Thalaba

There are several threads talking about skills right now and a few of you mention paring down the skills list. Could I get you to share your abbreviated lists? I'm going to start a BRP campaign (in old school Glorantha!) shortly and am debating what I'm going to use as a base skill list. I actually like several of the knew skills, while wanting to actually shorten the skill list. It's leaving me indecisively in two minds about where I'm going and has made a bit of a mess out of my character sheet.

I'll put mine up for you from my Bronze Age/Fantasy game, but it will have to wait until Sunday at least. It's slightly reduced from the RQ3 skill list.

Thalaba

I'm Jeff Moeller.

My book is Ashes, to Ashes.

It's been out in pdf for going on a yearIt's out in hard copy courtesy of Chaosium.

Hi Jeff,

Just so the un-informed and the kidders don't have the last word, I just want you to know I've purchased your book from Chaosium. I've been looking forward to it for a while.

BTW, With exchange (the $CAD is low right now), the cheapest shipping, and the price of the book it cost me almost $50.00. I hope you get to buy something good with your share, like a pretzel or something! (mumble mumble Old Ones mumble conspiracy mumble profits)

Gah. The only one who pushes this is me, and I have zero economic incentive to do so. Gah.

No comment.

Well, back on to the original topic. I received a contract yesterday to produce a setting for BRP.

It's due in September. I should have it done before then.

Cool. What kind of setting? Monograph or actual Book (or whatever they call non-monographs)? Are you allowed to discuss it?

Thalaba

Out of curiosity, what kinds of "cool" mechanics does it lack in your

experience?

-V

I thought he meant "Cool Powers" like feats rather than "cool mechanics" - you know, stuff like that feat that lets you take a second attack in a round if the first one is successful - can't remember what it's called.

I think everyone can agree that BRP's actual 'mechanics' are actually way-hay-hay cooler. N'est pas?

Thalaba

There's a file in the file section of the Alternate earth Yahoo Group you might find interesting (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/alternateearthrq/files/), entitled "RuneQuest Bronze Age Rules Source Book"

It's by Eduardo Chamon who was a regular poster on that list but I don't think is a member here as yet.

Cheers,

Nick

Thanks for the tip, Nick. That's a really interesting document!

Thalaba

"...then I give 'em both barrels!"

"It keeps coming"

"Eep"

Ha! That brings back memories. My first introduction to BRP was also through CoC and I seem to remember this happening a lot. It learned us a healthy regard for running away, which we later carried to RQ and WFRP. CoC also taught me that fumbles could be fun. I was once saved from a tentacled monster when a friend fumbled his attack on the tentacle and cut my leg off instead. When I tried to find a peg-leg to stand on in the desert, the GM ruled that the only thing suitable was one of those cactus rain sticks, so I made quite an entrance into the saloon. 80's gaming - gotta love it.

I had hoped Fantasy combat could be as rewarding played as simple, but unfortunately maybe not. I hate to include too many optional rules, since simplicity is the selling point on the system for me. For a Fantasy game, however, it might be necessary.

I've always believed flavour in combat can be acheived through mechanical crunch or clever description and interpretation of events (on a sliding scale). I'm not convinced one is universally simpler than the other - it probably depends on how each individual's mind works. I prefer the former, but many other's prefer the latter.

My players tell me that our BRP game with all the combat options in is not any slower to resolve than D&D4. You may not find that game to your group's taste either. I've noticed a lot of D&D grognards are abandoning 4th Ed after playing it for a while.

Maybe you could try the following option with BRP:

Use weapon categories instead of individual weapons (i.e. Swords, Axes, Maces, or even Slashing, Impaling,Crushing) as the skill. Use separate attack and parry skills. Then, in combat, have everyone roll d% and add the amount to their skill. Whoever is higher wins. You would have to figure out a different way of calculating fumbles/criticals, or ignore them altogether, but it would be an easy way to get the dice effect you want in the game. You could even round skills to the nearest 5% to keep the math easier. For opponents who are not actively parrying, give them a passive defence - say Dodge+50% - for attackers to overcome.

Thalaba

No, Seneschal is right. Most of you came across as BRP Fanboys to me. The system is not flawless - no system is flawless. I was just hoping for some encouraging advise.

I don't think anybody claimed the system was flawless - only that combat in BRP is not boring just because the resolution mechanism is not what your players are used to.

Your wording in the first post suggested to me (and probably others) that you had never tried a combat:

Not enough variety in "target numbers" I guess - fine for skills, maybe a tad more repetitive during combat.")

Your wording made it look like you had not really tried the system, and yet had decided it was broken and needed fixing. I'm sure to many people this came off as the height of arrogance. If you really wanted 'encouraging advice', you might have phrased your question in a less provocative manner.

...weapon specifics; armor specifics; hit locations; various results...my god, it gives me a wood just thinking about it.

If this means what I think it means, it's too much information!:shocked:

Thalaba

My feeling on this whole matter is that the BRP book doesn't need constant new books and supplements month on month and I find it odd that people declare the game dead because Chaosium isn't churning out supplements to 'support' the game.

While I personally would not us the 'D' word (for me RQ3 is very much alive!), I think this thread illustrates why Savage Worlds appears to be thriving but BRP does not:

Savage Worlds: The AD&D2 of generic systems? - RPGnet Forums

Thalaba

It seems you're arguing the converse, that the player should get to make extra Skill Rolls to get a sure chance of not striking an ally. I would presume that intention in any attack roll, because nobody wants to strike an ally by accident.

I don't see it so much as 'extra' skills rolls as replacing the firing skill roll as the limiting factor with another skill. True, I would still have the firing roll made (either at easy or assuming 100%) - mainly to determine if the shot is a critical and by-passes armour or a fumble and the gun jams (how anti-climactic!). Maybe I'm just arguing semantics, here, though.

I think if you go this route, you are essentially allowing or judging two separate actions for the character that round, and a question of timing comes into play. The character's first action is to place his weapon against the monster's head. Now if he is successful, he will make an attack. The "if" is very important here, because he must evaluate the result before attempting a second action. The second action, would come 5 DEX Ranks, or DEX + 3 Strike Ranks later, when the character would presumably pull the trigger if the beast hasn't run off or shrugged off the previous attack.

You are quite right, and that is how I would deal with hit. too.

Personally, I would be happy with either ruling, but think mine is faster and more realistic.

"The characters encounter an open pit trap in a hallway. The walls of the hall are rough hewn and offer suitable hand-holds. There is also a 2 inch border around the pit trap. An Agility or Climbing roll must be made to cross the pit without falling in." - One player decides he is going to tip toe along the edge of the pit, in addition to using the hand-holds along the wall. Does the character get one chance or two to cross the pit successfully?

In this case, I would simply tell the players to roll their Agility or Climb, whichever is higher. If someone pressed the issue, I would have them roll their climb and, if successful, add a bonus of 10% of their climb skill to their agility roll. I believe this is covered in the rules somewhere, but it would not be my preference.

Sometimes it's fun to play things out physically too. Have two of your friends stand close together. Now place your finger on one of their heads. Have them move about violently, and see if how easy it is to say "Bang" while keeping your finger both touching and perpendicular to the player's head. Unless the player is completely unaware of your attack, he should be actively avoiding you while engaged with the other player.

Hmmm.... Isn't that LARPing?

Thalaba

I was just asking on the off chance you had organized a campaign folder, you know, a background introduction for the players to give them a high level view of the various cultures, equipment, professions, etc.

Well, I did do one for the for the starting PC culture. They started in a small tribal area on the outskirts of the broader world. But their starting culture is very insular and at the beginning of the campaign they didn't know anything about the others - we've been discovering these things during play. So at the moment there is no overall summary, but maybe I'll do one up.

Better yet, how about I volunteer you to write up a Bronze Age monograph for BRP?

Are you kidding? In that case I volunteer you to edit it and draw the art! I make no claims at being able to write, and everything I know about the Bronze Age I learned from Mitchell and Webb:

It's zeitgeisty, slightly shiny, and doesn't need chipping.

YouTube - That Mitchell and Webb look se2 Bronze Age Orientation Day

Thalaba

I don't see how the player's description of his desired action should alter or add additional rolls or mechanical effects. The problem is, the description of his action sounds like the result of a very good attack. Making the player roll more Skill or Characteristic rolls is actually penalizing the player for adding a flavorful description to his statement of intent.

This is the problem - it sounds like the result of a very good attack, an attack he is not willing to make because he doesn't want to risk hitting his friend. Instead, he would like to circumvent the 'firing into melee rule' by putting the gun right to the skin of the beast before firing, thereby missing his friend altogether.

In my mind, he is replacing the riskiness associated with firing from a distance (normal roll+risk hitting his friend) with a new risk, that of getting close enough to the beast to make a sure shot. Now he would make a roll of some kind to close with the beast (a fist attack, a grapple, an agility roll, or a dodge as suggested in the close combat rules, whichever tickles your fancy), followed by an Easy roll to fire his gun with no chance of hitting his friend. I fail to see how this is penalizing the player at all - it merely gives him the opportunity to base his success on a different skill, which is what tactics are all about.

Thalaba

Given that the monster and second player are probably moving around while in melee, I would think what you need to do is resolve a way to get the barrel of the gun close to the monster.

I would do one of the following:

1. Have the player first make a successful grapple roll to grab onto a part of the beast and put his gun to in. The second action would be a point blank (easy) shot. I would do this if the gun was a pistol.

2. Alternatively, have the player make a successful fist attack to put the gun into position and then make a point blank shot. I would only do this if the gun was a pistol.

3. If the gun is a long barrelled gun, I would allow him to make the shot but still treat it as if firing into melee. It seems too difficult to point the barrel of a gun into a combat where people are moving around with a long barrelled weapon, the end of which might easily be knocked away.

Thalaba

BTW, Thalaba? I want to see your notes on that Bronze Age game.

What kind of notes are you looking for?

I've often thought about putting something up, as the setting's become pretty cool since I first started, but I have no idea where to begin. It's a sandbox exploratory type campaign with broad scope. It's only detailed in places the PCs have been, and more roughly figured outside of that. My players tell me they like the depth and vibrancy of the setting. Some of the cultures, history, and magic that have evolved since I started the game are really compelling, in my view, but while my notes on some of the cultures are fairly in-depth (including lengthy 'what the priest says' type notes), many of them are far from complete - and much only in my head. I was doing a campaign summary for a while, but I fell off that wagon about 4 months ago and so the more recent part of the campaign hasn't been properly written up.

Thalaba

Here's another quote to support Rust's assertion that YBMV (Your Bow May Vary):

From Bronze Age War Chariots by Nic Fields (great book BTW):

Tests using weapons from anthropological collections suggest that self bows, not unlike the native egyptian one, might attain a maximum range of 155 to 190M, and the oldest composite bows for which we have explicit data had an effective range of more than 175M. A replical of an angular composite bow, made by the anthropologist Saxton Pope, cast an arrow a distance of 230 to 260M on several occasions.

For my campaign, a bronze age fantasy which tries to be as realistic as possible, we use only Close, Effective, and Maximum ranges. Between Effective and Maximum Range, skill it is halved. Using 1/4 skill crosses the 'fiddly line' as far as I'm concerned. And I suspect the extra long range is more approriate for sniper rifles than bows and arrows.

In my campaign world, different cultures are differently skilled at making various weapons, so an Assarian Composite Bow will be different from a Horselands Composite Bow, etc.

Thalaba

Apparently the % skill roll to hit targets doesn't impress my players. They say it's no harder to hit a large slow target than a small fast target. Not enough variety in "target numbers" I guess - fine for skills, maybe a tad more repetitive during combat.

Fixes? Thoughts?

I'm flabergasted by this! Forgive me if I have trouble composing sentences in my response.

1. Significantly larger targets ARE easier to hit and smaller ones ARE harder to hit - see page 215 'Big and Small Targets'

2. Dexterity, Strength, and Intelligence do play a factor in the ability of a person to defend themselves (if you use the skill modifiers option included in the book), and so does skill.

3. Each oppoent can potentially have different parry and dodge, so each oppoent can vary in how hard they are to wound. They will also have variable attack percentages, so they will vary in how difficult they are to defend against.

3a. There are a number of combat modiers that change the percentages to hit slightly - it isn't always the same.

4. Skills improve regularly, so the attack perecentages change somewhat regularly even without the combat modifiers.

5. Attack percentages vary with weapons, so if you change your weapon your percentages will vary.

6. The fact that a single blow can kill you keeps combat meaningful and exciting.

7. If you add in the hit locations option, combat will be extremely interesting and much more so than 3.5, which I'm guessing is what you are comparing it to (by your use of the term AC). Adding strike ranks to this ups the ante again since when you go in a round will depend on your weapon choice and actions instead of just your dex.

8. Adding an active defense (a parry or dodge) to combat gives your players twice as much to do and think about during each round compared to a passive defence (AC).

Dismissing a system as boring because the 'target numbers don't vary' sounds ridiculous to me. BRP has everything you need to make combat fast, furious, and exciting. It's fine if your players like the roll-over system that they're used to and only want to play that way, not problem. But your players should just say so and not make up ill-informed reasons to try and convince you.

I don't know is one specifically exists for world-building in literature/rpgs, but I've often thought about doing one. If nobody else can recommend one, I'd suggest you pick of a comprehensive college or univeristy book on Introduction to Physical Geography. You can probably buy used easily enough.

What you mainly need to understand are

1. the basis of plate tectonics and how maintain chains are formed by subduction, hotspots, etc. and

2. how global air circulation works, because this will tell you where the dry and wet spots on the planet are and what kind of biozone exists where.

With these two things you can create realistic landmasses, mountain ranges, inland seas and deep lakes, volcanic island chains. You can then polulate the world with the appropriate vegetation based on climate. You will know where the deserts and the jungles are, etc. You will also know where sailors are likely to be becalmed and where the richest oceanis fishing grounds are to be found.

All of the above assumes an earth-like world with naturally occuring features.

Thalaba

I would also like to see hit locations in a perfect world. Also strike ranks and fatigue. But I admit that space consideration never occured to me as an issue, maybe because it didn't seem to be an issue in any of my RQ books.

Because I have an ExCel spreadsheet that I put all my NPCs and mooks onto, I can fairly easily set it up to calculate these things from bare bones statistics, so I can live without them. When I enter the creatures stats into the spreadsheet, the HP per location, strike ranks, damage bonus, and fatigue are autmatically calculated anyway. So I would have to say that I can live without if there's a good reason for not putting them in. But occasionally, I don't have time to set up for a session or want to pull out an un-planned creature. In those few cases I would be wishing the stats were in the book.

If you create a creature that doesn't have hit locations that are covered in the main book, however, please let us know what they are!

Thalaba

Excellent - it's definitely on my list of things to purchase. I looked at your synopsis over on RPG.net and it sounded quite interesting.

Cheers!

Thalaba

In what I've done so far it's not so much a matter of assuming what will work as picking specific options because I think they suit the details of the setting. Ulfland doesn't have Psychics or Supers, but definitely needed hit locations for example.

Yes, some options obviously must be chosen for a particular setting. Leaving the choice of which powers might be available or whether allegiance and sanity are being used would probably have do be decided in the design of the setting.

I guess I was thinking more about combat options like hit locations or strike ranks where most settings could be played with or without. Strike ranks is a good example. As a setting designer, do you include the stats for both Dex Ranks and Strike ranks, or only one of the above. I think that's more to the point of what I'm asking. It seems to me there are a number of options like this in the game, subtle enough to be overlooked if you yourself aren't using them (fatigue might be another).

I think most settings are best served by being clear about what fits and what doesn't, and most people will appreciate the clarity of knowing when they are doing something that the original setting excluded or if it's something the setting was always built to cope with.

This was my thinking as well, but since what seems obvious to me might not be to others, and vice versa, I thought I'd ask.

Thalaba

The Question I have is:

Are you producing your BRP settings so that all options can be used, or are some of you making assumptions about the options that will work more or less well with the setting. And if the latter is the case, do you state flat out which options are not being supported, or do you only recommend that certain ones not be used?

I'm just curious about how this is being handled by people in general.

Thanks,

Thalaba

This is great news and thanks to Rosen for stepping up to the plate. I'm very much looking forward to the printed version of this product. I will buy it from Chaosium as I've heard Lulu doesn't provide good service to Canada and buying from Chaosium has worked well for me in the past.

As fans, of course, we will always want more. Will Alephtar Games be considering publishing other 3rd party BRP products, or is this a one-shot? You mentioned before that your own projects do not lend themselves to BRP, if I recall.

As much as I appreciate the fine work that everyone around here has done, I don't think it excuses Chaosium for not communicating well with their fan base. A brief announcement on this site or on their own outlining their intentions for BRP would do a world of good. It's a subject they've been silent on for far too long, even if you (and all the other hard working people around here) have not. They should also update their website to remove references to BRP being released 'later this year' so it doesn't look like a neglected product. Communication alone what have alleviated a lot of the angst that has arisen around here lately.

Anyway, again, great news about Rome - I really hope this new momentum can be sustained. I'll do my part to buy our way out of this recession one printed BRP product at a time, if I can.

Thalaba

I have been wondering what reception the Critters Thread is receiving. If anyone has any comments, corrections or improvements, I'd love to hear them.

I would like to suggest that the addition of hit locations and strike ranks for attacks would make them more useable to those us us who use the detailed combat options, but otherwise this is very interesting work. Thanks for posting them.

Thalaba

Seriously, really, they can contact me any time.

I don't think they read this forum. You might have to contact them. Well said, though.

All that you said did cross my mind. But people seem to gravitate towards "name brands". Hence all the licensing.

My personal preference would be so see original settings rather than the BRP version of the Belgariad, but I think I'm in the minority when it comes to franchises. And since people are always talking about franchises, I've got to imagine that there's some kind of statistic that shows they pay off.

I'd be happy if they's just get Rome on the shelves, though - I've been looking forward to that for 6 months now, but it seems to be lost in limbo.

Thalaba

Again, you need to take into consideration a few factors:

-The economy has hit them very hard

-the primary editor is for all intents and purposes no longer part of the staff

-things have been a bit slow getting out.

-Jason has some issues with Chaosium that needs straightening out

We did take those things (and others) into account. This is why our confidence is shaken.

PK - the $.50 per copy doesn't seem like much of a royalty. It's the same price for a long one as a short one, too, so your payment per page goes down a lot. I suppose if you were going to produce the document anyway and it was reasonably short it might make sense. I admit though that I don't know enough about the economics of it to comment properly.

Seneschal - You make good points about having the books on the shelves.

Thalaba

A lot of interesting points have been brought up in this thread which have brought several things to my mind.

1. The OP brought up the point that several products have been submitted to Chaosium and seem to be in Limbo. For instance the Rome setting, which was apparently submitted in May of last year but has yet to re-surface as a product in any form. This might lead one to conclude there is a production problem at Chaosium.

2. Many game companies and other businesses in similar industries (computer game companies, film companies, etc.) put out promos, trailers, or teasers for upcoming products to keep people excitied about their products. I haven't seen anything official in this regard from Chaosium, which can add to the impression that there is a production problem.

3. A visit to the Chaosium website lists very little in the way of BRP publications to date. Four have been produced to date (not counting material that was produced prior to the BRP book like Superworld) and of those one is the core book itself. Of the remaining 3, only 1 is available in print. A quick look at the upcoming products section reveals that only 3 products are expected to be produced in the next four months and none of them are BRP (two are COC and one is a novel). So it does not look like we can expect any BRP products soon from Chaosium.

4. A look at the submissions section for BRP has this nugget:

"Our Basic Roleplaying rulebook will be releasing later this year. Once it does, we’ll post more detailed Submissions for the line. Meanwhile, we’re happy to take submissions for BRP material as Monographs. See our Monograph Submissions for more information. We are very interested in receiving BRP Monograph submissions." The emphasis is mine. Despite what they say about monographs, this does not look promising. It's six months out of date, for one.

5. Granted, Chaosium is a small company and can only do so much. Surely we cannot fault them for producing things at a measured pace, but...

6. Where's the communication? This, I think, is where the issue actually lies. Here were have a great forum maintained by dedicated fans. It has 607 members (and growing) who would be willing to purchase multiple products for a system they like, probably without waiting for reviews, and yet Chaosium has no presence here. They really should have someone putting in the occasional official reply here, at least to assure us they're still interested in our business. Hopefully also to update us on the progress of submissions and publication. Maybe to once in a while throw us a bone in the way of a preview. And they should certainly update their own website.

7. Given all of the above, is it any wonder someone comes along and asks if Chaosium is going to support the product? I think it was inevitable.

8. As an aside many people (of which I'm one) really like printed books. I spend a large chunk of our day in front of a computer screen. When I read for pleasure (which is how I classify my RPG reading) I want to lie on the couch or in bed with my book held aloft. While PDFs and fan web sites have their place they are not things I'm about to purchase or even use as a staple for my gaming. I certainly have no objection to those things, but I feel a tinge of alarm when people suggest that we should be happy with having these things by themselves. This consumer, for one, won't be.

I just had to get those things off my chest. Hope I didn't inadvertently offend anyone in the process.

Thalaba