Jump to content

Atgxtg

Member
  • Posts

    8,563
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

Everything posted by Atgxtg

  1. I'd say that depends on how skilled you want the characters to be. I also think that since it is cultural, rather than breaking up more points it might be better if they just get a flat add to cultural skills, as it will avoid player putting all their bonus points into one or two skills. Players have other points to focus on particular skills. It does if it applies to all characters and each get skills of roughly equal usefulness. If you want to keep things fair you probably don't want one culture to get Axe and Shiphandling while another gets Punch and and Play (instrument).
  2. To add to the mix: First off make sure you got a good idea of your species and what it can and can't do in your head. Game stats will work themselves out if you understand your creation and have a idea of how big, strong, smart, etc. it is. Second, look at the existing species write ups to see what thier stats are and compare your creation to them. Of particular note, since they are the "default" species are humans. The human average for most attributes is 10.5 or 13 for SIZ and INT. STR and SIZ double in ability for every 8 points in the 8-88 range. You can use this to stat your species characteristics relative to humans. So if your creation is twice as strong as a human then it should have an average STR or around 18-19. You can also look at animal or monster stats if it fits your creation. For instance if your species is "a large as a bear" then you might want to look up the SIZ of a bear for your species. Note that stats outside of the normal 3-18 range might make your species very powerful compared to other species, which might lead to playability issues. For instance, a race of PC giants with STR & SIZ in the 60 range will one shot kill most humanoid foes. So be very careful of creating anything that is superior to the existing species, they might seem cool when you come up with them, but they can risk making everyone else obsolete in play.. Next look at some pre-existing BRP setting that has non-human species and new cultures to help get an idea of how it has been done in the past. Note that this includes BRP related games such as RuneQuest or Strombringer as they both deal with adapting existing fantasy settings into BRP terms.. QUASAR has a lot of Sci Fi Alien species to look over and has a preview. The idea is to see how it's been done to give you hints as to how you can (and should) do it. Once you get something written up, review it to see how well it fits in with the pre-existing stuff. Playtest it if you can. Often an idea that seemed fantastic in your head or when put down on paper falls short in actual play. When you got something in the works show it to other GMs get their feedback. Often a second set of eyes will pick up on some obvious flaw that the creator overlooks. Players will somehow detect this flaw almost instantly in play, so it's best to beat them to the punch. You might not agree with other GM's assessment of your creation, but at least it will give you a different perspective, and a heads=up on any future problems, and possibly point out something you hadn't considered. As with most everything else, you get better at it by doing it, so the whole process will get easier and the results better as you do more and more of them. Eventually you might even revisit your early creations to revise them.
  3. I think that is because digital formats have evolved from an intermediate step before printing a physical book, to being a final form, but they don't have the same easy of handling or the ability to "flip through" that a book does. What we will probably end up with is a PDF with better tabs and some sort of way to flip through pages and stop when you see what you want. It will probably take a few more years to figure it all out. As far as the RTF goes, I'd probably have tired using Calibre to convert it to EPUB or some such for better navigation. But wait, this is going to end up a bound print copy, so I'm still missing something. Or monitors. One of the things about books in digital format is that screens don't come in the same sizes s paper. So a case could be made for formatting an RPG in 16:9 or 16:10 format for monitors and tablets. Or maybe even make games available in multiple formats for different devices.
  4. Yeah but I doubt it's just a straight RTF, as the book has tables, text boxes, headers, footers, page numbers and such. I suspect he's probably reformatting things to look nicer than an RFT and something got lost along the way, especially if it's being turned into a PDF. I got Scribus because I was frustrated with how something that looked fine in Word got moved all around when converted to a PDF. I think there is a 15 year old thread about in on the forum somewhere (most likely the Pendragon forum). I forgot who recommended Scribus, but it did solve the formatting issues at the time. Modern word document software (LibreOffice in my case) seems to have solved most of those issue. Why? I mean the UGE should print fine as is. Going from 8.5x11 to A4 or B4 etc. shouldn't require a change. The width to height ratios are similar enough for it to work. That's why Drivethru doesn't usually post rulebooks in multiple formats. Now if you are doing something like a landscape version or some such... Yeah that i Microsoft S.O.P. The same hold true for Excel spreadheets. I had to manually cut & paste some formulas from Open/Libre Offic Cal to Excel for some game stats I sent to people because Word wouldn't import them properly. I believe it is by design and it goes back decades. I remember back in the day we gamed with someone who worked at Microsoft, asking them when the next version of Excel (around Windows 3 era) would come out and being told "not until Lotus 1-2-3 won't run the spreadsheets." So I wouldn't be surprised it anything imported from a non MS format has issues of some kind. And to be fair they don't have to make Office compatible with anything else. Again. Word is probably deliberately sabotaging the file for not being in a Microsoft brand format.
  5. That's true with Word as well. Things can move around, in part because of how, where and to what stuff get's anchored to. If you really want to page layout to stay consist while changing page size, you need a desktop publishing program. Scribus is free. It won't help you much now, but might be worth it in the future.
  6. Your bound to cover it eventually.
  7. Well then maybe an adaptation of the Shek-Pvar rules might be to crunchy too? Maybe you'd be happier replacing them with BRP magic and just divide the spells up by type into schools/convocations? It won't be quite the same as in Harnmaster, but that's the point, right? I mean no matter how faithful one is it will never be exactly the same, and even if it were exactly the same, then it would be too crunchy for your tastes. So just swap it out for a pre-existing BRP magic system and group the spells accordingly to make it feel like Shek-Pvar. Think of it as Shek-Pvar Lite. That would be a lot less work and you'd probably be happier with the result. Plus you know what level of crunch is good for you, while I can only guess. I might over-simply or under-simplify, while you know exactly where you draw the line. For instance would you prefer "Shek-Pvar Lite" to be based on BRP Magic, BRP Sorcery, or something else? That way I'd convert it I've already mentioned. I'd make each convocation a magical skill and use the skill score in place of CML and pretty much port over range and skill bonus directly from Harnmaster. Use CML/10 as the average spell damage and convert that to a die. Maybe use (CML/10)-1 points to buy a damage die ala old Superworld. I'd port over the fidly bits for geustures and such too. But that's what I'd want. What you want could be very different.
  8. What do you mean by "needless complications"? It sounds to me like you didn't like or understand RQ3 Sorcery very much, but without context I can't follow your point. That's funny. In a lot of ways I find Harnmaster simpler than BRP! Success levels are a snap, combat is quick easy and detailed, and the game uses the same mechanics for magic as it does for everything else. Yeah, armor can be a bit tedious, especially with the large number of hit locations, coverage, and overlapping armor, but you get some nice options for it. It's pretty easy to learn too. Roll under skill for a success, and any roll than ends in 0 or 5 is a critical success or critical failure. To anyone familiar with RQ, HARNMASTER should be easy to pick up. Skills are based on characteristics, with higher values when learned/"opened" and is somewhat reminiscent of original Magic World or ElfQuest. If Harnmaster isn't a cousin to BRP then I'm not sure if we could call Call of Cthulhu 7 or Pendragon cousins to BRP either.
  9. That's the judgement call here. Considering Chaosium's track history with gameworld settings, I think we'd want to stay true to Harn and even let in stuff that might not fit well in BRP game mechanics. So I'd want to think through what the effects of changes would be before I did anything. But, as I pointed out before, I'd probably rather just run Harnmaster. It's pretty close to BRP anyway, and it would avoid a lot of work converting stuff, and the problems associated with doing so. But that's me. I'm not the OP and I probably don't want exactly the same things they do from this. For the OP I think it would come down to what exactly they want to keep from Harnmaster Magic, and what they wanted from BRP.
  10. Maybe you should do a thread where you just list the various QUASAR products that are available as well as what is in the works? That way people can go there to see if something they have been anticipating is out yet. The idea would be a thread with just your releases without that chatter (that can go in other threads like this one).
  11. No, not too bad at all although there is a bit more to it that what I posted. What spells the caster knows for instance. THe thing with adapting/converting is what you are willing to lose in the translation. Yeah, but I think it would be simpler just to rate each Convocation as a skill and subtract 5% per level rather than use an opposed roll. One tricky bit would be in adapting the damage done by spells. In HARNMASTER weapons do a fixed amount based on weapon, attack type (blunt, edges, or puncture), weapon weight, with dice added based on the success level results of the attack vs. parry roll. This total gets compared against the armor worn and location struck to find the result. For BRP we'd probably need to compare the spells basic damage (usually 1/10th the caster's skill) to the weapons table to find an equivlant in BRP. FOr example if a caster does a base of 6 damage with a spell in Harnmaster, that's about the same as a broadsword so it would do around 1D8+1 in BRP. THat seems to be about the same as the average damaged rounded off. Oh, also in Harnmaster there is a cap on skills of around 100%+ average of relevant Characteristics. An open ended skill system would make magic potentially far more powerful.
  12. But if they did they would have used the magic system that came with those RPGs. It's the magic system that is part of/a supplement to Harnmaster. Basically if someone is using it they have/are using part of Harnmaster. It would be like if someone who had the BRP Magic Book, wanted to covert it to Harnmaster but didn't have BRP. Possible but unlikely, hence my replay above. The Convocations divide Harn's magic (Shek-Pvar) into six sub orders (Convocations) of air, fire, metal, earth, water and Spirit. Most spells fall into one of these categories, although there are a handful of "neutral" spells. It's somewhat similar to the forms used in Ars Magica, or some of the Runic associations in RQ. There are even restrictions as to what convocations one can learn based on what they already know, and what terms they are on with the other orders, somewhat similar to RQ cult affiliations. Casting is done by rolling against the convocation skill with a -5% modifier for the level of the spell being cast, plus additional modifiers for other factors. To adapt that to some form of BRP one would either have to adapt the Harmanster spells over to BRP, or assign BRP spells to the appropriate convocation (i.e. Fireblade would be a Fire spell, Bladesharp a metal spell, and so on). IF I were to attempt it I think I';d adapt the Harnmaster spells over, and treat each convocation as a magic skill to be rolled against, somewhat similar to in Harnmaster. somewhat similar to RQ3 Sorcery. I'd treat BRP special success as Harn CS results, and use Harn range and casting times (maybe convert seconds to Strike Ranks or DEX ranks). But I'd also want to look at Harnmaster Religion and Psionics before doing so, and wouldn't want to mix Harn Magic with any of the other BRP magic systems since Harn magic doesn't rely on Magic Points to power spells.
  13. I doubt it. Considering how similar HARNMASTER is mechanically to BRP I suspect most BRPers would be fine with running HARNMASTER. It's not like adapting something from d20, GURPS or HERO system. You would need someone who had something in BRP that they really liked that HARNMASTER lacked, that they didn't want to give up on and couldn't just port over. That or theyI would have to really like HARN as a setting, really dislike the HARNMASTER game system, but still love (the functionally similar to HARNMASTER) BRP system.
  14. Need is a hard term to justify. I'm not sure if BRP "needs" any specific stat or game mechanic. You could eliminate attributes (or maybe turn their benefits into some sort of advantage/disadvantage). There are pros and cons to doing so. Yeah. Generally, I use attribute rolls to cover things that aren't covered by a skill. I'll also let a character use one in place of a skill at times, but at a higher difficulty. But overall I don't use attribute rolls much. But I also prefer to use skill category modfiers so the attributes factor in tat way. And they can if you want them to. Or you could make the attribute rolls more significant. For instance, in film/tv/real life, good looking people tend to have more sucess wit the opposite sex than ugnly looking people. THat';s not really covered with skills, but it could be covered with a CHA roll, if the GM wishes. A little. 1) Attribute rolls can be used to cover things that aren't covered by skills. Since the skills in use in any one BRP-based game can vary from another, just how often an attribute roll is needed can vary. For instance Balance isn't used in all BRP games, so the Agility roll could be used as a substitute.. 2) Attribute rolls are also usually called for by the GM, so their frequency will depend somewhat on who is GMing and their style of gaming. For instance a GM might consider a Balance roll to make sense when a character is walking a tightrope, but might consider it too severe for a simple roadside sobriety test, and instead use the (usually higher) Agility roll instead. 3) Attribute rolls tend to make the actually attribute scores more meaningful. Some BRP games use other game mechanics that can make attributes more meaningful (i.e. skill category modifiers) which lessens the need for characteristic rolls. 4) Sometimes something pops up that just doesn't seem to fit as a skill, but does seem to be related to an attribute in some way. For instance, most BRP characters don't have a skill to roll for solving a crossword puzzle, nor would most games need such a skill, so a simple INTx5% roll can suffice. So basically Characteristic rolls are a tool that is there for you to use if you need it, or want it, but can be ignored if you don't.
  15. That's nice,even praiseworthy, but you'd also be a fool and a coward not to listen to yourself. You're the one who put your time and resources into making and sustaining your game. If was your decisions and abilities that got your game this far, don't give up on yourself now. You are the one doing the work and taking the risks, so you are the one you really have to make happy. The rest of us are a bonus. So while you can, and probably should listen to fellow gamers, fans & customers, you aren't not obligated to follow any of our suggestions or advice (including my advice here in this message). In other words, listen to me and feel free not to listen to me, or don't listen to me and feel free to listen to me. Oh, and if you figure that out, please explain it to me. Besides, it's not like the rest of us are all going to agree on just what is the right thing to do anyway!
  16. Don't worry about us all that much, nor our corrections. At the end of the day it is your product line and you get to call the shots (not to mention your money at stake) Naturally the rest of us will second guess you decisions and speak as if we could do it better, but you are the one actually doing it, not the rest of us.
  17. Yes, that is what "module" meant too,- modular adventure. Someone who bought S1 could then buy S2 and S3 to continue the adventure. Have to? No. That the company want's you to, and is setting things up to make it easier to sell you more by organizing things that way, certainly. TSR could have bundled any of their series modules together to get a series of linked adventures similar to RQ's Borderlands, but they chose not to. Exactly why is unknown. IT could simply be that they determined the $6-7 price point for a module would be more successful than a $20 bundle. Well, if the adventures are modular in some way then that is what is being offered. If an author is not original or fails to impress, who would want to buy their stuff? It's hardly a selling point. That said, I do agree that the idea here is to communicate what is being offered. Potential customers have to be able to figure out what the product is. I'd much rather see "Adventure" or "Scenario" on a product than some archaic term I'd have to google.
  18. I don't think "Emprise" works. It seems artificial, or some sort of take on Enterprise. If you want another word that means module you could use for adventures that sounds more futuristic, try something like capsule or capsule adventure. The thing is with "module" is that the word module refers to something that is a section or part of something bigger. It's connotations with "adventure scenario" stems from old D&D, where it was used to refer to their "series" adventures (A Series, D Series, G-series, etc.) which were indeed modular. It got misinterpreted in the early days and used as a generic term for an RPG adventure because TSR used it. If your adventures are going to be part of a inter-connected narrative "module" fits. but if they are self contained adventures the module is out of place. But that's just my two cents.
  19. It kinda is, and for kinda the same reason. In T&T most monsters are obstacles for the PCs to overcome, so all you really need is their combat stats, and MR lets you boils that down to one number, albeit at the loss of some details (such as armor). Likewise most minor NPCs in BRP are mooks that are obstacles for the PCs to overcome, and all you usually need are their combat stats, which typically comes down to armor, weapon damage, hit points, and skill %. In addition, a lot of the subtle differences in details don't really show up in play. Most of the time a minor NPC with a 11 STR and one with a 10 STR are the same from the viewpoint of the players. So a single skill NPC writeup can greatly reduce the size of statblocks. Especially if the GM uses generic attributes to go with it. THh D6 system generic 2D/4D NPC stats are a similar idea. T&T is perhaps the pinnacle of achieving that, as one number can serve for all game functions. It lets you write up a dozen or so rooms, and occupant/opponents in the space it would take to do up one full stat block. Plus in most cases you don't need a full statblock for a one shot NPC. Because T&T stats and damage are open ended, you don't have to worry about appropriate damage or hit point caps either. A hobbit swordsman who does 5d+244 in combat is quite possible, so a NPC Hobbit with MR 308 is acceptable. But the core idea is to sacrifice detail that probably wont be needed anyway for speed, simplicity, and a lower workload.
  20. Technical difficulties when posting.
  21. Sorry, technical difficulties when posting.
  22. I'd be inclined to just go with Viking 50 and then just halve or quarter the skil (or up the difficulty) for secondary and "other" skills. So basically 50/25/13 but only tracking one number. I think the specialized/jack of all trades thing isn't noticed by players unless the NPC is around for a long time, and the players have a chance to notice it, and their ability in other categories. In that case a full character sheet is probably warranted. For me, in game play, I'll sometimes add a skill to a reoccurring minor NPC if it comes up in play. For instance, in one sci-fi campaign we had a minor NPC who ended up always being the one on duty when they had to fix a shuttlecraft. So after a few such encounters I added a Shuttlecraft specialty to his sheet. By then end of the campaign he was one of their "go to" guys when it came to shuttlecraft. I find it's actually a good way to flesh out minor characters. A minor trait or hobby can help to develop an NPC's personality or backstory.
  23. The hard part was trying to keep from laughing while running the adventure. A key thing here is that RPGs take plac ein our heads. So if you can put an idea into the heads of your players it is real to them. It's the same with NPCs. How tough the appear to the players has less to do with their actual stats and more to do with how you present them to the players, dice rolls included. In one game the GM got on a hot streak with a minor NPC ( a street urchin) and rolled double crticals with two pistols. We didn't know that and just assumed he was a great shot. By the time the GM told us about the double criticals, the NPC was an officer in the musketeers and actually had become a great shot Good luck, and have fun.
  24. You welcome. It's actually from Fate: Spirit of the Century. What they did was give locations aspects that could be tagged for bonuses, like with characters. So if you were fighting a bad guy in a burning building you could tag the "burning" aspect for a bonus to your combat roll (or escape roll). BRP game mechanics are different, but the concept ports over. You could even use one of those "things you find in a..." tables to help you round out a location. The idea works outside of combat too. I once stressed out a PC who was doing a little B&E to check out a warehouse just by having him step into a water dish as he climbed in through the window. Amazing what a water dish with "GOLIATH" written on it can do. The guard took the dog home with him, but the PC didn't know that, and spent the next half hour on edge expecting the guard dog to appear. Next time I do something like that, I think I'll make Goliath a Toy Poodle.
  25. I usually scribble out some sort of rough map just so the players know where everyone and everything is. It usually not to to character scale either. One of the drawbacks to a battle mat is that it forces GMs to put everything close together. No one is every really out of range with 5-10 foot squares. If you want to make things more interesting, make the setting more interactive. Come up with a few details about the area where you are staging the fight, and think of how the the characters could incorporate them into the battle. For instance, if they are in an old warehouse, there could be a forklift someone could hope into a use to push , racks with various products that could be toppled onto cultists or maybe a power line that could be used to electrocute something. An alleyway could have a dumpster, a fire escape, some broken bottles, an open door to the busy kitchen of a restaurant Just think up a few features for the scene. Then have a NPC use one of those features in a fight to help get the players thinking of such things.
×
×
  • Create New...