Rhialto the Marvellous

I'm also an Elric! devotee, but only have experience with it, SB5 and MW. I'll second the opinion that MW could have been great, if only it had (much) better production values. As it is, I find it easy enough to repurpose Elric! for basically any setting I care to game in.

Man, if only there were an English translation of the supplement itself...the excellent review is tantalizing (literally).

Thanks, I didn't see that earlier topic. Given your detailed, reasoned response here I think the rule now is the best solution (even though I tend towards BRP with Easy (x2), Avg (x1) and Hard (x1/2) task levels, and not the +/-% modifiers).

14 hours ago, KPhan2121 said:

This is more of confusing rules on my part. The Slip Past Shields would go through an energy shield's AV instead of reducing it to 7. I added a sentence on page 13 "Success on the attack completely bypasses an energy shield's AV." As for the note under the energy shield's stats I changed the sentence to "... weapons or attacks that leak through energy shields." I hope that clears up the confusion.

I also italicized all instances of "Leaks through energy shields" as well as all instances of "Energy Weapon(s)" to differentiate them as terms.

Okay, the leaking seems fine, but I'm not sure of the "slip past": the concept behind the latter was that only slow attacks could slip through, which original FS modelled with a damage ceiling before the shield triggered. Why not stick with that idea?

Sorry, just sat down to look over the revised (1.0.1) version and noticed some more items: this is incredibly useful, as I have a friend who really wants to run FS, but is not keen on the original system. I showed him this and now he's all set, so thanks very much. 👍

• p.8, Weapons Table: should be Garrotte or Garrote, but I haven't seen garote before (though both variants I mention are accepted)
• p.9, Vibrating Blades: I'd change to read "A vibrating blade does no extra damage but it will cut through energy shields easier, which only provide 7 AV instead of the full 15 AV." to distinguish from regular (non-energy) shields.
• p.13, Note for Energy Shields should probably read "The first AV value is the shield’s normal AV. The second AV is the shield’s AV against weapons or attacks that slip past or leak through energy shields." You might want to consider italicizing or otherwise highlighting terms you define in this document, as I did in this example...but then you're taking another step towards a more formal document. 😉
• p.14, MedPac: "Standardized" or "Standard" in place of "Standardize"
• p.15, VS Perimeter Guards: should read "A small floating orb that sets a perimeter around a camp and monitors the area."
• p.15, Wet Jackets: delete "A jacket" and start with "Silvery sheets..."
• p.15, Facial Scanner: should read "Recognizes human and alien faces and can store pertinent information on them."
• p.15, Arm Harpoon: should read "Holds up to 5 short spears that can be launched up to 10 meters."
• p.15, Jonah: should read "A slightly more expensive version of the Arm Harpoon; involves a cable attachment and an internal pulley mechanism."
• p.16, Stimusim: should read "Stimusim replicates the sensitivity of flesh..."
• p.17, Pilot: should read "...can double as the navigator."
• p.17, Gunner: should read "They man..."
• p.25, Soma/Hardening: should read "...providing an AV of 3 plus 2 for any extra power points..." (matches phrasing of other abilities under Soma).
• p.28, Vis/Note: should read "Instead, at 61+%..."
• p.29, Urge: should read "When a psychic fumbles a psychic powers check, commits a heinous deed or breaks a strong personal conviction, they must roll against their Sanity."
• p.36, Hubris: should read "When a theurge fumbles a Theurgic Casting check, commits a heinous deed or breaks a religious taboo, they immediately roll against their Sanity check."

7 hours ago, KPhan2121 said:

I have a request to ask you. Since you've played Fading Suns for a long time, can you take a look at the Urge and Hubris rules. Those were the rules where I had the most difficulty in translating Fading Suns to BRP and I ended up using Sanity to represent them. I'd like to hear your opinions on how they function.

Sure: I wouldn't worry too much about absolutely replicating the FS mechanics, as I prefer your simplified versions and like that you've reused an existing mechanic (Sanity) to achieve close to the same effects. Urge and Hubris represent the dark sides of using psychic or  theurgical powers, and can easily slip into insanity: neat and tidy.

Really well done! As someone who ran a FS campaign for a few years but grew tired of the system and endless expansions this is incredibly useful...A few things:

Ur-Obun text on p.4 is reproduced for the Ur-Ukar, and presumably they'd have some different skills?

Energy Shields on p.13 says "...the shield may burn out. It can also be caused by being by multiple hits..." when it should read "...the shield may burn out. It can also be caused by being hit by multiple hits..."

P.15: I think it should be "Magna-Lock", not "Lick".

For those of us without M-Space: does the "Hd" for the ships represent "Handling"?

P.24: Should be "Subtle Sight", not "Suble".

Well this is unexpectedly good news for MW: look forward to seeing it!

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It looks like  NewChaosium getting RQ seems to have killed off Magic World. I don't believe it is still in print or are there any more supplements in the works..

You can still purchase copies of MW from Chaosium here, but I believe you are correct that no more supplements are planned. Instead, there will be RuneQuest Fantasy Earth products as Chaosium's "generic" fantasy BRP game.

21 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Anyone got any suggestions for a Manor House or Castle to use for Shadow Abalus' answer of Castle Amber? 

Are you looking for something semi-official, or not? There are some illustrated guides to Amber you could consult. Or Dyson Logos has lots of awesome maps for free on his blog.

On 7/15/2018 at 12:30 PM, Atgxtg said:

In Fudge terms it's not so much canceling. It's just that damage is shifted up or down in the attacker has a Body score at least 2 points higher or lower than the defender. Not sure if this would be doubled if there was a 4 point difference, but I'd probably consider than for Amber. The nice bit is that it keeps swordfight damage between two strong Amberites down to what we see in the books. I'm still trying to get a good solution for BRP. The canceling might cause other problems- a big armored creature can become invulnerable.

Probably scaling the db with success level and maybe smoothing out the progression will do it. It's just that once the db becomes a big or greater than the weapon's normal damage it becomes the dominant factor, and combined with a bell curve and fixed hit points, turns things into a one hit fight. 

Sure, love too. Thanks for the input. Oh, I also have been working on some stuff for sailing ships for this campaign, and worked up and revised some stats for cannon over in the Seafaring thread in the Stormbringer forum (because I'll be using the ship rules from Stormbringer/Elric/RQ3). If you are interested take a peek. I think I've worked out a way for ships to be able to withstand a few broadsides. 

Ah, yes: I guess I was literally thinking in terms of fencing, where one degree of success could justify canceling the damage bonus based on the parrying party's bonus. And it wouldn't have the problem of big armored creatures you note, since they'd only get the cancelling if actually parrying with a weapon.

I saw the Seafaring thread, but will take a second look, thanks.

On 7/13/2018 at 2:46 PM, Atgxtg said:

Funny you should mention that. I've been looking at The Princess Bride RPG Quickstart. It's written for Fudge (where Fate came from, and mostly the same system), and where I got the idea of DBs canceling out.

Very late to the discussion here, but this seems to be the best way to model fencing duels, as it is the overall difference in mastery (skill) and natural ability (strength) that should matter. I've never seen the DB-canceling option before, but it makes sense to me.

Also liking the whole game concept, I hope you keep us posted on how this turns out.

14 hours ago, styopa said:

Ah, you're talking about BRP.

I was talking about RQG ported to fantasy earth.

There's a pretty big distance between BRP and RQ now.

No, I was referring to what Jeff said, and assume the same mechanics (passions, skill augmentation using them, runes, etc.) will be re-integrated with the Fantasy Earth setting vice Glorantha. But it is just a guess. 🤔 

2 hours ago, NickMiddleton said:

...personally I'd love to see a new edition of Magic World which got the same devotion to its production quality that RQG has received: I am fully aware that's not going to happen however.

Me too, and a shame that won't happen. 

1 hour ago, Richard S. said:

No, "Runequest Fantasy Earth" has been confirmed as an upcoming system.

Should have been clearer: the "Fantasy Earth" books, we will see: Mythic Iceland first (I assume), followed by Mythic Atlantis, Mythic Opar, etc. Might as well suggest, while I'm at it.

On 6/1/2018 at 6:09 AM, MOB said:

"RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha is a landmark, and was even before it was written... it marks the return of one of the most influential and storied games in our hobby back to the house that built it... No other RuneQuest—and this is coming from a guy from whom you’d have to pry his Cults of Prax or Cults of Terror from his cold, dead hands—does Glorantha as well as RQG."—Andrew Logan Montgomery, Exploring the Otherworlds of Fiction, Magic, and Gaming.

Andrew Logan Montgomery has written a deeply insightful 7000 word review of the new RUNEQUEST: ROLEPLAYING IN GLORANTHA (helpfully split up into sections, e.g. "Game System, Combat, Magic, Glorantha etc).

Whether you're an old time RuneQuester, or someone whose new to it all and curious, this review is well worth your time!

Well, that was a very thorough review. I'm still most likely to wait for the first Fantasy Earth book, never having been a huge Glorantha fan, but this review at least has me tempted.

Much as I appreciate all the hard and loving work that went into Magic World, it is the antithesis of the production qualities I see in the new RQG.

Now wouldn't a version of Stormbringer with updated production qualities matching RQG be something else? 

30 minutes ago, Fenspar said:

I, for one, would like to know more about RuneQuest Fantasy Earth. But a fantasy earth, somewhat like the generic setting of RuneQuest 3 but with rules closer to the BGB would be of great interest... if that's what "RuneQuest Fantasy Earth" means.

Same here: I most fondly recall playing RQ3 in the old Fantasy Earth (and our other homebrew settings), and am keen to see what RuneQuest Fantasy Earth is.

12 hours ago, Sean_RDP said:

I think what Strombringer did (and does) as an RPG is give people permission to do and be something different, whether it is their first or a hundred and first rpg. Yes it is fantasy / sword - sorcery, but it breaks not only established rules but established themes.  Saving the world is impossible, though I suppose some people likely ran their campaigns that way (and that is fine). It is not so much a fantasy rpg as much as a test of character: do you get rich while the world burns or do you try and make something of yourself, do something memorable even if no one (save I guess Strombringer itself) is going to remember?  Even today with so many great settings, that feels a little mind blowing. 

But then I am a fan of the genre, the author, the books, the character, and the game. I might be a little biased. 

Agree, and I think this is why it's just fine to have both beggars and nobles in the same party: it's a distinction without much of a real difference in the end, since each can potentially contribute equally to the epic struggle that unfolds. And then die.

14 hours ago, seneschal said:

How did we go from "I love Stormbringer because ..." to "Tolkien is a crypto-fascist"?

Since the interview characterizes Mr. Moorcock as "laughing" when he stated this it presumably indicates he wasn't entirely serious. I'm a fan of Stormbringer the RPG, whatever personal political persuasion spawned the tales it's based on... 

19 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

Moorcock was the editor for New Worlds magazine for decades. Not only is he regarded as a major fantasy writer in his now right (he's ranked in the top 50 of UK writers of all time), he is also one of the most authoritative academics of the fantasy genre. To suggest that he had a cursory reading of Tolkien is silly - he actually met Tolkien in person - he's the sort of guy that could present lectures on the subject. Just because he doesn't like Tolkien's work - the reasons of which are well detailed in multiple articles and essays - doesn't mean he hadn't read them in any detail. Quite the opposite in fact.

Yes, I'm aware of who he is, but (obviously! 😒) unacquainted with the entirety of his body of work laying at out his opinion on Tolkien (having simply enjoyed his own stories, and read limited quotes by him on others', and now "Epic Pooh"). Since I said "I could well be wrong..." I'll leave it at "Yep, I sure was".

On 5/19/2018 at 6:50 AM, Joerg said:

 

IIRC some time in the eighties Moorcock also released an essay or even a book about writing fantasy, IIRC, so I think that Moorcock had read at least the Lord of the Ring including the appendices quite closely.

If you replace "fascist" by "feudalist", there is nothing crypto about the position of Tolkien with regard to his romantically idealized past.

Tolkien's world is anti-industrialist (think of his treatment of the war factories of Isengard) and about a layered society, with Sam Gamgee personifying the loyal common soldier/servant to the nobility officer. Like most fantasy, the focus is on a lost past rather than looking forward. Aragorn's kingship has long been destined.

I guess that comes from his story-teller focus on SF. One can clearly say that Clarke created the concept of satellite communication and laid the groundwork for one of the pillars of the modern communication network.

Moorcock's generally dystopian settings do have rather backward-oriented mindset, too - decadent Melnibone, then the end of that universe, although there was also the heroic story of carving out the hinterland of the southern continent from unshaped Chaos by Aubec of Malador, and the necessity to end the world of Melnibone and the young kingdoms to make way for a world of Balance. (Which doesn't really make sense in a multiverse...)

Moorcock's one-dimensional axis of Law vs. Chaos probably is too much of a simplification, much like "left" vs. "right" in the political debate.

 

From a story-teller point of view, a flawless utopia has no potential. A struggling utopia beset by interior destabilization and exterior threats is probably the best view of a world we can get, or alternatively a struggle between several not quite mutually compatible utopias. Otherwise a selective utopia for a few chosen few means a dystopia for most others.

As I said, hard to tell from a single quote, but since he referenced "there and back again" that indicates he read The Hobbit at least, but indicates nothing more. I could well be wrong on how widely and deeply he read Tolkien, but in any case the soundness of his opinion is impossible to tell from such a short article. But thanks for the tip, I'll see if I can find the article or book you reference. And while we could replace "fascist" with any number of less pejorative terms, he presumably used the word he meant to use: for a writer of such accomplishment I would consider it common courtesy, and sense. 😉

22 hours ago, Newt said:

If you want to read a good career retrospective of Michael Moorcock that highlights how his political views have influenced his writing read this interview in the New Statesmen from 2015:

• Michael Moorcock: “I think Tolkien was a crypto-fascist”

Since it has a sensationalist title, I would ask that people read the article in full before shooting off replies

Thanks, very interesting: while I don't agree with his assessment of Tolkien (his opinion seems based on a very superficial or limited reading, but hard to tell from a single quote), I do appreciate his retrospective. I will just remark that I find it ironic that the author best known for the Law - Balance - Chaos struggle and their reliance on each other can't see we don't simply live in a Phillip K. Dick world, but also a Clark world. But not Dick Clark.

While I've never played Mythras, this might do the trick, as Mr. Vance's works are amongst my favorites...