Quote from: beejazz;378187But it's reminding me that the only supers games I've played are Marvel FASERIP, which is way too rolly and random for me, and M&M which is way to in-depth buildy for me... is Champions okay?

Word of warning: I picked up Champions as a .pdf fairly recently off DriveThru, assuming that something with that many pages would have complete core rules, and it turned out to mostly be guidelines for using the full Hero System book (I now have that too).
If you find M&M too in-depth buildy, I'd back away slowly from Champions. Its ultra-detailed and detail-heavy to a great extent -including basic figured attributes like OCV there's about 17 basic statistics, and its a bit clunky - tonnes of exceptions and specific subsystems for everything. I know plenty of people love it, but I think its an acquired taste.

Quote from: Peregrin;378197

Seriously, guys?

That one's awesome. Made me laugh!

I love the elevated level of discussion here. Good things there's no moderation - otherwise we'd miss out on people calling each other cunts all the time.

Quote from: beejazz;378187But it's reminding me that the only supers games I've played are Marvel FASERIP, which is way too rolly and random for me, and M&M which is way to in-depth buildy for me... is Champions okay?

Champions is around 4x more complex than Mutants and Masterminds, both in character building and in actually playing.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378249Champions is around 4x more complex than Mutants and Masterminds, both in character building and in actually playing.

Pfft. Character building is a pain; playing is simple. Best superhero game ever.

Quote from: Thanlis;378263Pfft. Character building is a pain; playing is simple. Best superhero game ever.

Champions is the game I learned to hate d6 dice pools with.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;378174Actually I highly doubt Benoist and others would be so obnoxious face-to-face. The fact that he (and others) construed my response as a threat as opposed to a call to reality (that such behavior wouldn't fly in person with normal people) is testament to how internet anonymity only helps to feed antisocial behavior.

You know, I took it that way as well.
I look back, and your comment was more of a 'I bet you would not act that way face-to-face' type of comment.  I internally translated it as something pugnacious, due to the 'internet anonymity=brass balls' corrollary, but I see now that the comment could have been read in different ways.

I guess in terms of balance and New School, I really don't believe there is a 'new school', and that the term 'Old School' still needs to be clarified when used.  
Vintage works, but it really could encompass too much.  I still consider RQ and C&S vintage.

Quote from: LordVreeg;378284I guess in terms of balance and New School, I really don't believe there is a 'new school', and that the term 'Old School' still needs to be clarified when used.  
Vintage works, but it really could encompass too much.  I still consider RQ and C&S vintage.

Runequest was published in 1978, why would that not be vintage?  If you are talking about one of the newer versions, I can't say for sure, I don't know how much it has changed.  I would certainly say Mongoose Traveller has kept the feel of the original, if not most of the mechanics. I have no problems with that being referred to as 'vintage'.  If the current version of RQ is substantially similar to the original, I would advance no arguments to say it is not 'vintage' as well.

I am having some trouble placing C&S, though, unless you mean C&C?  Castles and Crusades?  Whether or not that is 'retro-clone', 'old school' or 'vintage' will likely be hotly debated for years to come.     Personally, I wouldn't put it on my list of vintage games, I think it has too many d20 elements in it.  Put I an neither the purveyor nor prophet of what is and is not vintage.  If you dig it, great.  I don't care for that unified task resolution stuff.  Even on a basic, probability level, there is something that feels off about the using the same odds progression for everything, especially when it is so granular.  It's like everything comes in 5% chunks of possible success.

Quote from: LordVreeg;378284I really don't believe there is a 'new school', and that the term 'Old School' still needs to be clarified when used.

Agree.

Quote from: StormBringer

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreeg I guess in terms of balance and New School, I really don't believe there is a 'new school', and that the term 'Old School' still needs to be clarified when used.
Vintage works, but it really could encompass too much. I still consider RQ and C&S vintage.

Runequest was published in 1978, why would that not be vintage? If you are talking about one of the newer versions, I can't say for sure, I don't know how much it has changed. I would certainly say Mongoose Traveller has kept the feel of the original, if not most of the mechanics. I have no problems with that being referred to as 'vintage'. If the current version of RQ is substantially similar to the original, I would advance no arguments to say it is not 'vintage' as well.

I am having some trouble placing C&S, though, unless you mean C&C? Castles and Crusades? Whether or not that is 'retro-clone', 'old school' or 'vintage' will likely be hotly debated for years to come.  Personally, I wouldn't put it on my list of vintage games, I think it has too many d20 elements in it. Put I an neither the purveyor nor prophet of what is and is not vintage. If you dig it, great. I don't care for that unified task resolution stuff. Even on a basic, probability level, there is something that feels off about the using the same odds progression for everything, especially when it is so granular. It's like everything comes in 5% chunks of possible success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry_and_Sorcery
Chivalry and Sorcery.
1977.  We were using it right after it came out.  Much more in-depth and simulationsist...
Which my issue.  Does Vintage refer to a rulestyle or not?

Quote from: LordVreeg;378290http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry_and_Sorcery
Chivalry and Sorcery.
1977.  We were using it right after it came out.  Much more in-depth and simulationsist...
Which my issue.  Does Vintage refer to a rulestyle or not?

No.

It just means older games.

There's none of the ideological purity demanded from the so called "old school" crowd.

Quote from: J Arcane;378292No.

It just means older games.

There's none of the ideological purity demanded from the so called "old school" crowd.

Stormy, I'm refering to your use of the term, in particular.  You've used it in your sig and been the most vocal of it.

Quote from: J Arcane;378292No.

It just means older games.

There's none of the ideological purity demanded from the so called "old school" crowd.

I'm down with this. Ideological purity sucks.

Quote from: LordVreeg;378290http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry_and_Sorcery
Chivalry and Sorcery.
1977.  We were using it right after it came out.  Much more in-depth and simulationsist...
Which my issue.  Does Vintage refer to a rulestyle or not?

Oh, of course!  Durr, my bad.  

I don't think it particularly refers to a rule style, but more of a style of writing rules.  There isn't this overwhelming drive to make sure everything fits into the unified task mechanic, even when it clearly doesn't.  More freedom to slap on a mechanic that may only be used in one or two fairly specific situations.  It doesn't require anyone to memorize the particular rule, as it won't come up often enough to bother.

Whereas, with 'unified' mechanics, the designers are always looking for ways to shoehorn it into the same task resolution rules.  I mean, does it really make sense that picking a lock and crafting a magical sword should use the same d20 roll with different modifiers?  And further, that one should improve in those activities in exactly equal steps of 5%?  I know you aren't proposing or supporting that argument necessarily, and certainly not in your above post.  Just my thoughts on that particular topic.

But J Arcane interprets it correctly, for me is really is just the time period.  I don't want to get caught up in the ideological purity that he mentions, and I try really hard not to.  There were some winners and losers back then.  If someone unearthed a dusty tome that described an entirely thespy diceless game from 1979, I would be thrilled to hear about it.  I probably still wouldn't play it, and depending on how it was written, I might even decry it at every opportunity.  But it is certainly a vintage game.

However, I do consider a lot of games that kept that feel (Mongoose Traveller, Rolemaster, Runequest) as part of the vintage rubric as well.  I like to think it is pretty clear when I am talking about actual vintage games from the 70s and 80s and when I am talking about games that have a vintage sensibility from the 90s and later, but the lines may be blurred from time to time.  I apologize for that in advance, and I can only offer my assurances that I will be glad to clarify if confusion ever arises.

Quote from: J Arcane;378292No.

It just means older games.

I agree.