Quote from: Matt;837284I don't even know what the mainstream is here in my little arroyo. ��

Would that be the Rio Grande?

Language works in funny ways, especially if you're a literalist. What's going on with all the -punk is just like the -gate suffix for scandals and controversies.

From a practical standpoint the various -punks (aside from cyber- ) and conspicuous genre mashups aren't really to my taste, but whatever.

Quote from: Bren;837279I'm guessing you aren't aware that people who are swimming against the mainstream gamer trend of adding the "punk" suffix to everything are now known as gamepunks?

Wouldn't those be Punkpunks?

Quote from: CRKrueger;837308Wouldn't those be Punkpunks?

You win!

Quote from: Warthur;837199Don't you mean Clockwork & Chivalry?

I do indeed. Nice to see that the delayed RPGSite sense-checker is still working!

Quote from: Simlasa;837195Well, yeah... a period ruleset without the period. I do think it would make a good foundation for a purely historical game... but it would require tracking down additional resources to flesh out the setting/history... as well as ignoring big chunks of the rules... while the OP was hoping it might serve his purposes more cohesively.

The shole point of the renaissance system is that it covers all periods that use early-ish black power weapons. So, it covers the Renaissance, Musketeer, English Civil War and probably a bit later. So, more than 200 years across different cultures.

To my mind, a setting book would cover one place/time. So, Renaissance Italy would be different to Renaissance Britain (Elizabethan), Three Musketeers would be different to Scarlet Pimpernel, English Civil War would be different to French Revolution, but all could use the Renaissance rules.

So I borrowed a copy of Renaissance Deluxe and discovered it actually seems to contain just about ZERO background material on the Renaissance. WTF?

The "Factions" chapter has a handful of bullet points about the Catholic Church and Puritans, nothing about Huguenots or anything else from the period, but gives equal time to made-up factions. How bizarre.  

The only currency discussed is English. In the era of doubloons, pieces of eight, livre, escudos, reals, etc.

1/3 of the book is "magick" and fantasy monsters/creatures.

The GM section is a scanty 5 pages, with no useful advice or information about running a game in the Renaissance.

I don't think there's even a map of Europe in the book. There's certainly nothing about politics between nations or court intrigue. Or even what various royal titles mean.  

It reads like the authors didn't do any research at all. I doubt they know much about the Renaissance period; it seems like they looked for pictures of weapons and clothes and stopped. There's not a word about which weapons were available in what year or who used what weapon. About the only useful information I could find was pictures of (some) weapons and how far one could travel on horseback in a day.

Not to mention the whole thing is fucking hard to read due to the strange choice of printing black letters on medium-grey paper.

So anyone interested in a game set in the period would be better off investing in a "Renaissance for Dummies" or other reference book and skipping this entirely.

What a piece of shit.

As repeatedly pointed out in the thread: Renaissance is a system, just a system, doesn't even pretend to be more than a system or to offer setting stuff. I think it's harsh to write the book off for not attempting to do something it never intended to do.

As far as depth of research goes, Clockwork & Chivalry impressed me - not least for highlighting the absolutely insane number of Noncomformist religious groups that were active at the time in England.

Quote from: Warthur;837431As repeatedly pointed out in the thread: Renaissance is a system, just a system, doesn't even pretend to be more than a system or to offer setting stuff. I think it's harsh to write the book off for not attempting to do something it never intended to do.

As far as depth of research goes, Clockwork & Chivalry impressed me - not least for highlighting the absolutely insane number of Noncomformist religious groups that were active at the time in England.

Yeah, AFAIK the Renaissance system specifically took the OpenQuest-based rules used in Clockwork & Chivalry and separated them from the setting, to get a generic "black powder era" rules set where fantastic elements such as magic and monsters are entirely optional. I actually like it for what it is.

Quote from: Matt;837361So I borrowed a copy of Renaissance Deluxe and discovered it actually seems to contain just about ZERO background material on the Renaissance. WTF?

That's because it is a set of rules for black-powder games, not a source book for the Renaissance.

You are comparing chalk and cheese.

Quote from: Matt;837361The "Factions" chapter has a handful of bullet points about the Catholic Church and Puritans, nothing about Huguenots or anything else from the period, but gives equal time to made-up factions. How bizarre.  

That's probably because it was originally based of Clockwork & Chivalry, which was set in the English Civil War.

Quote from: Matt;837361The only currency discussed is English. In the era of doubloons, pieces of eight, livre, escudos, reals, etc.

Ditto, it is not a source book.

Quote from: Matt;8373611/3 of the book is "magick" and fantasy monsters/creatures.

Which is what a lot of people like and want.

Quote from: Matt;837361The GM section is a scanty 5 pages, with no useful advice or information about running a game in the Renaissance.

Some people love large GM sections, some people prefer sketchy advice.

Why would it have advice about running a game in the Renaissance? It is not a sourcebook about the Renaissance.

Quote from: Matt;837361I don't think there's even a map of Europe in the book. There's certainly nothing about politics between nations or court intrigue. Or even what various royal titles mean.  

If you had a map, when would it cover? You would need a different map every 50 years, due to the ever-changing borders of the time.

Quote from: Matt;837361It reads like the authors didn't do any research at all. I doubt they know much about the Renaissance period; it seems like they looked for pictures of weapons and clothes and stopped. There's not a word about which weapons were available in what year or who used what weapon. About the only useful information I could find was pictures of (some) weapons and how far one could travel on horseback in a day.

Really? I seem to recall that it covered basic weapons. A sourcebook detailing every single weapon for every period covered would be horrendous.

Quote from: Matt;837361Not to mention the whole thing is fucking hard to read due to the strange choice of printing black letters on medium-grey paper.

I have it on PDF and it is quite easy to read.

Quote from: Matt;837361So anyone interested in a game set in the period would be better off investing in a "Renaissance for Dummies" or other reference book and skipping this entirely.

Or have both.

Renaissance for Dummies would provide the setting background, the Renaissance rules would provide the black powder rules.

It's like having a setting for D&D and the D&D rulebook, or Vikings of Legend and the Legend rulebook - Different books for different things.

You have simply misunderstood what the Renaissance rules mean.

Quote from: Matt;837361What a piece of shit.

Your post, or the Renaissance rules?

I quite like the Renaissance rules.

Quote from: soltakss;837518Why would it have advice about running a game in the Renaissance? It is not a sourcebook about the Renaissance.

Maybe the name is a bit confusing then? Misleading? Call it 'Musket & Magic' or 'Black Powder, Black Magic'.
It is pretty much the book I want for the purpose I want it for but I can see how someone might go in expecting a bit more specific historical content.

It was the English Renaissance..

The time of Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, Cromwell and Fry and Newton and so on...

Quote from: soltakss;837518That's because it is a set of rules for black-powder games, not a source book for the Renaissance.

You are comparing chalk and cheese.



That's probably because it was originally based of Clockwork & Chivalry, which was set in the English Civil War.



Ditto, it is not a source book.



Which is what a lot of people like and want.



Some people love large GM sections, some people prefer sketchy advice.

Why would it have advice about running a game in the Renaissance? It is not a sourcebook about the Renaissance.



If you had a map, when would it cover? You would need a different map every 50 years, due to the ever-changing borders of the time.



Really? I seem to recall that it covered basic weapons. A sourcebook detailing every single weapon for every period covered would be horrendous.



I have it on PDF and it is quite easy to read.



Or have both.

Renaissance for Dummies would provide the setting background, the Renaissance rules would provide the black powder rules.

It's like having a setting for D&D and the D&D rulebook, or Vikings of Legend and the Legend rulebook - Different books for different things.

You have simply misunderstood what the Renaissance rules mean.



Your post, or the Renaissance rules?

I quite like the Renaissance rules.

Did you write it or something? Awfully defensive if not. It's fucking called "RENAISSANCE DELUXE," not "BLACKPOWDER MUSKET STATS." Are you kidding me? What horseshit you write.

Quote from: tzunder;837652It was the English Renaissance..

The time of Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, Cromwell and Fry and Newton and so on...

Nothing in the book about those guys either. It has no setting/period.

Quote from: Matt;837666Did you write it or something?

No, just pointing out the facts of the supplement.

Quote from: Matt;837666Awfully defensive if not.

My opinion.

Quote from: Matt;837666It's fucking called "RENAISSANCE DELUXE," not "BLACKPOWDER MUSKET STATS." Are you kidding me? What horseshit you write.

Just like your comments are your opinion.

If you don't want people's opinions, then don't create a thread asking for people's opinions.