Thalaba

Munch tried to paint it in 1893: "I was walking along a path with two friends – the sun was setting – suddenly the sky turned blood red – I paused, feeling exhausted, and leaned on the fence – there was blood and tongues of fire above the blue-black fjord and the city – my friends walked on, and I stood there trembling with anxiety – and I sensed an infinite scream passing through nature."

My wife and I spent some time in Belize and Guatemala earlier this year. I'd love to see more of Central America. The Jaguar definitely has a nice mythical quality to it. There had been a jaguar operating in the area where we stayed in Belize a few months prior to our arrival. One of the staff told me that he heard his dog whining outside one night where he had left it tied up. He ran outside just in time to see the body of the dog being dragged into the jungle - the jaguar had grabbed it by the head! The night after he told us this, the dogs on the property erupted into a frenzy of barking, which led us to think the jaguar was back. There are hundreds of strange noises in the night there. Other hazards include scorpions, snakes, ticks, and army ants. The army ants migrate from one place to another, and swarm over everything in their path. My host was chased out of his house on two separate nights by army ants passing through. He said there was nothing to do but stay elsewhere until they've passed on. The Belize hills are very limestony and full of caves. Many caves have been used as sacrifice locations, and were associated with the Mayan underworld (Xibalba). You can see bones, potsherds, and sometimes whole skeletons encrusted with mineral in these caves. Water flows through them freely, so they are part wet and part dry, and can be dangerous in a flood. On a cool morning, if you stand on a hill and look out over the landscape you can see that it's dotted with little wisps of mist rising all over the place - each wisp of mist marks a cave mouth - an entrance to the underworld. This would be a great opportunity to introduce ghouls or some other subterranean creature. Imagine the PCs investigating a cave, then discovering that ghouls live underground. They escape the cave and maybe block it off. Then on the next morning they survey the landscape from the hill where they are camped and see hundreds of wisps of mist rising all around them - they haven't escaped, but are in the thick of it! One last thing - I don't remember any mention of it in Belize or Guatemala, but El Chupacabra , the Goat-sucker, might make a good beastie if you're looking for something outside of Cthulhu mythos.

Do you think it will hurt? It probably won't make much difference to the quality of Chaosium's future products because don't seem to pay much attention to this forum. The proper place for such comments and lists of deficiencies, however, is in a proper review of the book - a review that people will read. If word gets back to Chaosium that people are disappointed with their products, and sales also drop off, then maybe - just maybe - they'll pay attention and make a change for future products. That's market forces at work. Shouldn't this list have been sent to the writers before printing?

This is true, on the surface, BUT: -If you are playing fantasy, the average character will have armour to reduce the impact of blows. Over time, characters can get better armour or can accumulate magical protections. -You character can actively parry or dodge, reducing the number of blows that hit. These skills improve over time. -Tactics and teamwork in battle are seriously effective. -Using hit locations actually reduces death. Having your arm disabled serves as an early warning system for players. Using only total HP, you can fight un-hindered right down to 1HP, which tends to make players feel brave. But suffering a disabling blow while you still have 1/2 of your total HP will encourage a more defensive stance in a hurry! -There is an optional rule that doubles HP, and this works quite well. -Depending on the magic options you choose, nearly every character can have healing magic. I've been running two weekly fantasy campaigns for the last three years and only had two character deaths - neither of them in toe-to-toe combat (one from a chariot fall, another in an explosion). This is using standard HP, hit locations, armour. Combat skills have ranged from 60% to 95% for the top skills.

I'm inclined to agree with Agentorange. If there's an 'optional' rule in the core rule book, then by definition the rule it replaces is also 'optional'. Personally, I do play with strike ranks and a number of other 'options'. I would hope that if the magic book (or any book, for that matter) doesn't support certain options, or assumes certain options aren't being used, then it would say so on the cover so people don't waste their money. It seems to me that the whole point in updating something to make it compatible with the BRP gold book is to make it compatible with all the options, since providing the options in the first place was the whole point of the gold book!. Especially in the case of Basic Magic, where the rules for Strike Ranks were already there and it took more work to remove them. I find the decision not to acknowledge them confusing, to say the least.

I've heard from Tywyll on this issue and he said the last communication he had from Dustin indicated that the Grimoire was 'likely to be published before the end of the year' - but that was a month or more ago and there hasn't been any fresh news since. Still, if all goes well, it could be released pretty soon, which would be nice!

I'm willing to bet actual PCs have higher stats than theiretical PCs, too. I should do an analysis of my current group and see. All of there were rolled using the 3D6 / 2D6+6 method, but they tended to discard bad sets of rolls. Almost all of my NPCs have higher than average stats, and yet the players usually have no trouble dealing with them. Both of these things lead me to wonder if it's really important whether published adventures have higher than normal stats.

Interesting exercise. Why do you think that the average of NPC stats is important? It's a little difficult to determine how to interpret your results without knowing exactly the spectrum of what you sampled. One thing you don't seem to have factored into place is the number of foes of any given type. Let's say a scenario assumes there will be from 4-6 players with average stats. The writer would provide one stat block for the zombies that will be faced (say, below human average) even though 20 of them will be faced. He'll also provide one stat block for each major NPC, which might be designed so that they are challenging when fought as a singleton. This would tend to skew the 'average' numbers upward. If the scenario is mainly designed so the PCs face one oponent or a few oponents at a time, then the average stat numbers will be higher. Personally, I think that balancing each encounter so that the PCs are challenged is more important than making sure the average of all NPC stats in the book are the same as human average.

In my current desert-oriented campaign, we're keeping loose track of such things. This amounts to the PCs purchasing x number of days worth of food/water before leaving a town, and then counting down the days in the wilderness. If it looks like things in the wilderness will cause them to take more days than planned, or to adopt some NPCs into the party, then I warn them about supplies, and they modify their plans accordingly. We've never actually roleplayed thirst or starvation, but it might happen. It's present enough to affect play and add flavour, but loose enough not to become a significant book-keeping item. In a relatively rich environment, I would just assume PCs had the hunting abilities to fend for themselves, but might (rarely) have them keep track of food for their mounts.

I have a cult of Hedonists in my campaign. They use spells like Glamour (things that basically increase Charisma or social skills), Stamina (for obvious reasons), Sleep (to help rest after a long night), and so on. My favourite, though, is Hashtu's Caress, a spell that basically fills the recipient with good feeling. It has many uses, of course - it acts as a drug to attract people to the temple, it can be used in easing the real pain (but not HP) of those wounded in battle, and best of all it could be used to numb people to reality. GM: "The Hashtu Priestess mumbles a ritual and..." (rolls dice) "you feel a sensation of intense pleasure wash over you. Then, with a smile, she stabs your arm with her sharp little knife." PLAYER: "Crap! I didn't see that coming. I try to dodge. Arggh! Too clumsy!" GM: "Too late, the knife opens a large gash in your arm as you try to pull away." PLAYER: "Figures! How much damage did I take?" GM: (makes note on his sheet) "You can't tell. Your pleasure receptors are all on fire. If feels amazing. You can see blood rushing down your arm, but in a good way, if you know what I mean. Don't worry, I'll keep track of how many hit points you have left here." Players really squirm when they can't tell how close to death they are, and they never expect to have that ability taken away!

Wikis are tricky; They're quickie but nit-picky Data poetry Thanks for the inspiration, Phil

Hee hee. I saw my picture in there. I skimmed through it, and it's a very nice effort - definitely a labour of love. If I had time and a printer I'd give it a more thorough read to see specifically what you did with the magic systems. Ancient Mesopotamia is a very rich period and hard to capture in a short game document, to be sure. Incidentally, it's not a standalone RPG - it requires BRP or BASIC to play (not that that's a problem for anyone here).

Regarding Melee Weapons and Strike Ranks, the strike ranks are determined by how fast the person is (Dex SR) and how long the person's arm is (SIZ SR) and the length of the weapon (WEAPON SR). I've always assumed that the ease of use (speed) of the weapon was somehow factored into the calculation of weapon SR, but I don't know enough about melee fighting to question this. If you feel that the speediness of the weapon needs to be factored into the equiation, too, then the simplest thing is to create a speed factor for the weapon, which would basically be a DEX modifier for the purposes of caculating DEX SR. You might then say that a dagger has a speed factor of +3, which means that for the purposes of calculating DEX SR, the character's dex is effectively 3 dex higher. Similarly, a flail might be given a speed factor of -1, and so forth. I would say that figuring out the speed factor for each weapon would benefit from some actual fighting experience, but it seems like an easy way to factor in weapon speed. Regarding missile weapons, the normal calculation (in RQ3) was that the weapon fired on the DEX strike rank (which was basically considered the reaction time of the person), and again after 3+SR. This meant that most people could shoot twice, on 3 and 9 or on 2 and 7, depending on their dex. Missile weapons don't have their own WEAPON SR, so in effect WEAPON SR is zero, and the rate of fire 1/SR doesn't really mean "1 per strike rank", but more like "1 shot per DEX SR, not including reload". Weapons rated 1/MR are shot once per melee round. This included things like light crossbows that took longer to load. 2/SR? I would guess this means 2 bullets per SR. I can't really comment on the firearms rules because I haven't played them enough. I remember that there are bursts available. I thought you could basically unload the whole clip on one 'fire' if you wanted to. If you work from the assumption that SR in missile weapons refers to DEX SR, and realoading costs a standard 3, does that work out according to your experience? That would allow you to fire on 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or 3, 6, 9, depending on your dex. You could also allow one shot per strike rank at the same target, so then someone with a DEX SR of 3 could start firing their revolver on 3, the fire the next 6 bullets on 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Then take a round to reload, I guess. I think the best thing for you to do is figure out what makes realistic sense for the rate of fire in a 12 second round (or is it 10 seconds, now), and then figure out how to achieve that rate of fire with 10 strike ranks available. Once you do, you'll have a rule you'll be happy with.

2D4. There. Now you can say both 1D4 and 2D4 were talked about, and you chose the lesser. That'll stop their whining!

Yes, there are all kinds of effects like that you can toss in, such as:. +5% to hit (usually this is handled in 5% increments) +1 to damage Armour piercing (ignores 1 pt armour) Heartseeker (always hits the chest on a special or critical for max damage) Durable (has more HP than normal) Vorpal (no increased chance to hit, but all specials are treated as criticals). Sword of the Sweaty Palm (cursed - fumble range is doubled) Toe-Stabber (+2 damage, but only 1D10 is rolled for hit location) Flail of Tripping (+10% to hit + on a successful hit, victim must roll DEX*5% to avoid tripping) Sledge of Knockback (automatic knockback) Axe of Dismounting (any rider struck by this must roll STR*1% or be pulled from his mount) Soul Sucker Spear (when a victim is impaled, 1 HP per round is transferred from the victim to the wielder as long as the spear remains within the victim) Gladius of Speed (allows wielder to act sooner in the round) Sorry - I got carried away, there... I love coming up with stuff like that! Anyway, have fun with it!

Legend? Maybe it's short for "Legend in his own mind".

Hey, cool! When you get back, would you mind posting a few pictures of that - including the location? I've always been intrigued. BTW, I hear Loz really likes his dunkels with a shot of banana syrup, if you're buying him a drink...

This discussion would be more entertaining if Rosen adopted a Lee Van Cleef avatar....

MRQ2 strike ranks and BRP/RQ3 Strike Ranks are completely different. I'm another one who uses BRP/RQ3 Strike ranks, and frankly they're one of the main reasons I don't switch to MRQ2 (along with characteristic rolls and the resistance mechanic). And by the way, RQ3 combat is far more tactical than anything I ever experienced with D&D. In D&D, you can't hit a specific hit location for a specific effect, alter when you go in the round by changing tactic, bypass someone's armour, decide whether to cut someone's head off or just knee-cap him, begin chasing a foe as soon as he starts running (you have to wait for your turn), hold a foe at bay by wielding a longer weapon, knock someone back 3M with a mighty swing of your mace, decide whether to use an impaling, crushing, or slicing weapon, and so on. RQ3 and BRP with the dials turned up are much more simulationist than D&D - at least the four editions of it that I played (never played 2nd).

Sure, the rule makes sense. The further you move from your starting position in a round, the later in the round you'll be able to attack. The rule isn't vastly different from the MRQ2 rule, where you have to use a combat action to move. In MRQ2, if you have 3 combat actions, the first one will be to move and the second will be to attack (or more probably, to parry), thus delaying your attack to the second or third combat action - i.e. later in the round. If you only have 2 combat actions, or have to parry twice when you get there, you might never get to attack. Personally, I like the way MRQ2 does it, too, but they aren't vastly different. It's all about using time to move before you can attack.

Shields worked great in RQ3 combat - the isse that arises now is the people want to combine weapon attacks and parries (as per the BRP RAW rules), meaning that it's more economical when building a character to put all your points in 'sword' and no points in 'shield'. If you use separate attack and parry skills, the the question becomes one of whether to put points into 'sword parry' or shield parry', and suddenly shields make much more sense. This is one aspect of the new rules that I feel wasn't handled well.

Out of curiosity, in the hardback edition, does the text in the SYSTEM chapter (and the examples) for specials and criticals still tell you to 'round normally', or to 'round up'?

This is true, but BRP BGB is intended to allow you to do what you like with skills. If you prefer to have a single Athletics skill to cover all of those, there's nothing to stop you from doing so. GMs should tailor the skill list appropriately to the game they want to run. This is correct according to the text in the book, but not according to the Skill Results table on Pg. 172 and 384, for a total combined skill of 45% the crit would be 01-02%, special is 01-09%, and fumble is 98-100%. The chance of a critical or a fumble change for every full 20% you have in a skill (01-20/21-40/41-60/61-80/81-100 Etc.) and the change of a special changes for every full 5% you have in a skill. To determine if you got a critical, round up to the nearest full 20% and divide by 20. For s special, round up to the nearest 5% and divide by 5. The hardcover supposedly has the errata in it - I'm not sure which way they went with this in that book. I've got the softcover. Personally, I prefer the round-up method because it's much more logical and easier for me to calculate in my head. Daddystabz, it's your game, do it how you like.

I've seen this asked before - the implication seems to be that people don't believe linen armour existed. Why the doubt? I thought it was pretty well accepted that the Egyptians used stiffened linen armour back into at least the New Kingdom, so why not the later Greeks and Macedonians? Or am I misinterpreting the question?