Jump to content

Byron Alexander

Member
  • Posts

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Byron Alexander

  1. I've seen this in sigs, what does it refer to? My girlfriend thinks it is something to do with the 4/20 cannabis thing but I'm guessing it is something else (so kudos to her if it is). So, what does it mean?
  2. I probably wouldn't do the former unless they have the time/money/situation to train outside of game-time (and so increasing in X skill makes sense because they were researching/training it in downtime). The latter seems reasonable if you are only allowing a certain number of points distributed across all skills with a tick because it becomes more of the player's decision whether or not their character actually learnt anything from the experience.
  3. All of that could work. In fact, after 24 hours rumination, I think 1D20 is too random and 3D6 would give the same average with less dramatic variation. I don't think it is a problem if skills over 100% are progressing very slowly, once you're the best in the world at something you do tend to plateau.
  4. I think it makes sense with regard to picking a lock (in fact I've been in a situation where a bunch of friends were outside a locked door and each of us tried to pick the lock - don't worry it was my own house and I'd forgotten my keys) but to listening at it? That is absurd. Off the top of my head (so totally unplaytested) what if when xp is worked out every player rolls a D20 and then distributes that much between the skills ticked? That way the realism of only improving skills you use is maintained but people aren't getting to rush ahead on xp because they use loads of skills - meaning that a rough equivalency is kept up and there is no need to go tick-hunting even if you're a min-max player. If you wanted to remove the random element from it entirely you could even just give 11 points to everyone and have them distribute that among the ticked skills - although I think a fun part of BRP is the randomness!
  5. If you want to play in the Warhammer world, I'd probably use the Warhammer system if you have access to both. It is written specifically for that world, after all, and as such captures its essence very well. If you were deciding between which to buy, I'd urge you to buy BRP instead simply because there is so much more that you can do with it whereas with WFRP you can play in the Warhammer world and that's pretty much it. If you are planning to run a gritty fantasy world of your own design, I would use BRP and not Warhammer since it is, imo, better to try and build a world from the ground up - picking and choosing what aspects it should have - than to take the Warhammer world and panel-beat it into a different shape. Then again, if you are looking at making a world that is the Warhammer world with the serial numbers filed off Warhammer might be better.
  6. Eeeeeeeeeeeeexcellent. Well done, it's a damn good sign for BRP in general as well!
  7. To give you two examples of how other settings have done similar things: The 'default' setting of GURPS is, essentially, a Sliders rip off in which they go to different dimensions. These dimensions have varying mana levels (so magic works differently - and sometimes not at all - depending on where the PCs are) and other massive variants. Your standard PC group is, therefore, given a points level and told, "Make anything, because anything could be in one of these groups." You can have a Medusa fighting alongside Captain Bampf the Space Adventurer if you want. With regard to a setting with different historical places all mashed together Ravenloft did that. Whereas the GURPS setting went for, "Super-science did it!" Ravenloft goes for, "Magic/gods did it." It is essentially a hell dimension in which each person sent there for their crimes is bound by their evil soul to a territory that is drawn from their own minds to some extent. This meant that, effectively, a stone-age world could exist near a Renaissance world. These little islands were seperated by a dangerous mist which few dared travel through because of the monsters that lurked within it and the risk of getting totally lost. Hope that helps.
  8. Very much agree. I have a friend who, as a GM, will even lower a stat if you roll too high on all of them because a low stat "builds character" (his words). While I don't necessarily agree with this - I wouldn't do it in my games - I've never complained about it and certainly see his point. I don't know... I've known a few people for whom, "I want to eat your brains," would be goal-setting of a type they had hitherto never even dreamed of.
  9. Honestly, in some BRP games PCs aren't supposed to be above average (Call of Cthulhu comes to mind) and I have seen people play with very low stats (a friend of mine played a geriatric, wheel-chair bound professor in a CoC game... his STR was not above 8, not by a long-shot). If I'm playing a genre in which PCs are supposed to be above average then, yeah, I'll probably houserule 6+2D6 for all stats. If I'm going for gritty realism, though, I think only SIZ and INT being 6+2D6 does make sense because having those very low for a lot of characters quickly degenerates into absurdity imo.
  10. Yeah, basically a SIZ of less than 8 is just ridiculous for a normal human character and an INT of less than 8 is unplayable as a PC. That isn't true of the other stats, although I suppose if you made every stat 6+2D6 that might make sense. It would mean that nobody has a serious flaw unless you choose it, though (and let's not forget if you want to make your character absurdly diminutive or absurdly dumb you can take 3 points away from any stat and add them elsewhere).
  11. I suspect it is an attempt to spread the website address in their sig. I, for one, also recieved that message and decided to avoid clicking on it just in case.
  12. I agree with you there, I don't think this decision will hurt WotC much. I do see it as inidicitive that Hasbro are not making sensible decisions with regard to WotC and eventually that will lead to a major problem.
  13. I agree with you but Hasbro seems to think it does. As Bob Dylan said "Time will tell who has fell and who's been left behind..." Personally, 4th ed D&D left me cold so I've said goodbye to WotC as far as my limited purchasing power is concerned anyway.
  14. Holy thread necromancy! (Or, rather, unholy thread necromancy.) I think I used Knowledge : Occult as covering this. I didn't want to make alchemists too over-specialised as, well, I didn't make them that powerful anyway I wouldn't them limited any more.
  15. A bit harsh on Gygax considering that when he was president of TSR he brought Arneson back into it. It is a shame that both are gone now, it seems a lot of the old guard are leaving us.
  16. 1./ It will actually be called BRP Witchcraft. 2./ While the contents of EDEN Studios' Witchcraft are certainly copyrighted, you cannot trademark/copyright a single word in common parlance, so anyone can write a book titled 'Witchcraft' if they like (and I expect there are at least a hundred works with that exact title). Simlasa, that's exactly what I was thinking - adventures which involve entering the crumbling mansions of creepy families who turn out to be witches, that sort of thing. As well as PCs which escaped the tyranny of their family after taking the family's secrets with them, of course.
  17. What he said. I know that back when I lived in a small university town in Wales I'd have gone straight to my university printing facilities for something like this. They will charge and, as it is not academic, it will go straight to the bottom of their priorities in busy times but I'm sure they could do it. This applies to the UK only, though, I don't know what university printing facilities are like elsewhere.
  18. I don't mention gypsies much but... This is a section from the broad overview of organisation types. I think the type of witchcraft covered by the monograph could easily fit with the mythology that surrounds gypsies tbh, I just don't say that very much. There are rules for creating one-shot talisman's, though, so that strange gypsy woman selling you a lucky-rabbit's-foot or a love potion can certainly be made using the monograph.
  19. Really? Because I think a lot of authors (myself included) would avoid that as seeming too self-obsessed. Is this a common feeling? Are their people clamouring to know more about the person(s) who wrote that monograph/book/tome of eldritch horror?
  20. That's true, and in the section of the possible sources of witchcraft I do explain that even given an infernal source those who sell their soul might do so in order to have magic which would help others. So it is a possibility. I was only going to describe one organisation in full, but I think I'll do about three or more in the end in order to show how varied they can be.
  21. That is a good idea for a game-world, but as my monograph is on Witchcraft I don't think it'd really work in that (there are few reports/tales of witches hiding within the Church).
  22. Personally, in a monograph covering different optional systems for magic I wouldn't want much fluff, perhaps just a little describing what settings an option would best fit with and how best it would be included in those settings.
  23. Gah! I have a loose enough grasp on time as it is...
  24. May 17th isn't it? Feb 17th has been and gone.
  25. I hear you there, I bought BRP with money I really should have used for stupid things like food.
×
×
  • Create New...