Quote from: Bren;879844Those terms are new to me. Is a player who uses the same gestures as their character is supposed to be using in the game world or who stands or moves as their character is supposed to stand or move in the game world intra-diegetic or extra-digetic?

Probably means them in this way:

QuoteIn video games, "diegesis" comprises the narrative game world, its characters, objects and actions which can be classified as "intra-diegetic". Status icons, menu bars and other UI which are not part of the game world itself can be considered as "extra-diegetic"; a game character does not know about them even though for the player they may present crucial information.

Quote from: ptingler;879872Probably means them in this way:

That was my reading of the terms as well, not a strict Platonic definition.

I do like those terms, because the "Interface Overlay" of a computer game that doesn't exist for the character in the game, but does exist for the player can perfectly describe OOC mechanics, whether the point is tactical, narrative or whatever, and doesn't carry with it the baggage of a thousand gaming forum flame wars.  

Too often the first battle of RPG arguments is definition debate, and going to the mattresses over terms means you never actually discuss anything, so it's used as a shutdown tool quite frequently.

I'll probably start a thread on this soon because I see it intersecting with discussions here and predict it might be useful in discussing the new Conan game.

I recognize the terms from art/film school... diagetic and non-diagetic music, being the music that is being played by some obvious source in the movie (car radio, lounge band, orchestra) vs. a soundtrack that exists outside of the cinematic space being viewed (pretty much all John Williams and Ennio Morricone music in films).

Quote from: CRKrueger;879849Hell, hook me up!  I'd love to get some good data on what parts of the brain are used at various times and points during an RPG session, especially if we're going to compare and contrast with reading, watching a movie, listening to music, public speaking, acting, etc...

I'm sure we can discuss what to compare and contrast with, when you meet the scientists. My job was only to provide your informed agreement;).

See, Mr. McStern? We needed only to ask nicely...

QuoteAs far as "Success with failure" or "Failure with success" I don't argue that such results can't happen.  They can.  Accordingly, a spectrum that includes them would be more "realistic".  

Yes, that was my point.

QuoteHowever, take any aspect of a setting or system, that aspect could be fine-tuned and made more granular to better map to reality.  You do that with everything and you get an unplayable game, so it's always a case of picking your battles and coming up with the right mix of extreme focus, focus, and hand-waving that works for you and your table.

Right. So you focus it as much as possible on things that go in the system's fundamentals, and not so much on stuff that only applies in some situations - because those fundamentals will apply across the widest range of cases.
The biggest fundamental is the rolling mechanic.
Which is why I like the "ands" and the "buts" to be included in the core resolution, Talislanta-style (and I can let the "butts" be one of the exception cases:D).

QuoteIn this specific case of "Success with failure" or "Failure with success" (hereafter called Sf/Fs) results, here's where you can't just ignore intent and structure.  In every case I can think of off the top of my head, whenever I have encountered an Sf/Fs system, the intent wasn't to better map task resolution to reality, the intent was to push story and drama, to place hooks used just for that purpose.

True, not all systems for achieving that are equal:)! The two I can think of off the top of my head, where the intent wasn't to provide drama AFAICT, are Talislanta and Mongoose Traveller 1e and 2e. Are you familiar with those?

QuoteNow you (AsenRG) don't care one bit about intent and purpose, I understand that, but if you're not aware of it or not paying attention to it, then you might miss that because it is supposed to be one of the main sources of narration generation in a game that has narration as a focus, then those results come up WAY more often then they would if we were working to map to reality.

That's why I pointed to Talislanta and MgT1&2, they seem quite realistic in frequency to me. For a game of MgT, you only have 2 numbers out of 11 that deal such a result - now, depending on the bonuses and difficulty, those might be up to 11/36...but that would mean you're completely average at the skill.
In Talislanta, it's almost fixed to be 25% of the time, which is only slightly higher than I would make it - but I suspect the reason is more to make the numbers on the table easy to remember. Of course, if you're seriously skilled, the odds fall sharply (and the odds for "success and bonus" raise correspondingly).

QuoteNow, you're a HEMA guy, so obviously you know combat is never just a set of static moves that succeed or fail, it is a flowing event where morale, momentum, initiative can rise and fall, and dramatically affect outcome.  In that sense, TRoS is right, what you are willing to fight, kill and die for does affect your ability.  Personally, I contend that this specifically is why you are so, accepting for lack of a better term, new school things like Sf/Fs, conflict resolution, genre conceits, etc because they make a lot more sense when the action is combat.  When the action is picking a lock, accessing a computer, sabotaging a car, not so much really.

Also, if you love tinkering with systems, then making them work despite themselves can be fun.

You're right on both accounts:D! What can I say?
Well, maybe I can add - from experience - that sometimes, when you make a narrative system work in a, shall we say, unexpected way, it has really cool features pre-installed;).

QuoteAs far as the new Conan, fool me once(WFRP3), shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.  You're looking to make that system work.  I could do the same I guess, to be honest I think it would be easier to make work than WFRP3, for example.  However, the time I spend doing that is better spent IMO, in taking the non-system elements and using them to enrich a RQ6 Conan game I already have going. YMMV.  I love tinkering with systems too, but sometimes you're just not using the best or even the right tool for what you're trying to accomplish and so you just put down the butter knife that was at hand and go to the toolbox to get a philips screwdriver.

If you have a RQ6 game going, I'd agree with you. Changing systems in the middle of campaign sucks.
Me, on the other hand? I don't have a Conan game going, so I can afford to tinker in the meantime;).
Unrelated info, last time I had to deal with such an issue, I didn't bother looking for a screwdriver, because the butter knife worked just fine. And I had just used it, so it was literally at hand:p!
Most importantly, I didn't need the screwdriver after that.

In short, there's time for tinkering, but once you've started work and it's going well, no need to change instruments. Of course, you can pick another set of instruments next time. I see that as applying to RPG systems just as much as it does to using physical instruments.

Quote from: CRKrueger;879849As far as the new Conan, fool me once(WFRP3), shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.  You're looking to make that system work.  I could do the same I guess, to be honest I think it would be easier to make work than WFRP3, for example.  However, the time I spend doing that is better spent IMO, in taking the non-system elements and using them to enrich a RQ6 Conan game I already have going. YMMV.

I'm loathe to get drawn into a debate about the new RQ, but as the line developer for Modiphius' new Conan game, I should clarify something here.

Conan uses the 2d20 system, which has no relation whatsoever to the system from WFRP 3rd edition and the new(ish) Star Wars games. You can check out the Conan quickstart here.

Jay Little was involved to some degree, but the earliest bones of the system can be found, interestingly, in a less-than-serious free game published a couple of years ago by Modiphius called Drifting Through Space, written by Michal Cross.

Quote from: Jason D;879961I'm loathe to get drawn into a debate about the new RQ, but as the line developer for Modiphius' new Conan game, I should clarify something here.

Conan uses the 2d20 system, which has no relation whatsoever to the system from WFRP 3rd edition and the new(ish) Star Wars games. You can check out the Conan quickstart here.

Jay Little was involved to some degree, but the earliest bones of the system can be found, interestingly, in a less-than-serious free game published a couple of years ago by Modiphius called Drifting Through Space, written by Michal Cross.

Right, but the system does have
1. Jay Little
2. Cinematic Design
3. Cumbersome Zone and Range band system instead of just...distances.
4. Funky symbol dice
In other words, similar crossovers between WFRP3 and FFGSW since the same guy designed to certain degrees all three systems.

But...those games didn't have the team you guys have, and you're the line developer, so my confidence in the final results is rising substantially.

BTW, how many drinks do we have to get you, to have you weigh in on the RuneQuest situation?

Quote from: CRKrueger;879989But...those games didn't have the team you guys have, and you're the line developer, so my confidence in the final results is rising substantially.

Thanks! I think it's going to be a hell of a game line. You would not believe the standards I'm holding the scenarios to.

Quote from: CRKrueger;879989BTW, how many drinks do we have to get you, to have you weigh in on the RuneQuest situation?

To quote The Bowler, "There's not enough booze in the world."

I think enough has been said that should probably have been privately discussed between the parties involved.

I'm not really in enough of "the know", and have no interest in weighing in on the situation with speculation or even venturing an opinion beyond that prior sentence.

Quote from: CRKrueger;878689The guys who wrote the RQ6 toolkit system, took the setting they loved the most and wrote the most complete and comprehensive collection of spells, cults, monsters for a setting probably ever.  It would have been the "Master's Class on adapting RQ6 to your favorite system."

This is for me one of the worst things to happen about all this. As it happens, I'm not concerned about Chaosium deciding that a new RQ is going to be based on RQ2 (even if I prefer RQ3 because it's the one that got translated into Spanish and the one I fell in love with and I'm currently running). I still prefer RQ6 to any other version of RQ, but if Chaosium's RQ is good I will buy it and play it. After all, Moon Design has done a terrific job regarding Glorantha: both HeroQuest Glorantha and the Guide are masterpieces, and the other stuff they published is really good. So I will wait and see.

OTOH, I'm happy that the RQ6 system remains in Pete and Loz's hands, because those guys are awesome and they have my business like, forever. So I will floow closely any product they release, and support them by buying their stuff.

Quote from: soltakss;879791So, stick with RQ6 and convert anything that comes out in the new form of RQ.

It should be pretty easy to do. You can use the concept of Special Effects and Combat Styles without needing them in RQ7. Sorcery might change, but sorcery has changed in every version of RQ except in RQ1 to RQ2, so no change there. Other things can be converted on the fly.

You might want to use some of the concepts from RQ7, but you don;t have to use the entire thing.

I hadn't noticed that post.
Yes, that's one option, for certain, and one I might decide on. But that's not my point.

My point was that the decision to scrap RQ6 Glorantha/AiG makes it harder for me to run any game in the Glorantha setting. I don't like it when people make it harder for me to run settings I like, and I like it even less when they're doing it by stopping the release of a book that was already written, or mostly written:).

So to be honest, I'd probably settle on running a different setting for my next campaign, and we'll see after that;).

So the guys at Design Mechanism have come up with a new name for their system, and released it into the wild. See here for more details: http://designmechanism.freeforums.org/and-the-new-name-is-t1465.html

Mythras then, it's going to be. I must admit it doesn't immediately grab me. I like the thinking behind it, but I'm having a hard time imagining this being the name of my go-to system for some reason. I'm not sure what it is, perhaps that it's the name of a god slightly befuddled with a y. Still, lest there be any doubt, I'm going to be in the front lines supporting the system and their fantastic line of supplements. DM have made a habit of great, well-written game materials, and I'm in their corner.

RuneQuest 6 is dead, long live Mythras!

Quote from: markfitz;880254RuneQuest 6 is dead, long live Mythras!

Yes, and to be honest, RuneQuest used to sound just as funny to me years ago, since it's a compound word with a non-obvious meaning:). GURPS also used to sound funny, for other reasons.

In either case, then I got used to playing them, and forgot that the name has ever bothered me;).

Quote from: Imperator;880062Chaosium deciding that a new RQ is going to be based on RQ2

Ironically, I'm convinced that Chaosium's claims that this new RQ7 will be based on RQ2 are just marketingspeak. What traits will RQ7 share with RQ6, that RQ2 doesn't have?

• Combat styles
• No separate attack and defense skill
• No general hit points
• Skills based on characteristic + characteristic

To me, this future RQ7 will resemble RQ6 without Special Effects, according to what the Chaosium people have said.

Quote from: markfitz;880254RuneQuest 6 is dead, long live Mythras!

The new name didn't grab me right off, but it also didn't annoy me... unlike whatever Alephtar is calling their new D100-ish Frankengame.

Mythras is short, foregrounds the MYTH bit... and is just distinctive enough without being goofy. No articles or ampersands cluttering it up.
I like it.

MYTHRAS...not sure if this name Mythras really grabs me yet, but it's certainly not the wrong name... I was holding out for it to be called 'MYTHICA', so I guess close enough is good enough for me

At least the name resonates with the 'Mythic' line

Perhaps we may see Pete's excellent BRP ROME and MRQ2 VIKINGS fully ported over into this system, to compliment the brilliant MYTHIC BRITAIN and the possibility of MYTHIC GREECE.

Magic systems can be fiddled with, but as long as the core system remains consistent with RQ6 then I'll be counted as a MYTHRAS customer.

It's gonna be exciting days ahead!

Quote from: Claudius;880282Ironically, I'm convinced that Chaosium's claims that this new RQ7 will be based on RQ2 are just marketingspeak. What traits will RQ7 share with RQ6, that RQ2 doesn't have?

• Combat styles
• No separate attack and defense skill
• No general hit points
• Skills based on characteristic + characteristic

To me, this future RQ7 will resemble RQ6 without Special Effects, according to what the Chaosium people have said.

Just a few clarifications. RQ has combined weapons (sword and shield, frex) as a single skill, which is functionally the same as combat styles. But not the other elements of combat styles.

Weapon skill includes attack and parry.

RQ has general hit points.

Skills have base chances, skill category modifiers, plus cultural modifiers. We initially were using characteristic + characteristic, but changed that after early playtesting feedback.