Lord Twig

I was not in the playtest, but I did buy the Advanced Reader's Copy and the PDF. I heard back from Dustin and it was sent to me by mistake, but it has been sorted out very satisfactorily.

Hopefully HoT is still looking through this thread and this post is not wasted. I have been playing RQ since 1980 and have played through all the incarnations. Just a little back ground to let you know where I am coming from. This tells me that you are interested in the BRP system itself and not necessarily the setting. Great! Buy the BRP book, you won't be sorry! Or you can buy the PDF. It is slightly cheaper and you can get it immediately. As for the setting, there is a slew of books that are coming out that you will be able to use. It sound's like some of the MRQ fans are trying to convince you that because it is already in print it is the way to go, but I would say that good things come to those that wait. Sticking with BRP and choosing one of the new settings should give you plenty to play with and has the advantage of a superior system. One that you are already familiar with if you are playing CoC. (Make no mistake, MRQ is a different system that is just similar enough to confuse people.) I hope this is helpful to you, even though I let my biases creep in a couple times.

I received a copy of BRP from Chaosium. This is extra surprising considering I didn't order one from them. I had an order pending with Amazon for a while now. I checked my account at Chaosium and I see no record of ordering the book either. I haven't checked to see if my credit card was charged. I sent mail to Dustin to see if we can get it straitened out. I will probably keep the book, not sure what they want to do about payment. On the one hand I don't mind paying for it since I was ordering one anyway. On the other hand they shipped my something I didn't ask them for and asking me to pay for it seems wrong. On the other other hand I wouldn't feel right keeping something I didn't pay for. (What? You don't have three hands?) Anyway, we will see what Dustin says. By any chance did anyone else get a book they didn't expect?

Looks good! Maybe you can pass along a suggestion to the Chaosium folks. When you click on the Catalog link, then on Basic Roleplaying on the left-hand side, Ashes to Ashes should come up in the list. Right now the only way to find it is to click Chaosium PDF Titles link.

If you happen to get on the Internet over there stop by and let us know how you are doing. Until then good luck and take care!

The pdf is $15 cheaper than the book itself and it fits nicely in my laptop. I went ahead and bought a copy. Of course I am going to buy the book when it comes out also. I can't help myself.

Well, I don't know if it is a problem for everyone, but I am having a problem with them. Specifically Specials in combat. In RQ3 if you rolled a Special success with an impaling weapon you did double weapon damage. A Special success with any other weapon did Special Knockback, but that was about it. Honestly we didn't think that was good enough and we added some house rules to help things out, but I won't go into that. BRP allows all weapons to do something extra on a Special success, which is a good idea, but I'm not sure if it was executed well enough. It still has impaling and knockback, which is fine, but it adds bleeding and crushing, which I think have some issues. Bleeding is a nice idea, but I'm not sure it is as useful as an impale. Also it requires that you start tracking a bleeding wound and requires a roll every round to see if the bleeding stops. This slows down the game for little gain (1hp per round). Crushing increases the damage from your Damage Bonus, but generally not as much extra damage as an impale would do. If that was all it did it would just be a poor man's impale, but it also gives you a chance to stun your opponent for 1d3 rounds. Being stunned for 1d3 rounds is HUGE. However! You only stun your opponent if they fail a Stamina roll. This means that no matter who you are, whether you are a street urchin throwing a rock or a giant swinging a tree, your opponent has their Conx5 to resist being stunned. To me this means that it is vital that all characters get their Con up to, or as close to, 19 as possible. The result of failing a Stamina check against a Crushing attack is simply to great to risk. I am not sure how I will deal with this in my game. It may be that it will work out fine, but right now I am thinking that it needs to be fixed. Thoughts?

There has been the suggestion that Chaosium choose that particular number for that very reason. I have no insider knowledge of this however, so take that with a grain of salt.

4th edition has a built in "Ending". Each character is supposed to be created with a final Epic Destiny in mind. After a character reaches 30th level they embark on their final adventure and achieve that epic destiny, and therefore leave the game. Congratulations! You won D&D! You are now free to create a new character and start over again! Epic Destinies: 4th Edition Excerpts: Epic Destinies As for converting 3.5 to 4.0, I don't think they are at all concerned with it. It appears to me that they expect everyone to just "finish" their game, make new characters and start over in 4.0. You don't have to get rid of your world though! You can just have some world shattering catastrophe explain all of the changes that are taking place. They even give you ideas how to do it. Catastrophic Endings: Steal This Hook! - The Sky Is Falling!

I don't think you can really judge whether a Role-Playing Game is a Role-Playing Game based solely on whether or not you can role-play while playing it. I role-play while playing Talisman, but that doesn't make it a Role-Playing Game. While the definition of what a Role-Playing Game is will always be a bit fuzzy, I think the best that can be said about D&D 4th Edition is that it has elements of a Role-Playing Game in it. It really is just a tactical miniatures skirmish game with persistent characters and a bit of story tacked on to give you are reason to keep playing. It does have persistent characters, character growth and things like that. Maybe we can just call it a Miniature Combat Role-Playing Game? It is kind of a sub-set of Role-Playing Games like Compute Role-playing Games or Massively Multi-player Online Role-Playing Games.

The biggest reason people do not use special tactics is because of limited resources, usually time. Like you said, is it better to throw sand in their eyes and hit them later or just hit them now and be done with it. Obviously the second option is quicker and that's fine! Really the only time you see the old "Throw Sand in their Face" trick is when you are down and there is an enemy standing over you (or vise versa). In which case the options are to try to use your sword and get stabbed or try to be sneaky and throw sand in their face before they realize what you are doing; thus buying you time to stand and stick your sword in them. In that case a Sleight roll might be more appropriate. On the other hand you should be able to feint or bluff at any time, but perhaps with diminishing returns. You can only fool them so often, but once is usually enough.

Absolutely right on all of those, but they did not license IP. They are systems that are inspired by popular sources, but are custom made with the needs of a Role-Playing Game in mind. Marvel and DC both had RPGs I seem to recall, and I believe neither has done as well as Champions. So go ahead and take the inspiration, but don't worry about the specific setting. Edit: Ah, I just got it. I'm slow sometimes. The problem was my use of the word "unique". Sorry, they are not unique. I guess the word "custom", as I used above, would have been a better way to say it.

It seems to me that some of the most successful games have been unique creations. Vampire/World of Darkness, Fading Suns, Ebberon, Champions, ShadowRun, etc.

I like the idea of rolling damage dice, but I also like the idea of more granularity. I have come up with the following. Obviously some people won't like it. An option would be to just add +1d6 for every 16 after 33 or 49, depending on when you thought that the granularity was no longer useful. STR+SIZ = Damage Dice = Average Damage 01-04 = -1d6 = -3.5 05-08 = -1d3+1 = -3 09-12 = -1d3 = -2 13-16 = -1 = -1 17-20 = 0 = 0 21-24 = +1 = +1 25-28 = +1d3 = +2 29-32 = +1d3+1 = +3 33-36 = +1d6 = +3.5 37-40 = +1d6+1 = +4.5 41-44 = +1d6+1d3 = +5.5 45-48 = +1d6+1d3+1 = +6.5 49-52 = +2d6 = +7 53-56 = +2d6+1 = +8 57-60 = +2d6+1d3 = +9 61-64 = +2d6+1d3+1 = +10 65-68 = +3d6 = +10.5 etc... Edit: Hmmm... Just had a thought. You could replace the 1d3+1 with 1d4 and you would get a pretty good progression as well. STR+SIZ = Damage Dice = Average Damage 01-04 = -1d6 = -3.5 05-08 = -1d4 = -2.5 09-12 = -1d3 = -2 13-16 = -1 = -1 17-20 = 0 = 0 21-24 = +1 = +1 25-28 = +1d3 = +2 29-32 = +1d4 = +2.5 33-36 = +1d6 = +3.5 37-40 = +1d6+1 = +4.5 41-44 = +1d6+1d3 = +5.5 45-48 = +1d6+1d4 = +6 49-52 = +2d6 = +7 53-56 = +2d6+1 = +8 57-60 = +2d6+1d3 = +9 61-64 = +2d6+1d4 = +9.5 65-68 = +3d6 = +10.5 etc...

Not everything that 4e proposes is bad. The idea of moving around in combat is good, but I honestly do not like the way that they have implemented it. BRP could use this I guess, but I won't. Powers, feats, whatever you call them, BRP doesn't need them in my opinion. Spending Experience Points to make magic items or preform magic spells was always a bad idea, so it is good that they are trying to fix that. I thought that the ritual magic in RQ3 was excellent. Definitely ahead of it's time. Something like it should be added to BRP. Probably in that 'Magic Source book' that everybody agrees would be a great idea, but no one is writing yet. :ohwell:

The problem I have with 4e is that it is moving away from simulation to cinematic. I like simulation RPGs. I do not like cinematic RPGs. To give an example, Firecube is a big problem for me. I know that a lot of people feel that the simplicity of being able to count one square as one square, even when going diagonal, is worth the anomaly, but for me it breaks my willing suspension of disbelief. I find myself going, “That’s stupid! How hard is it to make a circle on a grid map? Here, I can do it in two seconds!” The simulationist gamer in me just goes berserk. Of course I can house rule the diagonal movement, but it is just one example of many. I don’t like the use of cards. These are optional, but you can use "Power cards" to track your abilities and whether you have used them or not. It smacks of D&D: the Gathering. I don’t like the new roles (Striker, defender, controller, leader): Dungeons of Warcraft. I don’t like that angels are no longer Good: Now you have more monsters to kill! Seriously, angels are no longer Good so that they don't waste space in the Monster Manual on monsters that you will never fight. :shocked: I don’t like the new demons and devils: Devils have wings, demons don’t. (What are they? Autobots and Deceptigons?) I don’t like Healing surges: The 30th level epic cleric can heal an army of wounded, but he can’t heal you (you used all your healing surges). You are done for today, take a six hour nap and you’ll be fine. You are fully healed and have all your powers back ofter 6 hours of rest. I don’t like how recharge chances are listed as “Recharge: 4 5 6”. Like I can’t figure out that I need to roll a 4 or higher on a d6 if they just put “Recharge: 4” there? (It is a nitpick I know, but really it makes me think they are questioning my intelligence.) Minions. All minions have 1hp. I find it hilarious that an ogre that might take 100 points of damage to drop when you are 3rd level, will die with a single dagger thrust from the wizard at 10th level. At 3rd level he was the “boss”, but at 10th he is just the Giant’s minion. There is more, but you get the idea. I guess I can sum up everything above with the simple statement that I fundamentally disagree with WotC’s design philosophy for 4th edition.

In our (very) long running game characters eventually went on heroquests and gained strange abilities. One didn't take falling damage, he would just float down. Another could see in even absolute darkness. One could never fail a Str check (the 'immovable object' character I have mentioned before). And yet another gained lightning fast reflexes (Dex SR of 0). There really was no mechanic needed for any of these. They went on epic quests and returned with heroic abilities. They weren't balanced, but why should they be? They were more powerful than anyone except other heroes.

I disagree. It says that the players should control their characters more than the GM. And what's wrong with that? Its my character, I should be able to do what I want with it and the character should grow in a way that I want. Again I disagree. One of the first things done when joining a new game is to find out what resources the DM allows and what he does not. That control is ultimately up to the DM. After that the players can use whatever resource that the DM allowed in the first place. Or they might convince him to allow something else, but again the final decision is up to the DM. Well, yes and no. In the core rule it would be hard to remove magic, or magic items or feats, because the game relies on those being there. But it would be easy to remove prestige classes or not include any of the hundreds of supplements. They are just not needed. Well I can't argue what your experiences are. Everyone has their own. But like Tywyll said, it shouldn't be much harder to say "Here are the optional rules we are using" instead of "Here are the house rules we are using". Don't really understand this here. What's the point of having 'cool stuff' if you don't get a chance to use them? Having cool items or powers gives you one more reason to want to play. Honestly I find games where you play a 'regular joe' deadly dull. Probably why I never got into CoC that much. :ohwell: Amen to that!

Just thought I would mention a house rule we had. Armoring enchantment on armor and shields helped to block more damage up to double their AP (A house rule limit on armoring enchantments). Armoring enchantment on weapons helped to keep the weapon from breaking, but it stopped the same amount of damage as an un-enchanted weapon. So if you enchanted your Iron Greatsword to double AP (12 +6 iron +18 enchantment = 36 AP, the most that we allowed) it still only blocked 12 points of damage, but you needed to do at least 37 points of damage to damage the sword. Certain 'heroic' swords of course could block more, but they were exceptions.

We played RQ3 and allowed split attacks against the same opponent. So in badcat's example the first attack would be at 50% and would most likely be parried, the second attack would be at 85% and the opponent would not be able to parry at all, unless he split his parry (assuming his parry was over 100%). Needless to say people split their attacks pretty often.

I think you were right the first time. This is not Bronze Age re-enactment, this is heroic fantasy. This is the same world where someone can throw a javelin, jump on top of it and ride it into battle. How is that possible? He's a hero, that's how it is possible. We had a character who, after much hero question, was effected by the rune of stasis. After that he could not lose a Str check, at the worst he could tie. He became the 'immovable object'. He would definitely try to parry a whale, dodging wasn't his style.

My sorcerer's weapon skills did not go up for a number of reasons. 1. He avoided armor as it subtracted far too much from his sorcery skills. 2. When combat started the first thing he did was cast a spell of some kind, instead of running up and hitting something with his weapon. 3. When we had some down-time for training he trained up his sorcery skills while everyone else trained up combat skills. This, of course, means that you need a system where magic skills are practiced/trained up. If you use the BRP sorcery system where spells 'just work' then there is no reason to practice them, you can just train your weapon skills instead.

Well I am glad I came back to check this thread! I apparently failed to adequately express myself. I did not mean to aim the 'subtraction snip' at you or anyone else on this board. There are other systems that seem to make a big deal about keeping math simple and mostly my comment was motivated by that. You had mentioned that simpler is better, and while generally that is true it can be taken too far. I just wanted to point that out and apparently you agree since you posted the same thing above. I also agree that opposed rolls, traits, heroic abilities, fate points, are no improvement. I do think that it is possible to improve opposed rolls though. Which, if it can be done, would be a boon for those that want to use them. The others are fine, I guess, but I probably won't use them. Again, I apologize if I came off as talking down to anyone. That was not my intent. I don't know that 4e will be a mess... I actually think it will probably be pretty clean, but clean will not help the fact that it has moved away from being a RPG and moved more toward being a pseudo-CCG or a MMO simulator. I believe the main reason for the BRP book is to serve as a consistent rules platform for new games to be built on. If you are looking to add new things to your current game or are looking to change things that may not work as well as you would like BRP would also be useful. If you are happy with what you have or are not looking for anything new then of course a new book won't help you. Of course if you have a game you like there is nothing wrong with that! There is information out there if you look for it. Simplicity and ease of play seem to be the order of the day. Anything that slows the game down, even a fraction of a second, is removed from the game. In order to simulate movement and distance on a grid 3.5 used a rule that ever second diagonal move counted as two squares. This meant that you had to remember if you counted one or two squares the last time you moved diagonal. This was 'too hard'. Spells with area of effects that were not a simple radius was 'too hard' (goodbye Cone of Cold!). Figuring out that 20' was equal to four 5' squares was 'too hard'. Therefore Fireball is now described as having: Area 4. That means that you count four squares in all directions, including up, down, left, right, and diagonal. What you end up with is a cube. All spells now either effect a target or number of targets or they effect an area. Area 1, Area 2, Area 3, etc. Done. Everything is a cube. They also got rid of durations. It was 'too hard' to remember how many rounds a spell had left or how long before a spell or power recharged. Now all spells last until a successful save. Everybody has a save. You might have a save of +3 or +4 or whatever and that is the save you use for everything. If you have a power that recharges it will be listed as "Recharge: 5 6" This means that you need to roll a 5 or a 6 on a d6 for the power to recharge. Notice that they don't say 5 or higher or Recharge: 5 and assume that you know to roll a 5 or higher, they actually say "5 6". If you have a 50/50 chance of recharging they will say "Recharge: 4 5 6". My immediate response to all of this is, "Just how stupid and/or lazy do they think we are?" Apparently we are considered pretty stupid by Wizard of the Coast. All of this may have effected me a bit and made me overly sensitive to the "Simpler is better" idea. RQ2 is indeed where it was pulled from, just modified a bit. Again, not aimed at anyone in particular. Just a general venting on the push toward simplicity that I have been seeing. It is not just D&D either, I think MRQ also suffers from this, though to a lesser degree.

Simple is not always better. If you have been following the 4th edition news that is coming out, that is made pretty plain. Can anyone here say, "Firecube"? Anyway, another group I know does not use opposed rolls in combat, but they do allow for a higher skilled combatant to effect his opponent. Simply put, you may subtract your skill over 100% from your opponents skill. So if you have 134% in broad sword, you can subtract 34% from the defenders parry, making it easier to get around his defenses. By the same token if you have a 156% in parry you can subtract 56% from your opponents attack, thereby causing him to miss, or deflect his attack. It really is very easy to remember and is very simple as long as you are not afraid of <gasp!> subtraction. So in the above case the attacker will have a 44% chance to hit (134-34-56=44) and the defender will have a 66% chance to parry (156-56-34=66). Real easy once you figure out that the first one always reduces you to 100% and the second is then subtracted from 100. Or course you could always choose to NOT subtract anything from your skill, but then you are only subtracting one number.

In my experience, yes. Limiting skill checks and skills were unnecessary in our game. By the time my sorcerer had the required skills to claim the status of Magus he had a 90% chance to hit with his primary weapon, staff with damage boost 10 on it. Our primary warrior had about 200% in his primary skills and did far more damage. While the warrior was heavily armored my sorcerer relied on a damage resist 20. In order for armor to make a significant difference to any attack that could routinely get through his damage resist it would effect his skills so badly that it wasn't worth it.