Jump to content

Al.

Members
  • Content count

    442
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

63 Excellent

About Al.

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Since 1987 Dragon Warriors then d100 games then lots of Indie
  • Current games
    Running PenDragon, Playing D&D 5e
  • Blurb
    Nervous of social media

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Al.

    Sigh...

    Isn't that when I achieve Illumination?
  2. Al.

    Sigh...

    My comments are well thought out, insightful and beautifully balanced Yours are unnecessary whinging The hardest skill I've developed (and I'm only just over base percentage, however one calculates it) is reading someone else's observation or complaint on a topic which I don't care (or have never thought) about and not just labeling (in my head) that its author is a malingerer and a counter jumper. Just on the principle that misery loves company I assume that I'm not alone.
  3. Al.

    RQG: how much RQ3 still in it?

    Thanks for the reply Most of it doesn't need a further response from me beyond 'I agree, that sounds about right' On this particular point: either is a reasonable explanation, I'm pretty sure that it was a conscious decision
  4. Al.

    RQG: how much RQ3 still in it?

    The sensible mature person would say play the rules as written for a bit first But that's not me And I'm guessing that most of the people reading this particular thread on this particular forum have played various versions of RQ down the years and houseruled the bits they didn't like In SBIII physical damage modifiers were capped at +3d6 (it was just that the damage modifier from bound demon weapons that could go stratospheric), I wonder if that would help with BigClub vs BigClub? (Whilst retaining the design aim of making Rurik vs BigClub a possibility) I think that the (CON + modified by SIZ) HP is a reasonable design choice. But just the wrong way round. I'm ALMOST certain that the last time I played RQ2 we did it SIZ plus a modifier for CON (it may well have been exactly the same line on a chart as used for the RAW but just reading CON not SIZ) One thing RQ3 in RQG is the negative POW modifier for Stealth. And I think that's still ripe for my all time favourite-house-rule-someone-else-made-up: Initiates or better in Thief and Hunter Cults add their POW as a positive modifier. Completely and wildly off topic (I can defend the others at least halfheartedly): the standard deviation on 3d6 is 3, so why are characteristic modifiers in blocks of 4? I've never understood that.
  5. That's the 1d100 SAN question isn't it? I'm leaning towards taking a leaf out of the (original/old) MagicWorld rules: using characteristic rolls (although in MW I think they wre x3 not x5) for the mandatory skills.
  6. Not quite what I had in mind when I posed the question; but the joy of starting a thread is not feeling any guilt about contributing towards thread drift. I fully agree with that post. In Real Landtm I am a notoriously rubbish liar; if I have any input to a character's competence I always make them excellent liars. It's part of my wish fulfillment, something which I just cannot do for real I can pretend to do with funny sided dice. Similarly an old gaming buddy of mine was (and may still be, I've not seen him for years) a doorman at quite a rough bar, his RPG characters are always complete cowards and wet tissue paper in a physical fight. He simply has no interest in playing in a game a role which he has to play in normal life.
  7. Al.

    State of BRP

    Don't you oppress me by telling me that I can't oppress other people and tell what to think and how to play. (In deference to the fact that e-posts don't convey subtext well - especially when I make them - that's not a dig at or accusation of the OP, it's a straight up piss take)
  8. Sorry for the predictable and almost herdman-like behaviour but I have to join with the chorus of approval for the art in these books. I might even get away with RQG as a coffee table book rather than stuck up the single bookshelf in my study I'm permitted for my other RPG books. Those pieces look lovely.
  9. Sort of. The intent behind my original question was 'what skills do the players have no choice in using'? I can choose for my investigator to (be an idiot and) shoot at a Hound of Tyndalos (sp) I can choose for my investigator to try and use her knowledge of higher order Mathematics to calculate when the Stars Are Right But (often if not always) I'm called upon to Spot Hidden, Listen, Psychology, Dodge (etc.) without conscious choice on my part. Succeed or it all goes horribly wrong and the investigation stalls or my PCs croaks at a dull point along its path. I do see Atgxtg's point that this isn't unique to CoC. But in other games (whether I enjoy them as much or not) I'm expecting to bring an idea of my character to the table and have some choice on their area of expertise. I COULD do that in CoC with cynical deliberate allocation of skill points (a friend of mine always plays a Texan to justify a high handgun skill, another one always maxes out Psychology, Listen and Spot Hidden) but that sort of seems to be missing the ethos of HPL's writing. Failing a roll can be fun too. And some Keepers have a very deft hand at failing forward. I'm trying to think of a Third Way. I'm fairly certain that I can't be the first to have thought down these lines (in fact, as mentioned I was inspired to this by a lively discussion with my own group), so first step was in trying to work out what those <no choice you need them> skills are.
  10. Al.

    What is is about Stormbringer?

    That took me a while. EDO. Elves Dwarves Orks?
  11. Thanks guys I can't believe that I forgot Fast Talk
  12. A discussion arose after a recent game of Call of Cthulhu about which skills investigator's are 'always' called upon to use. I can list a few off of the top of my head, but I was wondering if I'd missed any glaringly obvious ones (I take it as read that there will be some specific to a particular story, otherwise why bother having them on the sheet or in the game, but that's not really what I'm asking. Likewise one can CHOOSE a certain course of action which leads to CHOOSING to use a skill) Dodge Drive First Aid Library Use Listen Psychology Spot Hidden Any more?
  13. Apologies if this is considered derailing (I felt that these were fair questions asked in an open forum and probably relevent) A1: Yes. Six of us weekly. Typically running six week arcs and taking it in turns for GMing. The core of the group were avid (rabid?) Pathfinder players I met at a small local con years ago and then re-met when we all joined a larger local club which has since imploded. The others have been much more open about new and different systems than I'd feared. They enjoyed an RQ arc which I ran this year and all seem keen for some more later on. A2: When I proposed my RQ slot first question from two others was 'where do we get the rules?' followed by (coz the RQ Classic re-release had just happened) 'isn't that a lot of money for a 20-year old ruleset?'. So I SUSPECT that I will probably be the only GM but that at least half of the others will pony up for a copy of rules and cults. I do agree that Cult Compendium was brilliant. (Firstly being able to get hold off such old material again and secondly combined together). And I'd love for the new CC2 to have ALL of the Cults in longform and be not much thicker than CC and in a font size I can read and have loads of these lovely new illustrations. I fear that something has to give. YGWV but for me personally the least-bad solution is that it splits to two books. Balance again: I still think that Chaosium have messed up by keeping the base chance + category modifier model. Calculating a single base score for each category has been my favoured approach for decades. Al
  14. And therefore it might have been less work if he'd done it himself? I once had a head of D&T ('shop class' for USAians, 'CDT' or 'metalwork' and 'woodwork' for the more veteran Brits) describe coursework season as 'making 30 practical pieces whilst a trail children came along behind him and messed* them all up' *he used a stronger word
  15. I'm if not ethically then instinctively opposed to saying nice things about a company on it's house forum; but, I suspect that the market who want GoT quickly are probably those of us who would be prepared to (bat)wing it or have our own collection of rules and guidelines for the bad (or do I mean misunderstood?) Gods. New customers/initiates to Glorantha will be much more interested in the Cults that their characters can join. And will be quite happy to wait for the GM to get hold of writeups which give the enemies of creation the same kind of advantages that their characters have. Thinking back I'm sure that it was a long way into my GMing career before I had my players encounter Chaotics at all, certainly not ones with Cult affiliations. Just for balance: you're all barstewards, the lot of you.
×