RuneQuest Pirates question about cinematic play
- Thread starter daddystabz
- Start date
PhilHibbs said:
Not quite sure I understand what you're getting at, here Phil. I wouldn't call a game that only lasted 2 or 3 scenarios, unless they were freaking mammoth, a campaign. That kind of thing is more like an extended adventure or "dungeon-of-the-week". I suppose it also depends on your definition of a scenario - to me a scenario is a series of linked encounters, probably between 3 & 6 (an adventure). And a campaign is a linked series of scenarios sharing a theme or with an overriding plot arc. Certainly a campaign IMO would be made up of at least a half dozen or more scenarios. But hey, that's just my opinion. In our current game, I haven't really got it broken down into clear cut segments as I'm making it up as I go based on the PC's actions. I do have an overall picture of stuff I want to happen and we're slowly working towards that.
Maybe I've been unlucky, but I've seen a lot of games that didn't really get off the ground for various reasons, usually that people didn't really feel like they had a good connection to their characters or the setting. If the characters get off on the wrong foot then that can lead to conflict that can be taken personally by one or more players, etc. To be honest some of those short-lived games were Cyberpunk which is somewhat legendary for that kind of thing.
I was using the term 'campaign' loosely, basically the same game with the same characters, not implying any great plot arc.
I was using the term 'campaign' loosely, basically the same game with the same characters, not implying any great plot arc.
Deleriad
Mongoose
I do think that hero points and how skills are used are more important than absolute skill levels.
For example, one way to up the cinematic level is to have Hero Points that refresh after each session savage worlds style. E.g. each PC starts with 3 HPs and gets them back after each session. That way you also discourage hoarding.
Similarly if a PC wants to swing on a chandelier and attack rather than asking for multiple rolls and/or giving penalties: give bonuses to the skill roll.
i.e. give bonuses for buckling your swash and penalties for being a bean counter.
Personally I wouldn't put a skill cap on starting PCs. If someone is trying to rig a character so they have 90% in their best skill they'll just fall over somewhere else. That said, I don't think it's an important issue. More important is being generous with Hero Points and not penalising swashbuckling play. Even when some does fail while swashbuckling, the failure should perhaps lead to a bonus down the line. If nothing else a failure while acting in character could lead to an immediate Hero Point. A lot of people overlook the option in the rulebook to give HPs in mid-session.
Hope it's fun.
For example, one way to up the cinematic level is to have Hero Points that refresh after each session savage worlds style. E.g. each PC starts with 3 HPs and gets them back after each session. That way you also discourage hoarding.
Similarly if a PC wants to swing on a chandelier and attack rather than asking for multiple rolls and/or giving penalties: give bonuses to the skill roll.
i.e. give bonuses for buckling your swash and penalties for being a bean counter.
Personally I wouldn't put a skill cap on starting PCs. If someone is trying to rig a character so they have 90% in their best skill they'll just fall over somewhere else. That said, I don't think it's an important issue. More important is being generous with Hero Points and not penalising swashbuckling play. Even when some does fail while swashbuckling, the failure should perhaps lead to a bonus down the line. If nothing else a failure while acting in character could lead to an immediate Hero Point. A lot of people overlook the option in the rulebook to give HPs in mid-session.
Hope it's fun.
Deleriad said:
How would you handle purchasing heroic abilities? Buy with IRs?
Deleriad said:
I agree -if I were unhappy with characters startimg with 75-80% in their best skills, I would just give fewer Free Skill points and cap allocation at 20 instead of 30. That would make it hard to get a skill up to 65% or more.
tarkhan bey
Mongoose
For the life of me, I really don't understand why anybody would want to place an arbitrary cap on skill points in a cinematic styled adventure or campaign. For me, it just doesn't fit.I have been thinking about the earlier comments on humble beginnings, humour and humiliation.
Taking the examples of Jack Sparrow and Will Turner.
I think that in MRQ terms Jack is a master level character at the start, moving up to Hero by the end of the trilogy.(Haven't seen On Stranger Tides). I think that he is 'hiding his light under a bushel' at the start. He already is a swashbuckling Hero but you just don't know it because he doesn't fit the standard archetype. Most of the traditional swashbucklers, such as Zorro, D'artagnan, De Recchi(The Flashing Blade), and Captain Blood are fine and upstanding, selfless rather than selfish.
Will, on the other hand, is definately a novice. However, having witnessed how he more than held his own in the duel against Jack in the smithy, I think he shows how humble beginnings do not necessarily equate to low skill points in MRQ. Will has quite obviously maxed out his 1H Sword ability.
On the subject of humiliation, I think that it would be rare indeed, in a cinematic swashbuckler, for the hero to be humiliated. I think that starting characters at higher experience levels or starting them as 'gifted novices'(using the loads of Hero points option) are the best ways to avoid killing the cinematic feel.
My final thoughts are on humour. I think that humour should 'rarely' be at the expense of the hero in this style of game.
Taking the examples of Jack Sparrow and Will Turner.
I think that in MRQ terms Jack is a master level character at the start, moving up to Hero by the end of the trilogy.(Haven't seen On Stranger Tides). I think that he is 'hiding his light under a bushel' at the start. He already is a swashbuckling Hero but you just don't know it because he doesn't fit the standard archetype. Most of the traditional swashbucklers, such as Zorro, D'artagnan, De Recchi(The Flashing Blade), and Captain Blood are fine and upstanding, selfless rather than selfish.
Will, on the other hand, is definately a novice. However, having witnessed how he more than held his own in the duel against Jack in the smithy, I think he shows how humble beginnings do not necessarily equate to low skill points in MRQ. Will has quite obviously maxed out his 1H Sword ability.
On the subject of humiliation, I think that it would be rare indeed, in a cinematic swashbuckler, for the hero to be humiliated. I think that starting characters at higher experience levels or starting them as 'gifted novices'(using the loads of Hero points option) are the best ways to avoid killing the cinematic feel.
My final thoughts are on humour. I think that humour should 'rarely' be at the expense of the hero in this style of game.
michaelsbagley
Mongoose
Why someone would put a cap on skills... To encourage character skill development rather than combat min-maxing.... Or in my 15 year absence from RPGs has min-maxing become an accepted or encouraged practice? Or has it become so all pervasive that folks have stopped caring? Or am I a rather rare style of player/DM who cares more about story and integrating non-combat/non-action type skills into a game?
I'm glad to see a mix of attitudes regarding this matter, as the truth is there is no right or wrong way, and should be variety... Maybe I need to reconsider and search out folks with attitudes closer to mine (no easy feat considering how difficult it is to meet gamers being the generally shy lot they are)
I'm glad to see a mix of attitudes regarding this matter, as the truth is there is no right or wrong way, and should be variety... Maybe I need to reconsider and search out folks with attitudes closer to mine (no easy feat considering how difficult it is to meet gamers being the generally shy lot they are)
michaelsbagley said:
Power gamers are still out there. My crew are all min-maxers. Depending on how they handle things in the future that may come back and bite them on the posterior, I hope so. I think min-maxing has become...more accepted, but it also depends a lot on where your group of players have come from and by that I don't just mean game system I'm also talking about style of play. Our group are all ex D&D and for quite some time we used published adventures which were very heavy on combat as we all enjoyed the 'hack'n'slash' style of play. That's why I like this system so much. As there isn't the plethora of published stuff (for Elric in particular) like there is for D&D, as a GM you have to basically create your own adventures and you can tailor them to suit the style of play you want. I, personally, don't happen to agree with capping skills etc, but it's your game run it how you see fit. From your posts it seems like you've been upfront with the players regarding what you're trying to accomplish so if individuals don't like it perhaps they should look elsewhere for a game, or run their own.
That's kind of a 'have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife' question. There was a time when I would have looked down my nose at someone who spent time working out how their character could be most effective. Of course, I did it myself, which just made me want to sneer at others all the more to smokescreen my own teenage munchkinnery. Now, my thinking is - why should I be judgemental about how someone wants to have fun? If someone prefers to concentrate on the game mechanics rather than the 'purer' roleplaying side of the hobby, who am I to say that that is in any way an inferior source of fun than any other?michaelsbagley said:
The two are not incompatible either.
You can be an avid role-player, wanting to 'round-out' your character and get heavily into character development etc... and still want what you do decide to spend your points on to be optimized and done with an intelligent use of your resources/points.
You can be an avid role-player, wanting to 'round-out' your character and get heavily into character development etc... and still want what you do decide to spend your points on to be optimized and done with an intelligent use of your resources/points.
tarkhan bey
Mongoose
That's exactly my feelings on the subject as well Vortigern.
MRQ is quite deadly. My players and I invest a lot of time and effort in putting together backstory and motivation for their characters. For me, min/maxing means maximising character survivability and minimising the chance of our efforts being undone over 1 or 2 sessions.
I should like to point out that none of my players are power gamers, they have long since evolved out of that style of gaming. The story is the key and there have been many entire sessions where a dice is not rolled, let alone rolled in a combat situation.
Combat inevitably happens though and I as a GM can only allow so much fudging.
MRQ is quite deadly. My players and I invest a lot of time and effort in putting together backstory and motivation for their characters. For me, min/maxing means maximising character survivability and minimising the chance of our efforts being undone over 1 or 2 sessions.
I should like to point out that none of my players are power gamers, they have long since evolved out of that style of gaming. The story is the key and there have been many entire sessions where a dice is not rolled, let alone rolled in a combat situation.
Combat inevitably happens though and I as a GM can only allow so much fudging.
