Thalaba

Pshaww - you kids and your parchment! Give me good old fashioned, tried and true blobs of clay impressed with a reed stylus any day. Bake-em once and Bilgames is your uncle. House on fire? Sure, bring it on! Mould? What's that? Fading in the sun? Pages falling out? Cuuurling so you can't read the first and last sentence? This is what you so-called parchment peddlers call progress?! Bah. mumble mumble.

Is Cthulhu Rising coiled behind that?

I thought I saw it mentioned somewhere that you were releasing this for Savage Worlds. Are you releasing for more than one system?

My guess is that it is, but rather than play psychologist, I'll tell you why I like it and the reasons I've heard from others as to why they don't like it. I like it because it's very logical at its core, it's very simple to teach and learn, and it's very robust in that it can be bent in many different ways and not be broken. It also doesn't really have any dice gimmicks, so it tends to recede into the background of play, rather than be front and centre. I like that because the interaction between the players at the table becomes the focus, rather than the game system itself. Hand waving, or making rulings on the fly, is very easy - in part because almost everything is run off D%, so mentally calculating the probability of success is dead easy. There are several subsystems to the game which lend some variety, too, and all of them are easy to grok. So, for instance, if the PCs come across a door that they want to open in a hurry and you can't remember the rule for this, you can quickly come up with one of several ways for the situation to be handled. You can have the PC roll to wrench it open STRx5% for an easy door, or STRx3% for a tough door, or STRx1% for a very tough door. You can give the door a 'Resist Opening' skill and have the PC make an opposed skill roll against it, using STRx5% for brawn, or whatever skill makes sense to you. You can give the door a STR and have the PCs match their STR against it on the resistance table. You can give the door Armour Points/Hit Points and let the PCs batter it down with their weapons. You can simply decide what the % chance of the PCs getting through the door is and have them roll against that. Some of the above are less orthodox than others, but each method will work and none will break the game. As for whether you'll like the game or not, the types of people I've run into over the years that don't like it usually fall into one of these groups: 1. People that have never played it but got fed up of people telling them how much better it is than D&D so they wrote it off. 2. People that like to have a very tactile game - one that feels more game-like with interesting dice rolling methods or dice trading. They seem to find BRP boring. 3. People with some specific need that BRP simply doesn't accommodate, like the need for bell curve distribution in the dice rolls (BRP does have a results bell curve, by the way, but let's not get into that) or the need for a roll-over system. 4. People who hate rolling percentage dice, for whatever reason. 5. People who want more explicit narrative tools in their games. 6. As Rosen alluded to, people for whom 'new' is inherently better usually see BRP as an 'old', and therefore inherently inferior, game. Usually 5 and 6 go hand in hand, in my experience. If you're not in one of the above categories, I'm sure you'll at least 'like' BRP. You might even love it. And when you do get that book and read it, remember that if there's something you find in the rules that you don't like, chances are someone has already come up with a different way of doing things that works great, so just ask around. There are probably almost as many BRP houserules as there are players. There are some advantages to playing 'old' games, afterall!

I compiled this list of differences between RQ3 and RQ6 when it first came out. I'll re-post it here: 1. RQ6 has no characteristic rolls (though they're easy enough to incorporate if you like). RQ3 uses DEX*5% rolls and so forth. 2. RQ6 does not use the resistance mechanic - instead it uses opposed skills for everything, and things like using CON to resist against poison are handled by skills, now. Use of opposed skill tests is now a much larger part of the game, especially in combat. RQ3 uses the resistance mechanic. 3. RQ6 uses hit locations only (no total HP). RQ3 uses hit locations and total hit points. 4. Combat special manoeuvres are now reactive instead of pro-active. In RQ3 when you want to perform a manoeuvre like hitting a specific location, you would declare your intent, take a penalty, and then roll. In RQ6, you make the rolls first, then make one or more manoeuvres based on the result. This simulates taking advantage of openings and opportunities which occur in battle. 5. RQ6 uses stat pairs as the base for skills, then adds cultural and career values to create a starting skill. RQ3 uses a fixed cultural base for skills, then adds modifiers (based on stats) and careers. The intent and result are similar, but the math is different. 6. In RQ6 weapon skills are allocated in the form of 'combat styles', where one style reflects a small group of weapons and circumstances. RQ3 uses individual skills for weapons. 7. RQ6 has folk magic (a less powerful but very sensible version of the old spirit magic), Theism (old divine), sorcery, animism, and mysticism. RQ3 has Spirit Magic, Divine Magic, and Sorcery and Ritual magic. 8. RQ6 uses 10% for criticals and has a slightly smaller fumble range, but not specials. RQ3 uses 5% criticals, 20% specials, and 5% fumbles. 9. Skills are organized differently (but still basically work the same). 10 The character creation process is different - character age isn't as important in RQ6, and it generates more background material (such as siblings) and generates a generic background event for each character. 11. Dodging and parrying work differently in RQ6. The size of the parrying weapon plays a larger role, and dodging is now more like diving aside. 12. Fatigue is more streamlined in RQ6, and requires less book-keeping than in RQ3. 13. RQ6 has a passions subsystem. RQ3 does not. 14. RQ3 skills advance according to use. in RQ6, improvement rolls are handed out to be distributed as the player sees fit. 15. RQ6 has hero points which can be used for re-rolls. RQ3 does not. There are more that this, I'm sure, but this gives you the core differences. If your budget is tight you can buy the Mongoose Legend PDF for $1.00 to evaluate the basic system. RQ6 is an expanded and refined close cousin of Legend. RQ3 is perfectly serviceable, by the way, so unless RQ6 does something in a way you find profoundly better there's no need to switch. I like both systems equally myself, but having said that I'll throw my lot in with those who favour the resistance table, too! The upcoming product line for RQ6 looks very promising, BTW, and if - like most gamers - you like a bit of game bling, RQ6 does deliver on that count.

I certainly can't compete with Pete or Loz on the sadism front, but I did once coax the players into receiving a 'blessing' from a local religious fanatic upon entering a new city. They soon discovered that other foreigners had also been 'blessed' and they all seemed to wear unnaturally tall hats. The next day they felt knobs growing on top of their heads. When investigating this, they met another 'blessed' foreigner who took off his tall hat to reveal a third arm growing out of the top of his head. When they saw one of these arms beat its host to death in the street by repeated punching in the face, they finally understood the nature of their 'blessing', and had to find a way to lift it before their new arms were fully grown.

Did you ask them why not? Only slightly more old-school than seeing a copy of RQ. Did you also see the AD&D reprints? That's a good product, by the way.

This would be my first pick, too. I'd de-emphasize witchery, though - give me tales and flavour more reminiscent of an S.R. Crocket novel. Add The Steel Bonnets by GM Fraser to the list of reference material.

Mankam covered you pretty well for soundtacks, but for more pop/rock oriented music try these: Looks Like We're Shy One Horse by Colourbox: Pretty much anything off the album 'Rome' by Danger Mouse: or 'El Vaquero' by The Men They Couldn't Hang from the album Silvertown (sorry - can't find a video but you can listen to it here: http://searchmp3.mobi/download-men-they-couldnt-hang-el-vaquero-515062.xhtml) A couple of tracks of this album have that Spaghetti western sound... (the western sound comes in the second half - the first half makes me think of a CoC scenario in a lighthouse I played recently.)

Why does it need to be one or the other. If, as you say, Amazon e-books (pdfs?) have just over-taken physical books this year, then that means the market for each is about 50-50. Why provide only one format and potentially lose 50% of your market? But I guess the real issue isn't where or in what format you make products available for sale - but how you get the word out that these things are for sale. The FLGS has traditionally been a good place to come to the attention of browsers - targeted marketing, as it were. I suppose on-line forums are, too. Forums only attract a small percentage of gamers, it seems. Open question: Where else do you go to advertise to potential customers?

Isn't this more a function of educating your local shop-owners and get them to order product? My local FLGS has no problem stocking Chaosium products. Alephtar and Cublicle 7 are also well represented - and I don't even consider them a particularly good store, as their pretty clueless when it comes to RPGs. Surely if a store in Canada can throw darts at a distributor's catalog and order Chaosium material, so can one in Oklahoma. That said, I do think Chaosium could do a better job of outreach - both to customers and to writers.

This is grossly incorrect. PCs can confront the bad guys who, for the most part, are other humans trying to summon mythos creatures. They can also confront the Mythos creatures and win, though it is more effective to use magic to banish them than to use force to kill them. The fate of mankind on the long term is ambiguous (not 'doomed') and in any case 'the long term' is longer than any PC's natural life, so who cares. PCs need not go insane in the game - it's all in how the GM runs it. The fact that many GMs and players like to play up the insanity when they talk about their games is neither here nor there - you don't have to if you don't want to.

LOL. I'm pretty sure that's not the goal of CoC! Pulp Cthulhu, maybe...

Indeed - it felt like I was listening to an episode of Ideas on CBC Radio! Was expecting a bit more of a Scottish lilt in the accent, though... I'd love to hear the episode with Pete's thoughts on indie gaming.

Thanks for sharing! I listend for the first episode and am partway through the second. While the production values and voice acting are not as slick as the HPLHS dradio drama of the same story, it does put the focus in different areas (on the personalities of the academics, for instance), which makes it interesting to listen to. I think there's also a bit more depth in this version, I guess because it's longer. And let's not overlook that it's free - a big plus! One (minor) fault I find with both dramas is that they try too hard at times to invoke HPLs written style and that ends up sounding rather stilted in places when it's used in dialogue.

Which skills you use in a particular game is very much setting and campaign dependent. If you were playing a martial-arts themed game with studied unarmed combat disciplines, you probably wouldn't want the skill to be called something as crass as 'brawl'. Similarly, if athletics competitions were a big feature (a setting inspired by the ancient Olympic games, for example) you might want to break 'athletics' into more skills. It all depends on your focus. In a ruleset intended to be generic to a degree, you can only chart a middle ground by keeping skill names broad, and give advice to GMs on how to change skills to suit their particular adventure as appropriate.

A Sandbox has nothing to do with cats. Around here, anyway, the box intended for cats is a Litterbox. A sandbox is a toy for children (and the young-at-heart) which is basically an area filled with sand for play, often bordered by a wooden frame (hence the 'box'). A sandbox game in RPG terms is a game where, like in the toy sandbox, the players can participate in and perform any thing they want. The adventure is a blank slate and the players drive its direction. There is no set adventure path. A sandbox world feels like a living, breathing world. The player characters can interact with it and change it, but it doesn't rely on the PCs initiating those changes. This way, the players 'build' the adventure themselves through their own decisions. It is the opposite of 'railroading'. Sandbox purists will have a very detailed world. The idea is that the world runs rather independantly of the players, and that there are many things going on. The players will eventually find out about some of these and will decided to interact with them (or not). Since the GM must be equally prepared if the players decided to go to Obraxas-by-the-Sea to the east or the village of Saint-Plestinians to the west, they are often highly prepared environments. Whatever events that were going to happen in one place will still happen in the PCs go there or not. Of course, many GMs will work ad-lib, as well, but prepared sandboxes are usually considered to be more impartial.

Ah, good. I personally feel that more focus is needed for these. There are certain genres I'm just not interested in, which makes the broad spectrum adventures books not as appealing.

Yeah, I was thinking that he would pay someone or use his assistant. I can think of several gruesome ways of killing another, but not as many that involve killing oneself. You could look at slow acting poisons, maybe, or exposing oneself to haematite dust to induce siderosis, or such things. These are not so visually gruesome, but you could act out the symptoms gruesomely, I suppose. I find slitting your wrists and bleeding out to be pretty gruesome mainly because it's bloody and time consuming.

I've always found the Catherine Wheel to be particularly gruesome. The victim's bones are broken by the wheel. Then his limbs are woven between the spokes and he's left out to dry.

How quick should it be?

For The Win!

As someone completely oblivious to web mastery and computer nerdery, I sincerely appreciate your efforts, too!!!

Well, it does sound very much more to my taste than I thought, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. Your inspirational sources (from your blog) are close to my heart, too. What with this, RQ6, AEON, and some of the Alephtar books, the 'ancient' market is starting to look well-served. If I see a copy in the FLGS I'll give it a closer scan-through.

No, I never did. The name Age of Treason naturally invokes The Age of Reason, a historical period I'm not much interested in RPing in, and the second part of the name (Iron Simulacrum) brings to mind steampunk or mechanoids, which I'm also not interested in. I also have a once-bitten-twice-shy aversion to things associated with Mongoose. For these three reasons I never made an effort to learn more about it. But if you feel it offers something different, feel free to list some of the highlights - what do you think sets it apart from other settings?