Atgxtg

That's why Pendragon ditched INT. That and the fact that it is rather difficult to play a character with an INT score that varies very much from your own.

Except that ib BRP there is no benefit to Charisma either. At least in games like GURPS and Bond APP and Charisma both had tangible benefits built into the game. In BRP it tends to come down to the GM, and most won't grant much solely to a high APP score. Another option might be to go the old FASA Trek route. In that RPG combat skills got averaged with DEX. I could see averaging the social skills with the Charima roll (APPX5%) to get an effective skill score. That way the attribute would be useful, but the game mechanics could be easily worked out before hand. It essentially means adding half of APP to half of the social skill.

It isn't. A few. First off it depends on how much you want the stat to impact roleplaying. I mention this becase some gamers feel that people should "just "roleplay" that stuff, and won't welcome game mechanics that affect the roleplaying. I disagree figuring that we don't "just roleplay" the fighting, poisoning, skill use or other aspects of the game. Assuming that you don't mind that, here are some ideas: 1) You could just get rid of APP. It's not like it would change much. The everybody just decribes what thier character looks like and try to take that into account. 2) The GM could make "reaction rolls" (APPx5) to see what sort of impression the PCs make on the NPCs, The multiplier could be adjusted based upon how the characters act and thier situation. This reaction roll could apply modifiers to rolls to get the NPCs to do something.

It seems highly unlikely. Companies rarely reprint material from older editions when they have a current edition in print. It would probably require a lot of people to want such reprints, and probably indicate that the edition currently in print was a flop. Of course you could always buy a PDF and get it printed and bound. That's what I did for some of my KAP5 stuff, and it works out well. Of course it helps that the KAP5 was mostly black & white without any fancy art. Most of the earlier KAP stuff was similar. When necessary, I've printed off some PDF purchases in color at home and then had them bound. These days, with a quality PDF, good printer and paper, it's possible to get pretty good results at a decent price. At least as good as the original print runs for stuff from 25-30 years ago. It's not an ideal solution, but at least it is a practical option.

Yes, especially on the battlefield when your life is on the line. Much like how the .50 cal machinegun was not supposed to be used against infantry. In reality soldier will do whatever they can to stay alive and worry about the consequences for doing something "prohibited" later. Crossbows gave foot soldiers a better chance against armored foes, such as knights, so naturally they used crossbows against knights when they had them.

Oh, they would know of them and even use them at times, but more as a hobby or tool for getting meat, rather than as a weapon. Yes, but it doesn't lend itself well to game play. Stalking prey armed with a bow is more something that a hunter would do alone or maybe in a very small group, as opposed to the social event of the formal hunt. Some one player makes a few hunting rolls and maybe a DEX roll or two to get in position to take the shot, while everyone else just sits around the table waiting. I think the players would almost have to break up into single hunters or pairs.

I know how you feel, and share that feeling, yet...it's probably the most "Old Chaosium" thing the new team could have done. Look at how long it took for HeroQuest to become a reality. Wating "forver" for the next Chasoium product has me feeling somewhat nostalgic.

Scotty, I'm all for being respectful and compassionate to Greg's family, but much of the the contest posted on Greg's old site, such as the information on Companions of Arthur and Round Table Knights, was literally cut & pasted from KAP3 (pages 69-70) or KAP4 (pages 131-132). Doesn't Chaosium, as the copyright holders, have permission to reprint stuff from from previous editions?

such as "You there, come with me!" Merlin is a Great GM tool. He can be used to do anything without having to rationalize it beyond his being Merlin.

Good point. Glory Escalation can be a problem, although it's traits passions and stuff like the religious bonus that has caused most of it in my campaign. That and starting back at 410. Most of the new characters are coming in with 1-2K of inherited glory, and end up being notable before they even got through their first adventure. Yes, but the award is tied to the deed, not to the one doing the deed. For instance if a commoner slays a dragon he would (and should) get all the glory that would go with that along with possibly being knighted. Of course more dragons slay commoners than commoners slay dragons, so it's a non-issue. Likewise most squires really aren't up to accomplishing adventures that net them lots of glory. By the time they are they are well on their way to being knighted. And, in this particular case, necessary. One of the big hurdles with starting in 410 is that I can count the number of named characters the players could interact with. I didn't even a name for the count. So building up some reoccurring characters was vital. Back to squires though, the key is to try and scale things down to the player character's ranks and capabilities, both for game play and game story purposes. If something occasionally turns into more than it was believed to be -that's a potential great adventure, but a GM has to be cautious with stuff like that. It's very easy for things to go awry and one or more squires to get killed off before they really even started.

If all the players are squires, then one thing you can do is give them some sort of task, suited for squires, that turns out to be more that originally expected. For instance, a hunt can lead to a group of bandits. Squires sent off to a border manor to deliver a message, get caught up defending against raiders. Keep in mind what the squires of capable of, and give them a challenge they can handle. This can not only give them a nice little adventure without any knights around to steal their thunder, but also can possibly lead to their getting further side missions, or even early promotion to knighthood. In my current campaign, I started the group off as squires, and they came across a merchant who had been robbed. They hunted down the bandits who stole his cargo, which turned out to be wine for the Archbishop of London. This not only gave them a small adventure suited toward their skill set, but also gave them a couple of contacts (the wine merchant and the Archbishop) that I could (and did) use for further adventures. Squires in battle are somewhat iffy. Either they act in a supporting role, and don't get to do much (yea, loads of fun, wake me when it's over), or they get a bit more active than they probably should (possible with older squires to knight with multiple squires) and get into the thick of things, where they tend to be over matched, but actual knights and other experienced opponents. It doesn't really work unless the GM sets it up carefully in advance with some sort of story and specific foes.

Thanks for the heads up.

I typically start with something curious but seemingly mundane and then let the players peel away the layers like a onion. For example: An investigator get contacted by an old colleague, relative, or some such who wants to meet with the investigator about something, but won't say what over the phone. Aforementioned contact dies suddenly. Probably by accident, or maybe by heart attack. A few days later the investigator gets a package in the mail from the deceased with some vague clues about someone, ramblings that the contact was in fear of thier live, and a warning to the investigator. At this point the investigators can start investigating (if not someone will come looking for the package), whih can real some sort of cult and more strange goings on someplace.

Should we assume the new stuff is going to be for Fifth Edition of Sixth? Yes, I know this is Pendragon, and differences between edtions in minor, but with anew edtion in the pipeline it would make sense for all the new stuff to be for with KAP6.

I think that was the original intent with D&D, but by now it is more of a legacy thing. Screens are pretty easy to make, especially compared to other products, and the screen becomes another "sure thing" sale. Not that having the most common tables on cardstock for reference isn't a good thing. Storminger didn't get a screen until the Elric! edition, and Pendragon still doesn't have one. But, it is interesting that stuff like fudging and rolling behind screens isn't actually addressed in most RPGs. If it was intended for GMs to do so, then the games would specifically mention it. There are a few games that do address that sort of thing but not that many. Personally I tend to favor a hero point type of game mechanic as it gives everybody a way to tweak things but within limits. But I also think that mostly accenting the bad results with the good helps to enrich the game as it can force the GM to be more creative, and introduce new ideas. I've got a game going now where I ended up introducing a new subplot just because I goofed and switched group affiliation for one NPC. Rather than try to correct it, I just decided that the NPC left one group for the other and then figured out the reasons why. It ended up making both groups more interesting than they had been.

Generally no. There are a few reasons why: 1) As Morien points out, most knights won't have any crossbow skill to speak of. 2) Crossbows are considered to be "unsporting".. The idea is that is doesn't take much for someone to stand 50-100 yards off and shoot something, even a commoner can do it!. It takes courage and skill to confront it face to face. 3) Hunting is also practice for combat. So it's better for young knights to improve their lance and spear skills over a weapon they'd never use in battle. That said, something like a prodd (a light crossbow that threw small rocks) was sometimes used when hunting fowl. A knight can't really spear a bird on the wing. But, by RAW the PKs won't have any skill. You might let them take time to aim,and consider it an "all out attack", giving them a effective skill of 10. Chances are some PKs will get a skill check and wind up with Crossbow 1 at the end of the year.

I think that depends somewhat on the game and group. Not everything runs the same or should be run the same, IMO. I run RQ differently from how I run Amber, FATE, Star Trek or Bond.

I don't think it really went that way. In fact, I'd say that somehow my view has been misinterpreted as "Anti-fudging" when in fact its more the "proceed with caution because it's a dangerous path." Mmmm, fudge.

Yes, but that doesn't address the question. What about when a player fudges? Pretty much all of the the reasons for the GM to do it apply to the player. Namely that said player, and the rest of the group would enjoy the game more if the player succeeded, or didn't die or whatever. I think fudging is a slippery slope, becuase once it's allowed in, it then becomes of question of "when and why".

Just to throw this into the mix, but what about when a player fudges?

Yes, that is the crux of it. I'm defining fudging as "altering the results of dice or actions". I'm defining improvising as "adapting to changing circumstances, or heading of into unexpected territory". For instance if the players misread the clues and go off to Cairo instead of Alexandria the GM would improvise what happens in Alexandria. It's a given. Otherwise the adventure would just stop. On the other hand if am investigator gets shot and the GM changes the result that's fudging. First off what do you consider to be an absurd game situation? It would help me to grasp where you are going with this. Secondly I've never seen players happy with the GM deliberately stepping in and snatching success from their hands. I've sometimes seen them tolerate it, if there was a reason for it, but they've never been happy about it. The reverse is true as well. If the GM steps in and openly throws something in the characters favor the players will start to question all of their successes and accomplishments. That actually depends on why the GM cheats. Cheating isn't in of itself bad for an RPG, it's the hows and whys that determine that. Okay. Why bother to post a reply if you won't be open to replies yourself? One thing about having any sort of discussion is that someone else might not agree with you. Is is becuase I agreed with the view that fuding is cheating? Well that's because it is cheating. By definition that is precisely what it is. But in an RPG cheating isn't necessarily a bad thing, the way is is in other game because a RPG isn't a competition. It isn't/shouldn't be the GM vs. the players but a cooperative effort. If you read over my early posts I mentioned that fudging should generally be avoided and that if a GM does fudge then it's important for the players not to know about it.

Yup, mine too. Any skilled GM should be able to imrpovise. But there is a different between improviding and fudging. Fudging is deliberayl altering the ways things would play out for some reason. Either to spare a character from what would otherwise have happened or to prevent a character from succeeding (or failing) at some moment. Improvise or fudge? When someone writes an adventure they set the parameters for the adventure, stat up the opposition and so forth. That's just writing an adventure. If when running the adventure, said GM makes a judgment call on what rental car is available, or what the bad guys will do after the PC unexpectedly run off with the Mystic Artifact, that improvisation. If a GM decides to alter things becuase he doesn't want to let a player character or favored villain die, that's fudging. No. I never said anything about improvising. I commented on fudging. Fudging tends to get spotted over time because whatever it is that the GM doesn't want to let happen, never happens. No you can remove bad situations by not rolling dice at all. By that I mean, if you don't want a bad guy to kill off a player character in the first five minutes of an adventure, don't write that into the adventure. For instance, let's say that a sniper with a high powered rifle is going to take a shot at a player character from 1000 yards away. If you don't want the sniper to kill a player character then don't roll for it. In fact, it probably better not to ever set up such an encounter, since there is very little the players can actually do about it. Remember, the GM is the one who created this situation in the first place. If he didn't want a player character to get shot by a sniper in the first five minutes he shouldn't have set up the situation in the first place.It's much better not to ambush the players than to have every ambusher turn out to be incompetent. No. Remember in BRP players are only supposed to make skill rolls in difficult situations where they have a chance of failing. Hence they don't have to roll driving to get back and forth to work everyday. No, not always. If story outcome was the sole reason, then there would ne need need to roll dice or even have players. The Keeper could just write a story. RPGs are intereactive. I'm not questing it. I'm simply stating that fudging die rolls is generally done sparingly, if at all. I'm also stating that I've seen it cause more bad that good. The best fudging is when no one is aware that the GM ever fudged, which is why it has to be done very sparingly. When a GM fudges alot players will eventually pick up on what the GM is fudigng to accomplish and that will influence how they play. All GMs controll the narrative most of the time. It's intrinsic to the way RPGs play. The GM is everybody's eyes and ears, and there is no way around that. A player cannot see something if the Gm doesn't let them know that they saw it. That's not fudging that's DMing. Altering the narrative, on the other hand is fudging. Yup. Yup. But I also would say that it's not just what, but how. Much as with anything else, skill and style play a big part of this, even within the same group. They key with fudging is the same as with asy sort of trick, namely to avoid detection by the audience. I don't think there is a debate per say. Just different options. I think it really comes down to the fact that RPGs grew out of wargames, and most RPGs present themselves are being "fair" and make a big thing about "game balance". Especially with groups using the the older, adversarial style of play common to old D&D. Are any of those people players? I've never once seem players happy about GMs fudging things. Maybe not, but is is an accurate one. While the word "cheater" has negative connotations, that is what fudgers are doing -"acting dishonestly or unfairly to gain an advantage". It's just that in a RPG a good GM is fudging for the benefit of the other players.

I don't believe a GM can ever be over-prepared. Underprepared yes, but not over preprared. Certainly not, but a Gm shouldn't just ingore and negate the die rolls and players actions. At that point the players are no longer can affect events and do not impact the storyline. Not all fudging, but with most of the reasons/examples listed in this thread. As far as if it should apply to CoC would depend a lot of what sort of CoC game one is running. It probably fits in more with a Pulp Cthulhu game than with a standard one.Frankly I think fudigng to save Investigators in standard CoC is sort of counter prodcutive. If you use it for both ups and downs, then why are you doing it in the first place? Why not let the orginal ups and downs stand? As for it being discovered, yes it will be. Anyone I ever gamed with would have spotted that someone was fudging just by their rolling behind a GM screen. It's really the only reason for a GM to do so. Yes, but that justifies not fudging. Why can't you roll than openly? I roll the dice all time time in from of my players. I don't tell them what I'm rolling for unless they have a reason to know. If I were running that it would depend on if the player were deliberately looking for something or if they might notice something anyway. If they were deliberately looking, I'd let them roll. I usually wouldn't tell them of any modifiers, such as darkness or camoflague or a crtical Hide roll or whatever. If it were a secret roll, I'd just mix the roll in with the other open rolls. Sometime I've even had players make some rolls before play that I can use for secret rolls later. I'm not so sure. If the GM is forcing the plot at the expense of the players then that's worse than cheating. I've seen GMs do that, too. THey have some sotry in thier head and no matter what the players do the adventure will play out a particular way. That's bad. In that case, why do you need players? I we wanted to be told a stroy we wouldn't need characters, we could just sit back and be entertianed. What makes RPGs sepcial is that they are intereactive, and player characters should have a chance to alter the plot.

Yes, although the issues of openess and trust factor into things. However every campaign I've ever seen where the GM fudges a lot is one where the players figure it out and either "phone it in" because they know the GM is going to control everything, or take extrme risks, becuase they know the GM won't let them die.

That's not fudging descriptions. At least not if the situation is written that way beforehand. A GM has the power to set up practically all the encounters and scenes beforehand. Now it is fudging if the GM alters stuff on the fly. It's usually easy to figure out, due to number of close calls. A good example would be any of those TV action shows where, despite all the gunfire no one ever seems to get shot or even seriously hurt. Reasonably perceptive players will tend to pick up on this , and even test the GM by taking greater risks or just by watching how the opposition consistently runs into bouts of bad luck right when they were about to win. It's hard to keep fudging a secret long term. Then the players immediately know there is fudging going on. Secret die rolls are a dead giveaway. There is really no other reason to roll dice behind the screen. Yes, it does. The GM is not playing fair. But, the GM doesn't necessarily have to play fair, as RPGs are by design inherently unfair. All are biased towards the players. That's not the problem. It when the GM is not treating the players the same when it becomes an issue. If a GM saves some PCs sometimes and not others, then he is playing favorites. Do your players know and accept that? Remember the game is also there for their enjoyment, as well as the GMs. Few players like the idea that the GM is going to override their actions and die rolls on a whim. Now, I'm not saying that some occasionally fudging can't help at times, only that in my experience, I've seen fudging do far more harm to a campaign than good. All the players in the area know what GMs fudge regularly.