Byron Alexander

Which are your scenarios MrJealousy and Trifletraxor?

But screwing up the Civil War? You'll burn for that!! :eek:

Nah, he's British. We'll already burn for screwing up the war of independence.

I assume you have potions in Sword & Spell as they are somewhat integral to a lot of early sword and sorcery games. As I have witches brewing potions I'd be happy to swap ideas with you... no promises that they will end up matching, of course, but as you say consistency is nice. PM me if you're interested and we can swap e-mail addresses.

So would I, actually.

To be fair, in virtually all settings it is. There are few games in which every skill would be a vaild skill for PCs to take. (I am of the opinion that drive can be made a subset of ride before motors exist, for example.)

What I'd like to see are character sheets specialised for every setting and ones specialised for the various powers in those settings. I'd have thought it could be published pretty cheaply, esp. if sold as a PDF (one of the few things I'd consider buying in PDF, actually). Someone with more talent at design than me get onto this... IMMEDIATELY!

If this already exists, please point me to it.

This has gotten a bit off-topic but still...

I wanted to use this fate system for a RuneQuest Glorantha-based game. However I realised that in some instances, the "fighters" who don't use magic have a lot more potential to change a story. Or conversely, a mage-type who is souped up (with power crystals, ailed spirits, bound spirits, power staff, and fetch) has a lot of personal POW to practically rewrite an adventure (using non-personal MP for casting spells) compared to other players.

Having just looked over the fate point rules I think that I have no problem with fighters having more 'luck' than magicians or other powered individuals - they use their divine spark to cast spells etc. whereas fighters don't so get a bleeding-out of luck when they need it. As for the souped-up magicians being able to save their personal pp on fate; I still think that if I was playing a magician I'd keep my personal pp in reserve unless I really had to spend them - they're for getting you out of trouble with a capital 'T'. So I don't think it'll actually be a problem in-game, even though it looks like it could be one on paper.

Well, now I know what Rappeling is I definitely wouldn't give it its own skill as it is a specific area of mountaineering which is in turn a specific area of climbing. As frogspawner said above, if the campaign is all about mountaineering then having different aspects of it as different skills is worthwhile. Otherwise it is just skillcreep and it should be avoided imho.

Here is how I would handle a campaign that involves spending several sessions in the mountains.

* Make it clear to players that's where we'll be and tell them that therefore Knowledge (Region : Mountains) would be a useful skill as would Climb.

* In situations where ordinary climbing ability would be enough simply have them roll against the Climb skill.

* In situation where specific mountaineering knowledge would be useful to climb I'd have them roll the Climb skill but make it a difficult action (pg. 177). Then I would allow them to add 1/5 of their Knowledge (Region : Mountains) skill to their Climb skill as per the complementary skills rules on pg. 50. (I'd add this after their Climb skill has been halved, otherwise you're only adding 1/10 and that is nigh on pointless).

If the latter is happening often I would encourage players to note the total of half their Climb plus 1/5 their Knowledge (Region : Mountains) somewhere on their character sheets so that they're not working it out all the time.

Since Climb is always useful and knowledge of the mountains is useful for finding good shelter and such as well as for mountaineering players won't feel restricted by having to focus skill points on something very specific.

I do not know what Rappeling is. However, judging from your post it is something to do with mountaineering. I certainly wouldn't get more specific than mountaineering as a skill.

As for the idea of a new mountaineering skill as opposed to climb, it would depend on the setting. If you are regularly clambering up mountains then the mountaineering skill makes sense. If you are not then I think it should be handled as a full scene of the game - climb rolls, CON rolls to resist cold and others depending on how well prepared the party was.

Personally, I see no real reason for the tradecraft roll in that scenario. Generally, I'd prefer a single roll to get a single result.

He actually statted Turkeys... MrJealousy, you are mad. I salute you.

Ok, cool... can't complain about that.

Excellent, I'm glad you approve! :thumb:

EDIT:

Oh, you did give me an idea btw. I've been planning on including some unique, powerful magic items. I already had one idea in the Hand of Glory but I think I'll put Baba Yaga's hut in it as well. So thank you very much for that! A nice inclusion for people who want an eastern, rather than western, european flavour.

The world started life as an Aftermath! Game. The cosmetics-and-robots bit is just a product of my lysdexia (the hardest part will be trying to catch all those before it goes to print).

Well if you need a proof-reader I'd be happy to oblige for the minimal fee of one draft copy of the text.

Your monograph does sound awesome, I have to say.

EDIT: As for the politcal correctness thing, it really is a minefield. I have personally had sleepless nights (well, not quite, but close) wondering about whether I should use Black and White magic - even though the origin of those phrases has nothing to do with the colour of people's skin (to my knowledge). I think I'm going to use it but I have considered changing it to Dark and Light. Equally, I think I would stick with Redskin in your case as it lends a period flavour to the text and I do think that is important. It is nice to read something that evokes the setting rather than reads as dry, modern prose.

It seemed strange to me that an American company would be interested in a Western game supplement written by an English bloke. But what can you say, Chaos is a wonderful thing!

There seem to be a lot of British people writing monographs for Chaosium. I put it down to them being more comfortable with our Lovecraftian spelling.

What I'm really not interested in is some New Age/neo-pagan take on the subject that attempts to be 'historically accurate' or 'politically correct'... I want the stereotypes and legends... warts and crooked noses and broomsticks and flying kettles and houses with chicken legs and cannibalism and kissing Beelzebub's backside.

Well... you're getting both! I'm not currently writing a sample infernal organisation (though I have described what they would look like and how they would operate in general), but there are rules there for black and white magic and for running witchcraft as being based on infernal, pagan or neutral powers. Believe me, if you want the wicked old crone that turns people into toads, looks 200 years old and flys around on a broomstick she is there (I have all those bases covered, in fact). However, if someone wants the kindly man with a beard who knows the old pagan ways of mystical healing and is persecuted by a fiendish monotheistic tyranny, he's there as well glaring disapprovingly at the evil old witch.

I say you're getting both but there really is no attempt at historical accuracy. I mean, I'm including rules for Margaret Murray-style Keepers of the Old Ways but that isn't historically accurate as her work has been almost totally discredited. If I was sticking to historically accurate witches I'd have... what... iron age witchdoctors who were as much persecuted as they were sought out (the Romans had laws against witchcraft) and then a big gap until some innocent people with no powers at all are burnt or hanged for being weird or frightening and then another big gap until modern neo-paganism. I could probably write a (short) book on historically accurate witchcraft but this monograph isn't it.

Thanks for the responses guys. Got most of it covered but I must admit I hadn't thought of statting up NPCs or doing different organisations for different eras (as witchcraft is most suitable for Dark Ages through to Renaissance I'm making an organisation that spans that period... however there's definitely something to be said for writing up another that spans, say, Victorian to present just to show how such an organisation could fit into play) so I'll probably do a couple of organisations.

As for NPCs - would you want a leader, a mid-ranking member and a junior member described? Most of the leadership? A standard member?

For this Witchcraft monograph, I'm writing up an overview of an organisation of witches. I've got a very good idea of how it is organised etc. but what I'd like to know is... what would you want to know? What would you be looking for in a description of an organisation that PCs could join or could serve as an NPC's organisation?

Thanks for the response guys. I can now continue safely in the knowledge that you use both.

That said I will be incorporating 'higher power'-specific allegiance reward tables, with a further optional rule that standard rewards are reduced by 1 point at 75% or more and 2 points at 90% or more, meaning that acting in an aligned manner will still potentially generate allegiance rating increase (end of adventure allegiance rolls), but that there is diminishing returns for smaller acts at higher levels of allegiance (in other words generally only for the big actions favoured by that higher power).

I like this, I like it a lot. I think it makes Apotheosis just that bit more difficult, which is at it should be. I won't use anything like it in my monograph (and certainly wouldn't without your permission!), since I'm going for more plug-and-play into any world than a specific world so I don't think introducing rules like that would be appropriate... but I will almost certainly use it as a house rule for personal games.

I'm looking at pages 316-317 of the core-book, for reference.

Under the section 'Increasing Allegiance' it says that if the character acts in a manner suitable to that allegiance during an adventure, they roll an experience check as they would any skill and if successful gain 1D6 allegiance points.

Under the section 'Creating Allegiances', though, it says that you should create a list of specific actions that gain 1-3 allegiance points.

Doesn't this mean that characters are potentially rewarded twice for fulfilling their allegiance? Is it an either/or situation, or does the 'Increasing Allegiance' rule only apply if they have continually been an examplar of that allegiance for that adventure? What do you say, oh oracles of BRP?

Deadline I'm working to is September 1st (this year). Assuming I make that (and at the moment I'm very much on target) then Chaosium will release it in October in time for hallowe'en. Of course I'll let people know on here if that is likely to change.

I don't think there'd be a problem with a longer monograph, Ashes to Ashes came in at 180 pages and they were happy to print that. Better to put stuff in and have a larger monograph than leave stuff out and feel frustrated with the end result.

Definitely, thanks for the advice. I don't see it being much bigger, being only one field of magic. There comes a point where I'd just be long-winded rather than adding anything important.

Actually three people is officially a crowd. as evidence I offer the following saying: " two's company and three's a crowd "

Dammit, got me there.

Seriously though what kind of page count are you looking at with the Witchcraft monograph ? You can definately put me down for a copy

About 48 pages, standard for a monograph. Might end up being a little more if Chaosium is OK with that, certainly won't be less because they don't do monographs shorter than that (not economical to print them, apparently). Always good to see people interested... hopefully I'll do the subject justice. The magic potions section is looking to me like it'll be useful for other types of magician as well. :thumb:

IANAL, but isn't this a good justification to ask for a divorce in most courts?

:thumb:

Cool! Do you have a illustration allready that could be used for the blurb?

SGL.

Alas not, but I will let you know as soon as I do.

How about you dispense with the idea that NPCs follow the same rules as PCs.

Treat them as opponents to be beaten al la computer games. Say that to hit them is a test against easy, average, difficult or nigh on impossible skill tests. That way mooks will go down fast and elite villains will be damn hard to hit. For large and slow targets you make it easy and small and quick you make it difficult to hit.

I think that'd work quite well.

Hey, that's great! I'll be wanting those witchcraft rules too. And I have downloaded your Alchemy rules, so you have a crowd of fans!

I'm not entirely sure that three people constitute a crowd... however I am really happy to know that people like my alchemy rules and look forward to other stuff I write. Having written a good chunk of it already I can tell you that BRP : Witchcraft will have several new witchy-flavoured spells as well as information on how to incorporate infernal, pagan or neutral witchcraft into a setting. Oh, and I have also come up with a way that magical oral traditions can do without grimoires...

This sounds like a great product! I've long wanted BRP magic rules for real world magical traditions.

And where can I find those downloads on alchemy and illusion magic, I've been wondering around the downloads section and can't find them?

Go to the GM's section. Wasn't too sure where they'd fit best so I put them there. If you're looking for real-world traditions you'll probably appreciate the stuff on alchemy.