Changes in good old roleplaying?

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

PULP...
What is pulp? What makes a story pulp?
It's come up so often now I just gotta ask.

SGL.

Pulp is a genre named after it's the "pulp" (newspaper grade) magazines that it was populized in. Characrer like the Shadow and Doc Savage started in the "pulps" and pulps were the ancestors of modern comics. Stories were generally considered low brow, and sensationalism was the norm.

You head about it a lot, because Pulps and RPGs cover a lot of the same ground. In fact, most of your early Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Western and Detective authors probably did work for the pulps. There is also a fairly strong tie to cinema, since the movie series often used pulp characters and story lines (and vice versa).

Pulp store is tended to be a bit fast and loose. In large part because of the demands to get enough material to fill out out the whole magazine , some of which came out weekly.

Generally if you like a fast, freewheeling style of play with action being more important that detail, you probably would find something of interest in pulps.

A lot of it (probably most) was crap, but there was some classic stuff that came out of the pulps too.

Hows that?

Oh, and I actually wasn't referring to pulp fiction, but to Pulp Fiction the movie. Specifically how John Travolta's character gets killed part way through the film, only to reappear later, as the film is a collection of segments rather than a single narrative.

BTW, Do you want to know about bondage covers?

[Sunwolfe]

Relativity and perspective. What are described as changes to roleplaying have a lot to do, IMHO, with the personal circumstances and experiences of the player doing the describing. What is a change to one is really only a matter of perception and subjective opportunity to another.
“Doesn’t that cloud look like a dolphin?”
“Naw, reminds me of the endoplasmic-reticulum of a capi-barra in heat.”
From my point of view roleplaying has changed most in how it is perceived by those who don’t play, the over all age of player, its bloody price tag and in the loss of its, and I use this term loosely here, innocence.

A little bit of history here. I’ve been blessed with low player turn over in the games I’ve been involved in and predominantly have only really played with two groups of about 12 peeps collectively, some of whom sat in on both groups. In the first group I was more of a player than a GM and there I cut my teeth on RPGs. We had a GM who intended from early on to get involved with the gaming industry (he eventfully hooked up with Pondsmith and Talsorian games for a time). He had a good paying job too and consequently whenever we played in his games we were treated to a buffet of different systems and different worlds: Gamma World, Travellor, Tunnels and Trolls, D&D, CoC, SB, Hawkmoon, The Fantasy Trip, Star Wars RPG (D6), Cyberpunk, Chivalry and Sorcery, The Empire of the Petal Throne, etc., etc. He’d see a movie or read a book and we’d be off and running, riding with Wee-Hawk for the Land of Scorch or assaulting a tavern with the Rolling Stones’ caricatures from the Rodney Matthews’ calendar. Usually the setting or system would last a session or three and then we’d be off on to something new. We called it “world for a day.” At the time we bitched about the turn over, but looking back on it now, I’m thankful he was so driven to try everything (at the time) that was available.

And there was a lot available. We’d haunt the local game store and the RPG section like my daughter tells me today’s goth-types haunt the manga section of the Barnes and Noble where she works—in a word “obsessively”. Each month we were rewarded with a new system, scenario or chapter in a setting…Columbia Games, Fantasy Games Unlimited, I.C.E., FASA, Games Workshop…weird little pocket games and other bizarreness. It seemed anybody with the gumption and two dollars to rub together was publishing, little companies popping up like mushrooms with dreams of giving TSR a run for its money with games that, though they may have had a limited shelf-life, were fun to try on for size.

And we’d try anything…remember the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle RPG, or Steve Jackson’s Kung Fu 2100, Metagaming’s MicroGames: TFT Melee, TFT Wizard and the solo modules Death Test 1 and 2. Ram Speed anyone? How ‘bout the obscure “Treasure of Unicorn Gold” that for a time entertained a young gaming community with the possibility of finding a “…unicorn…hidden somewhere in the U.S.A….” and a “…$10,000 cash prize from Metagaming…” for the lucky one who deciphered the clues in the module and actually found the damn thing! I never did hear what came of that contest or the one involving a solid silver dragon they’d hid earlier. You just don’t see that kinda, fly-by-the-seat-of-yer-pants, wacko publishing or such gimmicky eclectic offerings. Now, that being said, remember this was before the rise of the Internet as the force for RPG good, justice, equalization and porn that it is today! The phenomenon of the .pdf file had yet to make its advent in a big way, which is presently the way for any swingin’ dick to go who wants to see his name in lights—albeit if only in the light of the computer monitor.

Naw, what I’m talkin’ about is the three-dimensional, hold-in-your hands, it’s-got-a-cover…kinda thing. The supplement you know someone might have risked every cent they had to get published. These things ran the gambit in quality, some were crap and to make them even remotely playable you had to come up with house-rules and additional material or they were completely overwhelming, almost god-like in proportion: the first edition of The Temple of Elemental Evil comes to mind (30 years of RPGin’ and I’ve yet to get through the whole thing and fight the bosses at the end!).

“Back-in-the-day” the whole scene was so new…rough and raw…edgy. The RPG world was still trying to define itself and decide if its face was, in fact, DnD…or was it something else: Arduin, M.A.A.R. Barker’s Tekumel, live action role-playing, golden unicorns, mutant amphibians or Elric and his sword? Were we simply “pretend games” gone mad, pseudo medieval nostalgia gone 3D, a plague that would soon pass, or something else? Though there were systems and settings to be had (cue the music: The City State of the Dread Overlord/World Emperor…by Odin’s Bronzed Balls, I miss those fun, and sometimes goofy, Judges Guild supplements!), most of the DM/GMs had to roll their own and come up with unique settings, a reason I love the conversations happening here about what worlds peeps would like to see developed for play. The group I gamed with at home and at the convention created like that all the time. Thankfully, it seems that has changed little.

But at the time we were rebels; we were geeks; we were odd-balls; son and daughters of darkness, disenfranchised mutants who couldn’t attempt to kick a soccer ball without tripping and falling, flashing our monster manuals at little old ladies to see them blanch and turn in horror. We played all night for days at a stretch, slept in convention hall ways and shook our head in pity at those how forgot to hydrate and got “dungeon fever.” We were a major nose tweak to the conservative community and that was all icing on the cake. We were having a blast playing the latest and weirdest pretending to be Conan, Arthur or Beowulf, Captain Kirk, Buck Rodgers or Captain Nemo. Now…it’s all old hat to the world. I swear, when my kids (both in the class room and in my family) either find out I game or talk to someone about my hobby, it’s with a sense of pity, as if they feel sorry for me, like I’m some sort of over sized puppy who had his paw slammed in the door. “Ahhh you poor thing, you.” When did that happen?! When did Role Playing become old hat and pen and pencil RPGs old school?

Now, it’s seems, IMHO, as if the RPG-world is trying to understand if there is “anything else”? Almost as if it were collectively bored. I mean, no one can deny that there’s a plethora of choices out there that dwarfs anything available during the ‘70’s and ‘80’s, setting after setting, game after game, but it’s all so blasé. The term “Dungeons and Dragons” is almost an antiquated household word…common place. For cryin’ out loud William Shatner and Mr. T. are adverting WoW on TV! It seems that every Scifi movie or TV series spawns it’s own RPG (Stargate, Buffy), “…based on the ever popular D20 system…”, but nothing truly “new” is happening in the pen and paper market, not like long ago. I sometimes wonder how much of the market is fueled by those of us who love the sport, always have and always will. When we don’t or can’t play anymore…? I realize I’m excluding a massive sub-culture by not including computer/internet gaming in my observations and rather focusing on the true play-it-in-yer-heed RPGs—maybe that’s fodder for another thread.

Today it seems different. For the most part, the dust has settled and the present incarnation of the “big boys” rules the roost. The companies in power today didn’t even exist back then. I mean, damn, even the once-upon-a-time almighty TSR has gone the way of the doh-doh. We’re more “sophisticated” and demand more from an RPG—equal to, I suppose, the demands of the gaming industry on our wallet. The price tag on games today blows me away. Like an earlier posting alluded to, you gotta shell out the casheesh to break in a new RPG. I remember the DnD DM’s Guide, Player’s Book and Monster Manual costing a whopping $45.00 altogether…LOL! I priced the essential rules book for the latest version of the Star Wars RPG, $40.00 alone

The age demographic has changed too. Back in the day there were few if any, adult players save the closed cadre of mover-and-shaker game authors, Gygax and Hargrave types, dudes who’d converted from the military strategy games that inspired the likes of Chainmail or the odd ball teacher (like me now…lol). Most players were young, young, young. I think that’s changed a lot…hell, I bet the average age of posters on this forum is around 45…LOL!…and is indicative of a sizable, for the most part mellow, majority with more mature tastes…the very same who as young gamers were condemned by the religious right as “imps of Satan” . Personally I think that lends itself to more quality in what does come out on the market. Like I mentioned above, we’re more discriminating in our choices and what we’re willing burn up our time on. I want to look back at the time I spend gaming or creating for gaming and feel it was worth not hanging out with my wife, practicing my bagpipes, writing, or playing with my granddaughter for a few hours once every so many weeks (this is probably the reason I gave up playing WoW and have been glad for it ever since). I want to feel it was time well spent, so I’m a little more wary than I was before about what I buy (On my honor, I have never owned Daughters of Darkness!).

I think that’s why I’m so excited about DBRP. Since the heady times of “world for a day,” I’ve stayed pretty true to Chaosium games and BRP: Rune Quest III sans Glorantha, Stormbringer first edition (that should date me hardcore), treasured Ring World, etc. and it warms the cockles of my heart to hear their echo in Jason’s work. It lends itself to that mentality which after seeing a movie on the Sci Fi channel that tickles the imagination can quickly whip up a game in that milieu without the need for slick and over-priced supplements. It’s a return to those gritty, fly-by-the-set-of-yer-kilts days when it was world-for-a-day and memories for life.

[Simlasa]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

RPGs have a lot in common with fiction.

If you WANT them to... otherwise no, they don't.
Not everyone plays RPGs to tell a 'story'... a lot of people play them for the immersive experience of being in a different place or time... sure, there's still a story to tell when you look back on it, but it's being written as it moves along without the overarching authorial care that goes into a written novel.
The hero, if there is one, might not be apparent until the end of the tale.

This whole idea of a roleplaying campaign telling some grand story with epic heros and memorable characterization is just one approach to it. It's not inherent to the game, it's a matter of taste.

That being said I've played in games that did all those things and had loads of fun... but to say a game group is in any way 'less' if it doesn't aim to carry that off... meh, I don't agree.

[TrippyHippy]

RPG books definitely getting fatter these days.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

If you WANT them to... otherwise no, they don't.
Not everyone plays RPGs to tell a 'story'... a lot of people play them for the immersive experience of being in a different place or time... sure, there's still a story to tell when you look back on it, but it's being written as it moves along without the overarching authorial care that goes into a written novel.
The hero, if there is one, might not be apparent until the end of the tale.

This whole idea of a roleplaying campaign telling some grand story with epic heros and memorable characterization is just one approach to it. It's not inherent to the game, it's a matter of taste.

That being said I've played in games that did all those things and had loads of fun... but to say a game group is in any way 'less' if it doesn't aim to carry that off... meh, I don't agree.

I never said that it has to be a grand story. THat is an misconception. It you look at a book, TV show or film around non heroric characters the same rules apply for the most part.

All the emements of a stroy are there. Generally they have to be. The immesnion experience not only involveds being someone else someplace else, but doing something interesting. You don't see CPA the Role playing Game on the shelf.

If the characters die off too fast, you can't accomplish much of anything. The overarching care is certainly there. It's called the GM. THe Gm's priamry job is to priovide challenges for the PCs to attempt to overcome (and to usually be successful in doing so). Adsvenutres are tailored towards the abilities of the characters.

Hoow often does a GM throw a 90% villian up against a group of starting characters. Fairly never. Why, because it would ruin things.

RPGs are not about win or lose they are about playing a role. Thats acting and that means a story. Maybe a partially free form story, but a story nonetheless.

There there is the problem of intergrating new characters into the old party. Changes in the balance of power that the GM needs to account for. It is really for the best if the PCs don't get killed.

That said. I consider the responsibility to avoid death to rest mostly on the shoulders of the players. If someone wants to hit the dragon tho "see what will happen" I don't have any sympathy for him,. Lots for the six other people who will probably get caught in the fray, but not for the stupid guy.


But really all of the narrative stuff is there, just under the guise of the GM.



I

[Simlasa]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I never said that it has to be a grand story. THat is an misconception. It you look at a book, TV show or film around non heroric characters the same rules apply for the most part.

I'm thinking of the recent film 'No Country For Old Men'... not a story with 'heroes', not a story that unfolds according to a 'heroic' scheme... mostly because of the focus. A few of the 'protagonists' die in that in ways that would seem to throw the story off kilter... but doesn't... unless you are locked into it being a certain sort of story... traditional, heroic... something.

If the characters die off too fast, you can't accomplish much of anything.

Well, I've never played in a game that had people being fed into a wood chipper one after another... the presence of real and present danger usually serves to make them act cautiously... which tends to reduce the likelihood of them dying in droves.

The overarching care is certainly there. It's called the GM. THe Gm's priamry job is to priovide challenges for the PCs to attempt to overcome (and to usually be successful in doing so). Adsvenutres are tailored towards the abilities of the characters.

Of course, but in the sense of it being 'literature' the GM doesn't (usually) try to guide the PCs along a carefully crafted dramatic storyline he/she has worked out... instead the story unfolds according to the actions/choices of the characters... both success and failure.
Some games, like COC, might require more upfront structure... to carry off that onion-skin of mystery... but from what I've seen/played... there is usually more than one solution and any particular failure may be a setback but nothing than can 'ruin' the game.
Especially with horror games... a total party kill and triumph of evil might very well be the correct outcome to capture the spirit of the genre.

RPGs are not about win or lose they are about playing a role. Thats acting and that means a story. Maybe a partially free form story, but a story nonetheless.

That's generally how I like to play, but I think a LOT of people play them in more of a 'win or lose' sort of way... more like a wargame... or a video game.
Even COC... much as I love it, is often less about character development and more about stopping the cultists... a definite win or lose situation.
But like I said... a story is going to come out of it, one way or another... failure is just as much a story as success is.

There there is the problem of intergrating new characters into the old party. Changes in the balance of power that the GM needs to account for. It is really for the best if the PCs don't get killed.

A new character can always be started with extra points/abilities if balance is really that big of a concern.

That said. I consider the responsibility to avoid death to rest mostly on the shoulders of the players. If someone wants to hit the dragon tho "see what will happen" I don't have any sympathy for him,. Lots for the six other people who will probably get caught in the fray, but not for the stupid guy.

Total agreement there... though if the guy has obviously been stupid up to that point I'd have to question why they continued to be around him... standing next to 'stupid' could be seen as a stupid action unto itself.
There are lots of real life consequences to hanging out with stupid, violent people.

But really all of the narrative stuff is there, just under the guise of the GM.

I'd agree... but 'narrative' of an RPG sort... not necessarily literature or film or video game... if I want to have great dramatic story with tight plotting and well defined characters I'll read a book... watch a film. If I want lots of cool action I'll play a video game...
An RPG should be able to exist as it's own form... without trying to reign in the conventions of some other medium. (I realize that's not what you were saying, I'm must babbling)

Really, I'm just trying to say that games that allow for character death, even absurd character death... are not better or worse than the purely cinematic kind where the hero is defined from the first and is obviously going to come to no real harm.
It's a matter of taste.
BRP allows for both sorts, and all shades in between... and I'm happy about that.
If I wanna play a Lensman game I can... if I want to play something nihilistic and deadly... I can do that too.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

If you WANT them to... otherwise no, they don't.
Not everyone plays RPGs to tell a 'story'... a lot of people play them for the immersive experience of being in a different place or time... sure, there's still a story to tell when you look back on it, but it's being written as it moves along without the overarching authorial care that goes into a written novel.
The hero, if there is one, might not be apparent until the end of the tale.

This actually highlights something that I see as a change in RPGs over the years. In the early years, and to this day for me because I'm stuck in my ways, our character's stories were what happened to them during the game. We had some background, including families, some vague description of what experienced characters had done, etc. that could be summed up in a paragraph or two. (Well, in SB we didn't, and in fact characters didn't come up the NPC sheet until they'd survived an adventure or two due to the mortality rate. ) However, now I see a lot of people showing up with multipage backgrounds telling their character's story. I frequently feel like the character's entire story has already been told and there's nothing else interesting to explore with the character. While I appreciate the idea of some plot hooks from the players for their characters, it's easy to get overboard too.

I think this ties into the modern trend to put lots of 2nd rate fiction *fluff* into game books. I'd much prefer a good barebones set of rules with some good feel, direction to them. To me, RQ2 still hits exactly the right amount of setting for examples, feel, etc. without overwhelming me with it. (Despite being a huge Glorantha fan, it and the Young Kingdoms are the only premade worlds I've ever played in and much of them is my own invention. World creation is a lot of the fun for me, and that even seems like a bit of a lost art from what I've seen....though that may more that it was a necessity way back and isn't so much anymore.)

This whole idea of a roleplaying campaign telling some grand story with epic heros and memorable characterization is just one approach to it. It's not inherent to the game, it's a matter of taste.

To me, the real art/beauty of an RPG is when this happens in the face of the odds, without me pulling any punches, etc. I have a longterm RQ/Glorantha campaign that's achieved this and part of the greatness of it is that the players pulled this off without me scripting it. That makes a richer story in the end to my mind.

I actually agree with the OP about railroading to a large extent. Even the basic old dungeon crawl isn't a railroad. The players have free choice about which direction to go at each crossroads. The classic Caves of Chaos (Keep on the Borderlands) from BD&D is a perfect example. It's a location and the players can do anything they want here: negotiate with the one group, make allies with one side to fight others, attack everything in sight, wander around the wilderness and never even make it to the caves, etc. There's no overarching plot that the GM has to force the players along. Most of the early published adventures were locales, including most of the RQ ones, and were completely open to how players wanted to interact with them. The Griffin Mountain and Pavis & Big Rubble campaign packs were full of this, with the notable exception of The Cradle adventure, which was very railroady but at least was a ton of fun. I've never been a big CoC player, but my impression is that most of those adventures fit the railroad description a bit more because you have plot points that require something to happen at one and then move on to the next. In fact, anything with a longterm plot is going to be more of a railroad than aimlessly wandering around, meeting creatures, killing them for EP, and taking their stuff (for more EP!).

Another thing that has changed from what I've seen is the free wheeling take on RPGing. I fit there, but in the early days there really wasn't a lot of choice. OD&D, T&T, and other early RPGs pretty much required a very open, interpretive take on rulings. RQ2 was a very tight, complete system at the time, and yet we still took the path of "what the author's meant" (or at least should have meant) over "what the author's said". (Traveler may have been more complete at this point, but I didn't discover it until the 80s and have yet to do more than character creation with it for some reason.)

Note: I should note that I discovered RPGs first out of my friends and have run ~90% of the games I've ever participated in, so my impressions can certainly be due to my interpretations and then teaching other people I game with...a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, most of my impressions of how games have changed haven't come from playing with other people, but from reading online discussions...however, I have done a lot of that over the years since I've been interneting since the old days of usenet (pre-web) in the late 80s, early 90s.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Sunwolfe

I remember the DnD DM’s Guide, Player’s Book and Monster Manual costing a whopping $45.00 altogether…LOL! I priced the essential rules book for the latest version of the Star Wars RPG, $40.00 alone

I don't have precise numbers available, but I'm pretty sure that the price in real dollars of RPGs hasn't changed much over the years.

The age demographic has changed too. Back in the day there were few if any, adult players save the closed cadre of mover-and-shaker game authors, Gygax and Hargrave types, dudes who’d converted from the military strategy games that inspired the likes of Chainmail or the odd ball teacher (like me now…lol). Most players were young, young, young. I think that’s changed a lot…hell, I bet the average age of posters on this forum is around 45…LOL!…and is indicative of a sizable, for the most part mellow, majority with more mature tastes…

I'd guess that the RPG hobby has aged, if for no other reason than it's been around long enough to have people grow up with the hobbie and continue in it. However, I'd guess that most of this observation is due to the fact that we've all aged and the people we interact with has also aged so naturally the people we see at the gaming table are older...like us! Any game board dedicated to a 30+ year old anything, like the original RQ/BRP, is naturally going to have an older demongraphic [typo intentionally left] than a board dedicated to a newer something, like current D&D or White Wolf for instance. I just wonder how much of the changes in RPGs we see is due to the fact that we've aged, along with everyone around us, as opposed to actual changes across the board. It's an interesting question.

the very same who as young gamers were condemned by the religious right as “imps of Satan” .

Funny BRP related story, I've posted on the net a few times before: my extended family is pretty hardcore religious right and were completely sold on "D&D is evil" in the early 80s. In fact, my cousins weren't allowed to participate at all with me when they visited. (I didn't play anything when they were around since it wouldn't have been polite to exclude them.) Their mother, my aunt, once came into my room when some friends were over playing Stormbringer. We made magic costly by emphasizing all the costs going into each summoning, which typically included human sacrifices: nothing too gory or detail - just enough to emphasize the cost and inherent evilness of magic in the campaign world. Anyhow, she walks in while the characters are down at the local slave market purchasing slaves for said sacrifice. We all stop mid-description. She asks what we're doing. I tell here we're playing Stormbringer. She asks if that's D&D, and I tell her truthfully that I don't play D&D anymore (total "no levels or classes" snob at this point). She looks around, smiles, and says, "Well, thats ok...just so long as you aren't playing D&D." It's all we can do to keep from breaking out in laughter before she leaves the room.

[Ken]

I think that for me this point needs clearing up.......... Railroading.

Is railroading a facet of scenario construction/writing or is it a type of GMing style?

To me it's the latter. It probably comes from one of 2 sources, either an inept/inexperienced GM that does not know how to integrate the PC's actions into the narrative of his game or the fact that the GM is a power-gamer and is himself playing to 'win'.

I've got most of those d&d/Ad&d modules (in PDF) and to be honest they are railroading scenarios. (Even though I love 'The Village of Homlett'). How many times did we see the closed boxes of text that GMs were to read out to players to tell them what was happening? Yes, players had choice to roam the dungeon at will but only after they had virtually been delivered to the entrance by Fed-Ex. In fact, Expert d&d acknowledged that it was more difficult to let the players do what they wanted by roaming wilderness areas, which is why it was introduced later and only on hex-maps.

If role-playing isn't like fiction then it is just a single figure war-game with no narrative, only contextual background setting. If thats your thing fine, the hobby can cope with that because that was the embryonic form of role-playing that we know today anyway.

When I started Role-playing, I found RQ2 and CoC early on. These were the esystems that have led me down the path of the style of RPGing that I currently enjoy.

I dislike a scenario (and these are usually the published ones for obvious reasons) where everything is static unless interacted with by the PCs. Where the creatures operate in a limbo until 'spawned' by players. This is little more than power-gaming (or computer gaming) with a veneer of narrative painted over it. The PCs can see through this when badly implemented and therefore feel as though they are being manipulated, i.e railroaded.

For me scenario construction/writing is about filling in the world and a timeline where NPCs go about their own business and instigate their plans irrespective of PC involvement. IMO the trick for the GM is to somehow introduce to the PCs the hint that something is happening so that they 'feel' interested enough to get involved. The 'interactive story-telling' comes from the agendas of the PCs colliding with the agendas of the NPCs. To me this is what RPGing is about. The GM has to know the NPCs inside out so that the story can flow from players and GM in an interesting way that is bound by the coherent, consistent world that has been painted by the GM. (This why I would disagree that CoC scenarios are designed to railroad players, the cultists plans don't even incorporate the PCs usually and will happen anyway). In short a lot of responsibility lies on the GM so that he can interact with Player choice and not railroad them down a particular avenue.

I seriously think that if you remove story/narrative and in some sense character arc, (even if its just a check for experience) then you have got little more than a boardgame. And if you look at the evolution of boardgames over the past there are some that have begun to replicate the RPG character sheet /stat padding / item hording type of play.

This has been a bit of a rant but it does suggest to me that both styles of RPGing are alive and well for players and GMs. (Narrative/story lead/character arc against stat-padding/item hording/dungeon bashing). I think there is room for both in the hobby and all are welcome around the table, as long as, we get to articulate where we've come from and accept that other people can conduct their hobby in the way that they like.

So the differing opinions that I've found in this thread, well I think they are valid for their own style of play. If BRP is going to be a cross-genre RPG system with the best of them. Let's see deep-background books next to item-books and dungeon bash scenarios. I'd just like to see BRP be a real contender and battle it out with the other big boys in the market. (And it's true that is because I'm a fanboy that holds dear a system that I fell in love with 25 years ago).

Here's to taking my +20 vorpal magic broadsword and hitting Cthulhu in the hope I can decapitate him with it.

Ken.

(P.S. Sunwolfe, loved your post. Brought back memories of hanging about the gaming shop at 14 amazed by all these worlds that I could spend time in. I lament not getting SB 1st edition and just might seek it out so I can spend a bit of time frothing over it as I would have as a teenager).

[Trifletraxor]

That was a good one!

SGL.