Susimetsa

This is an interesting story about the early attempts to cross the Atlantic: https://applications.icao.int/postalhistory/aviation_history_the_first_over_the_atlantic.htm In short, given that the late 1910's was still the time of daredevils, it is unlikely that it would be a commonplace event in 1921 (the beginning of the campaign, if I recall correctly). Thus, warning the players of the dangers and asking for skill rolls has merit.

I'd say it is possible, but you have to plan how you cross the wet bit - and perhaps getting a gas tank extension might also help. I'd suspect from Newfoundland to Greenland to Iceland to Ireland might work well.

Chivalry and Sorcery came out in 1977 - a year before Runequest - and it may be the first D100 system. But I seem to remember reading that the first rulebook was a bit over 100 pages.. 😕

I read the first three pretty quickly and then got worried that they would run out too fast. So I am sampling some other series in the sameish genre: Dresden Files and Elemental Masters. Pretty interesting - I was never previously that interested in urban fantasy, but these are pretty decent reads. I can also see how these three series might all affect my version of a Rivers of London RPG campaign, if I were to run one.

I hesitated picking them up as my interest veers more towards history than contemporary stories, but after a friend recommended these, I gave them a chance. The first novel turned out to be rather a good read, although the initial humour and banter gave way to horror aspects as the story progressed. I started on the sequel almost as soon I had finished the first one. 4/5 to the first novel in the series.

A couple of bugs: I created an Old West Gunfighter character on Freestyle. - In the Occupational skills phase the Ride skill began from 5% when it should have begun from 15%. - In the Personal Interest Phase I noticed that my choice of Max 99 did not have an effect - the skills still capped at 75.

Thank you! That actually solves the problem! I had always picked the character creation options from the first "boxes" on the front page (not from the menu), so I had not even noticed the Freestyle option... 😕 It even allows one to make an Old West character without the Pulp options!

I couldn't find a better place to put this question: I was making a character to play in Down Darker Trails and I could not find a way to switch the Stats around after the system has generated them. This is a bit restricting, especially as the written rules state that this should be possible. Is there a way to switch around the rolled Stats before proceeding in the character generation and I've just missed it?

Not much discussion of the show here. Personally, I find it excellent. The GM is excellent and his gravelly voice fits the style of the campaign like a glove. The players are very good as well, each with a distinct style. I dropped another stream I was following as soon as I realised how good this group is.

In my own system (not BRP, but working on similar premises when it comes to declaration and resolution phases) the declaration phase gives the "quickest" characters the ability to force the encounter in certain ways. If they declare that they want to attack someone, the slower character has to parry or dodge (or fight back) even if they want to flee (assuming they are "in measure" - i.e., at a fighting distance). If the faster character says that they want to flee, they can do so unless the slower (initiative) character has higher movement and can catch up. Similarly, the decralation phase makes evident how many characters are facing each other - one character might face two enemies while another might face three. A low-ini character can then change their mind (choose to dodge or full parry (no attacks) at -20% and flee instead of trying to fight back against overwhelming odds). A higher initiative character has a chance to flee without having to dodge or parry (assuming the enemies are not yet in-measure). In roleplay terms, this would be a situation where someone sees several enemies approach oneself and decides to leg it before they get too close.

I've let myself read somewhere that this was different in historical times when the audience was more knowledgeable of real swordplay. Shakespearean actors, for example, used to take lessons from actual fencing teachers and at fencing schools.

Continuing from my earlier post, a 1 metre hex would be useful in some contexts. For example, in boarding battles between ships, the decks are often so crowded that using longer swords etc. is difficult. You could simulate that by making the hexes 1 metre in size and giving a negative modifier to longer weapon attacks. Basically, you could use daggers and short swords and cutlasses etc., but anything longer would be difficult to use. Similarly narrow corridors etc. constricted spaces would cause modifiers to attacks...

If 1 hex is one metre and you allow two characters standing in adjacent hexes to attack each other, they'd better be using daggers. 1 metre distance (assuming they stand in the relative middle point of their hexes) is too short for longer swords and even worse for spears. c. 1.5 or even 2 metres per hex would be handier to handle, I think... Two metres is still a melee attacking distance between two combatants and it would definitely provide enough room for SIZ 20 characters as well, so no need to fiddle with that (personally, as a 6'2" fellow, 1 metre hexes would feel constrictive to me - I hate standing in doorways 😄 ).

Passions and runes quickly become a very complex web. For my latest character, a Narri clan Entertainer of Donandar, I found it relatively easy to write his personality around the runes. I did not include the passions and hates etc., but they were pretty straightforward (own clan, religion, hated foreign cultures). "Cimrien’s mood may swift quickly from almost morose silences to joyous dancing and playing (Water rune). His travels and experiences have made him somewhat cultured – he often takes a wider perspective on issues and consider long-term goals rather than immediate gains (Earth rune and high Int). But he also carries with himself the same practical approach to the world as his mother did (Earth rune). The unpredictability and passion of his fellow Sartarites still exists (low Air rune) somewhere within him, but he is unlikely to succumb to physical outbursts (weak Str, Con). He prefers to talk himself and his loved ones out of tough situations, but rather than relying on logic and truth, he is more likely to appeal to emotions and adjusted truths (Illusion rune). However, his white lies are rarely intended to hurt anyone and he generally seeks the best for everyone (Harmony rune)."

Sorry for the resurrect of this thread, but it was the newest I could find on the topic. The video is closing in on 2.5 million views and I was one of the latest additions to that number. That was one of the best RPG sessions I've watched even with the few creative rule interpretations. I would not mind having Taliesin run the same scenario to another group of players one of these days just to see some of the other things that might have happened.

Staying on the safe side and keeping it simple (especially since I'm not sure I understood the reason of the original poster correctly): police in Europe is primarily taught to solve any situation through dialogue. Thus they get training in psychology etc. Police in the US is trained for more forceful methods - taking control of the situation quickly and effectively - where weapon use has a more more central role than in Europe.

Well, cane swords / stickswords were still pretty widely manufactured in the early 20th century. In fact, I just made an upper class character for the 1920 Berlin setting who uses one (with the former corpsstudent package).

Well, when I got 7 for my Str stat, I kind of discarded any hopes of creating a warrior - he could not even use most of the basic cultural weapons of his clan! 😄 So, a talkative Donandar cult Entertainer he is, with 90%+ on both Play instrument and Dance, and resorts to violence only as the last option.

I'd say it depends a lot on the types of characters you are making. A character I just made for a RQG campaign has 80% in his best weapon and I could barely reach that even with a +20% category bonus and a very generous amount of free points granted by the GM to get me up-to-speed with a group of more experienced characters. I simply had too many skills to consider from languages to Entertainer skills to worship skills etc. to allocate much to weapon skills. But, yes, a warrior-type character would certainly get very high weapon skills.

I'd make that part of the narrative in some way. Simply stating that for a (couple of) week(s) the character spent their free time learning to ride and one or more of the other characters or NPCs taught/trained him. (For me, I'd also ask them to make teaching rolls etc., but that's me - I'd make case-by-case judgement on how much time needs to be invested in teaching each particular skill - some are easier to learn than others).

Most GMs homebrew the systems they use to their liking. In this case, the discussion was about how to approach the experience and skill development system differently and/or make it more realistic. I don't really see any reason to become hostile about it.

First, I was confused about your point, because you quoted text from a completely different post than the one you apparently intended to quote. 🙂 Second: about both points: - Yes, roleplaying a high-Int character is not easy and, yes, the GM may sometimes have to help with it (just asking "are you sure?" will often help the player think about the issue one more time) and naturally they can take advantage of any ideas provided by other players at the table. But this is the same with some of the other stats as well - if you wanted to avoid these difficulties, you should have an RPG with physical stats only. I've seen great examples of people being very successful at roleplaying their mental attributes. For example, the character Grog from Critical Role is an excellent example of a low-Int character roleplayed very well and some of the players in that same series show some real ability in playing high-Int characters as well. And, as you say, the stats are multifaceted, so there are many ways to play them "well" - but I stay behind my point that a low-Int character solving a math puzzle would be unexpected. - The skill and stat advancement points were merely in response to Martin's post and the issues he brought up with the current system. I was not proposing that everyone should think that way or that the game system should be changed accordingly. I just admitted that he had some good points and brainstormed ways in which they could be addressed. This bit I did not quite understand: "Also gaining a tick when you succeed at a skill isn't learning from success, it's a chance to learn from failure, which is what the actual improvement roll is, you fail the skill roll, you improve you skill." Are you saying that the character who succeeds at a task will later (that night, before going to bed) have the opportunity to try it again and fail in order to increase their skill? That doesn't sound logical to me, but I may have misunderstood...

I don't think so. I think my example was about roleplaying, not realism. If a character has an intelligence of 5, is it good roleplaying for the player to play the character as if they shared the same intelligence (assuming the player was smarter)? And as far as it comes to having fun, a player can have tremendous fun playing a character with the intelligence of 5. If the player wants to play a smart character, that should be taken into account during character creation. One shouldn't just ignore the point of the stats... 😕

Some very good points there, but some of these - not all - are 'easily' fixed with some tweaking of the development system, imho. 1. Let the player choose one/two ticked skill(s) that automatically succeed their development rolls - or allow automatic success if the skill's got two ticks 2. Very good point, indeed. Some of this could be fixed by allowing a tick for critical failures, but this would leave a lot of neutral "failures" unheeded. Perhaps allow a tick if the skill has been used a certain number of times, regardless of its success? 3. How about tying the development to the stat instead of the current skill level? The player needs to roll under the stat (the primary or first stat) tied to the skill to develop the skill (with a D20 or the regular 4D6). This would need some extra thinking to take into account the current skill level (very high skills should improve slower, I think), but it would favour the skill that the character has "aptitude" for. 4. Would be solved by 3, I think 5. Would be solved by allowing a tick for a certain number of skill uses (or announced evening peer learning sessions or some such) 6. Depends on the nature of the campaign, of course, but you are correct when it comes to combat-intensive games 7. I'm working on an idea that would address this - allowing the player to move ticks from an individual skill to the relevant stat (or one of the relevant stats) instead of trying to increase the skill with them. When enough ticks have been moved to the stat, the player can try to roll for advancement

Are you rewarding players or characters? A player can easily have a great idea while playing a character to whom such an idea would never occur. Thus, rewarding the character for the player's idea seems off to me as it might also be an example of bad roleplaying, e.g. a math wiz solving a logical puzzle while playing a troll who cannot count to 3. That's an extreme example, but you get the idea. At the same time I would not like to stop smart players from sharing their ideas, so I'd allow them to toss the ideas around, but in the game world the idea would probably be represented as a group effort.