Pete Nash

Opps

What I did in the magic system I designed for Gwenthia was that a spell could be maintained for as long as the caster wished to support it, however the MPs invested in its casting would not begin to regenerate until the spell was dropped. The same mechanic was brought over into the Rune Sorcery system for Elric of Melnibone. Thus a sorcerer can continuously maintain up to his maximum POW in spells but the more of his MP pool he tied up, the fewer remaining MPs he has to cast other spells as needed. For permanent spells you had to sacrifice the equivalent MP cost in POW, to make the glyph, rune, whatever eternal. Spell magnitudes were limited by the skill in that spell. It was a simple system, but forced sorcerers to think both tactically and strategically. Do I walk round like a tank, but be able to cast no other magic, or do I keep back the majority of my magical strength for flexibility and remain vulnerable? Of course I designed it for a game where MP storage didn't exist, so it might not work so well if such things abound.

Actually, I think you'll find the loss of 'core' critical and impale chances is far greater when you first cross the 100% boundary. Using your same example, but at 101% the skill chances are... 01= Critical, bumped to a "Double" Critical 02-05= (Base Chance) Success, bumped to a Special 06-95- Failure, bumped to a Success 96-00= Fumble, bumped to a Failure. Note that until the character reaches 106% there is no chance of rolling a Special (and being bumped up to a normal Critical). Comparing this with the PC at 100% we get: 01-05 = Critical 06-20 = Special 21-95 = Success 96-99 = Failure 00= Fumble So at 101% (with bumps) the PC has lost... 5% from his chance of a Critical 15% from his chance of a Special But gained... 1% of getting a Double Critical 15% to his chance of Success 1% to his chance of Failure and has no chance of Fumbling. From where I'm sitting that's a significant setback. Of course, once the PC raises his skill to 120% he now crosses the break point where his chance of a Special has recovered. At 121% his chance of a Critical also recovers. Raising his skill percentage beyond this point rapidly makes him a force to be reckoned with! Considering the length of time it takes a character to improve skills over 100%, the mastery-bump method is a rather harsh, and very long lasting penalisation! The only 'fix' I can see is to grant an automatic free +21% to the skill once mastery has been achieved.

Yep, it only really works when using a d20 skill system, where the critical range remains as a constant 5%. Even then it remains a tiny bit flawed, since when you just exceed mastery, there's a short period where you cannot roll a normal success - only a critical. But that flaw is minor.

I think he probably missed out the point that the guy with 100%+ mastery should remove the hundreds digit and roll against the remainder, before applying the bump (or bumps). Unfortunately, it still introduces a slight mathematical flaw in that it reduces your critical/special range. You could keep the original % range of those, but the technique is not smoothly elegant when using BRP.

Thanks should also go to Dario and the artists who've all slaved away, working overtime to layout my 190k word splurge into a readable format. I only did the research and writing, everyone else actually made it into a book. But major thanks to Paolo too for having the balls... er, courage to publish Rome. The fact that the manuscript survived the critical eyes of Alephtar's Italian crew is just a cherry on top! :thumb: Thanks for everyone's interest and support. I hope you all enjoy it as a good read, even if you never run a campaign using it!

I'll be there too. After all, I'd like to get a copy of my own book...

Memories of a shoggoth engulfing the curious fool in the spacesuit, before it started to rip open the airlock... In space, everyone can hear you scream - if you don't cut the comms channel quickly enough! :eek:

Personally I prefer less skills. Its often difficult enough to create competent characters, without adding whole new skills which eat up skill points. Also, unless the new speciality skill is 'vital' to the campaign, it will languish at a patheticly low percentage and never improve to a competent level.

I am in full support of your conviction to keep the setting accurate to the period. When you write a historically based setting you should use the terms and beliefs prevalent to the time, as its part of what makes it interesting to roleplay in. Political Correctness can often get out of hand. Are players going to slate my forthcoming 'Rome' supplement because I include details about slavery, and the fact that people of the time don't see anything wrong with the institution? Or because I have a section detailing Roman profanity? Or that women are second class non-citizens? All are valid cultural behaviours of that time and shouldn't be sanitised for the sake of modern day beliefs. Although I myself am disturbed by racism and sexual inequality (and would be the first to jump out in front of a KKK mob armed only with a big stick and my personal honour), I still wholeheartedly love reading the Flashman books!

I'm obviously a far more brutal GM than you. Failure in my game would be brief ridicule and a penalty to Status until the next entertaining thing happens in the city. Such is the merciless criticism of the Roman gossip circuit. A fumble in the law court (depending on what the character said) would bring a permanent Status loss, gain an enmity, or even start a small riot! >:-> Evil, moi!?!

Either... a) Let the GM freely interpret the result of both failing or re-roll the test It depends on the contest and how you frame it, but the way I play it is if the active protagonist fails then the whole challenge fails and everything remains as a stalemate. Try again next time. For example... Two Romans are racing their chariots on the Via Appia, one tries to overtake the other on the narrow road. Marcus, attempts to overtake Caius - who is swerving back and forth to block him. Both fail their rolls. Caius fails to block, leaving a wide open gap for Marcus to overtake. Marcus however, fails to whip his horses faster to take advantage. So overall nothing happens. Caius charges Marcus with corruption and treason and the case is heard in court. Caius decides to defame his enemy using the Law skill to illustrate his illegal activities, and Marcus decides to defend with his Rhetoric skill, flaunting his illustrious prestige and list of honourable service to the State. Both fail. In this case there is no clear winner, and the result is open to (maximum game fun) interpretation. The GM decides that Caius his made a hash of his legal charges, forgetting some important law which lets Marcus off the hook. However, during his defence Marcus makes a laughing stock of himself when he flubs his oration, quoting the honour of his grandfather who had once been exiled for corruption himself!

Although when I rolled up my first RQ2 character I was having a hard time reconciling myself with the static HPs, it was precisely the same experience in my first combat which caused me to fall in love with the rules (along with the lovely story examples and the Grecian flavoured illustrations). Combat was brutal, and by the gods, damned exciting! From that day on, no other RPG combat rules have ever given me the tactical flexibility, sense of danger and ease of use which RQ and its ilk have.

Your document sums up the difficulties I had when writing up creatures for Rome. Not only did the SIZ of existing animals from RQ3, CoC and BRP not match real world mass, but the number of dice created huge variance in maximum and minimum values for large beasts. I solved it in a similar manner, by capping the maximum rolled number of dice to 4d6, which stopped the more extreme results - although 2d6 sounds even better for the larger animals. I think I tried to tie the average characteristic result to something less than the maximum real world value, thus giants of the species could still be produced, but on the whole they'd be realistic. Not that it really matters (apart from satisfying my pedantic nature), since most GMs simply use the average species values for encounters.

I'm sure RosenMcStern will release a sample few pages at some point to tantalise your appetites. From what I've seen of the initial layout, the book is going to look beautiful. As for which team to bet on in the chariot races, I'd go for the one with the meanest streak and the highest Drive (Chariot) skills!

I wouldn't let my wife hear you make comments like that. She'd hunt you down and the next thing know, you'd wake up missing body parts! There's a downside being married to a surgeon with a vindictive streak! :eek: Besides which... compared to the Republic, Imperial Rome is for wimps. Lets see how you like this supplement first eh?

Thanks guys. I hope you like it!

Sorry, I used the standard format for creatures as written in the core BRP rules. If a GM wants locational hit points they can very quickly apply the 'Creature Hit Location' templates on pages 364/365. Its only 30 seconds work for an encounter!

Hi Thalaba For 'Rome' I have left it completely open so that any options can be used. My philosophy is that since I'm writing a period setting I should be providing cultural, social and historical information; not defining which rule options a GM should use. Game style and power levels are going to vary wildly for each group who pick up my supplement, so its best not to alienate them! However, I have added several new skills, chariot racing and rioting rules, a whole new magic system (which is tailored specifically to match Roman beliefs, and completely optional for non-supernatural campaigns), the Roman versions of Personality Traits (again optional), and Roman specific occupations. Base skill chances have been modified to match the historical period. The only option which I've used specifically are Wealth Levels, with guidelines of how they work in ancient Rome, in order to avoid the very messy issue of how much things cost - which can vary wildly over a 700 year period! In order to save space, creatures and monsters are described without locational HP, and I use static AP for all foes... although I give precise descriptions of ancient armour for those who desire to retroactively calculate what areas a panoply covers. Oh, and I've written a new set of rules covering Republican diseases, which match (as close as I can design it) the actual real world effects and infection chances. Other than that I haven't mentioned or included any other BRP rules. As I said, its a settings supplement, designed to work with whatever core BRP engine you want to run it!

To help inject a little more optimism on this thread, I should state that Chaosium is currently making a big effort to publish BRP material. I should also say that 'Rome' will be released for BRP, under license (freeing Chaosium to produce more supplements in concert). Whilst RosenMcStern has been defending Chaosium's corner, he very modestly kept quiet about his kind offer to help me publish my manuscript; which thanks to him is now undergoing layout as I type. So don't despair - even if it was a little belated, support for BRP is coming!

That's a shame. The other suggestions can all be done with relative ease, but if I can't 'openly' sell it in support of BRP I may as well just convert it all to MRQ and avoid the whole issue. <sigh> Its all rather frustrating. I'd love to release Rome as a BRP supplement to help BRP grow and thrive. But if Chaosium isn't going publish Rome themselves, and I can't afford their license fee for self publication (let alone a lawyer specialising in American copyright law) then I'm a bit buggered. Thanks anyway V.

Let me get this straight... I should still be able to publish Rome, as long as I only make references to BRP and not quote wholesale from it? As it stands at the moment the entire manuscript is my own work, and I only give occasional suggestions to refer to sections of the BRP rulebook, for example a few of the creature entries simply say "See pXX in the BRP rules". I have not quoted any mechanics from BRP, and any additional rules are my own creation. The only direct links are the fact that I use the words fumble, success, special and critical, and the generic characteristic layout for creatures. Furthermore, is it okay to sell the book with the description "This campaign setting is designed to be used with BRP", as long as I leave out any logos etc? If that's the case, then I could publish without a rewrite and still be able to support BRP with a clear conscience. I want BRP to succeed as a system, I just can't afford to pay them a large royalty fee for the trademark.

I do not know the details of Chaosium's current BRP licensing terms. The last I'd heard they were prohibitively expensive for a single, self-publishing author. Does anyone have specifics?

Well Loz, you know I'd rewrite all the existing creatures, stats and rules in a flash to get Gwenthia published by Chaosium... but I'm not hopeful they'll be able to truly commit themselves. Its been ten months since I submitted Rome, and since you helped edit the final manuscript you know exactly how much material it contained and its state of readiness for the final step of art and layout. It was tightly proofed and should have been ready to roll. Granted it was big, but they've still not contacted me to clarify whether they want me to strip it down, or even if they actually want it. After much deliberation I'm now looking at withdrawing my submission and self publishing, although I'd much prefer for it to be released by Chaosium. To whit, I've trawled the net for as much royalty-free art as I could find. Unfortunately that'll mean a distinct bias towards neo-classical 18th C b/w illustrations. My biggest frustration is rewriting all the elegant rules I came up with for magic, chariot racing and the monsters/creatures, which were designed specifically for BRP. I'm no layout editor, and I'd still love to see the little Chaosium logo on it... but I've reached the point where I want to (need to) see two years of research and hard work actually get into print. Hey Jason, if you're going down the same road perhaps we could collaborate to produce our own line of d% compatible supplements, sharing the same style of book layout and POD distributer? PM me if you are interested!

God Jul och Happy New Year! (That's what you get for being an englishman in Sweden... )