Thalaba

Yowza - that sounds awesome! I hope you've given my home city of Montreal a good treatment! As I see it, these are your potential routes: 1. Publishing it as a book - you might approach Alephtar Games (Rosen McStern here on this forum - send him a PM) and see if they will be interested. Since the manuscript is mostly done, I imagine there's enough there for him to evaluate it. Similarly, Chaosium might be interested in the manuscript. I don't know about the other franshisees but there may be other people to approach, too. 2. You could take out a franchise yourself from Chaosium and publish it yourself, but then you have to commit to producing more books, so it might be more than you want to tackle. 3. There's the monograph route as already mentioned. 188 pages might be too long for a monograph - not sure. If you want to go this route just e-mail your ideas to Dustin - he usually responds pretty quickly. 4. I imagine you could put it up as a free book here. I have no idea what sort of copyright concerns there may be, however (if any) - others can answer this better. There are other similar resources for download here. Thalaba

Can you tell us a bit more...? What's the nature of the setting? How long is the book? Have you looked at the monograph guidelines from Chaosium and thought about doing it that way? Does it contrain proprietary information? Etc. Thalaba

How does it work for me...? I tend to play with a lot of options thrown in because I like the crunch that they offer, so we use Strike Ranks and Encumbrance/Fatigue and Hit Locations. I really enjoy these rules and I think they add a lot - especially hit locations - they allow you to describe battles in much more detail, so we have a lot of fun in combat. But they also require knowing the system a little better. I'd advise working your way up to them (except hit locations - I'm sure everyone here agrees you gotta have those:p). We found that our original skill list had a few too many skills that people almost never used, so we simplified the skill list a little. A lot of people have done this, I gather. I find the characteristics are a little more meaningful - especially with the combat options. My players are always looking to use convenient safe locations in the campaign to train up one characteristic or another, specifically so they can wear heavier armour, do more damage in combat, increase their spellcasting chance, etc. In systems where you add a characteristic bonus to a skill, I don't see this as much. One thing you'll probably start to notice about BRP is that people will start to get excited about using skills. This is partly due to the experience system, but also partly due to the fact that one glance at their character sheet will tell them exactly what their chances are. We find in our game that people usually want to sneak a lot, but their chances are low. When I ask a player "are you trying to be stealthy while doing that?" they usually respond with "well, I'm TRYING, but...". Then, when they do hit that sneak roll, they're usually woo-hooing and high-fiving and pounding their fist on the table, then they grab that pencil and make the check in the box extra dark just from sheer satisfaction. I love those moments. Another aspect of this is they will try to do things in different ways so they can excercise those low skills. They might try jumping instead of climbing - that sort of thing. This can be quite fun, too, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. But the backside is that people will go 'check hunting' - looking for spurious reasons to use skills just to get the check. Watch out for this behaviour and don't let it get out of hand. Just remember that skills can only checked if successfully used in stressful situations, and don't be afraid to veto a check. Players are a lot more cautious in combat, too. When we first started our campaign (my players were D&D players before) they jumped into all kinds of situations. Now they are very cautious. They don't treat any encounter as another same-old thing. They pretty much dread a repeat encounter of almost anything I've thrown at them so far, and I love that about the game. Now if only I could cure them of their desire to burn things... "PL: When we get out of this cursed watery temple, I'm gonna burn it to the ground" "GM: It's made of stone and has earth floors, and it's dedicated to the Mud Mistress..." "PL (incredulous): You mean there's NOTHING to burn here?" Other than that, it's pretty straight forward I think - not so different from GMing other systems. As a GM, I think you get out of it what you put into it. Thalaba

Given the announcement's 'terribly mysterious' nature, it could be a Mystery Men game!

Characteristic rolls DO increase when a person's CON (or other characteristic) increases, they just don't increase from experience. As a GM, however, you could allow a heavy drinker periodic CON checks to increase their CON, or you could handle it as you've done and create a skill - which is probably the better method of the two. I've never run a game where drinking was a major feature, so it's never come up for me before. We use skills for these in our game. 'Scan/Search' is used for all sight based rolls, and 'Insight' is used for 'sense motive' (sparingly, since I prefer these things to be roleplayed). We use Idea rolls seldom - the only times I use them are when a Player can't remember a pertinent fact that his character probably could, or when his character might be able to piece two story elements together but the player is drawing a blank. Not me, personally, but a lot of people do. It's a common rules variation and makes good sense. Your other obversations are bang on! Sounds like you got the hang of it pretty quickly! Thalaba

Me too!

I'm not sure about an official RQ version of such a thing, but there is a pretty detailed list like this for download on the alternate earth Yahoo group site. It's called meta-outline.txt. The same document isn't on the website yet (Alternate Earth RQ) but maybe Simon could be persuaded to put it up. Thalaba

Soo... if I'm getting this right, it's not that BRP Sorcery is like Spirit Magic, it's that BRP Sorcery is like Elric Sorcery, which is similar to Battle Magic, which is kind of like Spirit Magic. And Because Spirit Magic evolved from Battle Magic and BRP Sorcery evolved from Elric magic, people who were around long enough to to have seen all these changes now say that BRP Sorcery is like Spirit Magic because they are harkening back to the old versions. Does that about cover it? That's a bit convoluted, but it does explain the mystery, anyway! I never played RQ2, so I'm not familiar enough with Battle Magic to see the relationship. The Bronze Grimoire is an excellent book, so I'll second that suggestion as a source for spell inspiration. Also, Tywyll is currently working on a BRP Grimoire monograph which will have more spells for all of the magic systems. Not sure when that will be available, though, but it is progressing.

I keep seeing people say this (you are not the first by far, Al), but I don't see it. :confused: Sorcery is cast automatically with no die roll. Spirit magic has a percentage chance to cast it equal to POWx5% less ENC, so the casting chance is quite low. Sorcery spells are cast from a Grimoire. No grimoire is required for spirit magic. Sorcery can be learned from a found grimoire, scholarly research, a teacher, or the knowledge of the spell can be placed in the memory by a supreme being. Spirit magic can only be learned by entering spirit combat with a spirit and forcing it to teach you the spell. Sorcery lasts POW combat rounds. Spirit magic lasts a fixed 25 combat rounds (or 5 minutes). Variable sorcery spells are truly variable (knowing Sorcerer's Razor allows you to cast all 4 levels), but spirit magic spells are not necessarily so (knowing Bladesharp 1 does not allow you to cast Bladesharp 2). Sorcery spells causing damage (eg. Sorcerer's Razor) cause 1 point of damage per spell. Spirit magic spells causing damage (ie. Bladesharp) cause 1 point of damage per spells AND give +10% to hit. The spells available are quite different. There is a religious aspect to spirit magic that sorcery doesn't have. That's a lot of differences! I would have said that Sorcery had more in common with Divine magic, but I keep hearing people say it's almost the same as Spirit Magic. Can somebody explain this to me, please? In what way is BRP Sorcery like spirit magic? Thanks

Technically, each wound must be treated separately, and can only be healed up to the damage of that particular wound. Realistically, this is how it should work, too. If a PC takes 3 wounds, they will theoretically be in three different places (even three wounds to the same hit location will still be in different parts of that hit location, such as wrist, bicep, and elbow on an 'arm' hit). So, if a PC has just fought a Dire Mafia Bruiser Vine in the jungles, and someone critically heals the broken knuckles from his hand wound, they still need to roll separately to heal the Columbian Necktie wound that the vine also gave him and get his feet out of that concrete-like sap it spewed. That's assuming you play by the rules (which the Dire Mafia Bruiser Vine probably didn't). Thalaba

Of course not - we're all part of the same family. I read that in someone's sig, so it must be true. Well, that is a matter of taste, really. I like the existing RQ3 method, but then I don't allow tick-hunting, which I agree is to be avoided. I thought this had been changed for 3.5, and that experience was now awarded for accomplishing various 'mission objectives', but then I'm no expert. In any case, I was merely trying to point out why people say MRQ is the D&D version of RQ (regardless of the validity of those reasons). And I don't think people are trying to argue that MRQ is like D&D within the broad context of all roleplaying games, or even all BRP games, merely that it is more like D&D within the context of games that were called RuneQuest. Thalaba

Oh, yeah. I knew there was another thing - thanks for reminding me. MRQ introduced an experience system based on an 'experience points' kind of thing awarded by the GM, and this was another apparent little D&Dism. While I won't dispute this, I would like to point out that a large number of people who play D&D are not more than peripherally aware that alternatives even exist, so it isn't really a case of people D&D being popular because everyone who plays it 'prefers' it - many are introduced to it, like it, and never bother to look into other fantasy rpg's at all. What's more, of those who are aware of other rpgs, many get so used to the system they started with that changing to another system becomes a difficult step. At least, these are common attitudes I find where I live. That's not to take away from those who legitimately think it's better, having given other games a fair shake, of course. Although it is called a 'table' it is really just a simple mathematical formula, the results of which are shown in a table. Once you get used to that, there is no need to look it up at all. There was a thread a while back covering this topic - it might have some alternatives for you, if you don't like it, but really it's not as troublesome as the name 'table' suggests. And this is coming from someone who can't do head math to save his life! Thalaba

First remember that MRQ is compared more often to RuneQuest than to BRP, since that's what it purports to be. The amount that MRQ is like D&D is probably a question of degree, since it is still more like RQ than D&D. But many people thought that the changes introduced by MRQ were implemented to draw in some of the 3.5 crowd and make it more palatable to them, rather than improvements or refinements to the rules as they were. One of the reasons it isn't called RQ4 (or RQ5, whatever) is that many people did not think it followed in the footsteps of previous editions enough to be a successor - that it was in fact a different game, not just a different edition. It's been a while since I looked at the MRQ ruleset, but from memory, these were my beefs... 1. MRQ removed the RQ strike rank system and replaced it with another system (also called strike ranks) that was really just a D&D initiative system by another name. 2. MRQ removed the resistance table and the usefulness of many stats in the process (no more STR vs SIZ rolls). CON rolls and resistance to magic were replaced with 'saving throw'-like skills (such as Persistence). 3. MRQ added legendary abilities which smelled like D&D feats. 4. They tried to introduce a more obvious and direct relationship to runes through Rune Magic, which seemed somewhat ill thought out. This doesn't necessarily make the game more D&D-like though, I don't think. 5. The number of combat actions seemed to favour DEX too much as a stat and ignored one's level of skill with a weapon. This is also not a D&Dism as far as I can tell. 6. Free attacks were added, which seemed a lot like D&D opportunity strikes. There are probably more. In general, MRQ also doesn't have the same feel that older versions had and it left people with the feeling that Mongoose had missed the point. Now, to be fair you've so far only heard one side of the story. There are people here who are also active on Mongoose forums which, I assume, means they've come around to like the game. Hopefully one of them can give you a more balanced (and informed!) opinion than I can. Thalaba

I think the problem with height/length is that it just isnt straight forward. Sure, for humanoids you could probably compare, but how to you compare the height of a human to that of a horse. How do you compare a horse to a giraffe, or the length of a python to an elephant? Mass, by contrast, is easy to compare. Furthermore, mass makes more sense forming part of the calculation for determining HP and Damage bonus that height does. Tall people aren't necessarily more swarthy, nor do they hit harder. But I see where your coming from - I've run into this issue in my games, too. Just how tall is a SIZ 25 giant ape, and can it fit through the door? What's probably needed is something to compare size to height for average humanoids (as opposed to short, fat humanoids, or tall thin ones). And from there, basically each creature description could use a line stating that 'this creature ranges in height from X to Y'. But that's a lot of work and I'm not up to it, so I just wing it. Thalaba

What if you allowed them to have 1 free parry at full value, and then unlimited addtional parries at difficult rating (half skill)? It would be easy to keep track of - might give you the balance you're looking for.

I've never found this to be a problem. Sometimes, my players do attack twice (once with main weapon, then with offhand weapon 3 strike ranks later) and forego their defense. This is one of the tactical choices that can make BRP combat so interesting. I always make them declare their intent to do this at the beginning of the round, so it's never a case of 'oh, he missed his attack so I guess I'll attack twice since I don't need to parry'. The GM has to assert that level of control for it to work, but it does work. What's more, my players have often regretted making the decision to forego of parry. Bad guys get specials and criticals, too! Thalaba

I think your skill list might be too long for S&S. I'm assuming for the moment that you'll want to play something realtively true to the genre, Howardesque with some Leiber thrown in. So here's what I personally would cut/change: Appraise: This one is debatable, IMO. I mean, really, what is appraise for except for earning money. But S&S isn't usually about earning money [edit: at least not for the long term], so I'm not sure this skill will be much use in play. Personally, I'd drop it and just tell the PCs what things are worth. I'd use the Legend Lore to let them figure out if things were uniquely valuable. Here's an additional thought - since S&S is usually episodic and the heroes are usually broke, maybe you could have a mechanic whereby the PCs MUST change in their cash & valuables at the end of each episode in exchange for extra skill checks - say one skill check per every 1000 gold - that could be applied to any skill they didn't get a check in. Art, Various: I'd drop this - will you really have your S&S heroes making pottery to save their lives or defeat the evil sorceror? Artillery, Siege (includes assembling siege engines): Again, I'd drop this. S&S is about SWORDS (and other manly weapons) and SORCERY - not about arbalests and trebuchets. Craft, various: I'd drop this for the same reason as art. Or I might substitute a Devise skill to cover all those situations where the PCs want to make or repair a contraption. Etiquette: I would allow it, but I might consider not allowing people to put starting skills into it. But that's just my view of S&S. Language, other: Unless you want to roleplay people not communicating well with others as a feature of the game, I would just give everyone the same language. If you do want a lack of communication to be a feature, then fine - but for S&S I would limit the number of languages to 3 or 4. Literacy (per alphabet): I'd either eliminate this or, if I was going to allow sorceror characters (which I probably wouldn't) I'd have only one alphabet in the game to keep it simple. Research: I'd eliminate it outright for an S&S game. Literacy will suffice if you even need that. Leechcraft (Medicine): Debatable, IMO. Maybe necessary if you don't have magic healing, but is it really something you want to roleplay in S&S? Maybe you should just have an NPC healer heal them up between episodes - or even better maybe healing is another way to get rid of all that money before the next episode. Perform, various: Again - is this something you see the PCs having to roll on in game? Are they playing Conan or are they playing Sheherzade? But then again, acting might be a useful skill for a Grey Mouser character. Legerdemain: Combine it with Palm/Conceal. It's pretty much the same as Palm, isnt it? Navigate and Sail/Boating: Put them together. And will your PCs really have to roll on these? Ever? If not, eliminate them. Teach: for NPCs only? Strategy: Again, do you foresee the PCs using this? If so, OK. Throw: remember you have a 'thrown weapons' weapon skill - you don't need both IMO. All the others seem good. I guess all I'm asking is 'will the PCs use this skill, how often, and can it be combined with another?' Thalaba

This sounds quite good. My only comments are minor. I would skip EDU for S&S. I'm thinking all you need is a few lore skills - World Lore for geography and nature, Legend Lore for history and artifacts, and Demon Lore for demons. That's probably all you need. I'd reduce the weapons even further. I'd put Polearm and Spear together, Net/Lasso/Whip go together into a category called Gladitorial Weapons or Slaver's Weapons (depending on your flavour), Thrown rock under Thrown, and maybe Hand and Improvised together in Brawl or throw them into the gladitorial weapons category. And I'll second Vagabond's comments. Great start! Thalaba

To answer in a different way, here's some actual play perspective to put the rule into context: We've been playing a campaign for about a year and a half now, weekly. The players started off with key skills mostly from from 30-50%, lesser skills from 10-30%, and possibly one or two skills per player in the 50-70% range. I only allow skill checks when the PCs come into town or otherwise camp for a short period - when there is a lull in the 'adventure' - on average this works out to about once per 3 or 3.5 game sessions. Now, a year and a half later, I would estimate that the lowest skills are still in the 10-30% range - some have moved to the 30-50% range. Most key skills are now from 50-70% and the most used skills (one melee weapon attack per player, maybe one parry, maybe one ranged weapon, scan, listen, and for one character first aid) are now pushing the top of the 70-90% range. No player has a skill over 90% yet. Oh, and they've stoped to train twice, so not all of these increases are from experience checks, either. After a year and a half they still fear getting into fights (actually more-so now), they still fail rolls in the critical moment they need them, and most of them still can't sneak for shit. One thing I have noticed different is that they tend to critical and special a little more, and this makes the game more exciting. Also, remember that many skills can't be increased through experience - knowledges, for instance (important in a CoC game). Overall, the rate increase is not what I would call fast if playing by the rules. Especially for one of my players who always seems to roll 1% increases. Thalaba

Welcome, Chuck. Great question! I've had some similar issues as well. In my game I've opted to go with a 'persuade' skill to cover all forms of persuading an individual, be it fast talk or an intimidate or whatever. I allow the defender an 'Insight' roll to counter this. I let degree of success win, with ties going to the player. We play a sword and sorcery type game, so for us it doesn't need to be more nuanced than this. If I was playing a heavy political game, I might do it differently. One thing I've been thinking about is how one might make the social skills aspect of the game more interesting. One might, for instance, develop a set of derived stats for social situations. Charm might be equal to CHA+INT, Intimidate = SIZ+INT, Fast talk or Wit = INT+INT, Authority = POW+INT. With these four derived stats, one would then use them to roll on the resistance table against the opponent's Wit or Authority to try and persuade someone by one of these four means. Not knowing the NPC's scores, the player would have to try to figure out what the best method of persuading someone would be. It needs some work, but could be quite interesting I think. Back to your original question - you could always counter a fast-talk with the defender's fast-talk. Stands to reason that the mental ability to pull off a fast talk would also be applied to seeing through one. Or you can allow the defender an Idea roll (maybe INTx5,INTx3 or INTx1 depending on how successful the fast talk was) to see through it. Thalaba

In your opinion - was there enough missing to make it worthwhile hunting down GM if one already has GI? Or are they 95% similar? I don't play in Glorantha, so the context issue was never important for me. Thalaba

I have the Gloranthan Bestiary and, to be honest, I never use it. I find most of the creatures in it to be a little too weird for my taste - though there are one or two exceptions like the Rubble Runner. The best RQ3 Gloranthan monsters were actually released in the Glorantha Book - which was book 5 of the Deluxe Boxed Set. It had Scorpionmen, Walktapus, Jack-o-bear, Dragon snails (I think), and Dragonnewts. I think, though, that you'll have a lot of trouble finding this book, so if there's a Mongoose equivalent with these creatures I'd go for it. These creatures are NOT in the Gloranthan Bestiary - at least not the version I have. Also, look into the 2nd Edition reprints from Moon Design. I have Borderlands & Beyond and it's very good - it also has interesting creatures in it, including the Whirlvish, which I recently inflicted on my players with great success. I suspect the Griffin Mountain book will also have some creatures in it. As for Griffin Island, I liked it, too. Most people who seem not to like it were those who had Griffin Mountain first and are comparing the two. I have yet to see a truly objective comparison, and I'm sure both supplements rate almost equally high when compared to the overall corpus of rpg supplements. The 3rd edition Dorastor book has some creatures, too - Slime deer, poisonthorn elves, and spiders are some from my memory. It also has a lot of really stange and powerful creatures that the PC's are mainly supposed to run away from, as I recall. Thalaba

Me too!

Welcome Barliman, Your setting sounds pretty cool! Let us know how it goes. Thalaba

Not a silly question at all. I convert in the other direction since I run RQ, and I've taken BRP and also COC and Elric creatures and used them directly, adding only hit locations. Going the other way should be even easier. Thalaba