Of course, if you are planting skill use in a RuneQuest adventure for them to gain experience, that doesn't suggest going with skills that are the player's strengths. A chance to use your Jump skill, which is still at the starting default of 15% is a lot more likely result in an increase than than a chance to use your Listen skill which has already reached 80%.

While the book is suggesting an adventure should include skill checks, that doesn't mean it is suggesting you need to tailor the adventure to "ping" the skills the group is good at. A random, realistic assortment of skill checks that make sense in the adventure environment is probably going to have a good balance of chances to use skills you have improved and ones that you could use practice in.

Quote from: Baulderstone;1010457Of course, if you are planting skill use in a RuneQuest adventure for them to gain experience, that doesn't suggest going with skills that are the player's strengths. A chance to use your Jump skill, which is still at the starting default of 15% is a lot more likely result in an increase than than a chance to use your Listen skill which has already reached 80%.

While the book is suggesting an adventure should include skill checks, that doesn't mean it is suggesting you need to tailor the adventure to "ping" the skills the group is good at. A random, realistic assortment of skill checks that make sense in the adventure environment is probably going to have a good balance of chances to use skills you have improved and ones that you could use practice in.

An excellent point, and I shouldn't have written anything about the "skills the PCs are good at."

As for all the ways to play RuneQuest -- there are all the ways. I made a reference to it because of a passage in the text. I'm not knocking the game, nor using it as an example of "Bad RPGs." In fact, it is on my list of games I would love to play. So anyone wanting to arrive and defend the game is an awesome person -- but I feel a need now to point out no one is defending it from me -- because I'm not attacking it.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1010454For full info: The passage I quoted above is from page 102 of RuneQuest 2nd. (The fact that RQ1 said "most" is fascinating.)

As for the Traveller adventures... yeah. Adventure 1: The Kinunir had no pregens, and to this day remains for me the "most Classic Traveller" of the Classic Traveller adventures in its open ended nature and scope. As the Classic Traveller adventure line continued they became more linear, more dependent on having the correct skills, and, in general, more in line with the changing tastes of the RPG hobby.

There was things thing called Traveller... and then the expectations of the hobby changed, and the products released by GDW changed around the rules of Traveller even as the rules remained the same.

This, in my view, led to a lot of confusion as to why the game did not "work" -- when in fact it works fine if you use to do what it was supposed to do.

Oh, I agree the direction the Traveller adventures took the "game" is very different from the game described in the 3 LBB. It's just interesting that RQ described something in the rules that was more like where Traveller adventures headed, while the RQ adventures initially at least were more of a sandbox, though they did also go the route of meta plot, but without sample characters, the skill check opportunities weren't tailored to the presumed PCs.

I think the reality is that both games actually started off with the same style of sandbox play, and both followed the hobby into a different style of play, and in fact, both are among the several games with mega-settings that inspire discussion and debate totally divorced from actually sitting down at the table, and both settings don't actually work with the rules...

In truth, a sandbox Traveller GM is going to offer many situations the PCs might be interested in, in part because their skills may be applicable (all the PCs are marines and army, the GM probably won't present them with many situations requiring operation of a star ship), and players are going to chase the situations they think they can succeed in.

Frank

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1010458An excellent point, and I shouldn't have written anything about the "skills the PCs are good at."

As for all the ways to play RuneQuest -- there are all the ways. I made a reference to it because of a passage in the text. I'm not knocking the game, nor using it as an example of "Bad RPGs." In fact, it is on my list of games I would love to play. So anyone wanting to arrive and defend the game is an awesome person -- but I feel a need now to point out no one is defending it from me -- because I'm not attacking it.

Cool, I didn't think you were attacking it... For what it's worth, as a dedicated RQ fan from 1978, I do intend to eventually tackle an RQ1 vs RQ2 comparison in the same vein as I did for Classic Traveller. I might even include RQ 3... The big difference between how I view RQ and Traveller is that for RQ, I will use the setting, but I don't buy into the setting geekery that started to grow. I will run RQ in MY Glorantha.

Frank

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1010426Never said you were doing it wrong.

Oh! I wasn't taking it that way... or rather, I sincerely thought I might be doing it wrong... which apparently I am.
I'm sure I'd read that passage in RQ2 several times but I guess I took it in a more general way... 'give them stuff to do'.
But I kinda don't care anyway because I've got no intention of starting to run adventures in such a way to make sure that PCs get power ups. I figure that it's up to them to direct their efforts towards stuff they're interested in... if they choose to spend all their time out in the wilderness they're probably going to gain on the relevant skills... while skills that might help them out in courtly intrigues will be dormant. That's what I always liked about the RQ/BRP XP system, your character becomes the character you play... you become a 'thief' by doing 'thief stuff'. One of my few gripes with Mythras is how they altered the XP system.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1010416I see your point about the rolling being different than an automatic success. But whether or not the use of the skill or spell is rolled isn't the issue at hand for me in this analogy, so the fact that there isn't a 1:1 comparison doesn't concern me. My point was to compare how we have come to think of skills today (a long list that can handle almost all things a human can do, with the skills on the character sheet being the go-to default for characters doing things), to the list of original Traveller (idiosyncratic and short, not at all a complete list of human talents and abilities, in a game where we simply talk between players as the default with the Referee making adjudications as needed, with rolling dice and maybe adding a skill DM not as the default for resolving issues but as the backup plan when the conversation element isn't enough for the Referee to make a call.) In such cases the use of a Situation Throw involving any number of the Traveller skills can make the journey of repairing a damaged engine (trek across this endless waste to reach civilization, and then kidnap a mechanic when no one at the starport is willing to help you) to a single roll that solves everything quickly.

Well, yes, it can. Or you can roll 4 on the dice (1/6 odds), and your Mechanic skill ain't going to be enough... Compare with Mending, where there's no such chance.

QuoteWhether or not the party has someone with Mechanical skill, the ship can still be repaired. It simply might not be with a Situation Throw involving a Mechanical skill as a DM. It might be a whole adventure.

Indeed. From that point, it's a shortcut.
But there's always just two options to solve any problem. "Solve it yourself", and "find someone who can".

Quote(In other words, the point is not to supply adventures the "ping" the skills the party has. It is to provide adventures. And if the skills are there to make the lives of the party easier, great. If not, their lives are more complicated. Pinging skills in RuneQuest, by contrast, is part of how the game works -- because skill advancement is done through rolling the skills. Classic Traveller does not work this way.)

I've always played Runequest in the same way. If you can't roll a
Given the odds of failing a skill, you'd often need to play Runequest the same way. Because nobody made the roll:)!

QuoteI need to make it clear when I speak about mechanics I'm not talking solely about how one "rolls the dice" -- which is, I know, how most people defined RPG mechanics. I'm talking about how all the procedures fit together during play. That Classic Traveller is defined, on page 1 of Book 1, as a "conversation game" is a big statement about how play proceeds, and thus the mechanics of play.

The definition of "mechanics" as "how we roll the dice" is how we get lots of RPGs in which we look at our character sheet for what number to roll to solve problems, instead of focusing on the "conversation" part in which we simply talk, with the PCs coming up with out of the box ideas, often precluding the the need for die rolls.

I agree with the statement. But today, the same statement in PbtA games leads to cries of [STRIKE]"burn the heretic"[/STRIKE] "dirty narrativist"... Apocalypse World, for example, states it explicitly that the game is a conversation. That's why "when the conversation stalls", the Referee makes one of his Moves to liven it up.

QuoteTo swing it all around, I think early D&D (and clones like LotFP) often work the same way. Which makes sense. Games like OD&D, original Traveller, and B/X D&D grew from a different soil than later RPGs.

I'd say that all decent games run by good Referees run that way.

QuoteAs for BoL... I've played it and it's charming. But it does what later games do -- codifies all things down the character sheet for the roll to solve problems every time.

Wait, what? I'm not talking about how it works, that's down to the Referee.
I'm talking about the fact that you say that "Classic Traveller skills are things that you can get paid for doing". That's exactly what "skills" in BoL are, too - there's a reason they're named Careers.
And you can do everything else, too.
A well-played BoL game is also a conversation.

QuoteI'm really much more interested in these earlier RPGs that work more from the conversation between Referee and Players that does not depend on rolling as the default method of the PCs taking action. Things are much more freeform, with the conversation and evocative narration of how the PCs do things sometimes precluding the need for rolls, and providing ad hoc DMs if rolls are required.

Yeah, me too. That is why I like Powered by the Apocalypse games, and don't consider them "narrativist".

Quote from: estar;1010456Also another form of advancement in Runequest 2 is paying for training. If you want a broken Runequest character just get a lot of money, a GM who is lack on roleplaying the setting, and take advantage of every form of training.

To be fair, it works like that in Traveller, too. You just need access to teachers and time. Get enough money to support yourself for 12 years, couple it with money for anagathics, and you can get real good, real fast, even in Classic Traveller - and it would only be faster in other editions.

Quote from: ffilz;1010459I think the reality is that both games actually started off with the same style of sandbox play, and both followed the hobby into a different style of play,

That's news for me.

Quoteand both settings don't actually work with the rules...

That's also news for me;).

Quote from: Simlasa;1010482That's what I always liked about the RQ/BRP XP system, your character becomes the character you play... you become a 'thief' by doing 'thief stuff'. One of my few gripes with Mythras is how they altered the XP system.

There's no problem altering it back;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1010693To be fair, it works like that in Traveller, too. You just need access to teachers and time. Get enough money to support yourself for 12 years, couple it with money for anagathics, and you can get real good, real fast, even in Classic Traveller - and it would only be faster in other editions.

Not in Books 1-3 Traveller. There you get one opportunity per character to spend 4 years and 70 kcr to gain a level 2 skill for teachers and time. Self improvement doesn't take money, but takes 8 years for permanent improvements (only 4 years if you are picking up new gun and blade skills).

Quote

QuoteI think the reality is that both games actually started off with the same style of sandbox play, and both followed the hobby into a different style of play,

That's news for me.

What I'm getting at is that the books present sandbox play, and even early adventures were sandboxes. But as time went on, the adventures became railroads. Look at the "Secret of the Ancients" series for Traveller, or Borderlands for RuneQuest.

Quote

Quoteand both settings don't actually work with the rules...

That's also news for me;).

Both settings have folks talking about ways in which the original rules don't work for the settings. Traveller Books 1-3 world generation and ship travel don't mesh with the 3I. Greg Stafford himself talked about how the RQ rules got it wrong. Heck, even MAR Barker diverged from the EPT rules for Tekumel.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1010710Not in Books 1-3 Traveller. There you get one opportunity per character to spend 4 years and 70 kcr to gain a level 2 skill for teachers and time. Self improvement doesn't take money, but takes 8 years for permanent improvements (only 4 years if you are picking up new gun and blade skills).

That's why I said 12 years and enough money;). Now make that 210 kcr, plus the cost for anagathics for 12 years, plus upkeep... about half a megacredit?

QuoteWhat I'm getting at is that the books present sandbox play, and even early adventures were sandboxes.

Yes. Which is why your statement that they don't, surprised me.

QuoteBut as time went on, the adventures became railroads. Look at the "Secret of the Ancients" series for Traveller, or Borderlands for RuneQuest.

As a general rule, I don't use adventures. So while I'm ready to believe you...I consider them irrelevant to the game itself.
Well, at least I understand your meaning now:). But I respectfully disagree.

QuoteBoth settings have folks talking about ways in which the original rules don't work for the settings. Traveller Books 1-3 world generation and ship travel don't mesh with the 3I. Greg Stafford himself talked about how the RQ rules got it wrong.

Yes, I know. I just happen to disagree with said people, at least regarding Runequest.
Yes, that includes Greg Stafford. If anything, I think something like Pendragon, except with d100, would have been better for Glorantha. But since it's obvious to me that Pendragon is an evolution of Runequest, I can't blame anyone for not discovering the "evolved" rules from the start.
As for the Third Imperium, I don't use it for Traveller. I thought you're talking about the implied setting - sorry for misunderstanding you;)!
And I think T5 might be a good reflection of the 3I, but I can't really tell.

QuoteHeck, even MAR Barker diverged from the EPT rules for Tekumel.

That was to be expected. AFAIK, the setting of Tekumel predates the writing of any rules for it by a couple decades at least;)!

Quote from: AsenRG;1010727That's why I said 12 years and enough money;). Now make that 210 kcr, plus the cost for anagathics for 12 years, plus upkeep... about half a megacredit?

I wasn't sure if you were referring to the Instruction skill introduced in Book 4. The experience rules limit a character to a single sabbatical though. Not saying you can't change the rules (and they do mention GM crafted alternatives), just pointing out that what is presented in the rules is pretty limited.

QuoteYes. Which is why your statement that they don't, surprised me.

Well, there's just that one line in RQ1/2 about providing opportunities for the PCs to use their skills, but that still isn't a railroad.

Traveller adventures became railroads much quicker (DA2 forces the start for both it's scenarios) compared to RQ adventures, but overall, I think they were just following the industry, D&D adventures became more railroaded as time went on. While not everyone uses adventures, a significant number of folks do so they do give an idea of what the overall gaming community is like.

QuoteYes, I know. I just happen to disagree with said people, at least regarding Runequest.
Yes, that includes Greg Stafford. If anything, I think something like Pendragon, except with d100, would have been better for Glorantha. But since it's obvious to me that Pendragon is an evolution of Runequest, I can't blame anyone for not discovering the "evolved" rules from the start.
As for the Third Imperium, I don't use it for Traveller. I thought you're talking about the implied setting - sorry for misunderstanding you;)!
And I think T5 might be a good reflection of the 3I, but I can't really tell.


That was to be expected. AFAIK, the setting of Tekumel predates the writing of any rules for it by a couple decades at least;)!

Obviously the rules work for the implied setting since that's the setting derived from the rules...

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1010728I wasn't sure if you were referring to the Instruction skill introduced in Book 4. The experience rules limit a character to a single sabbatical though. Not saying you can't change the rules (and they do mention GM crafted alternatives), just pointing out that what is presented in the rules is pretty limited.

OK, I'd forgotten about the "single sabbatical" part:). Still, I read it as "without adventures in-between".

QuoteWell, there's just that one line in RQ1/2 about providing opportunities for the PCs to use their skills, but that still isn't a railroad.

Agreed.

QuoteTraveller adventures became railroads much quicker (DA2 forces the start for both it's scenarios) compared to RQ adventures, but overall, I think they were just following the industry, D&D adventures became more railroaded as time went on. While not everyone uses adventures, a significant number of folks do so they do give an idea of what the overall gaming community is like.

I contest that "they give an idea of what the overall community is like". For the people that don't use them, they're no indication.
If all of the industry was to switch to railroaded adventures tomorrow, it would be years before I even noticed...and I wouldn't change my approach one bit as a result;).

QuoteObviously the rules work for the implied setting since that's the setting derived from the rules...

By "implied setting", I mean "the setting of 70ies SF novels and shows, not "whatever the rules hint at:D"! Apologies for the misunderstanding, here.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1010210Names. Specific names. What specific people say things like "this is how the OSR is supposed to be played!" or are the "you guys" in "You guys are pissed now that other people are getting tired of the fad, I get that."

Who?

What's the point? Are you denying this attitude exists? Are you going to pretend that this isn't something that a bunch of Grognard edgelords have been pushing in the OSR for years now?

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1010244DFD 2nd Ed. tells the Referee to place a McGuffin the PCs are seeking behind the Sacred Parasite that stands in the same spot where the vine-thing is in the first edition. One PC got around the creature without making it stop singing and reached the McGuffin. It was risky and they lucked out... but decided the risk was worth it to get the McGuffin.

How did he manage that? Is it in the book? Because I don't recall there being any option to 'get around the creature' in 1e. If not, you basically just made up a way to avoid the thing that I'm arguing makes DFD a negadungeon and are thus calling it not-a-negadungeon, because, again, you cheated.

Quote from: estar;1010272So which subset of the OSR is next on your hit list? The gonzo crowd? The sandbox guys like myself and Autarch(ACKS)?

I've never seen any Gonzo types saying "all OSR play should be gonzo, that was the real way they did it in Real-Old-School-Times, and anyone not making their game gonzo is some kind of pussy".

Nor for that matter with sandbox; though some sandbox fans can sometimes get a bit pushy about extolling the virtues of the method.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1011357I've never seen any Gonzo types saying "all OSR play should be gonzo, that was the real way they did it in Real-Old-School-Times, and anyone not making their game gonzo is some kind of pussy".

Maybe the unnamed guys who insist all OSR play should be gonzo are hanging out with your unnamed friends who insist all OSR play should be negadungeons. They both seem equally plausible.

Quote from: Baulderstone;1011368Maybe the unnamed guys who insist all OSR play should be gonzo are hanging out with your unnamed friends who insist all OSR play should be negadungeons. They both seem equally plausible.

I think

Quoteis some kind of pussy".

is the insult directed at negadungeons.