Tywyll

thank, I have. So, can you shed any lights on the differences and benefits of the various systems?

There is a sorcery version that predates Avalon Hill's? Where is that one?

I've been looking over old RQ stuff trying to prepare for the coming of BRP. While doing so, I've come across several different versions of Sorcery. There is the original one, in RQ3, the updated one in RQ4, Sandy Petersen's take, and finally, the MRQ one. Trying to keep them all in my head is making my eyes bleed. Could someone who is familiar with them tell me about them, their differences, which are easiest to play with in game and any other bits and bobs worth mentioning? I'll admit that of my limited RQ experience, Sorcery got the least attention back in the day (no direct damage spells, and I was coming from d&d).

And ultimately, if this is a fan conversion that you aren't selling, you can do whatever you want... more or less.

Hey, I never got to play RQ1 or 2, and started with 3 (divorced from Glorantha) though mostly ignored it to focus on Stormbringer. I always read about Runes, and the name of the game was 'RuneQuest'. I saw them on the books and the odd old suppliment. What roll did they actually fulfill originally? Did characters embody runes, or gain power from them somehow? I know how MRQ does it, and I know that's not like how it used to be, so the question is... what did it used to be? I'm just curious, its one of those things I've always wondered.

I find that culture tends to be addressed when the GM is the only one with the rulebook. Selling a game, at least in my experience, hasn't been about passing it around and letting them read all the details... and usually a player doesn't like to buy a new book until they know they'll be playing the game for awhile. I agree that there are many players who are all about the build, but that's not really unique to 3.5, that sort of min-maxing has always been around. I've only encountered one player who felt that 'if its in a book, we should play it'. I just kept telling him 'no' until he got the hint.

But why not simply say, "We aren't using those rules" or "We are using these options, but not those options"? How would that be any different from saying, "We are playing BRP but using these Houserules"?

That's why my suggestion of Humans getting more Hero Points. I can't put a 'value' range on it, but I think its certainly something that would have appeal.

Those solutions don't really work if you are trying to model d20 style casting. I think either a)granting more MP (INt+Pow?) or b)granting something like the buffer idea, +1 per 10% in casting skill would be the way. Also something like the Ease Sorcery skill might help.

Ah, that's a good point. Then again, I haven't played with attribute bonuses much in the last several years (Elric! and CoC being my main BRP games in the last several years). I suppose one could easily cap that bonus for non-magical skills if its a problem.

Ah, and here I was hoping it was max you can roll + minimum you an roll. Are int and pow limited?

Hey, What are the attribute maxes in BRP? I assume the standard 21 for humans, does that include INT and POW? What about non-humans, how do you figure out their maxes? Cheers!

Unless you do something to dramatically increase the Wizard's MP, using that formula will make Wizards even weaker than their d&d counterparts, which is to say that they'll start being able to cast several spells a day, and each time they gain access to new spell levels, their number of spells drops dramatically.

Out of curiosity, how many people have been in campaigns where characters got skills over 100% What kind of effect did that have on play? Where the characters still fun? Did the system hold out? One of my friends recently suggested that the designers never really meant for players to reach such levels, and I'm not sure I agree. However, its never actually occurred in any of the campaigns I've run or played in (due to their being short mostly). So I was curious to hear from people with more experience with the system.

Thank you, yes, that's exactly it! :thumb:

Because few players enjoy playing the character in the group that can't accomplish anything while everyone else is being 'awesome'. No, life isn't balanced, but luckily game playing is about escapism, or else why do we spend so much time focusing on the exciting elements of the character's lives rather than dealing with their day to day action as a weaver or a farmer? Luck was used as a 'balancing' factor, with the caveat that 'everyone has an equal chance' of rolling an 18. This was the earliest form of character balancing, but not necessarily the most fun when someone rolled extremely well and someone else got stuck with someone extremely poor... many are the stories of players intentionally getting their characters with poor stats killed so they could roll up another one. Ultimately, I started this thread as a means of discussing how to make racial options for a campaign setting with an eye towards making certain that no one was too advantaged compared to anyone else. If you think such things are unnecessary, fair enough, but that's not really what I was trying to discuss.

Yeah that wasn't what I was getting at. Yes, the kind of god you worship should dictate the kinds of magic you get. What shouldn't happen (in my opinion) is that you learn specific spells, especially in advance. Priests preying ahead of time, in a vancian or quasi-vancian system (which I consider RQ Divine Magic to be) just doesn't seem like it models a good view of magic gifted from on high. Only if you view the god's power as being limited to places like that. I think a different way to handle it would be: a) You prove yourself worthy of receiving the ability to wield the blessing by journeying to a forgotten shrine and reclaiming it for the faith. You find a relic hidden at such a shrine lost to the faith c) The affliction is so potent only a place dedicated to your god can handle enough power for them to remove the pox. All of these things maintain the element of the quest or the adventure, without leaving the PC the one 'in charge' of the ability. I personally preferred the Sphere system of 2nd Ed AD&D, as that dealt with the magic spread amongst various faiths quite well.

Which was balanced against the fact that they had level limits, while humans didn't. They could advance to any level and possibly dual-class. thus was a sort of balance achieved.

Part of what might help would simply be making sure that players use downtime for training. If they have a month to rest between adventures, which skill do they want to bump? Fighters will probably pick weapon skills and casters not. Ultimately though, the question comes down to not how to keep the wizards from being as good as the fighter in melee, but how to make the fighters 'special' so their options in combat don't degenerate to, "I attack, I defend, I attack, I defend..." to paraphrase something I read on a forum recently about Feat systems versus pure skill systems, while feats and the mechanics of them might be flawed, the premise is sound. That is, players like their characters to be special and do things that other people can't. Feats/Special abilities allow them that feeling, of being special and capable beyond the guardsman with X% in his skill. So the Fate Points are definitely a good idea, as are super powers scaled down for more mundane applications. Another option for how they are learned, depending on world setting, would be as Cult Powers ala the MRQ Elric system. Only fighter, or followers of war gods, could dedicate pow to gain 'specials'. The concept could be broadened to represent guilds and such as well, I suppose, though the sacrifice might have to be reworked a bit.

Sorry, when I said 'Priest' it was a typo, I meant 'God'. Your worthiness to invoke the rituals comes from any manner of methods in which you prove yourself, embody your faith, etc, etc. If the GM wants a specific power to be difficult for a player to gain (say Resurrection) than it is withheld, per my example, until such time as the character has earned the right to utilize it (in what ever method the GM decides fits the deity). This should still be, in my opinion, a one off or perhaps use in pursuance of a goal of the faith, rather than something the character 'learns' and can use as they see fit.

Though I can't speak for the writer, to me it is because the idea of the God giving you a specific spell is kind of silly. If God's work their miracles through you than they ought to be able to use what is best in a specific situation, rather than what the priest thinks he might need a week from now. That's just me though. I'd prefer that Pow dedicated to the God becomes a pool of points from which they can draw (with GM's approval) spells from the God as they need them. it also keeps divine magic from being a definable resource (yes your god can heal, but for some reason, when you try to heal that wounded person, they don't grant you that ability... perhaps its in the god's interest that that person suffers, perhaps you've failed the god and are being punished, that's up to you to answer in the dark tea time of your soul).

A lot of the 'balancing' that is being mentioned is purely rp based. That is setting dependent. This is a new generic rules set that will hopefully attract a new set of players, maybe even D&D'ers. Since there aren't (that I'm aware of) and settings for BRP just yet, many new players will approach the game with a more 'traditional high fantasy' approach. Elves won't be stuffed outside their forests, nor dwarves outside their caves.

Wow... thanks for that view behind the curtain. I really appreciate it. Were there not criticals and impales in CoC? Its been so long since I played, I just forgot the differences. Cheers!

Hey, No, I've caught that distinction, though I'll probably use Hero Points from MRQ. Depending on the various ways in which Fate Points can be used, I will probably mix and match a bit. The ability to ablate damage will probably be there for everyone, just due to the lethality of the system. The other effects will have to wait to be categorized once I've read them. I'll probably also mix in super powers (minor) for such things. That's a good point about the 'Power Quest'. I'm not sure what I'll call it in my setting, or how it will work out. It might simply be something that anyone who has truly mastered an endeavor can achieve... or I might make it require magic or myth to unlock. Not quite certain. Since my setting has been in a number of different systems at one point or antoher, including 3rd Ed wherein Feats just came to you over time, I think it depends on how awesome/overwhelming the Fate Point powers are.

which rules set is that from?