vagabond

Read it again, no weapons were drawn. All weapons were holstered. Everyone was calm.

The setting is a fantasy-sci-fi-western setting, so the "authorities" was the local baron in charge of a small western town, equivalent to a town mayor with a gang of henchmen (Brian Dennehey in Silverado, Gene Hackman in the Quick and the Dead). The murder victim was an associate of the "town boss". The PCs were lying to cover for their buddy, who was nowhere to be seen. But, essentially, a wild west "Town Boss" and his henchmen telling some suspicious dudes "Surrender your weapons and come with me. I'd like to talk to you privately."

The PC response was "We'll come with you to talk privately, but we won't surrender our weapons."

NPC response, "That's unacceptable. Surrender your weapons, come on, let's go."

PC, "You'll have to kill me first."

NPC, "I don't want to kill you."

PC, "And I don't want to kill you."

Etc. etc.

Again - peace-bonding. Allow them to keep their weapons, but secure them in their scabbards (or remove bowstrings, whatever).

Ian

Have you ever heard of "peace-bonding"?

Oh, and in real life, if you don't put the weapon down you usually get shot multiple times from many angles. When a cop tells you to lower your weapon, real or not, you better damn well do so.

I think you guys are confusing lasers with blasters.

In Star Wars (for the most part), the weapons were blasters (the same is true with most TV shows and movies). Lasers fire a steady beam, blasters fire bolts of superheated plasma or particles. Lasers may or may not be silent (we currently do not know how a tightly focused beam of light and heat will react to the air around it as it travels to its target, but I suspect some sizzle of air particles will occur which could produce both sound and light as they ignite), but blasters will most definitely make noise, especially on contact with their target as a small explosion occurs.

Take this with a huge grain of salt as this kind of technology really does not exist yet in either case. We are just getting past the 100 kW level believed necessary, and I have not heard (no pun intended) if there is an audible noise.

Ian

I agree with TH - there is a place for boxed sets marketwise. They target a younger audience, and in all reality, isn't that what is needed - more young players to keep this hobby going? Because while D&D was originally targeting war gamers, it didn't take off until it attracted new blood, and the new blood was a much younger crowd that flocked to the introductory boxed sets.

Just now, at Amazon, in the Best Sellers in Fantasy Gaming - both the Pathfinder boxed set (10th) and the D&D 4th edition boxed set (7th) are in the top 10, with only the Pathfinder core book (2nd) and Pathfinder Bestiary 3 (6th) products beating them out as far as RPGs go.

I think you could do something with Allegiance, merging it with the Traits/Passions from Pendragon.

Again. like Mankcam says, you only really need a binary "Morality"/"Immorality", set at 50/50 like Pendragon's T&P. As you perform actions that go against your "preferred" morality, you need to roll against the appropriate level, and gain/lose "points" as you teeter back and forth. You could then tie certain break points to SAN, to reflect something like the Joker's slip into deeper levels of psychosis and depravity as the weight towards "Immorality" grows stronger.

Ian

Was this standard Nephilim, or home brewed stuff your group came up with. It sure sounds interesting ...

Ian

Nevermind - I dug out my Nephilim core and Liber Ka. Could come in quite handy, I cannot believe I hadn't thought of it before (or - perhaps I did and forgot).

Ian

In our Nephilim Game we used the elements alot. Had pools of "fire" air etc, and ley lines etc. The elemental "pow" is the max a being can channel at the time, they can wait some time to hold onto the enrgy to boost a "spell", but just throwing energy around they could only go as high as what was in the stream etc. We also used a pseudoastrological system based on days, months and times etc. where the moon was as compare to the sun etc. On jorune with the moons etc the idea is that at certain times ceratin dyshas would be/could be more powerful etc as well as using what is in the stream. Looks complicated on paper but worked well for us. Might help

Was this standard Nephilim, or home brewed stuff your group came up with. It sure sounds interesting ...

Ian

Sometimes, obvious answers elude us because we just don't even consider them. And, sometimes, when trying to work on some sort of mechanics to handle something, we ignore rules that already exist and fit quite nicely.

I think dyhsa casting will be handled using the complimentary skill rules - roll against the dysha's primary color, using the caster's worst moon skill as a complimentary skill. Dyshas will also have difficulties associated based upon the number of colors required and possibly the minimum skill levels required. Specialization in one or two moons is possible, which will affect difficulty.

This also works out for Shantha and other native Jorune life - they may get to shift difficulties down one level to represent their native ability.

Need to hash out the details, but I think I am on the right track.

There are some nifty thoughts that follow on as well.

If we take Thivin as a Ramian offshoot (using my parallel theory Thivin are to Ramian as Muadra are to Humans), the Thivin's musical acuity when playing the crystal music rods is accomplished by channeling Isho from their environment, through them, and out of the rods. And, based on some thoughts from the old Yahoo group, the Thivin's better Isho "processing" ability might explain their faster healing (could be Launtra), and maybe even how they are able to out haggle most races (hmm, could be Shal).

An old post on the Jorune Yahoo group by Joe Coleman got me thinking ...

At one point, there were apparently some discussions surrounding an official GURPS Jorune (from what I gather). Steve Jackson was of the mind that Isho would be like a magic pool in GURPS. Andrew did not like that idea.

So, I wondered what Andrew wanted Isho to actually be? In the rules, it certainly comes across Isho being a pool of points (or, Isho being a characteristic that can yield a pool of points), but there must be something more to it than just that. Thinking about it more, this is what I came up with.

Isho as a stat determines how much Isho one can channel from the surrounding environment. It isn't stored internally as a pool, but it is very dynamically absorbed, processed, and redirected. This explains why during Isho storms Isho points fluctuate, and why if you are in an Isho dead area or an area with little Isho, you have very little in the way of Isho resources to pull from. It also explains why Muadra and others need to kern during heavy storms (their bodies absorb/channel more Isho than it can naturally handle). It also gives us a good way to explain how Ramian are affected by Shal (Shal builds up inside their bodies as opposed to how the other colors or how in other creatures Isho passes through more or less). This also explains why Ramian (and, perhaps by extension, Lamorri and other Lamorri genetically related creatures) do not have normal Isho signatures - signatures are created when Isho passes through a body and how it reacts, but with Ramian, Shal enters but does not come out, which changes how the signatures are created). And, perhaps, this explains Chiveer.

The challenge is - how do I properly represent this mechanic? It does bring me back to Dyshas should not have independent skills but rather successful weaving should be based upon Moon skills. And, it does give me some good leads on dealing with the various Isho skills as well, and explain what some races/creatures are more adept with Isho. But, I still need to really wrangle through it.

Ian

Hey all,

Just wanted to let you know that while work has slowed to a standstill, all is not forgotten. I recently had an "Oh, wow!" moment with respect to Isho, and wanted to bounce some ideas off of Andrew Leker. With the holidays approaching, and a week plus vacation, coupled with my littlest one finally starting to develop some consistent nap and sleep patterns, I hope to have a nice burst of productivity shortly.

Ian

BRP defines "Mastery" of a skill at 90%. So, the question becomes, how is a "Maester" defined in A Song of Fire and Ice?

Ian

Just as you said. Just limit the skill to bow or ride.

Skill/cultural characteristic is a question of taste. Both solutions work. I like the simplicity of the cultural trait but 1- it has to be reserved to some professions (a shaman or blacksmith with horse achery?), which has a taste of D&D's classes, and 2- it is not a concept of the basic rules, which I try to stay as close as possible. A skill gives more flexibility and allows for instance to give an advantage to a profession like mounted archer. But when running a game and for simplicity, I would consider that for a NPC nomad light warrior, bow rating = horse archery rating, which in practice is like having a cultural trait.

I disagree that it is not a concept of the basic rules. Don't various creatures get special abilities that are not necessarily skills, or allow them to gain bonuses or penalties to such skills? This existed across a number of BRP based games as well.

Ian

What if:

1) A normal character must use the lower of his Bow or Ride skill when shooting from horseback, as normal.

2) A character with Horse Archery can use his Horse Archery skill instead of Bow, and is not limited by his Ride skill. Additionally Horse Archery skill starts off as the average of Bow and Ride, although it can be improved like other skills.

Again, Horse Archery becomes an extra skill that really isn't necessary. You can just create the cultural characteristic that gives the same bonus. Further, with separate Bow and Horse Archery skills, it becomes possible to improve in Horse Archery but not Bow, thus becoming a better archer on horseback than when standing on firm ground. In my opinion, that really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Ian

It is quite elegant and simple although a bit binary. But one of my goal is to have rules that are fully comptabile for as much settings as possible, using concepts from the core rules only whenever possible. Abilities are not in the rules -as far as I know. Any GM using abilities-rule is free to replace the skill with an ability, or to make it a power like the martial arts in the Celestial Empire or whatever. Could be proposed as option.

The abilities in "3" were only a suggestion. You could easily implement "1" and "2" - use the rules as written, but for a cultural advantage, the action is no longer Difficult but Average, there could be bonus points given at character creation to both Ride and Bow, and you could also allow the chosen culture(s) to just roll against the lessor of the two skills instead of rolling against both skills when they are below 50%. You could also choose to allow the chose culture(s) to roll against the lessor skill, but use the higher skill as a Complimentary Skill.

Again, I dislike adding skills and try to avoid doing so wherever possible. IMHO, this is one of those cases where an additional skill really isn't necessary.

Ian

Right. Ride skill rules + difficult action (x1/2). All in the BGB.

Mounted archery as a skill -not an ability- available for some cultures only.

And some details like prerequisites, limitations, bows, stirrups, Parthian shot, etc. This is the way is see the things now.

OK, but I still do not think a separate skill is necessary to give some cultures an advantage over others. And, I think adding a separate skill brings in further complications. An ability works much cleaner in that is gives certain cultures a boost (or, more appropriately, removes the penalty) while allowing other cultures to possess the ability to a lessor extent (and, allows for PCs to live with a culture and gain the ability as opposed to having to learn a new skill). It also keeps the core skills ride and bow as the main tools to which the rules apply evenly.

Ian

I think the rules as written are sufficient with only minor tweaks.

It makes sense that if one were to be concentrating on improving one's ride skill and one's bow skill, that one would be spending time figuring out how to both simultaneously. This fits the RAW where less than 50% in either than you must roll against both (or multiply them together for a single roll), but once either or both skills exceed 50% (slight deviation from RAW - as Simon noted, if one skill exceeds 100%, then multiplying them together creates a condition where you are better at shooting from horseback than either shooting on foot or riding without using a bow), you use the lessor of the two skills as your cap.

However, I would also add this (to allow some sort of application of a cultural advantage):

1) shooting from horseback is a difficult action, and a 25% (or whatever) penalty is applied to both skills. This penalty may optionally be reduced when mastery of either ride or bow or both is achieved (mastery in each skill provides a 10% bonus, therefore mastery in both would yield a cumulative 20% bonus, or only a 5% penalty total. Or, mastery in both removes the status of a difficult action).

2) certain cultures get higher starting skill values for ride and bow to reflect their cultural tendency to be excellent mounted archers. One could also make it a cultural advantage that it is not a difficult action for certain cultures.

3) use or MRQ's legendary abilities - prerequisites for Mounted Archery would be member of a certain culture, and/or mastery of ride and archery, removes the status of it being a difficult action

Ian

After reflexion, the rules are actualy a mix of both (ride skill, p. 75):

- when ride or combat is bellow 50%, you have to make both ride and combat rolls in order to succeed, which is statistically the same as [bow x ride] (without math;), but with one extra roll)

- when ride and combat are 50%+, "use the lower of the two skill rating"

This however does not describes the specific training or experience you need for horse archery. If you ask a good archer who's also a good rider to shoot from horseback while galloping while he never did it before, he wil be in trouble. A Nomad used to hunt and fight on horseback may be a worst foot archer but will certainly better know how to shoot from horseback. This is what I'd like to simulate, and make a true difference between peoples with a horse archery tradition and others. It is therefore necessary to separate horse archery from the raw bow skill, hence my first idea of a martial art. Unlike Kushike Archery, it has to bring a true advantage. I think Simon's proposal of a separate skill which ignores penalties is actually the best.

If you create a separate skill, then you have to ensure that skill is never higher than both ride and bow. Otherwise it makes no sense since you would have someone who is OK at riding (50%), and OK at archery on foot (50%), but excels at shooting the bow while riding ( new skill at 75%).

Ian

Not bad, but really, too much math. I would just say that an archer on horseback would use the lesser of their Ride and Bow skills. That way, an experienced foot archer (70%) with a low ride skill (20%) would be much better at using their bow on foot (full 70%), but abysmal if he tried to use their bow on horseback (hindered by the 20% ride, so their bow is limited to 20%). But, an experienced nomad would have 65% in both, and thus shoot their bow at 65%.

Ian

Oh, and to make this a "cultural" skill, you can give bonus skill points at character creation to both ride and bow to reflect that culture's use of horseback archery.

I also like this more simplistic approach because it is easily extended to any kind of mounted combat - riding an animal or driving a car, and bows, swords, firearms, etc.

And you can still apply any specific modifiers based upon conditions - extremely rough terrain might incur a 25% penalty to ride normally, and could therefore also apply to the rider's bow skill as well.

Ian

I agree with you in principle, Simon. Good sense is actually the best rule. That's the reason why I'm trying to make it as simple as possible (as Saint Exupéry said: the perfection is when there is nothing left to remove).

But a setting about nomads where riding an bow are a central cultural feature deserves a little more details than in the rules. Of course everybody is free to simply ignore all these specific rules, but they are here to flavour a steppe campaign.

Well, I thought also about a simple idea in principle: horse archery skill rating = bow x ride.

Ex: 60% bow and 60% ride makes 0.6 x 0.6 = 0,36 or 36% basic chance of horse archery. Then apply any relevant bonus/penalties directly on this skill in order to avoid recomputing during play. It increases together with bow and ride. Or is there anywhere a good rule for combined skills?

Not bad, but really, too much math. I would just say that an archer on horseback would use the lesser of their Ride and Bow skills. That way, an experienced foot archer (70%) with a low ride skill (20%) would be much better at using their bow on foot (full 70%), but abysmal if he tried to use their bow on horseback (hindered by the 20% ride, so their bow is limited to 20%). But, an experienced nomad would have 65% in both, and thus shoot their bow at 65%.

Ian

Yeah I have the Stormbringer book somewhere, but I've never read the actual books so I'm not all that familiar with the setting it self

The idea of a drug addled lording who destroys everyone and everything he cares for with his sword and demon pacts really doesn't sound all that heroic

If this is what you think the Elric saga is about without reading it, you are doing yourself a great disservice by not reading it ...

Ian

Not to belabor the point, but that's not the way I see it. There are 'core' rules, and 'optional' rules. The core rules are the 'lingua franca' of the system. The stuff that at a bare minimum is expected to be the baseline of commonality for all players. Optional rules are just that: options to tweak the system in various thematic directions.

Quite simply - core rules are the default. Optional rules replace the core rules.

Ian

Reminds me of this movie, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_City_(1998_film)

I once mused on a list somewhere that "Dark City" would make for a nice Chaotic analogy to Moorcock's Tanelorn. To which Loz Whitaker threatened me to not speak of it again

Ian

if you roll your attributes then EDU averages at 13 so things work out fine.

If you are buying your stats I would scale things by the cost to raise all attributes by 1. THis is 13 without EDU and 16 with EDU so 24 * 16 / 13 = 30 . If you you are applying the Higher starting characterists for higher teirs add +15 points per teir instead of +12. Though really I don't see the fairness of this rule seing that rollled characters don't get any attribute bonuses for playing at a higher teir.

That is why it is called an "Optional Rule".

However, the normal/heroic break applies, as there is an option for "Higher Starting Characteristics" where all stats are rolled as 2d6+6 instead of 3d6 for STR, DEX, CON, POW and APP, and with the point buy option, that is reflected in the 24 points for normal, 36 points for heroic option. Adding in EDU (which is normally rolled as 2d6+6 for an average of 13, not 10), you still need to add the appropriate increase in points to point buy (30 and 45).

Ian

Ah, I should have mentioned the game I'm running is heroic... 6 pt increase for normal sounds good. 9 pt for heroic? Do you have any thoughts regarding other campaign levels. Thanks for the response, BTW.

Since the scale of normal, heroic, epic and superhuman increase at a rate of 50% of heroic (i.e. 12 points between levels), and if 6 points for a normal campaign seems approrpiate (or 30 points for characteristics total), then yes, 9 points seems to fall in line:

normal 30

heroic 45 (1.5 times normal)

epic 60 (2 times normal)

superhuman 75 (2.5 times normal)

Also, when deciding on multipliers, use the average of 2d6+6 (13), not the base of 10, to figure it out. 10 is the starting point, not the average. So, if adjusting the multipliers using 13, you would have:

normal (20x13 = 260 pts)

heroic (25x13 = 325 pts)

epic (30x13 = 390 pts)

super (40x13 = 520 pts)

Ian