Atgxtg

I know. It's just not all that much of a risk. Mostly. THe thing is there are some interesting cards that get played now that probably won't with the one at a time method. It happens quite a bit with younger knights and less often as they gain glory, and thus have more cards to choose from. Part of what makes a card a bad card to play is also based on what skills a knight has, as well as the situation.Sometimes the perks on a card might outweigh the geniality points. What I think will happen with one at a time is that players will be more inclined to keep fishing for one of the killer cards as opposed to deciding between the options they get by drawing. I might have to playtest it to see how it works.

I think it is tough to pint down as the cards are random, and feast related skill scores can vary much more between PKs than combat skills - that is, you can find an experienced knight who isn't a good dancer, but you won't find one who isn't a good horseman. So I expect the avage probably goes up somewhat as the characters get experienced. Hmm, lets think about the math: Most knights get 1 point per round due to seating; those above the Salt get 2. A skill roll is worth 1 point, 2 on a critical So it looks like 1-4 points depending on seating and skill rolls. A theoretical knight with 0 in all his feast related skills, would only get the 1 or 2 points from seating, and possible less if he fumbles. Another theoretical knight with 20 in all his feast skills, would get 2 or 3 points every round, and possibly a bit more if he rolls a critical. Yet another theoretical knight with 29 in all his feast skills, would critical half the time and get 2.5 or 3.5 points per round. Still yet another theoretical knight with 39 in all his feast skills, would critical all the time and get 3 or 4 points per round. This works out to around (Skill/20) points per round, plus seating, so between 1.25-1.75, say 1.5 for a typical knight, upped another point if above the salt. card values can vary considerably, but I think average about the same as a knight at the high table at around 2.5 points or so. We can probably assume that the size of the feast would matter for the theshold (as more feasters means more competion), as well as the quality (those who go to the better feasts probably spend more time at court and thus have higher court skills). So How about 2x the Number of Rounds + Quality as the threshold?

Mistrusting someone doesn't mean you cannot interact with them, but it probably means you wouldn't rely on them very much. Kinda like politicians! You might vote for one, but wouldn't want to have to rely one one making good on a campaign promise.

Not quite. The thing is normally players draw and decide which card to select at the same time, but there are a couple of cards that can be given to other players, and one card in particular that lets a player hand out his extra cards to the other players for geniality points. This normally isn't a problem as a player selecting a card out of six of seven cards isn't any more difficult that doing so out of three or four. But, if a player has to draw cards one at a time, and then choose, getting a extra card from another player needs to be addressed somehow. The most likely solution would just be to let the player pick between the card he had already chosen, and the new card(s) given to him. In normal play, the player gets to look over all his cards and then select one to play. Getting additional cards usually just means more options. But if the cards have to be looked at one at a time and decided upon, being given a card presents a problem. Yup, that's worth a Prudent check. The key thing about the BoF is that the cards are really the heart of the system, and most important factor. IN most cases they decide the winner. Seating is nice, but in most cases the winner is determined by who can play the high point cards successfully. There are a select few cards that practically give someone the win, unless one of the other cards show up, or if someone with a really high skill gets good seating and can roll lots of crits to keep up with geniality. It's also why I think the "one card at a time thing" might not work out so well, as I could see players continuing to draw to try and get one of those game changing cards. It's worth the risk. There are some other fun things in the deck too, so it's not just about winning. I've had more than one thing going on in my campaign get sorted out by what cards people played. The card where a player;s liege lord "suggests" a good marriage prospect (bonus on the marriage table) is usually worth it, and is one of the cards a player can pass on, if he is already married. It's also not someone a player can otherwise get out of without annoying their liege lord. BTW, since a player character will always win the contests, it can lead to some odd results. I recall one feast in particular where the most congenial player knight happened to be someone who fumbled his Temperate roll in the first round, got drunk ans passed out. Everyone else kept failing their rolls, and everything kept backfiring on them. By the end the passed out knight was one of two knights still at the feast, and the the only one with a positive geniality score! There probably should be a minimum threshold to win.

Yeah, there are a couple of reasons that I can think of. The second one is the more signficant, IMO. 1) In theory it sould be faster to draw all the cards at once and go though them rather than in sequence. So in theory one at a time shouldn't be faster. 2) There are a couple of cards that would mess up the "one at a time" mechanic. For instace if one player selects a card, but then another players gives them a card. With the RAW it's no big deal as the player can usually choose freely between the cards. But with one at a time, does the second play force the first player to switch cards, or can the first player refuse? Either way it makes some of the most powerful cards in the deck even more powerful. Either by letting one player force another to do something they don't want to, or by giving the second player lots of extra geniality without having to actually give a card to another player. I think that the work around for this would be to allow the first player to choose between the two cards. That can either be a special case specific to being handed cards by another player (there are only a handful of cards in the deck with this property), or possibly a new default with all players (who draw at least two cards) deciding between two cards.

Okay. Again, I justpointed that out because APP tends to drop as characters age. Ah, yes that helps. It also restores that "are you sure you want to sit above the salt" element back into the game. Someone with poor social skills might be better off lying low. Okay. Maybe I'll try that next time with my group. Currently the bog down going over the cards. I think it's party due to the effects of the aging table on my players! We can't read the text as easily as we used to. Maybe I should print the feast cards on blank 4x6 flash cards? Deja Vu. Anyway to beat a dead horse and get a cruel check, since the APP scores are generated at 3d6+5 for most females, a 15-16 is the average, so scores above 18 or even above 20 are not that rare, especially if the player has glory points and a reason. 23-26 =5 and 27+ =6 might work to expand the draw back to the core method.

That sounds about right. I'd say let it kick at 23 to keep with the progression you got going and to account for the big APP bonus that female characters get.

Some thoughts/questions on the house rule: What happens to character with an APP of 4? I bring this up only because I've seen many Pendragon character's "ugly out" due to age. Since characters with APP of 3 or less are bedridden and thus not at feast, they are not an issue, but those with APP 4 are. Are they just not able to draw any cards or lumped in with the 4-8 crowd.? Also, I think the upper limit should be raised to account for characters with ultra high APP scores. APP tends to be the highest characteristic for most women, but with 18+ all being lumped together, they don't really benefit much from it. Most women will end up in the 3 card band, and quickly shift to 4 cards, and then stop improving APP. Expanding it to 5 cards at APP 22 and 6 cards at APP 26 would really help make APP More useful and make the beauties the center of attention at the feast. Interesting, but perhaps a bit slow. My players all draw at once, and it still takes several minutes for them to read through their choices and decide upon a card. Are geniality losses doubled as well? It would seem to make sense that any sort of social Faux Pas would be more significant. Also, some of the cards are really powerful, such as the card that lets you give away other cards and gain geniality for it. If someone above the salt gets double bonuses for those it will become a complete blowout, with no one else able to compete with someone who gets 4-6 extra generality per round, and lead to some huge Glory awards for the winners. Yes, the other social skills should be brought into a feast like the "big four" of gossip, flirt, temperate./indulge and gamble. They come up in some cards, and the GM can add some dancing to the feast, but they still suffer compared to the big four.

You called me stupid and used profanity. I "had iit" a long time ago. What I've been trying point out is that generic copies of things are not true to the soruce matertial, not will it work out the same way as the orginal. Yes, because the writers at Marvel had read Moorcock and thre the name in as as homage to Moorcock. But there is a huge difference between doing a quick one off like that and making something part of the establish continuity. Which means it isn't canon, so it isn't actually true. Look anybody can claim anything about two different characters, but unless it is acknowedlged by an offical source it's never happened. People put together all sorts of crossover stories all the time. Officially, Bambi did not get stepped on by Godzilla, no matter what might be out in a fan film. Hold it Q. There is nothing in Star Trek that "man was not meant to know'. THe quite you gave from Q, in the epsiode which introduced the Borg, was to try and scare mankind from exploring, and it didn't succeed. You fail to grasp that anything and everything major in the Cthulhu Mythos related is described as being beyond human power and comprehension by Lovecraft. It is a foundation for the Mthos , as it is all about the horror of the unknown and unknowable. So Lovecraft will go on with how powerful, terrible something is, without actually showing it do anything. What we do see, by the stories is that Yoggy, and most of the other Mythos nasties, cannot act for some reason, becuase if they did, we'd be finsiehd. That's also another example of how the world of Lovecraft and MUltiverse of Moorcock differ. The Eternal Champion is humanity's champion and a prime agent of the Cosmic Balance. He is quite a powerful force in the multiverse, as shown in the various EC stories. Yet by Lovecraft's standardards, he would only be human and thus outclassed and unable to comprehend the various Mythos entities. If fact the very idea of a Cosmic Balance is anathema to Lovecraft's core concept, of a mad universe filled with powerful beings that only spare us because we are beneath their notice. . No it does't. It shows up that there are "Carter's" throughout Earth's past, and throughout the cosmos. Space is a big place. It doesn't mean that there is any sort of multiverse. You can choose to believe that there is one, but is not implied by the text. Likewise the quote doesn't explain just what qualifies as being a "Carter" either. Which again doesn't mean a multiverse. In fact the bit "which no earthly logic could explain" would mean that any sort of explanation you come up with for it would by definition, not be able to explain it. Which can mean a lot of things other than the Eternal Champion. For instance, it could refer to the ceoncept of the Akasha, a sort of group consciousness. No it doesn't hint that, because Lovecraft doesn't state that there is a multiverse. You basic methodology isn't sound. You are deciding on the outcome you want, and then deliberately interpreting things in the way that you want, so as to back up your pre-determined results. It's like someone "investigating" a UFO incident by stating that they know it was a UFO before they even look at the evidence. All of which means what, exactly? Look, Lovecraft loved to use adjectives and make stuff out to be bigger and beyond humans, because that was what made for a good horror story and setting for the Mythos. It doesn't mean anything when compared to another authors setting. Again, which means, what, exactly. It is just anyother vague alien powerful comment. It has not context to give it any meaning. LOvecraft loved to use comments like that to push his narrative that mankind did not and could not understand the universe. None of which has any meaning in regards to Moorcock multiverse and Stormbinger.You might want to intrpret as all being part of the same thing, but that is just you wanting it to be that way., not something supported by the soruce material. Yes, and it means nothing. There are scienstist today stupdying Quatum mechanics who postiatephsicists today who talk about a 11 dimesion, and 27 diemion universe. Does that make them smarter that Yog Sotthoth. And again, none of that has anything to do with a multiverse, nor does it mean that Yoggy is one of the most pwoerful beings in creation. It simply means that Ypoggy is more pwoerfula nd more aware that a human- which is the whole point. Once again the quite desont' prove your conclusion. For instance the quote states "Men think of time only because of what they call change, yet that too is illusion" which hints at something more that a being that views all time as one. Not confirmation of anything, other that Yoggy is beyond mere mortals. It doesn't even rank him compared to the other Mythos power houses. Once again, I will point out that you are free to mix and match universe in your own games however you wish. But I will also point out that everyone else is free to interpret things the way they wish, as well. In order for something to be "Stormbringer" it has to be something that comes from Moorcock's works, or can be extrapolated from them. But you just want to mix all sorts of stuff on a whim and expect everyone else to go along with your interpretation of things. But hey let me give you a quote for a change, this is from the Multiverse Wiki: Kwll and Rhynn, now complete, were the most powerful beings in the Multiverse, and were even able to disregard the Cosmic Balance. They fulfilled their oath and slew all the Chaos Lords, but they also killed the Lords of Law for good measure, leaving mortals free to weave their own destiny, without the meddling of any gods from either side. Now since Kwll and Rhynn were the most pwoerful beings in the multiverse, they were certinaly more powerfult an Yog-Sottoth, whom they destroyed along will all the other gods.

Marcus, I don't believe I have engaged in any personal attacks or use of bad language, although I will admit to be guilty of typos. I only disagreed with RogerDee over what would be good for Stormbringer. If I have posted anything here that someone considers to be a personal attack or to use bad language, then I apologize, as that was not my intent. Doing so would make it harder to get my points across.

Very good point. And it is probably worth noting where Robin is coming from as far as his overall RPG goals. Robin is firmly committed to narrative play over other forms. So much so that he advises against using battle maps and such as he believes that if players start thinking tactically then they aren't role playing the scene anymore. I see his point but I don't completely agree with it, much like with most claims of "metagaming". If I were in some sort of firefight, things like how far an am to cover, and how long it would take me to reach the opposition and if he could shoot at me would all factor into my decision, and IMO, factor into the thinking of the characters in a similar situation. One agrument against the Gumsho approach is that invetigation is not the only area where the adventure can stall. Should a GM step in whenever the players get stalled? I think the debates tend to be between followers of certain styles of play rather than the the actual game rules. I suspect that people who don't like Robin Laws other RPGs, probably won't like the Gumshoe approach, and those who do will love it. I see pros and cons to both sides. One the one hand, a stalled adventure is a bad thing, on the other hand if the players are going to get the critical information regardless of their character's abilities, then those abilities and to some extent the player's actions are diminished. Over the years I've seen both situation crop up more than once, and ideally, I think we want to avoid either situation. Ultimately I think it is a inherent dichotomy of RPGs. On the one hand we all want to see the players succeed. That is what makes for a good story and happy players. On the other hand we want a element of risk, and a chance of failure to make their successes meaningful. It's quite a juggling act. Typically GMs try to minimize the chance of failure while simultaneously playing it up.

I can just see the TV commercial where you get shot down. "Sorry senesschal, Starkist doesn't wan't Humans with Good Taste, they want humans that taste good!"

As least I think it's a toothbrush.

You might even expand upon you outcomes with coem grey areas. For instance thinks they broken it, but instead adjusted in sin some way, such as changed bands, or functions to some new, unknown thing. If you consider just how many things a modern smart phone can do, and all the non-phone related stuff (GPC, take and play back photos and video, motion and balance sensing, etc.) it's easy to see how confusing it could be to someone if the future communicator "stopped working" because they accidentally put in into "toothbrush" mode or some such.

But probably not an inaccurate one. To be fair to the "Gygax school" of DMing, D&D did evolve out of wargaming rules, which were adversarial by nature. One of the drawback to blazing a new trail is that you don't have the luxury of knowing the best approach to something, only one approach. Had Gygax, and Areneson been blessed with a vision of things to come D&D would have came out very differently. One of the reasons why D&D and AD&D were such a mess of rules was that virtually every time someone wanted to handle something new, they ended up making a new game mechanic to cover it, instead of having a universal game mechaic that could cover most things. DMing was similar. It started as somewhat adversarial due to wargaming, and morphed into a referee/scenario designer who created the challenges for the other players and was expected to judge their actions impartially. That was back in the 70s. In the 80s that started to change, but CoC is old enough have been influenced by the old way of doing things.

Just chiming in with a more generalized response but game specific rules aside for the moment, the core idea with any RPG, or any story for that matter, is that of the protagonist dealing with some form of adversity/opposition for something they care about. Now most RPGs tend to focus on combat because it is the easiest way to get the point across tot he players and get them invested in the outcome. The opposition ends up being some sort of creature, and the stakes are often the lives of the characters. Easy. But... ...the opposition/obstacle can be literally anything, provided the GM can frame it in such a way that it challenges the player character. Instead of combat it could be a game of chance, race against time,something as simple as mowing the lawn,or as boring as filling out your taxes. As long as the GM can present in in such a way that it challenges the player character is some way, and as long as the player cares out the outcome. That last bit is key, and why RPGs often focus so much around combat. With combat the players will pretty much be vested in the outcome automatically, as they don't want to die. But with something else, the GM has to do a little work to make sure that the players actually care about the outcome. The High Stakes Poker game only works when the players care about the outcome. If they don't, then it just a background and fluff. But... ...the contest/conflict can ber about anything, as long as the GM can present is some sort of test of character ability and get the players to care about the outcome.

Yup. After a certain point it get's hard to qualify the differences between sabre, cutlass, tulwar, yaghitan, and scimitar in any sort of scientific way at this scale. In fact even the differences between various handgun rounds isn't as great as we once thought, according to the FBI. As for Rolemaster, MERP streamlined the damage table considerably, and HARP follows suit. You're quite right: seventy five to a hundred different weapon damage tables do not necessarily make for a better game or a more accurate play model. In RM's defense though, it did come out in the early-mid 80s when the simulation approach to RPGs was at it's height.

Convergent evolution. Since the various BRP game systems are closely related to each other, solutions to a given problem will likely be similar. And, as the BRP games are all a subset of RPGs, which themselves share similar traits, this probably hold true among different RPGs to some extend. Just think of what percentage of RPGs use some form of Hit Points and thus have similar injury/wounding mechanics. This is problem further reifnroced by the fact that RPGs tend to model a reality that has a lot os similarities to out own. Hmm, with that in mind, I wonder just how much a given game mechanic can vary. For instance, falling. There are probably only so many way to model it without inventing a new way to handle game mechanics.

Don't kick yourself. I believe the definition of a rapier varies a bit among different BRP games, depending upon the setting and who writes the weapon description. Most these people are gamers not weapons experts and some terms get thrown around a bit loosely. For instance what BNRP games call a "Broadsword" usually isn't a broadsword at all but an arming Sword. Chances are when they use the term "Rapier" they are probably referring to what most people today think of as a rapier, namely a smallsword. Ans practically every fantasy and histoical RPG has "Chain Mail" Armor mostly because Victorian Scholars adding mail to the end of every type of armor, despite those armors not actually being mail. . Also, all versions of the rapier need to fit into the damage scale already created, so there isn't much wiggle room to work with when starting out the various rapiers. 5th edition CoC had the sharpened Fencing Foil at 1D6+1, the Rapier/Heavy Epee at 1D6+1 and the Sword Cane at 1D6. Yup, although I'm not sure if it matter much in game terms when you consider other weapons like clubs and axes. Sword canes also tend to be weaker than actual swords, being a lighter, narrower weapon that had to fit into a stick. Thus lower Armor or Hit Point.

Sorry guys, but I think I fist saw something like it in MegaTraveler, and later in Icon's Star Trek RPG. I've seen variations of it in several RPGs since then, mostly Futuristic RPGs, for obvious reasons, although I've seen and used it in some modern day and "Steampunk" type games, and Harn's armor and weaponsmithing rules touch upon it too,. I'm an ol' timer, familiar with a lot of old RPGs, and a multi-success task resolution thing is common to many hi tech RPGs in some shape or another. So I honestly wasn't thinking of either of your "sister" systems when I posted. Not that those games shouldn't be given a look when trying to solve a problem in a BRP related game, and I did not intend to overlook their contributions to dealing with this sort of situation, they just weren't what came to mind.

One point to consider is why do you debrief them. If is just to point out how bad they are, then it's not a great idea, and will just annoy them. If it is to show why things went a certain way, and point out something specific, to help them improve in the future, then it is a good idea. We've recently taken a break from Pendragon (a BRP game) to play James Bond (a non-BRP game but still a distant cousin), which itself is only a Deep One away from CoC Investigators, ala Delta Green. Last session the group were given a training exercise where they were to infiltrate a small island base on Atoll in the Pacfic and photograph the "enemy's" new Surface-to-Air Missile Launcher. The agents got to the island by inflatable raft, and were dealing with the chain link fence when the enemy was altered by something. Then some men came out of the camp and one spotted a PC, which lead to the PCs shooting a band of guards with their silenced pistols before said guard could open up with their AKs (all paint rounds for the exercise). The PCs eventually managed to succeed but ran into more guards when they returned to their formerly inflatable raft, necessitating their stealing a nearby helicopter to escape, pausing only to disable the SAM launcher first. After the mission the characters went through a debriefing, where thier superior pointed out to them that they failed to hide their boat, and it was discovered by an enemy patrol, and that was what alerted the enemy to their presence, and were planning to trap them in crossfire up against the "deadly" (i.e. slightly) electric fence. Fortunately for the players, the guard they shot earlier were the ones who were supposed to spring the trap, and the players got the enemy CO when he went back to check up on the missing men. The debriefing proved useful as the players all realized that they had forgotten all about the raft, and that they should have tried to hide it before moving on, instead of just leaving it out on the open beach. They also found out how one guard spotting them and reacting to them probably helped to save the mission, as when the players took out those guard they disrupted the enemy's plans and leadership, turning it into a free for all, which the players won. Next time, however, they won't forget the boat. So the debriefing served a purpose, as next time the bad guys won't be using paint guns.

It depends. If it is something that won't affect future events, and can help them to figure where the overlooked or went wrong on something, then sure, I'll tell them some stuff. If it is something that will have future repercussions, like they never went down into the cellar and found the Shoggoth, then probably not. Better it comes back to bite them later.

Yes it does, in a way. It's much like Fudging die rolls, except in this case everyone knows the GM is doing it. And I agree with you, to some extent. Much like I won't put my players in an adventure where they have to fly an airplane or defuse a bomb if no one has the skills to do so. But, the trick is for the GM to somehow do it without the players getting clued in and either exploiting it (i.e. no one ever learns to fly so that situation will never happen), or come to expect the GM will fudge things when they get difficult (there are always parachutes, or an NPC who can fly when needed). It's a tough tightrope to walk, and there are many ways to do it. I don't think there is one best solution,only that we all have our own preferred solution or solutions. In Gumshoe's defense, it doesn't just give the clues away for free but also shifts the emphasis from finding the clues to figuring out what the mean.

Just to give you a somewhat different take on it... GUMSHOE goes with the premise that if a particular bit of information or item is absolutely vital to the players being able to solve an adventure, then they shouldn't roll for it. That way they can't blow the whole thing due to something outside of their control, one bad die roll. It can be a somewhat polarizing view, as it can make the actual abilities of the player characters less important. If a player knows that they will get that vital clue no matter what they do or hoe well they do it, there is less incentive to improve in the areas that improve information gathering.

Considering that the Rapier stats in BRP also cover the Foil and Estoc, I think it is probably close to a smallsword than the true rapier from earlier on. The sword cane's real value is in that it's better than nothing and most attackers aren't expecting it. In game terms we can't downgrade it too much, or else it becomes worse than just using the cane.