Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

About Al.

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • 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
  1. Characteristics Point Redistribution

    I've always run and played (back to early 90s with Elric! where you could only boost Pow in such a way) upto 3 points from any ONE characteristic to any other ONE characteristic. Re-reading the rules, I'm not quite sure why so strict an interpretation.
  2. RQ:G character sheets - too much art?

    At first glance that LOOKS like a signifiant paring down of the skills list. Then I realised that those are only the 'Knowledge' skills. Then I realised what my first house rule will be for RQG. It is a gorgeous looking character sheet.
  3. MiG’s Alive!

    Or mine was just a long-winded way of saying 'I agree'
  4. MiG’s Alive!

    Now, I am not a fan of Mongoose nor an apologist for them. But I can see that might have been an innocent (albeit daft) mistake. Their model did (maybe still does) rely on churning out a huge number of books each month, often without proper proofreading. In that high turnover environment, it might be possible to be working on the default setting for their other work and just not realising or checking that this one property is licensed on different lines.
  5. Weapon Damages

    No flames. Agreement. Mind you promoting officers on the basis of competence rather than birthright, being entirely self-sufficient in the field, using frozen rivers as roads and and and, probably had as much to do with the Mongol horde's success as having a heavier draw bow which could be shot from horseback. Glad to see you wrote Brits not English, Nyd hyder ond bwa is Cymric not Welsc
  6. Resurrecting RuneQuest (Black Gate)

    My view (of little enough worth I am sure) One can use the scientific method on Glorantha Observation, logical analysis, adopting the model which is best supported by available evidence and willingness to change one's opinion on which model is best supported It's just that the fundamental forces are different, and so the evidence from experimental observation will likewise differ
  7. Aldryami vs uz

    This is perhaps not a direct answer, but relevent I hope. As already mentioned Aldryami animate war trees which are as powerful as cave trolls And don't Dryads have control over all creatures born in their glades? In which case even without the rather wonderful flavour ideas of muddling darksense and secure plant-based communication above (and elfbows acting as MP batteries); I'll match my Allosaurus against any size of Troll in hand-to-hand combat
  8. Inspired by g33k's can-do attitude; this week I tried for characters created for a quick six week story arc: Roll 1d20, treat any odd number as a 10, even numbers as rolled Vast majority of characteristics started at 10 (more than the statistically predicted 55%) with a few very extreme outliers. It was interesting, I'm not sure whether I'll use it again but interesting.
  9. Historically my (pretty unreliable) memory is that 2d6+6 for Int and Siz began in RQII Trollpak The earliest sighting I can recall for '2d6+6 for everything' came from an article or letter's page letter in a very old edition of White Dwarf about PC Knights in PenDragon If you worry about the higher than average average why not go for '2d6+3 for everything'? That reduces the swinginess and keeps average* average Then if you want to give access to the highest level of characteristic for heroes allow a couple of +3 modifiers for species/culture/homeland/caste/vocation/cyberware as desired * for a given arithmetical model of average
  10. Under-Half Successes

    I've played with what could be described as a 'more criticals' rule for years Specials are under half rather than under one-fifth Criticals are under one-tenth rather than under one-twentieth Death happens on an 01 I really like it. But then it does what I want (increases the frequency of special results). I've certainly had discussions with many people on boards who hate it, because they don't see the need for more frequent special results (one even said something along the lines of 'but then I'd feel gutted if I only rolled under my skill rather than under half!)
  11. Welcome

    As a life-long gooner I have to say it's the hope that kills you isn't it? I'm feeling optimistic about this one though. Jonny's art work is superb as well which won't hurt.
  12. Alternative Ways for Autofire.

    I chose a static +20 simply because it has form (the Ship rules in Elric! give a flat +20 to Sailing skill for the faster boat). The spirit of that rule also appeals to me. I have no doubt that more complexity might lead to more believability.
  13. Alternative Ways for Autofire.

    Another in a long line of house rules I've used so long that I forgot it was a houserule: Add +20 to chance to hit Success hits with 1 round Special success hits with a random number (3 round burst 1d3, 10 round burst roll 1d10 etc) Critical success every round hits I even drew up a list of burst size for different weapons, but I don't think that I've ever used it (one more thing to try and find in the excitement of an RPG combat, so one more thing left in a pile of papers) The whole point of auto fire is to increase the chance of hitting a moving target by a minimally qualified shooter at least once rather than peppering it (that's why fighter aircraft and ship CIWS often have auto cannons with insanely high rates of fire to try and compensate for the speed and changes of firer and target and why modern* infantry tactics talk about beaten zones rather than trying to pick off individuals. There's also a psychological factor here: it is quite hard to get one human to deliberately aim at and kill another one) A really skilled shooter will get the whole burst on target (I remember my Sgt demonstrating by putting a whole clip into the centre ring on fully automatic after my division were congratulating ourselves for managing to get our (5) rounds semi-automatic into the same qualifying ring and thinking that we were all now fully paid up marksmen). But I don't think that there is any need to go the GURPS route with many new rules and modifiers; the degrees of success mechanic already covers that. *I say modern, the last one I read was 20 odd years ago, so things may well have changed The engaged by fire point is an interesting one, inspired by watching Luke and Leia in their shoot out with Stormtroopers in the Death Star I used the PenDragon style opposed roll for firefights (the idea being that each side is trying to keep the other side's head down and prevent them shooting accurately as much as they are attempting to actually hit them) and it sort of works.
  14. Careers

    Thanks for that reply, many ideas to ponder and possibly purloin. A couple of questions out of curiosity: No mention of Siz; is that because you streamlined the characteristic list and folded the game effects into Str? Or just because there is no skill associated with it and so it wasn't worth mentioning in this context? I get that the untrained base scores are at (characteristic) x3 but I cannot work out how the magnitude of the training bonus is calculated. Clearly it is nothing as simple as +40/+20/+10, so there must be a reason for the granularity, but I find myself unable to reverse engineer it from that post!
  15. Careers

    I LOVE OpenQuest I love the whole ethos of it, I think many of the design decisions are brilliant But I really dislike the (inspired by MRQ) skill names I did a bit of a bodge swapping in skills from Elric! and it kind of worked. However I'm now thinking of swapping skills out and using careers (as per RuneQuest Slayers or Barbarians of Lemuria). I have what I think is a workable method of gluing to two sets of rules together. Has anyone tried this? How did you get on? Any cautions or warnings to share?