The things that I am griping about

[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.



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'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




About HeroQuest,

Actually the HeroQuest system is simple. The explaintion of the rules isn't. Glorantha isn't simple either. People who are told that they are playing one of King Arthur's Knights, or a Viking, have some idea of what that means. `People who are told that they are playing a herotland weaponthane and follower of Orlanth Vingot, don't have any thing to go one, UNLESS they are familiar with Glorantha.

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.


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. 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!".)
This can make the story more dynamic since it becomes more of a clloaborative effort, and this can enhance the session, since you can get a lot more good ideas from six people then from one.

I'd recommend looking at an RPG called FATE. Especially the Spririt of The Century RPG. Check out the SRD. IMO it actually pulls off what HeroQuest tried to do, but failed.


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.

[badcat]

You know, last year I taught a group of 12 year olds the basics of BRP (Magic World, specifically) and got in a full one-shot in one evenings' play. These kids had been playing Blue Rose. I find BRP very easy to teach. Also to complete novices, as it was the 'entry drug' for my wife, the game I got her to try. Why? Because she picked up the concepts quickly, which she definitely did not when I tried teaching her 2e AD&D a year earlier. Nope, it may not be as simple mechanically as Prince Valiant and such, but it is still a breeze to teach others or learn. Really.

[Simlasa]

BRP is a lot more intuitive than things like D&D... stuff works roughly how you'd expect it too... and percentiles are a readily understood expression of how good your chances are.
I've never had trouble explaining it to someone... or felt stupid doing it (the way I did way back when with D&D armor classes and such).

[Atgxtg]

I7ve found that BPR is easier to teach to those with no RPG experience that those with a lot of experience in a different system, especially D&D.

What happens is that novices listen. Experienced players figure that they know what they are doing, and tend to bring along a bunch of preconcied ideas that don't necessarily make sense outside of the confines of their former RPG. When things don't work they get frustrated and blame it on RQ/BRP rather than accepting that they need to adapt their style of play.

For instance, D&Ders have a habit of conducting head on charges against missle troops. In D&D it works, since most grunts don't do much damage and D&D heros have lots of HP. In RQ, two or three arrows will stop anybody who doesn't have heavy armor and or Protection up.

Likewise D&Ders have learned through years of experience to keep slugging away an never surrender. This makes sense for a game where prisoners tend to be tortured and eaten. In RQ, there are times when throwing down you sword and annoucing your ransom (or vice versa) is the best option.


To quote Yoda, "You must unlearn what you have learned."

On the other hand, when RQers play D&D, they might be a bit cautions, but some of their experience seems to cross over. In my local area, I'm the best player at handling mixed fighter-wizard type characters. I did a job on a D&D campaign with a bladesinger, and I owe it all to RQ and Glorantha. RQers integrate swords and sorcery better.

[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?)

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

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.

OK, to completely hijack the thread .....

Basic rules of HQ:
1. You have skills, keywords and affinities each of which has a Rating.
2. Ratings are described as a number then a mastery symbol (either W or M depending on the setting - don't ask!) and another number.
3. You roll a D20 below the first number on your skill, if you are being opposed by someone else, they roll on their skill.
4. You get 1 - critical, equal or below skill - success, above skill but below 20 - failure, 20 - fumble.
5. For every number of masteries (number after the mastery symbol) higher than your opponent, you can move your result one place to the left (towards a critical) or if you already have a critical, move their result one place to the right (towards a fumble).
6. If you have any Herio Points, you can use one of them to move the result one place as well.
7. You compare the results as follows:
1. Results are the same (critical/critical, success/success, failure/failure,
fumble/fumble) then the person who rolled the lowest has a Marginal
Victory.
2. Results are one level apart (critical/success, success/failure,
failure/fumble) then you have a Minor Victory
3. Results are two levels apart (critical/failure, failure/fumble) then you
have a Major Victory
4. Results are three levels apart (critical/fumble) then you have a Complete
Victory
5. The reverse gives you a Marginal/Minor/Major/Complete Victory
8. Results of a contest depend on what the contest was, what the aim of
the contest was, what the stakes were and the situation.
9. Generally, the better the victory the better the results.
10. You can help a skill by augmenting it with a similar skill. For every 10
points in a skill (Masteries count as 20), yiou add +1 to the skill to be
augmented.
11. Certain situations can help or hinder a skill, you get a bonus or a penalty
to the skill
12. Certain activities are harder to do, this is reflected by having a different
opposing score depending on what you are trying to do. Most things have
an opposing score of 14.
13. Skills are increased with 1 Hero Point, Keywords and Affinities with 3 Hero
Points
14. Affinities contain multiple feats, you can add a feat to an affinity by
spending 1 Hero Point
15. The Narrator gives you 1 Hero Point at the start of a session and a
number of Hero Points at the end of a session/scenario

And, basically, that's about it.

Very simple, very scaleable, very easy to use and very quick.

It's all the junk and subrules and special circumstances and magic systems that blow it up into a complicated game. Mythic Russia took a lot of the junk out, but didn't make it as simple as they could have, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Enpeze

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)

True. Any game can tell a story and any game can be used for power-gaming hungeon hacks, including HeroQuest. But, many of the things about HeroQuest can be narrated so I see why they call it a story-telling game. It isn't, though, as you still need to roll dice and that determines the outcome of any situation. But, it is a lot more flexible than many other games and I have found that I run RQ differently having played and Narrated HeroQuest.

But, this is a BRP forum not a HeroQuest forum, so apologies about the threadjack.

[Sorloc]

Originally Posted by soltakss

OK, to completely hijack the thread .....
...But, this is a BRP forum not a HeroQuest forum, so apologies about the threadjack.

Maybe it should be.
The main page has but one lonely forum, Basic RolePlaying. It seemed... well, I don't know why one would have a list of forums only 1 item long, but...

Perhaps in addition to BRP, there should also be forums on the main page for HQ and RQ / Glorantha?

[badcat]

I'd have to vote 'no' on that, gently.

[Simlasa]

Yeah, I agree... I have no interest in seeing MRQ or HQ specific sections here.

Let me add my voice to that. MRQ has it's own in-house forum, and HQ is not BRP, Gloranthan connections notwithstanding.