Jump to content

Baragei

Member
  • Posts

    186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Baragei

  1. Oh boy, opposed tests... The time is upon us again. The BGB uses improved special/critical-ranges and and how much a test succeeds by, yes? I think, I really can't remember off the top of my head. So if A has a skill of 120 and B has a skill of 80, and they both roll a 70, A wins because A succeeds by 50 and B only succeeds by 10. In this situation, B has to either roll a better success level or below 60 to have a chance of winning the contest. The blackjack-mechanic is quicker - rolling as high as possible, but still below your skill. In the case of A vs B, as there are tripledigit values in play, any points above 100 in the highest skill are subtracted from both parts, leaving a skill of 100 vs a skill 60. And more or less the same odds (queue rebuttal in three..two..). Gah, I suck at explaning this. Works in play, though.
  2. I like a starting cap of around 75ish, but that's just me. As for legendary abilities, as you say, Legend has them. I hear very good things about Bokors&Broadsides and its stunts. CthulhuFnord, from further up this thread, has worked on a list of edges and feats for BRP/Legend. RQ6 has mysticism and folkmagic which could double as legendary abilities. The BGB has the fatepoint option, as well as mutations and psionics which could also work. It also has the Classic Fantasy-mono which brings a lot of D&Disms into BRP - such as a barbarian's rage. Classic Fantasy is being rewritten for RQ6 btw.
  3. Once the kitchensink is in the coach, it won't leave But if you're putting in a dozen different races, I don't understand why they need to be game-mechanically balanced against each other. If that is the case, you could make due with one and just have it in different colours. As for magic, I really don't have any quickfixes. If you feel it would be overpowering, you could of course censor the available spell lists. Other ways could be to remove magic points and let wizards rely solely on precious wands and grisly material components cut from the flesh of mythological beasts. Or keep the magic points and hamper the regeneration of them. Or introduce a corruption/mutation mechanic - why do wizards wear those pointy hats and voluminous robes all the time? Or up the casting time. Etc et al.
  4. That's pretty much my definition of kitchensink. Character option-wise, at least.
  5. BRP is a skill-driven system. The easiest way to balance it is simply to to cap a starting character's skill to a certain level. So maybe some characters will start with more skills than others, but they won't necessarily be better. And being better at something doesn't mean being best - those dice can be cruel. Characters with superiority complexes tend to die off faster than less skilled realists. If someone wants to play a specific race with some massive stat-boosts - yes, I'm looking at you, Iqari - it's time for those GM soft tools. Pretty sure I could go to town making the life of a giant birdman (or elf or dwarf) in a human society more complicated than not. And I'm not talking about screwing a player over, but simply playing up the differences in culture, problems of communicating, lack of compatible equipment, and the pretty much inevitable witchhunt when a homogenous society needs to blame something on someone. Or simply say "no, that race isn't a viable choice". Magic can be extremely powerful in the BRP-games. RQ6 gives you a lot of tools to help you get it right for your game. The BGB makes powerful magic more available, but at a price, both in skillpoints and magic points. If you use the fatepoint-option from the BGB with a twist, the mundane warriors can spend their powerpoints on rerolls, success-shifts and epic grit, while sorcerers must save them for their spells. "As for the GM avoiding using overpowered options, the problem with that is knowing which options to allow and which to disallow; and if adjustments need to be made, knowing what adjustments you need to make. And where RuneQuest has a lot more "Make your own enemies" than Pathfinder does (which has a massive assortment of disserent creatures and prebuilt NPCs to use), it's hard to know what sorts of damage output and success rates are reasonable" And that's an issue, I agree. This is very much trial and error-territory.
  6. Isn't that how most games apart from Risus work? Some characters will invariably be better at something than others. But I get what you're saying. I just don't totally agree with you - BRP's balance is not in the rules, it's how you use the rules. If you go for the kitchensink-style, then these bumps of imbalance or overpowered characters will turn up. A gamemasters tools to avoid them are mostly "soft" tools.
  7. RQ6 has become my primary version of BRP, because it gets almost everything right. I still love the other ones but RQ has done a homerun. Then again, I've always liked my crunch... Some people don't like all those numbers and fiddly details, and I think that's what MW, OQ, Renaissance and ilk bring to the table - less rules-intensive alternatives. As for your questions about magic, races and balance - it breaks a bit with the core design behind BRP. It's meant to be a system to simulate "real-world" mechanisms, not game balance. In the "real world", you can't conjure up a ball of hellfire and hurl it on your enemy, but if you could it would be a very scary and dangerous thing. Thus, sorcerers that commands the elements can be very nasty in BRP. If you want to take one down, you want to do it the clever way. Bayonet charges against flamethrowers don't work too well in this world, and it won't work too well within the rules of BRP. RQ6 is possibly the most hardcore of the bunch, giving little or no thought to balance apart from what the GM and players put into their world.
  8. Not a review, but I notice that my add-on has been lost in the move from the old site. So, link to folder: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3tO3UVMx3uucDBqSnV0NjFUODg&usp=sharing
  9. "Um" Ok, then. Differently opposed.
  10. No, I can't explain it. I am, as I said, not math-savvy enough. But my point is: In BRP a skill of 81 will yield a critical on a 5 and a special on a 17. An 18-81 will produce a normal success. It will fail to produce anything on a 82+ and fumble on 00. In Legend a skill of 81 will yield a critical on a 9, a normal success on 10-81, a failure on 82-98, and a fumble on 99+. But, and this is my point, most rolls in Legend will be directly opposed by another roll, where as they won't be in BRP. If A rolls a normal success, A has succeded. B can try to counter, and if successful, negates A's success. If B fails, BRP doesn't care - it is as if B hadn't rolled anything at all. Legend let's A generate a CM. Alternatively, if B counters with a critical, BRP doesn't care - B negates A's success, who goes next (yes I realize there are some more details, but no details that matter much right there and then). Legend let's B generate a CM. So with this, Legend introduces an extra level that makes up for, and then some, the missing Special-range. Those examples are obviously combat-related. In straight-up pass/fail skill challenges it won't be as big a deal, but still. This is the one thing that caused me the most trouble when I ran RQ6 - reprogramming my brain from thinking BRP. I got it eventually, though, and I don't think I'll be going back. As far as the fumbling goes, as I said, it depends on how harsh you are with them. Legend's fumbles are bad, bad things.
  11. There is another level here, which I'm not math-savvy enough to properly explain. BRP has 5 levels of success, while Legend/RQ only has 4. But BRP mostly just uses the 3 first levels - Critical, Special and Success. Failure and Fumble rarely do anything other than "Nope. Better luck next time, bub." BRP's rolls stand more on their own as opposed to Legend's opposed/differential roll-mechanic. Legend actively uses the failure ranges as well, effectively ending up having as many as, or one more, success-level than BRP, depending on how harshly you rule fumbles.
  12. Edition wars have never been a thing with BRP. Because every single game and variant have more in common with each other than not. And they're all good. As for the original question, RuneQuest will reign supreme for fantasy. It does it very well. BRP also does it well, but not RQ-well. It does it Stormbringer-well. And that's another vote for RuneQuest 6; it does fantasy better than Stormbringer. And Stormbringer was pretty good! BRP is easier to tweak and play with, as opposed to RQ's more structured ruleset. It gives you tools for other genres than just fantasy, and absolutely earns its' place in any d100-library. But for a historically-inspired fantasy game, I'd recommend RuneQuest. Your list of books.. Legend -as Loz says, RQE is a contender. Legend has a slightly expanded magic section, and rudimentary cults, but RQE is otherwise an equally good or better package. The proper RQ-book is simply superior to Legend. BRP - Basic Roleplaying, Basic Gamemaster, Basic Creatures, Basic Magic - if these are the monographs from Chaosium, I'd advice caution. Most of them are covered, and covered better, by the BGB and newer supplements. BRP - Classic Fantasy - The BRP-mono is half a book(basicly the BRP-version of AD&D's Player's Handbook). It is still worth getting for its' innovative tweaks and massive spell lists. It is also worth mentioning that Classic Fantasy will be re-released in a full-fledged version under RQ6 next year. BRP - Magic World, Advanced Sorcery - you know these if you've played Stormbringer. Very similar in terms of rules BRP - Monster Island (+Monster Island Compendium PDF) - Yes. Think of this as a RQ6 Companion. And a good setting in its' own right.
  13. This looks great Puck. Thanks. The Green is one of the hidden gems of BRP-fantasy, and fantasy in general. Am I the only one that find the fact that Chaosium shut their eyes and run away when the gift horse opens its' mouth slightly discomforting?
  14. I see that too. Been like that for at least a day.
  15. They're kind enough to state that "if you own the the 1st. edition, you might not need this one". The pagecount is more or less the same, so I assume it's the same book, only with updated stats. The old one was for MRQ, and very BRP-friendly. I don't think this one is any different.
  16. I like Glorantha, but I've never used it in full, only cannibalized parts of it into my otherwise more-or-less homebrewed campaigns. So, RQ+other setting for me.
  17. The original was crunched up to the hilt with the options from the BGB. The transition to RQ6 won't add any more. And if someone really don't like actionpoints and opposed rolls, it's easy to remove them and just play with normal BRP instead. So I wouldn't worry too much. The kicker might be magic and tech..they could be very conversion-friendly, or not. But I'm fairly sure it will still be managable.
  18. It is as I suspected: CotFE for RQ: http://mindjammerpress.com/2014/03/21/mindjammer-press-and-the-design-mechanism-announce-the-chronicles-of-future-earth-for-runequest-6th-edition/ It does sound good.
  19. I did not like the Fate Point as they were laid out in the BGB. But they grew on me. The mechanic lets lets the non-magical warriors use their MP's to pull off stunts and show true grit, while the mages make their own luck. Works pretty well for sword&sorcery-concepts.
  20. Sorry. Not going to happen. But the second best thing might be to get to ask Sandy Peterson himself. He's GoW over at RPGgeek, and will hopefully be answering all sorts of geeky questions. Here is the thread: http://rpggeek.com/thread/1124258/rpg-geek-of-the-week-214-shhh-its-a-surprise-youll
  21. 1. anyone can make a new(or rather modify a) template. So you could take the boar, buff it up, and call it a direboar. 2. provided you release it, yes. Or you can choose to just keep it for yourself. 3. if you want a brand new template instead of working with what's already there, I think the powers that be(skoll or hkokko over at the TDM-boards) have to approve/make it. 4. not to my knowledge. I assume the creators can delete things they feel are inappropriate. 5. I am not sure. That thing is very, very cool. Should the creators drop by, here's my thumbs up.
  22. The Book of Quests impressed me a lot, with a strong Warhammery-feel throughout.
  23. Welcome, clarence! Scandinavians (or in lieu of that, swedish-speaking foreigners) are always fun
  24. On 1) You might want to take a look at Mongoose's RuneQuest, and the games that followed it. All use the blackjack-mechanic you're describing here, and keeps a single critical range to 1/10 of skill. I like that mechanic, and while I can't see a reason why your take on it wouldn't work, I can say that Mongoose's opposed rolls are one of the things they got right. 2) Flip-flopping every roll is pretty darn powerful. But if you can oppose it with a defending roll, it kind of evens out. You might be on to something here, carldot34
  25. The Hardboiled GM posted a pretty stellar review of SoC. It might tip someone off the fence: http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=727268&postcount=1 And..have I gone blind, or what has happened to the formatting and smileys here? Gone, they are!
×
×
  • Create New...