DamonJynx

Just had a quick look. Great job mate!

I'm yet to discuss this with my group but I think I will allow it. I get that it may not be "in the spirit of the rules"; the origial game did not allow for Luck to be spent to alter rolls at all, what you rolled was what you rolled. I think in any game, if players have the option to alter outcomes by spending resources they should be allowed to do so. Resource management and player agency are, I believe, fundamental to a good game - it's a win for the player and builds tension as resources dwindle... Group Luck rolls can be a bitch...

Thanks Mike. I'll take that on board. BTW, Congrats on the great work you and the team are doing with CoC. I'm relatively new to the game (got the core books and some adventures for my birthday March last year) and I'm absolutely loving it. This is now my preferred game.

Hi Eric, the question is; if a player has an INT of 70 and they are rolling to avoid a bout of madness and roll 65 - a result which means they enter the bout of madness, can they spend 6 points of Luck to alter the roll to be a failure so they avoid the bout of madness. I think we're all aware that being a dumbass in Cthulhu is preferable to being a genius when it comes to SAN rolls...😉

Indeed, I'd already considered that, from my reply to Theo above, "This is my current thinking as well... Though some might argue the INT roll is 'part' of the SAN roll sequence and therefore it shouldn't be allowed." It would be good to have an official response...

Check out The Design Mechanism's, Classic Fantasy. It uses Mythras to emulate that old-school, D&D feel. @threedeesix (Rod Leary) also published a BRP Monograph of the same name years ago. Either would be helpful to you I think.

As the developer of Elementalism, it’s good to see someone getting value from it!

Hi Colarado, that’s the passage I read. As far as I’m aware, only the SAN roll determines the # of SAN points lost; the INT roll’s only function is to determine the outcome of the SAN loss. it would be good to have an ‘official’ POV. Perhaps that’s the intent of that passage…

This is my current thinking as well... Though some might argue the INT roll is 'part' of the SAN roll sequence and therefore it shouldn't be allowed.

In last nights game one of the players failed their INT roll to avoid a bout of madness by 5 points and wanted to spend 6 points to avoid it. I initially said yes, but after a brief discussion at the table, I changed my decision to no based on the interpretation of the rules that Luck could be spent to ‘improve’ a roll, not worsen it. On checking the rules, the actual wording is, Luck can be spent to alter a roll. What is the consensus here, can you spend luck on this INT roll?

@MOB I'm sure the ORC license will be in finalised by the time I'm finished!

Fully what I am intending to do, mentioning only the company name and BRP, i.e: This guide assumes you have some experience with roleplaying games. If not, don’t worry there are plenty of resources online, just search “What is a role-playing game”, or better yet, head over to DrivethruRPG and check out the free preview of Chaosium’s, Basic Roleplaying: Universal Game Engine the very system that powers abcdefg! Even better, purchase your own copy through DrivethruRPG or from Chaosium direct (if buying direct from Chaosium, you get a discount coupon for the printed book!). abcdefg uses a slightly modified version of Chaosium’s, Basic Roleplaying (BRP) – Universal Game Engine as its rules system. This system has been around for decades and has been used, with minor tweaks, for the majority of games published by Chaosium. It uses a simple percentage-based skill system where you need to roll under your skill to succeed.

Does anyone know if this is going to be updated to the latest version?

As you say, the only benefit would be if there were specific versions for each setting type. Personally, I'd rather just stick to the BRP SRD when it's released and copy & paste what I need directly from the source. Each to their own.

I understand that, but you'll be able to do the same with SRD, just copy and paste. The 'free' version will still need be released under the ORC and will need to have proper attribution to Chaosium. I don't think it's worth the effort of making those changes for no benefit when they can be done ad-hoc by creators wishing to use BRP as their core mechanic. Most games will still need some re-writing surely, so far, mine has been minimal.