vagabond

If you don't have the minimum STR/DEX to use a shield your skill level is Difficult.

Under the Weapons section, page 257, the STR/DEX requirement gives no such guidelines but asks "What are the minimum STR and DEX required to use the weapon?"

Is it safe to assume that not meeting the minimum STR/DEX for a specific weapon makes it Difficult as well? In RQ, you are penalized -5% for every deficient point.

Page 247 gives rough guidelines/suggestions:

Additional fatigue points

Skill rolls are Difficult

Requires a successful associated stat roll for whichever stat is insufficient.

-V

So if you successfully cast a spell from someone's grimoire is it safe to assume that you can then transcribe it into your own spell book? I was separating the idea of casting from a stranger's spell book and transcribing a found spell into your own spell book.

I'm all for the idea of finding spells through role-play but an INT x 1% chance to add them into a spell book is pretty rough--when studying the principles of a spell yields a better chance, even if it does take a month.

I suppose (as an option) you could use a stranger's spell book to study the principles of spell and learn in it in a month (for the better INT + POW roll) if the immediate gratification INT x 1% roll fails.

Again, I suspect the premise is trying to cast a spell out of someone else's

grimoire, or transcribing it in the field, is significantly more hazardous than

doing the same from the safe confines of your tower, with other research

tools, spell components, your full attention and a controlled environment at

your disposal.

Your option sounds good - if you cannot do it on the spot, than retreating to

your sanctuary and devoting a full month of uninterrupted study to the

transcription would allow for the INT+POW roll. Not many adventuring

wizards would want to take that month off though ...

-V

There is a difference between complexity and detail.

A Sci-FI RPG doesn't need to be complex, but usually does need a bit more detail than a Fantasy RPG. Adding all that detail is work, and that is probably why BRP hasn'T had many SF settings.

With fantasy, you can start small and expand the setting as you go. Plan out a isolated village with a half dozen interesting NPCs, a problem or two for the PCs to solve, and you are ready to go-the GM can literally make things up as he goes along.

With Sci FI, it isn't quite so easy to pull off. An isolated colony needs more info that the isolated village to be playable. Not to mention more technology. When the PCs start adventuring, the GM is also a bit more restricted in what he can add to the campaign setting and how. A fantasy GM can throw out a dragon or have a wizard cause an earthquake and have them instantly accepted. A Sci-FI GM needs to come up with some sort of plausible explanation for such things. While not necessarily more complex or difficult to explain, the explanation adds more detail. For instance, if a PSI Adept could crreated earthquakes, then the GM could explain it as applying mental energy along a fault line. Easily done, except now the GM must add some detail for mental powers, and tectonic plates.

Kind of a case of where ignorance is bliss. Sci Fi PCs are usually much less ignornat of thier environment that Fantasy PCs and so require more information to play. Fantasy PCs know so little that they can accept more on less evidence.

I disagree. Hard SciFi yes. Otherwise, not really.

Let's put your example on equal footing.

A fantasy psionicist using his mental powers to create an earthquake. Do

you need plate tectonics and a fault line? No. Do you need a system for

mental powers? Yes.

A Sci-Fi Adept using his mental powers to create an earthquake. Do you

need plate tectonics and a fault line? No. Do you need a system for mental

powers? Yes.

I agree that with advanced tech you need more items to cover the variety

of tech levels, but do you need much more than descriptions, number of

shots before energy source depleted, and shots per round? Not really. Because

those same issues hold up for a blaster as much as a bow and arrow.

It all depends on story and how much detail is wanted by the group. I can

assure you that some fantasy players are going to demand just as much if

not more detail.

-V

The rules seem a little unclear here. They describe how to cast a spell from another magicians grimoire-- INT x 1 and if you fail said grimoire is useless to you until your relevant Language skill goes up by 5%, after which you can try again.

But under 'Gaining New Spells' it's implied that you get them by "seeking them out, discovering them, and buying or otherwise attaining physical copies of the spell books, scrolls, or some other forms of copies, then transferring the spell into your own grimoire" but no game-rule information is provided, no roll to determine successful transcription. Is it assumed that this process is automatic? If so, and if you've already tried to cast a spell from a magician's grimoire that you want to copy a spell from and failed, what then?

Then the process of studying spell 'principles' is given, but this is different than just copying a spell from another source.

Clearly I'm confused...

The intent of the 'Gaining New Spells' suggestions is that one finds new

spells via roleplay. Locating ancient tomes, buying them from questionable

characters at a bazaar, stealing them from a wizard's tower, etc.

I would say that transcription from one source to another is the same as

casting from another's grimoire - INT%. And, yes, studying the principle of

a spell is different - (INT+POW)% to reflect one month of study versus

instant gratification. And creating new spells requires a minimum of six months,

with six successful (INT+POW)% rolls needed.

-V

OK, some thoughts:

In Elric!/SB5, the only requirement for being a sorceror was POW >= 16.

If you opted to know spells at character creation, you gained Chaos Points

per spell known.

In SB1-4, the requirement was INT+POW >= 32 and POW >= 16. So, you

could have wildly powerful sorcerors (high POW) with little capacity (lower INT),

or moderately powerful sorcerors (POW around 16) who were the book-wizened

type (high INT). Or, just plain badass sorcerors (INT and POW both high).

I prefer the SB1-4 for my personal Stormbringer rules.

For straight wizardy, where you are not facing otherworldly creatures, you could

just require INT+POW >= 32. Again, you could have wild native magic wielders

(say, witch doctors and shamans) with raw POW to cast spells, or very

learned wizards who have to research their spells (high INT). You could set

secondary limits as well, maybe POW >=14 to ensure enough MP. But, that

would require an INT of 18.

-V

BTW, I just verified - in the optional point buy system, INT, DEX and POW

cost 3 points, while STR, CON, SIZ and APP cost only 1 point. If the EDU

option is being exercised, it too is worth 3 points. Then, when you pick

skills, the you get INT x 10 points to spend, and with the EDU option,

EDU x 20 points. So, the 3 to 1 ratio for certain stats certainly seems

appropriate.

Depending on genre, POW can easily be the most important stat - Magic

Points for Fantasy, and Power Points for Supers. And, if horror, Sanity is

based upon POW as well.

INT, as above, affects beginning skills. It also affects learning new skills

as well as improvement.

I just don't see the flaws you do. I've used plenty of point build systems -

GURPS, James Bond (which I think has one of the best point build systems

I have ever encountered, and which could be used to model a very comprehensive

build system for BRP since it is very similar), True20, Vampire, d6, and others.

BRP's point buy option may not be par with some of those, but it isn't

bad.

As far as demand, and who BRP should aim for, I think it currently does

quite well. BRP's popularity or lack thereof falls squarely on PR. Not system.

Looking at the interest it is sparking on other boards, the popularity of

MRQ and its supplements, the interest in CoC, etc., BRP has garnered

quite bit of interest. It all depends on where you are looking.

Currently, Amazon lists BRP as #157,304, GURPS 4th Characters is at #148,041.

That is pretty comparable. Also, the new BRP book has just seen a reprint as

of 23Sep2008. That's just over 3 months between runs.

-V

It depends. Does the publisher own those images? Did the publisher

license those images from the owners? Without knowing the source

of the original images, nor without looking at the book itself, it is

difficult to determine.

In other words, are you sure those images are in the public domain?

Because it is very possible they are not. For instance, the Mona Lisa

may appear to be in the public domain, but in reality, it is owned by

the Louvre. They just don't challenge most uses.

-V

And there are people who don't play D&D in part for that reason, too. My statement was not something you can look at parts of. Not all reasons apply to all people, but some of them apply to a large number of people; people who want a more cinematic heroic reason avoid it for that, people who want a more robust build system for that, people who don't like linear resolution for that, people want a disad system for that--by the time you've screened out all those people, you've screened out a lot of potential fans.

Different people have different dealbreakers, but all of them matter.

I was commenting on the view that a lack of an Adv/Disadv system was a

"glaring omission" as Tywyll stated. If 80% of RPGers in the world either

are neutral to Ads/Disads, or actually dislike them (and the numbers seem

to indicate this by virtue of the number of people who play D&D and Story

Teller systems - the Merits/Flaws are not core system but showed up in the

Player Guides), the not including them is not a "glaring omission".

However, more to your point:

BRP cinematic - optional rules included for doubling HP, skills exceeding 100%,

and Fate/Hero points are included. So, more cinematic heroism - check.

Build point system - check. Maybe not as granular as some, but it is there.

And, while some stats are more important than others, how many build

point systems actually have weighted costs? GURPS doesn't. The skill buy

system in BRP is also point based. So, really, build point system - check.

Linear resolution - when you really examine how percentile rolls and multi

die rolls work out, you'll find that they can equally be linear. The bell curve

may mean that a certain value comes up more than others, but if you look

at the percentage of certain values coming up, it is linear as well. However,

since that is not what you mean, by virtue of having opposed rolls as well

as levels of success, BRP is not as "linear" as people make it out to be. Also,

using the optional rules for skills over 100% affecting opposed rolls, I find

BRP actually less "linear" than multi die systems that do not have such a

methodology.

Overall, BRP provides rules and options in the core that will appeal to the

vast majority of players. Other rules/subsystems that are not provided in

the core can be added fairly easily via houserules and supplements, including

but not limited to Ads/Disads, more granular/scalable point buy, life path

chargen, etc. But, again, people who absolutely demand such systems seem

to be in the minority. So, "glaring omissions" they are not.

-V

I disagree (that it is that easy).

Advantages and Disadvantages are fairly standard in modern games. As much as I love BRP, I do find it to be a fairly glaring omission that BRP has neither.

Skill based systems are great at saying what a character can do. Adv/Dis are great for telling more about what the character is/isn't. Yes, they have their problems and depending on how they are handled, they can be abused, but ultimately, I think BRP would greatly benefit from such an add on.

Oh, and a better point build for attributes. Mongoose RQ has one (though I don't know how good it is).

Does D&D have an Advantage/Disadvantage system? In any of its incarnations?

I don't recall seeing one. And yet, it is the most popular "modern" system around.

-V

The most important part is section 1.d):

(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.

So, my interpretation (which is backed both Ryan Dancey's interpretation and

what has been published under the OGL) is:

OGC is the game mechanics which do not embody PI, AND are derived from

prior OGC AND any other content declared OGC by the contributor.

PI is specifically excluded, but so are mechanics that are NOT derived

from prior OGC NOR declared OGC by the contributor.

The "AND"s are very important here: OGC must not be PI, must be derived from

prior OGC, or must be declared OGC by the contributor. Anything else is, by

definition, assumed to not be OGC.

-V

The thing is Ryan did not write the text. Hasbro/WotC lawyers did.

So, I suspect that Ryan explained what he wanted, and the lawyers

wrote it the way he intended. At the very least, he wrote it (or someone

wrote it for him) and the lawyers reviewed it with some sort of input

from Ryan as to what he intended. There is no way Hasbro/WotC would

have let such a monumental license out of the bag without legal review.

Again, I think the singular "mechanic" and the "and is an enhancement over the

prior art" in OGL section 1.d) were intentionally worded that way, and when

interpreted literally, support that OGC is either derivative of prior OGC, or

declared OGC by the publisher, but not all encompassing when it comes to

rules/mechanics.

-V

That interpretation doesn't line up with the language of the license.

As written the OGL defines OGC as:

-- all game mechanics that

---- does not embody the Product Identity

---- is an enhancement over the prior art

and

----any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor

and means:

--any work covered by this License

----including translations

----and derivative works

----but specifically excludes Product Identity

The license kicks in when you (re)use any OGC. If you mix your own rules with OGC from other works, your game mechanics becomes "contaminated" and transforms into OGC. This is how any reasonable objective party (as in a judge) would read the license.

Unfortunately publishers started to act as if only game mechanics clearly labelled as OGC was covered by the license. They did this because the OGL contains a rule (art. 2) that you must attach a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License to the work. Another factor was that WotC allowed it and then everyone just tagged along. This behaviour is not, as I already noted, supported by the language of the license.

Using a license that is not used as written, even by its drafter, is probably best avoided unless one really feel a need to do so.

Regardless, Dancey drafted the license, he should know what it means.

But, looking at your "definition" above, let's break it down:

As written the OGL defines OGC as:

-- all game mechanics that

---- does not embody the Product Identity

---- is an enhancement over the prior art

The wording in 1.d) is "the game mechanic", not "all game mechanics".

This is splitting hairs, but it may have been written that way intentionally.

"The mechanic" would refer to the OGL mechanics. So, that chunk would

mean:

-- the d20 core mechanics

----does not embody Product Identity

----AND is an enhancement over the prior art

The "AND" is very important. It's not an either/or, it definitely implies that

there could very well be game mechanics that are not enhancement over

the prior art - T20's ship-building rules for example are not directly derived

from the d20 core.

and

----any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor

That's pretty clear - no argument here.

and means:

--any work covered by this License

----including translations

----and derivative works

----but specifically excludes Product Identity

Again, none of that is in question. What is in question is exactly what is

covered by the license. And, according to Dancey and the language of

the license, only mechanics derived from prior OGC or otherwise designated

as OGC, are covered. There can certainly be mechanics in the book that

are neither of those, and thus remain closed/PI.

What's odd is that you seem to be arguing against how the OGL has been

implemented and supported since day one. You have been shown numerous

examples of how closed and open content have co-existed in products, how

the person responsible for the license interprets/intended it (and, consequently,

how it is used in practice), and yet you still argue otherwise based upon what

I see as a flawed interpretation. Obviously if a judge would see it the same

way you do, then many relatively large companies have been given poor legal

advice with respect to the license (Mongoose, Green Ronin, WotC/Hasbro).

Therefore, I find it more reasonable that you are misinterpreting it, and that a

judge would not read it the way you think.

-V

I was being snarky.

I know

I was pointing out that some of what he said is valid though.

Reviewing the License Agreement posted in the downloads section, it

is my opinion (though IANAL) that it should be possible to use OGC

in a BRP book as long as 1) the OGL is included as required, 2) the

content is clearly identified as OGC, and 3) - and this is the most important

part - no new rules/mechanics are derived from the OGC included. This

is important because doing so would violate the agreement with Chaosium.

New mechanics would fall under Chaosium's umbrella as per the agreement.

However, isolated OGC should not, and the agreement and OGL would be

satisfied.

As always, consult with Charlie and a lawyer.

-V

MMMMMM interesting, based on PeterBs arguments the sanity rules for BRP are OGC now because they appeared in D20 CoC.

But then again, all rules are OGC cause they cant be copywritten according to him.

Also means Fading Suns non-D20 system is OGC because many of their sourcebooks had the OGL in it when they were dual-stating, unless of course the OGL was only for the D20 rules in the book, but then, according to his side any rule in the book becomes OGL, even if it is mentioned as non OGC in the license.

Hmmmm, this is why I didnt go to law school.

Well, to be fair:

1) The sanity rules as presented in BRP differ significantly from those that

appeared in d20 CoC and Unearthed Arcana - the core mechanics differ.

So, they are technically two distinct rulesets. The BRP version is not OGC

while the d20 version is.

2) All rules cannot be copyrighted, only the actual verbage can be. As

evidenced by MRQ, you can just rewrite the phrasing of any ruleset and

publish it as your own. The OGL was created to allow people to basically

cut'n'paste the rules so that a somewhat uniform and universal ruleset

was created. It basically bypasses copyright law in that you can directly

quote the rules, and not have to rewrite them in signficantly new language.

3) As I pointed out before, that is obviously not the case.

4) I am sure there are other reasons why didn't go to law school

-V

I agree...hence the reason I haven't purchased either of those games (although the movie-esque theme of Starship Troopers makes me wretch thinking about it...shudder).

Has anyone else had the following idea: Take the following settings and offset them by time/world...

Stormbringer AKA the First World

Hyborean AKA the Second World

Middle Earth AKA the Third World

Warhammer AKA the Fourth World

our own history...the Fifth World

near future...add a catastrophe = the Sixth World

Granted, each of the first four is a self contained "setting" all on it's own with approximately 10,000 years of history...and each ends with a catastrophe (Ice Ages, Super Volcanoes, Asteroids....Great Old Ones >:-> ) thus you could import/export/explore different settings and conventions a bit easier...

:focus:

Anyway, the more Hyborean goodness I can get, the happier I am...it all goes into the Cthulhu Mythos Smelting Pot O'Evil.

Well, kind of. I use more of a parallel world approach, and ditch Middle Earth

and Warhammer, but add Newhon, Sanctuary/Ranke, and others.

Besides, Elric made an official trip to Hyboria once

-V

Hopefully this will put the OGC vs. non-OGC issue to rest.

From the old OGF-L (Open Gaming Foundation mailing list), a post

by none other than Ryan Dancey:

> I think I've heard Ryan and Clark both say that you can't PI rules.

Not me.

The only parts of any work that must be OGC are the parts that are

derivative of OGC. You can certainly make rules that are not derivative

of OGC. The Traveller ship-building rules in T20 would be one example

of such.

Ryan

See the whole thread here about having rules that are closed/PI in

conjunction with OGL/OGC material:

Re: [OGF-L] If people are *really* bothered by crippled OGC issued under

So, T20's shipbuilding rules are not OGC, and yet the book was written using the

OGL and had other OGC in it. The shipbuilding rules are standalone, and were not

designed using previous OGC, so they remain closed per the publisher.

-V

Sorry, but no - you are the one making the mistake.

The key is the last "and" in the sentence below.

"1.d "Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor"

OGC is:

* All game mechanics and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art.

* Any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor.

All game mechanics that are an improvement over prior art is OGC, as is any other material clearly identified as OGC. Game mechanics is always either OGC or falls outside the scope of the license because it's non-protected (i.e. non-copyrightable or more properly non-patentable).

Sorry, but you are just not correct.

As King of Old School points out, and as evidenced by numerous products

put out on the market, all game mechanics are not OGC if published under the

OGL. Only those mechanics clearly declared as such, or derived from prior

OGC.

Again, the d20 OGL FAQ clearly states this.

IIRC, even WotC's d20 version of Call of Cthulhu was not declared OGC at all.

It wasn't until WotC released the d20 sanity mechanics in Unearthed

Arcana did those mechanics officially become OGC. I believe the same

is true of Star Wars - no declared OGC. Both are based upon the OGL and

d20, and yet both are not OGC.

Also, of note, the PHB for 3.0/3.5 also has non-OGC material in it - character

creation and advancement is explicitly not OGC, you are not allowed to use

the PHB character creation and level advancement rules verbatim as you

would other OGC.

-V

Unfortunately you make the same mistake as many publishers do. Game Mechanics, and the descriptions of such, are as a starting point always Open Game Content. You can "close" some parts of the OGC but those parts are in practice limited to the names of skills, spells and such (see section 1.e of the OGL). The description of rules (i.e game mechanics) are always OGC.

Combining the OGL and its requirements that all game mechanics are OGC and the BRP license is problematic. But Chaosium may, if they wish, ignore those problems.

And you're making the same mistake countless of people who misunderstand the

OGL make.

Not all of the Game Mechanics are required to be OGC. Only those mechanics

that you choose to designate as OGC, or those mechanics derived directly

from other OGL resources. New mechanics you create or pre-exist the OGL

do not have to be declared as OGC. From the old OGL FAQ:

Q: What is "Open Game Content"?

A: Open Game Content is any material that is distributed using the Open Game License clearly identified by the publisher as Open Game Content. Furthermore, any material that is derived from Open Game Content automatically becomes Open Game Content as well.

If not clearly identified as OGC nor derived from prior OGC, then it is not OGC.

And, from section 1.d of the OGL:

(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor

key terms being "and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional

content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor".

Again, not all mechanics are automatically OGC.

-V

Wow, there is a lot of misinformation being tossed about.

1) As owners of the text, Mongoose can publish material used in their

RuneQuest OGL (nothing at all to do with d20 rules except those

rules recast into MRQ - the MRQ OGL is not the d20 OGL) and specifically

state it is not OGL. So, Elric of Melnibone, Hawkmoon, etc. are not OGL.

They may use OGL rules, which you can take from the SRD, but the actual

text cannot be lifted from Elric or Hawkmoon.

2) You are allowed, by the OGL text, to define non OGL material. This can

be purely descriptive material, or it can be game mechanics. If there is a

section of game mechanics derived from the MRQ OGL, then that section

must be OGL, and must be clearly defined as such. However, any mechanics

which are not derived from the OGL may remain closed. As a matter of fact,

the OGL states that one need only clearly identify what material is OGL,

and material so identified is the only material that is considered OGL. The

rest is closed.

3) As Jason pointed out, and as I state in 1), Chaosium released the Distinctive

Traits prior to the existence of the OGL and DragonLords of Melnibone. As

such, they can publish that text in their own works and not claim it is OGL since

they "own" the text. However, it is clearly possible to reuse the Distinctive

Traits in any OGL game since they are freely available through the existence

of DLoM.

As far as licensing BRP and using either d20 or MRQ OGL material, you would

have to discuss it with Chaosium. I am inclined to believe that it is not a

problem as long as a) you include the OGL license text as required, you

clearly define the OGL sections as OGL, including any rules derived from the

OGL text, and c) clearly state the rest of the material is not OGL. However,

IANAL, and clearing it with Chaosium first, and then reviewing it with a

Copyright Lawyer, is a good idea.

-V

Throwing another hat into the ring...

I think Mick hit on something when he mentionted that Moorcock was interested in what would make a good story at the moment, rather than making something consistent for RPG purposes.

Furthermore, I7ll also note that the RQ/BRP game engine is not the best fit for the Elrig saga too. Much the same problems that crop up with Glorantha and RQ. The settings and characters are larger than life while the game mechanics lean towards "gritty realism".

I do think that the earlier versions of Strombringer had better stats than Elric/SB5, though. I also expect that it is easier to work Elric up in some other systems. Unfortunately, just getting Elric and Strombringer represented properly means bypass rewrting quite a few of the RQ/BRP rules. FOr instance, Elric often uses Streombringer one handed when "pumped up".

I think that Elric might work better in some systems than others.

As for not listing the stats in the core rules: Well people do want to see them, or at least some intetpretation. While D6 Star Wars didn't list the stats for the main characters in the rule book, said stats appeared in mulitple supplments (3 movie sourcebooks, a trilogy source book, Han Solo in the Coporate Sector, etc.). West End'S other d6 based systems DID put the stats for the main characters in the book.

D20 SW did put stats for the main characters in firsrt two edtions-I'm not sure about the current edition.

As for Elric7s skill-well he was consided to be one of the best swordmen on Melnibone, supposedly second only to Prince Yrkoon. That would put him in the "mastery" range (90%+) in most RQ based RPGs. Elric!/SB5 being the exception since people need over 100% to get multiple parries. SB1 put Elric at 100%, and had Strombger at +3d6 damage. Still brustal but it does allow for the occasional survivor (most people do die when hit by it, Yrokoon gets nicked, but everyone else usually gets killed).

Personally, I consider limiting the POW drain to the damage inflicted. That would help hanbdle the Elric and Yrkoon battle in the first novel.

For starters, Elric in SB1-4 is in the 90%s for both attack and parry without

Stormbringer. Still a Master by the rules, but not 100%.

Secondly, in Elric's epic battle with Yyrkoon, one must remember two things.

1) Yyrkoon is wielding Mournblade. As a result, he benefits from the significant

enhancement Mournblade provides with respect to parrying and sustenance.

Yyrkoon receives a number of "mortal" blows.

2) Elric actually starts "pulling" his blows - wishing both to be in control over

Stormbringer (as opposed to Stormbringer running the battle) and to spare

Yyrkoon's life. This is when Yyrkoon gets nicked.

Again, I have found in my experience that BRP as found in Elric! is a pretty

good fit for the saga. My biggest gripe is the sorcery - this is where I find

Mongoose's version to be a better match. But, combatwise, I find BRP to

work quite well.

-V

In that case the 880% should be listed under the Stormbringer entry not Elric's. And with your explanation, Elric's player must be the worst roller in the world.

Stormbringer has its own entry. Elric has two entries, one with Stormbringer,

and one without (150% Greatsword - for supposedly the first or second

greatest swordsman in the known world according to Tanglebones). And,

I only provided an example of how what happens in the book can be

represented in the rules. You were the one so intent on the 880% attack

and 2d8+1d6+17d10+1d6 damage. I just showed how the mechanics

could emulate what happened in the saga within the rules.

I understand the Deus Ex Machina concept of writing and even gaming, but the fact is the Stormbring RPG presents stats and entries that do not match up with the setting and source material.

I find it actually does a decent job while staying within the system design.

Sure, there could be some changes made, but overall, it works very well

and consistently.

You can include and entry under Stormbringer that states something like "Stormbringer's powers wax and wane as it pleases and desires. A wielder the the chaos blade can have anywhere from a -30 to a +200 to his/her combat skill and may have his or her damage altered by up to 10D10 in either direction (bonus or penalty) depending on how chaotic the act is, how much the act furthers the swords ambitions and whether or not Stormbringer feels like being a boon or a bane at the moment. The maximum and minimum benefits and drawbacks are tied directly to the wielders allegiance to Chaos and or Law as provided by blah blah blah blah"

Sounds like over complication to me.

Sure it may seem like a different set of characteristics, but it fulfills the McGuffin angle and Deus Ex Machina abilities of the sword without giving a "definitive" set stat.

Of course this is all my own opinion. Ill just stick with the MRQ Elric version. I was just stating my observations.

Again, and effort was made to represent the major characters and powers

within the system design. And, again, I find it does a solid job of this. There

are things I like about MRQ Elric as well, but there are also things in that

ruleset that I don't. So, I play a mix. Do I use the 880% Stormbringer attack?

No - because Stormbringer never enters play. Do I limit beginning characters by

not allowing initial to hit 100%, yes - unless a good reason is supplied.

Even so, with the given 250 points and all of the beginning skill levels, you

might hit one skill above 100% at the get go, but if you try to bump up

another that high, you are seriously limiting your other skills.

-V

Lets Say Elric hits with no critical. His max damage is 198 (2D8+1D6+17D10+1D6) for lets say an average damage of 99. Halved for the special defenses of the mist giant and you inflict 49.5 (so either 49 or 50 points) of damage against the mist giants HP equal to its CON of 47.

Sure, but in this one instance, he could have "rolled poorly" and done the

minimum 21 HP. Even with a crit, that's a measly 42 HP damage. Halved

for Bellbane, and it's back to 21 HP. Without the crit, it's a measly 11 HP

rounded up.

You are sacrificing the one on one battle flavor in exchange for mass combat effects. It would make more sense to have Stormbring have special defense benefits instead of such a high attack bonus. Say something like "Stormbringer only suffers a -5% per each additional parry it takes in a round instead of the normal -30%".

But now you have created a different set of mechanics. Why not keep it

unified? Again, examine the effects, not the numbers. The effects work

out very well.

And yes,Nick - that is Stormbringer's skill, not Elric's. Stormbringer can kill

gods after all.

-V

Not only did the 880% allow for more parries (and ripostes), but it also

allowed for more criticals and major wounds, even if the attacks were

split and Stormbringer did not drain all of the foe's POW.

Concentrating on the mechanics as opposed to the effects will pretty

much trash any game adaptation of any novel or movie. It's no the

number that's important, it's the results that are derived from it.

-V

Contact Dustin at Chaosium.

He'll direct you properly.

-V

I should be able to rattle off the Riposte rules. As is, I'll have to look them up.

In SB1-4, the Riposte rules worked as so:

Every successful Parry by a "Master" (i.e., 90% or better in both Attack and

Parry with the parrying weapon) can be turned into an extra attack whenever

the parry occurs. There is no limit, for each parry made, a subsequent

riposte may be attempted. However, each successive parry is at -20% per

attempt, and each successive riposte/attack is -20%. Again, there is no

limit to the number of parries and ripostes performed each round. And, if

the combatant parries and ripostes before his regular attack that round,

when his regular attack occurs, it is also performed at the appropriate

multiple of -20% (i.e., if the combatant as already parried and riposted

twice in the round before his normal attack, the normal attack occurs at

-40%, and then any subsequent ripostes in the round would start at -60%

and continue form there).

In Elric!/SB5, it was defined thusly:

While wielding two weapons, the second/offhand weapon starts at 1/2 the

skill level of the same weapon when used in the primary hand. Add this

entry on he sheet separately (i.e. have a RH Sword and LH Sword skill).

When using two weapons, once per round per combatant, a critical parry

allows the character to make a riposte with the weapon that didn't parry.

This is a free attack that occurs during the DEX rank of the parry.

-V