The things that I am griping about

[soltakss]

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.

There were two playtests.

The first was a Yahoo Group that had various versions of the rules, of which the last version was the closest to a BRP-style game. Earlier discussions were on things such as "Do we need a D100 or should be use another dice rolling method".

The rules that I saw were so full of holes it was unbelievable. I couldn't take anything from those rules and use them in RQ3. In fact, I started a RQ campaign using the playtest rules but my players asked me after the fourth session to use RQ3 as the new rules just didn't work. I kept a variant of Hero Points and Experience Points and a variant of Steve Perrin's magic system which needed a lot of work and isn't satisfactory even now.

Steve Perrin was invited on board to create a magic system based on Runes and Questing for them (Rune-Quest, geddit? No, neither did I) and he came up with a half-arsed system that didn't work as written, in my opinion. (For example, he wrote the cults of Uleria as a Moon Goddess because she had emotion-affecting spells and emotion came under the Runic Powers of the Moon and Waha the Butcher as an assassin cult) There was then a period of playtesting dead time, enlivened only by an exchange between Steve Perrin and Matthew Sprangue where emails were meant to be sent privately but accidentally sent to the forum. The gist of it, as I recall, went something like "I haven't been consulted or paid" and "Did you expect to be paid for what you had written", then things went downhill quite badly.

The second was a closed group for specially invited people, of which I wasn't one, that rewrote the rules and developed them into what is now RQM.

The DBRP Playtest went a lot better, I thought, with actual dialogue between playtester and co-ordinator and ideas being written back into the rules.

[badcat]

You were in the playtest for this? Can you answer any questions about it?

[Trifletraxor]

Originally Posted by soltakss

Steve Perrin was invited on board to create a magic system based on Runes and Questing for them (Rune-Quest, geddit? No, neither did I) and he came up with a half-arsed system that didn't work as written, in my opinion. (For example, he wrote the cults of Uleria as a Moon Goddess because she had emotion-affecting spells and emotion came under the Runic Powers of the Moon and Waha the Butcher as an assassin cult) There was then a period of playtesting dead time, enlivened only by an exchange between Steve Perrin and Matthew Sprangue where emails were meant to be sent privately but accidentally sent to the forum. The gist of it, as I recall, went something like "I haven't been consulted or paid" and "Did you expect to be paid for what you had written", then things went downhill quite badly.

Hehehe, oh the drama!

Steve Perrin is the "creator" of BRP, which gives him a lot of credit. His "Steve Perrin's Quest Rules" wasn't that much to shout "hurray" for though (IMO).

Sverre.

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by badcat

You were in the playtest for this? Can you answer any questions about it?

I was in the original playtest group, not the new one that playtested the actual game.

The version I playtested was nowhere near complete, was full of holes and was drastically changed for RQM.

I can answer some questions, depending on whether I get told I can't.

I've kept all the documents and the emailed digests since I joined the playtest, for what they are worth.

[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.

[Simlasa]

This is aimed back towards the original post...
Just some opinions...
Whenever I read people talking about 'updating' BRP it seems that what they're on about is making it more like some other game... I mean, GURPS is fine, I like GURPS... but I don't want BRP to be more GURPS-like... if I want to play GURPS I'll just play GURPS.
I really don't want changes to BRP just for the sake of making it 'modern' or making it 'marketable'... I'd want fixes only if something is broken or there is some obviously better way of doing a certain thing. Any other motivation just leads to the wrong path IMHO.

I've read where the new book will have advice on how to make the combat less lethal if that's what you want... but I'd really rather it stay away from hard and fast systems of fate/karma/drama points... and the same with more detailed combat maneuvers. That stuff is readily available in other games that were built on them from the get-go. I see no reason to jury-rig them into BRP just for the sake of being a kitchen sink of RPG ideas.
Same thing goes for advantages/disadvantages... I don't think that they make the game completely and obviously better to any degree near what I'd need to think they belong as an inherent part of BRP. Some people love them... but does BRP NEED them? Personally I don't want them, ads/disads are one of the reasons I prefer BRP over GURPS (though I like GURPS plenty). Might not the people who want them so badly not better be served by playing GURPS or somesuch?

I guess I just think it's futile to try to make one game be all things to all people and that in trying to do so you're most likely to just end up with a mess.
Just my opinion.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

This is aimed back towards the original post...
Just some opinions...
Whenever I read people talking about 'updating' BRP it seems that what they're on about is making it more like some other game... I mean, GURPS is fine, I like GURPS... but I don't want BRP to be more GURPS-like... if I want to play GURPS I'll just play GURPS.
I really don't want changes to BRP just for the sake of making it 'modern' or making it 'marketable'... I'd want fixes only if something is broken or there is some obviously better way of doing a certain thing. Any other motivation just leads to the wrong path IMHO.

I've read where the new book will have advice on how to make the combat less lethal if that's what you want... but I'd really rather it stay away from hard and fast systems of fate/karma/drama points... and the same with more detailed combat maneuvers. That stuff is readily available in other games that were built on them from the get-go. I see no reason to jury-rig them into BRP just for the sake of being a kitchen sink of RPG ideas.
Same thing goes for advantages/disadvantages... I don't think that they make the game completely and obviously better to any degree near what I'd need to think they belong as an inherent part of BRP. Some people love them... but does BRP NEED them? Personally I don't want them, ads/disads are one of the reasons I prefer BRP over GURPS (though I like GURPS plenty). Might not the people who want them so badly not better be served by playing GURPS or somesuch?

I guess I just think it's futile to try to make one game be all things to all people and that in trying to do so you're most likely to just end up with a mess.
Just my opinion.

Fully agreed with everything you said. Except maybe a simple basic version for disads/ads - maybe included with the power rules of superworld. But if yes only as option and please not in the core rules.

[Trifletraxor]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

BTW I dont know whats all the fuss about this artificial cathegory "storytelling game".

Have you ever had a look the published HQ scenarios before? They need A LOT of storytelling to fill in the gaps btw the opposed rolls. With BRP, the game tells the story - a fight for example, goes on for several rounds where you attack, parry, take & give damage to different locations, cast spells, etc. till one fighter remains standing. In HQ you just roll an opposed roll (that is my impression at least, correct me if I'm wrong). So... what happened really? Well, to make this system work, you need a really good storyteller GM...

Originally Posted by Simlasa

I really don't want changes to BRP just for the sake of making it 'modern' or making it 'marketable'... I'd want fixes only if something is broken or there is some obviously better way of doing a certain thing. Any other motivation just leads to the wrong path IMHO.

Don't fix it if it's not broken is an excellent rule of thumb. A number of optional spot rules is no bad idea though, allowing people to add the extra realism & complexity they want.

Sverre.

[Simlasa]

I'm fine with options and sidebars... even the basic ads/disads of the Superworld book... but I think they need to keep them as simple and unobtrusive as the core system... and clearly as options.
One of the biggest gripes you hear about GURPS is about how many rules there are... how 'complicated' it is... when most all of the bulk is options and the core system is pretty clear and uncomplicated.
I'd hate to see the BRP fans get all factionalized over the importance of ads/disads or use of fate points... cause I think those things are flavors/spices rather than being the main course.

[badcat]

I agree as well. The main attraction of BRP for me is how you can play it and not even think about the rules, they just work and they don't intrude. As Sverre said, they help you tell the story in the process of using them. I don't know of many games that are even close to BRPs 'smoothness' of play, I guess you could say. I always wonder why anyone suggests 'fate pts.' at all for BRP, too, because it already has such a factor built in, the Luck roll. And it's a renewable resource, in a way fate points are not. And you can use the Luck stat as a backup for do-or-die skills. PC is climbing a cliff, 100 feet up (we all know what that means in BRP if he falls, right?) misses his mid-climb skill roll, you let him have a Luck roll to see if he catches that outcrop...

So I very much agree that BRP is fine as is, and all the extras are better left in side-bars as options to be added or deleted to the rules as wanted or needed, rather than included as necessary parts of the main rules. That way everyone comes close to getting what they want. And excellent compromise, that may widen the system's appeal without ruining what makes it such an excellent rpg.