQ were not RQ/BRP players. I mentioned that way back when on the Mongooose boards, and thus started the flame wars.

I remember. Initially I was not very fond of your critical arguments. But the more I experienced the mediocreness of MRQ (by playing it) the more they became true. Sadly.

[Atgxtg]

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.

[Sorloc]

I couldn't keep up with it. I was involved for a while, but just couldn't wade through all the crap - and now, I am so glad I didn't. It would be like watching a pet get tortured to sit and watch them destroy one of my favorite games.





p.s.: if you've actually had a pet get tortured, I apologize for using that particular metaphor.