Tywyll

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).

Well, I wouldn't be using MRQ if I made a conversion. There's absolutely no problem converting d20 spells to BRP, legal wise. The game system in it self is not owned by anyone. The terms being used in any given game system (hp, AC, magic points, fatigue points, SR etc.) are for all purposes public domain.

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.

Tywyll, there is a culture in 3.5 that says the players should control the game more than the GM. Yes, really. So most everyone around here plays and has learned to play in that sort of culture, where the 'build' is more important than playing. So a lot of these new generation gamers expect to be able to use every trick and option in the rulebook. And D&D 3.5 is so inter related it is difficult to separate out parts of the rules...and that is how they expect any game to work. Ergo, a simple base game with house rules is an easier sell, if you want to try to introduce an older style of game, whether it be D&D or BRP. Or at least, that has been my experience lately. And 3.5 is not the only currently popular game with an emphasis on 'stuff' and 'kewl powerz' over actually playing a game. Look at Exalted.

OK, Jason, that makes sense. Now I just have to decide if it is $40 worth of useful to me. Thanks for the effort, though. I believe it will be far, far superior to the upcoming 4e no matter what.

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.

As for the other thing, about houserules? Most people around here play D&D, which game has the philosophy of empowering the players with 'builds', without much regard to empowerment for the GM. That leaks over and when they make a character for a different game they often bring certain expectations of power level and so on. So I find that it is easier to sell a game with a simple base. The new BRP book has a simple base, but a lot of tinsel (options) too. I guess my main concern boils down to my comfort level and being able to draw players without the game turning into something I don't enjoy running or playing anymore.

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"?

I don't thinks it's about balance as much as incentive. When writing the character chapter of Chaos & Catacombs I didn't try to balance the races as much as give a reason to like them all. As a writer trying to emulate D&D I couldn't ignore all the racial abilities. So instead I gave an ability to humans that would hopefully make them as "interesting" as the other races ability wise, though no attempt at balance was made. This can be said for the professions as well as many "D&D" professions have special abilities bordering on powers.

I'm not going to get into the details as I feel that what the playtest will be for.

Rodney Leary

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.

Well, the average cost of the average spirit magic spell is probably 1.5 mp. A RQ 3 shaman could only cast some 10 spells a day... and as the average sorcery spell costs quite some mp in RQ3 (due too intensity, range and duration manipulation) a sorcerer would only be able to cast two or three spells a day...

The solution is mp storing devices, mp spirits and self-powered magic devices. Also a mage in d100 needs to use magic in other ways, as a information seeking device, to improve defences and so on. Sorcery and the like really takes to much time to cast to be very valuable in combat, in such situation spirit magic rules (and you don't need many of those spells).

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.

It's the good old 'max rollable +1 per die' formula.

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!

I have no problem with a spell cost formula of 1 mp / d20 spell level + 1 mp per extension, as such. I was just worried that wizards wouldn't be able to do any decent manipulations, given that I want to limit the amount of manipulation a wizard can do with any given spell. I might worry to much.

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.

Personally, I'm not hung up about balance.

But it's not necessarily about slapping down the powergamer. Maybe it's just to avoid a fledgeling roleplayer being disappointed, to find their interesting character choice is inneffectual compared to their friends'.

Viewed that way, balanced character creation (which must include races) is actually an aid to good roleplaying.

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

Balancing races is like balancing character creation...why?

People are not equal, nor are races...a western heart surgeon is not "balanced" with a an afghan warlord, a somali pirate, a new york gang member or catholic priest...not better or worse, just not balanced.

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.

Unless I've misunderstood you completely, which is quite likely, this really only applies to an all-powerful god. If you have a polytheistic model then each god has his own sphere of influence and grants spells according to his own powers. So, a rain god frants rainmaking spells, a wargod grants war magic and a darkness god grants darkness magic.

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.

Also, if you go to a pilgramage to a certain specific holy place then you will probably get the spell associated with that holy place. So, you might get a spell to cure the Black Pox at a particular healing shrine where a goddess first cured the Black Pox.

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.

Possibly. I don't have a problem with that as a concept. I'd still restrict spells according to the function of the deity, though, otherwise you get the same problem as AD&D used to have where all the clerics had the same spells regardless of the deities they worshipped.

I personally preferred the Sphere system of 2nd Ed AD&D, as that dealt with the magic spread amongst various faiths quite well.

Elves are powerful in AD&D not because they have infravision or have slight stat bonuses but because they can be multi-class, which is a huge advantage. BRP Elves don't have this because in BRP anyone can be anything. So, an elf can be a fighter-mage as can a troll, an orc, a Melnibonean or a human.

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.

Where did I mention that the priesthood teaches you divine spells? I said "pilgrimages" and "heroquests", i.e. actions that show directly to your god that you possess a particular virtue and so you are worthy to invoke a particular kind of miracle. The most common miracles should be immediately available to initiates (healing for compassionate gods, weapon blessings for war gods, etc.) while others might require some extra dedication before you can use the miracle. What use are "journeys to special holy spots" if the miracle that is connected to them is automatically learned when you attain a certain cult rank?

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.

Why? I think an appropriate Pilgrimage before being able to cast the spell (a minor HeroQuest in Glorantha) is a goodi idea. Having every priest with the same Holiness the same sounds not that good to me.

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.

For simplicity's sake, let's go back to just looking at a single attack. We're still assuming two fencers both with skill 90%.

CoC: To successfully hit, you need to roll below your skill (90% chance) and your enemy needs to fail to roll below his (100%-90%=10%). Thus, .9*.1=.09=9% chance of a successful hit.

SB5: Here it gets more complicated; you can successfully hit by rolling a normal success (19-90 on the dice - a 72% chance) and your enemy rolling a failure (10% chance), or by rolling a critical (18% chance) and your opponent a normal success or a failure (72%+10%=82% chance). Thus, the total chance of a successful hit is .72*.1+.18*.82=.22=22% (approx.)

Hypothetical neutral system: This could be implemented in various ways, but, by definition, the chance of a success against an equally skilled opponent is 50%.

The chance of at least one success in two tries, where the chance of success in a single try is X, is Y=1-(1-X)^2. Putting in X=9%, 22%, 50% gives Y=17%, 39%, 75%, respectively.

(19% above is an error for 17%.)

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!

And a good thought it is, too! At least, I hope so, 'cos I was thinking on similar lines. Reaching, say, 100%+ in a relevant combat skill would allow a character to go on a sort of HeroQuest (must find a new name for them... PowerQuest?) involving sacrifice of (permanent) POW (and maybe a mini-adventure if the GM fancies); thereafter, the Power gained would still cost Power Points to activate.

(BTW, BRP doesn't have 'Hero Points'. What it calls 'Fate Points' are in fact just power points spent on various meta-game effects - like spells everyone would have. I however would rather restrict their use, as I said before, to characters with skills at a more heroic level, like 100%+.)

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.

I always thought Sandy Petersen Mysticism rules looked interesting for martial arts , but never tried them out. anyone ever try them and if so how did they work

which rules set is that from?

Vampire dojos. I like that idea you've inspired.

I thought the reason that vampires went for high class people is that it was a test of their skills. And higher class people tend to be prettier to look at and have around, eternally, than some bum the vampire accidentally turned. Plus, it might be an act of suicide on their part--since vampires seem to not be able to kill themselves. Therefore, by turning someone people care about, those people will be hunting the vampire down.

How often do you choose to eat garbage when you have the option to eat stake?

Seriously, who's eat a Krystal burger (an old, wet, cold one at that) when they have the option of eating a filet mignon, cooked just the way you like?

There is nothing suicidal or stupid about it, its about fulfilling desires. Sure, there will be vampires who will intentionally avoid flagging the authorities, but again it depends on the mythos: does a vampire have to kill to eat? This is the stupidest element of modern vampire myths and exists almost exclusively in the movies... even Dracula could keep coming back to the same target over and over.

Assuming one attack per character per 12s round and that the wounds are not incapacitating, the odds off either or both fencers inflicting a hit in a round are 19% (CoC), 39% (SB5), and 75% (hypothetical neutral system). The numbers above are for a single attack.

Wow, I didn't realize there were such differences in the BRP systems. Could you show your math on how you came to those conclusions? I don't doubt you are correct, I'm just curious in the differences.