Atgxtg

I think there is a big difference between seeing your buddies riped in two by machinegune fire and seeing froggy going through your garbage. Part of the problem with Lovecraft was that he had a hard time living in the modern world of the 1920s and things that bothered him, naturally bother his characters. To Lovecraft, the architecture of, oh, New York City, is sanity threatneing, "The vast spires rose to such unnatural heights that a mere glimpse sent my head realling from Vertigo." Heck, Lovecraft might flip out if he came home and found a soldier going through his garbage. He was a unstable, xenophobic recluse. Yeah, seeing a Deep One might shake someone up, but it is hardly the reality warping experience that it is to Lovecraft. Now seeing a Deep One tossing a half eaten body into the garbage is a bit more shocking. Yet itnecessary a prelude for a trip to the funny farm. Not unless no one else sees the Deep One. I'm a bit on thee squeemish side, and yet managed to wrok in a hospital inclduing reguarly working in the trauma ceter, OR, and makinking the occasion trips to the Morgue. Yes, you do get accustomed to it. And yes while some soldiers do come home mentially unhinged, so do some teachers, pilicemen and truck drivers. The vast majority however, aren't in need of intensie pyschotherapy. I kinda doubt there would be much Locvecraft stuff on the shelves now without CoC. Or that a lot of authors in the horror field considered him a major influence. As for worst fantasy books written. Well it is mostly subjective. We might be able to be objective on technical points, but as far as style, and story themes go, it is all subjective.

Well depending on how the character sheet is set up. RQ used to set the sheet up by categories, you only figured out the car mods one, and then went down the row and added it to the skill. And yes, that is simple math. Its a minimal increase in time (the time it takes to do six simple calculations) and the big payoff is that it makes the stats meaningful. Otherwise there really isn't much difference between a 10 DEX and a 20. In other words, people will only want to play with the rules that help them and ignore the ones that don't. I suppose there are players like that. I also suppose I wouldn't want to play with them. I've gamed with a group who can remember every rule when it is in their favor and forget it when it works against them. I don't game with them anymore. In their defense I'll point out that they were playing under a GM who did the same.

Well, the simply math- baring specials and crticals, and fumbles is. Thief success, guard fails: 56.25% Guard Succeeds, Thief Fails: 06.25% ------------------------------------- Both fail: 18.75% Both Succeed: 18.75%, since anything under 25 would be 50-50 and anything other is all thief is break down to about 12.49% thief, 6.26% guard) Note that if low roll wind on failures this flip-flops the roll high probability, since it would be the exact opposite as the both succeed. So it would be 75 vs. 25-not counting specials and criticals. Now if you used low roll wins, it would be the same breakdown. What the high skill looses on tied success he gains on tied failures. Toss in crtricals and specials and they bump the results slightly more in the favor if the 75% guy. Since the 75% guy has a 2-1 advance there to, it would end up closer to 78% vs 22%

Yes that is a nice anaolgy. I just don't like how the percentages end up in BRP using it. Essentially it turns a 50 vs. 100 conflict into odds closer to the resistance table. Aslo the analogy doesn't hold once you throw in specials and crticials. A 3 doesn't beat an 18.

I would if he didn't let me know before I spent time training. If I new in advance, I wouldn't train. I wouldn't learn something like Coordination either. Of course, it you look at BRP Games, the ones that let you improve your stats are generally the ones with CAT MODs.

What makes you think it was the first connonation that I thought of? Bounder!

But since it is generally a figure one sort of thing. Can''t they do it with the book in a few seconds. I'll admit that I did program a handhelp computer to figure out the bonuses and then tried to beat it. But since CAT MODS changed rarely, I fdon't think they would cause trouble. Now the x2 per year, x4 per year thing for all the skills did slow things down for us. That could have and probably should have been simplified (I'd have gone for increments of 5%, with x1 =5% and give players something like 25-50 free skill points per year). I can see the per year thing getting tedius. Cat Mods aren't nearly as much work though. I can see why my old idea of figuring out six cat mods as the base chances appeals to you. Write them down on the sheet and even those who want to avod math can probably do it six times and be done with it. For me diving by 5 takes the same glance. Dividing by 20 is also a glance. All you need to know is 30-50-70-90 and 110. Good except all rules are a trade off. THings like cat mods take a little more wrok buit make stat much more meaningful. Of course there are some RPGs that do away with stats, making them advantages, and are written with the assumpption that task are being attempted by average people.

But I like skills going up when stats improve. Otherwise going fro DEX 10 to DEX 18 is sort of a waste of MPs.

Yup. Each night as in each session. Not game time. Sorry.

Valid point. Original D&D was a lot freer animal. I could even be argued that the modular-linear approach could be due to Gygax's desired to take control over the game. It also works well with the original wargaming in a personal scale approach that was D&D origins. Still It does show that linear adventures are not new. It also shows that D&D is the biggest culprit siply because most published adventures are written for D&D and most D&D adventures are linear. So chances are a fledging DM will pick up linear adventures and use them as the model for his own adventures. Alos true. But since most peole in gaming play D&D and start with D&D, the question is where did they learn to do such. Most on-line RPGs are similar,. Very little role-playing, lots of fighting. But a lot of this is simply because that is what people were taught to expect. I've had a lot of players who started off with D&D hack & slash, developed into roleplayers once they understood that there were more options available. And that it wasn't some evil plot by the GM to get at thier character. I disagree. I think that with those who started with other games, depending on the nature of the games they started with, you'll see differences. For example, those who started with RQ don't have "party loyalty" with the same conviction as D&Ders. On the other hand, such players are probably care a lot more about mythos and religion in the game than those who started with the generic cleric. Likewise someone who starts with a game like SotC is going to have to have a different outlook and priorities that someone looking to rack up XP.

What you want to be bound? Talk about depravity. :D

I think it is too. Sorry. It's something that's hard to express without looking like one is questioning peoples intelligence. THere is only so may ways to say it. As for the divide by 5 thing that had the people at the MRQ forum going into fits, I think I am questioning people's intelligence. I can see how the mutipliers for every skill in RQ 3 could be a time consuming pain in the butt. But category mods were pretty simple. Mostly a figure once, and up 1% every so often when a character trained up a stat. But I do wonder how much of this is preference and how much is ability. There does seem to be a group that balk if any sort of math is used at all. Just what is the acceptable level? I thought "checkbook math" was a minimum. Just to be able to do damage, AP, Hit Points. And hit points is a double entry. HP-(DMG-AP, min 0) is actually more complex.

People can, and have done nearly anything with any RPG. It's not really the point. I do think that you get a good idea of how a game is expected to be played by the supplments. If a game system publishes a lot of linear adventures, that is what gets taught to the majority of players. You example of RQ and Traveler dungeon crawlers supports that. People did that because that was how they were taught to play. There are a lot of gaming concepts that come from system rather than sense, and players who are experienced in one game tend to bring those preconceived ideas with them. I've seen more D&D players die in other RPGs because they dragged along dungeon crawler mentalaity with them. The soruce of that mentality was the system. AD&D was written with the idea that character would be adventuring in a dungeon, with monsters of a certain HD conviently cohabitating on the same level, ensuring that 1st level OPCs didn't face 8HD monsters. THe whole linear thing was enforced by the GM instructions. Modern RPGs aren't structured the same way. We don't get big blocks of rules about designing an undergrown laberyth as the centeral focus of the campaign. Well, with one exception, and even that game has de-emphasized the imprtance of the dungeon. As for my biases. Well, I've heard a lot of people claim to role-play, but generally see them only pay lip service to it. And yet, with the various players and groups I have encountered, I've never seen a "pure" D&Der who actually role-played. Come to think of it, with all the allegations that have been made against D&D, warping minds, devil worship, etc. I surprised it has never been accused of communism. THe emphasis of the party over everything else would support it. No. We are discussing changes in gaming. And one point was that linear adventures are a new change. I'd say they have been around from the start and that D&D has been the primary factor behind them. I also think the evidence, such as the near total sdomination of the D&D module by the linar fomat supports this. Oh, BTW, I do consider dungeon claws to be lineral adventures. While, yes, the players can hace a choise of tunnels to take, since the typical dungeon claw sends the PCs into the dungeon for a reason there is really no change in the overall course of the adventure. If the PCs are snet into the dugenon to retreive the McGuffin, then that is linerar. All the other stuff that hapepns in the dungeon has no impact on the adventure. It's just beginning, semi-random obstacle-big fight-finish. How the PCs accomplish the goal is also preset.

Yeah I know. In some cases ironic too. People who don't mind using margin of success. for instance.

I'm just starting to think that a lot of gamers just suck at math. At the MRQ forum there was this major uproar over how difficult is was to calcualte special success chances. Or the 5% crtical chance. If someone can't figure out that INT 14, DEX 16, STR 12 is a +11% mod quickly in their head, maybe they should stick to checkers. It's not rocket science.

Damn, cult geas. Why couldn't it had been "never eat meat during Sea Season?" :mad: *****FOR SALE**** Death. Many previous owners. Can be sold in swod form if desired. Impress your fields and enemies. Seller not resposnbile for loss of death, loved ones, or Quests brought about through use if this item.

I sort of expected that. Plus it makes things a bit more interesting when the PCs ship crash lands on "Dinosaur Planet". It might take a few shots to stun a T-Rex. I do miss the old 3D6 CON for nearly everything in RQ2. I don''t think Bears and Elephats get fewer colds. Come to think of it, I should probably adapt form the SIZ chart for combined fire. So 2 stunners would get a +8, 4 +16 and so forth. That would be suable for poisons too. Each doubling of the dosage adds +8 POT.

Save yourself the trouble. Just go the faterpg.com and download the SotC SRD. Then you can make your own decision about the game. Take at loot at FATE (the parent system) while you're at it.

Another question for those with BRP ZERO (BTW that''s probably the coolest name yet for the game). How is movement sequenced in the game. Is the a combat phase then a movement phase? or is conbat and moment occurring at the same time? For instance, if two characters are having a running gun fight, do they: 1) both shoot, then both move. 2) both move, then both shoot. 3) One shoot and moves, then the other guy shoots and moves. 4) One moves, then shoots, then the other moves and shoots.

Agrred, but those were easy to handle too. For the most part the POW cost of Coodination was the bonus. So Coodination 3 meant +3% to Attack, Parry, Manipulation, Agility, and Stealth, with a possible shift in DEX SR. And I think that without CAT MODs the affected stats themselves become fairly pointless. But then, we both saw eye to eye on that point. STR was a little tricker, since you had to divide the bonus by 2 cand cap at 10%. But these were all temporary for the battle effects. As opposed to POW,. In RQ 2 we were refiguring categories modifers nightly. It would have been better to have just taken 10% off the base chances and add POW% to all skills. But take out POW and most Cat mods change fairly infrequently.

Fine. Then you don't get the bonus. This is somethnig that I don't understand. The unwillingness, or rather inability to work out simple math in your head. You''re going to all sorts of trouble to work out weapon damages by caliber (BTW, you should really work them out by weapon, since bullet velocities are different based on what they are fired from. A .50 cal. from a Barret doesn't hit as hard as a .50 cal from a M2, nor does a .22LR round from a pistol hit with the same force as one fired from a rifle. It has to do with things like optimum barrel length ad gun porting), yet don't want to be bothered by something far more important-the innate abilities of the characters.

Yeah. That's why I prefer using it. Or some variant of it. I've considered going with something along the lines of the Cat mods as base chances, just taking the 10 out of the equation. So the old RQ 3 Attack fomula would become INT+DEX+(STR/2), for about a 29% base chance for an average PC. .

Well that was the way RQ did it. Base chance (some skills are easier than others) plus the category modfier. STR was there mostly becuase RQ didn't have firearms, but was fdairly low (only about a difference of 4% between an average PC and a very strong one). THee is some justification though. While the table might have a min STR, It stands to reason that a guy with a 18 STR is going to handle the recoil better than one with a 10 STR.

I remeber the old days where the group had to map it's way or we could get lost in the dungeoun. It always amazed me how some artitech would design and build this inrecdibly complex lberynth, with twisting corridors, magical traps, an undetectable ventilation system, and then turn it over to a dragon, 60 orcs, 4 rust monster, an orche jelly, 2 orgres, 8 striges, etc. Allof whom somehow, despire being horrid monsters, managed to live together with the good sense not to open each other's doors. One big change that I've seen is that, and this probably doesn't apply to the D&D crowd, monsters and opponents are not transparently obstacles for the PCs. I run my monsters/foes thinking that they are more that just something to wear down a PCs hit points.

Beaucase "back then" that was all there was. Back then 90% of the "Alternate" RPGs out there were variantions of D&D, and the biggest differences in gaming style was iver XP awards. I recall seeing pages and pages of people's pet theories as to what was a better formula for working out XP awards. The majoirty of the adventures were in the 6 parapgraph long room descrtions that were rather stupid, since the GM would read through the entire desciption and point out every nook, cranny, and item in the room, before having the 30 orcs charge. All the adventures from that era were written that way (Room/Minster/Treasure) and that is what I saw at the gaming tables and at the early conventions. Despite years of claims by D&Ders that they are role-playing, I've yet to see it. Nine times out of ten it still a dungeon crawl. The tenth time its a "Storm the fortress".