Nick J.

19 hours ago, jagerfury said:

I use the three +10% cultural skill bonuses as not affecting skill point totals, so you could get one skill getting 70 points.

Curious if there has been any debate on at high levels of experience do characters all start to look the same? All the PC's getting high weapon skills, and insight skills, and potion skills..., etc.? 

I haven't really run a campaign into those levels (I'm still learning to be not so stingy with experience rolls).

Off-hand, I suspect that if my current campaign carries on for a bit longer, characters are going to start being more defined by the demons/elementals they bind, magic items they accumulate, and the sorts of Areté effects they get for 101+ skills.

This is the one area where I might incorporate the Legendary/Heroic abilities from 'Legend' for characters who have achieved skill mastery.

3 minutes ago, ReignDragonSMH said:

So your ability to turn undead would be tied to how deeply aligned to the Light you were? That makes a ton of sense to me.

Yeah, especially since there are spells like Beckoning Earth, and whatnot that specifically deal with combating the undead. I'm probably going to write up a slightly watered down version of that spell, that doesn't take 10 MP (otherwise, there'd be no access until somebody becomes a champion of light).

The "Key of Shadows" spell in Advanced Sorcery comes to mind. It only costs 2MP, but I'll probably make a "Light" version that doesn't enslave the fixed-INT undead, but instead drives it off.

44 minutes ago, ReignDragonSMH said:

re: Clerics

I would think the harder job would be to come up with rules for turning Undead. I mean POW vs. POW makes sense, but how do "get" the ability? How do you create a level system where a more experienced "Cleric" turns Undead better than a lower level one does?

Just using the Magic World and Advanced Sorcery books, I've just started experimenting with this (being still a somewhat green GM with d100 systems).

I've tied the acquisition of "Light" spells to the Allegiance system. The ability to cast Light spells is a granted boon from some divinity or divine cult and you "cast" these powers with an Allegiance Test. The magnitude of the spells available I'm still tinkering with, but I'm leaning toward a system where MP of the spells available to the character are <= to 1/10th of Allegiance.

Edit:

Not to favor characters who are allied with Light, I'm still tinkering with something that makes sense for Balance and Shadow. I want them to be distinct and not just a 1:1 copy.

On 3/29/2017 at 9:20 PM, Celtic Viking said:

Sorry to raise thread, but the link in the OP is dead, does anyone have these to share?

Cheers!

Maybe send Tooley1Chris a direct message. It looks like he hasn't visited the site for a couple of weeks, but I'm sure he'll see it eventually.

On 4/1/2017 at 9:08 AM, Celtic Viking said:

Tell me more please?

Pacts and bargains?

Well specifically I was thinking about the need for negotiation laid out in Advanced Sorcery on page 41.

"From the sorcerer’s point of view, the best thing about negotiating with a demon is that it costs no points of Power. Especially if the sorcerer fears the POW of the summoned thing, he or she should negotiate. The Chronicler plays the demon. The sorcerer should have in mind something to exchange for the demon’s services. If the negotiation succeeds, the demon then undertakes one limited task, and does it to the best of its ability. Resolve this with Bargain, Oratory, or Charisma rolls, as appropriate."

I'm definitely in the camp that wants to role-play this kind of thing out, but I suppose if one wanted to take the time, they could systematize this somehow. I haven't done so because it seems like a lot of work for not a lot of payoff, but YMMV.

Channeling sure sounds like summoning and binding demons/elementals/spirits and then drawing on the power they provide. You could certainly flesh it out a bit more with rules for making pacts and bargains.

On 3/25/2017 at 4:47 PM, thefub said:

This is a good reason why having an example of character creation by the author is a good idea.

The text from the book contradicts itself. From my understanding culture skills are not part of the occupation. If one cannot put points in a skill from your culture with these extra points, then, putting 10 points into Craft ,for example, hinders you from using it as a personal interest later. I will most likely allow culture skills to be raised with these points.

Edit: The skills I am most referring to are the skills from the culture that are not in your occupation. So if craft is not in your occupation but is in your culture..

There's no wrong way to do it. The only restriction you might want to consider is making sure no single skill starts with more than 60 points . . . or not.

Here is a quick and dirty character

Cultural skills 10, 10, 10

Occupation Skills: 60, 40,40,40,20,20,20,20

Free skills: 40,20,20,20

Note: I added 60 percentiles to 1H swords, 40 to bows and Shields and then added the base percentages and category bonus (the only part of my form-fillable sheet that doesn't autocalculate)

Legally, there is no way to get a hold of either.

I'd have to look at my copy to compare notes, but Advanced Sorcery for Magic World covers a lot of the same ground as the Bronze Grimoire (IIRC).

I'm already thinking of how to take it one step further, so there's some additional skin in the game.

"If the assisting character fumbles then they subtract their governing characteristic from the active character's skill or characteristic roll."

As the aformentioned GM that had to adjudicate this, I like your solution @NickMiddleton. Thanks!

If I recall I think my solution was kind of close. I allowed characters to add their Strength score to the roll of the strongest character making the effort roll, but I like the idea that characters have to succeed on their effort roll to add that amount.

On 2/10/2017 at 4:22 AM, Conrad said:

I just think that it is total bollocks that Chaosium would revamp, or even go for the Stormbringer franchise again. They had a spat with the author a long while ago and that showed the antipathy between Moorcock and Chaosium. The best company in a position to have a shot at an EC set of supplements to my mind would be the Mythras crew, as Loz Whitaker is both a fan and has written such stuff before. However buying the rights to such a setting might be expensive if Moorcock sold the rights to some film producer or other.

Is it really the same Chaosium though? One would presume that with the departure of Mr. Krank (et al.) and the "new-old" management basically being Moon Design, with the name Chaosium re-purposed, that whatever animosity existed between Micheal Moorcock and the company isn't really an issue?

Then again, maybe I'm completely wrong.

Uh, it'd be nice to see a sculpt or two. Kind of hard to get excited about buying somebody a 3d printer without some sense of the output.

There's a way to do this with any pdf. (I use Foxit Reader) Open up the file and select "print to pdf" and choose to export it as an image. The file size will be quite large, but it should generate a file that can be uploaded and printed.

I've played a couple of games at http://www.unseenservant.us/forum/ 

It's mostly D&Dish type games, but you might be able to find a few people willing to play in a Glorantha game using other systems.

57 minutes ago, iemckinnon said:

I look forward to the new Runequest, and I am planning on leaving Pathfinder, after GMing the current campaign is over, to go back to the game I cut my RPG teeth with back in the 80s.  I was tempted to get my group started with Classic RQ, but the gang I play with now is all across the country, and we use Fantasy Grounds 2 to gather weekly.  Sadly there is no RQ ruleset for FG2, and it looks like the BRP is not up to snuff for RQ?
Any chance of a ruleset for the new RQ, tokens and the like when it is ready?  Or maybe a second kickstarter for that?

It may or may not be of interest to you, but there is a community-made RQ2 that works as an extension for the BRP ruleset in Fantasy Grounds (which is FG2 based).

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?25979-RQ2-Extension

My pleasure. Glad it's of use.

OK. Pardon me if I'm being obtuse, but did you have a question?

That which is played is not dead.

Updated to correct a minor oversight. (changed instances of the words "Black" and "Gray" to "Shadow" and "Balance" in the spell type field, to keep it more consistent with the core rules).

49 minutes ago, g33k said:

Wow.  "pretty hiking simulators," really?

I take it you don't care for "Elder Scrolls"...  or CoC:DCotE .

Yes. "Really." It's just an opinion. I thought Morrowind was pretty good (no quest markers, being forced to actually read to hunt for clues about what to do next, etc.), I thought Oblivion was very banal, but pretty (Skyrim too). CoC:DCotE was good, but it wasn't made by the same team that did the ES games. In reality with the turnover that happens over the years, I suspect very, very few people who worked on Morrowind or CoC are still with the company. Judging by the latest iteration of Fallout, I think Bethsoft is embracing a much different RPG aesthetic than I care for.

I'm not sure what developer I would entrust a Glorantha or Runequest game to in the big-budget, AAA, first-person space. Maybe Obsidian?

I don't think Bethesda would get the tone right. Don't get me wrong they make very pretty hiking simulators, but I suspect the game would be about as wide as the ocean and shallow as mud puddle -- they might get the visuals right and a grand sense of scale, but the actual themes and philosophical underpinnings? I dunno?

Maybe Bethesda fifteen years ago, when they were making Morrowind could pull it off?

Here's another possibility. Tie in some progression for the power/duration of beastshape with the Allegiance system. If the character reaches apotheosis in The Balance, then perhaps they can transform into a given beast shape for POW hours?

With respect to equipment, I suppose I'm old-school and don't want things to be too easy for players. I have equipment drop off of them (or clothes/armor rip if they assume a larger SIZ creature's shape).

No wrong answers here, just matters of taste.

44 minutes ago, Questbird said:

It is simple to remember and use though, which is what appeals to me. Perhaps 3 free parries for a large shield is a bit much.

An alternate approach might be to give shield parries only a 10% penalty instead of 30% penalty. That way shields are still beneficial but don't make you into a superhero.

I've been reading up about shield use. Apparently they virtually disappeared from use in the late medieval period as opponents became better armoured (ie. full plate), requiring the use of two-handed weapons (and therefore no shield) to defeat. More armoured foes needed shields less.

I just made it so large shields allow you to parry incoming arrows in Magic World. I couldn't care less about "realism", I just need it to be "sensible."