Jump to content

Aycorn

Regulars
  • Content Count

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

54 Excellent

About Aycorn

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    x
  • Current games
    x
  • Location
    x
  • Blurb
    x

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. https://swordofsorcery.blogspot.com/2017/04/i-love-brp.html My last word on the subject. Again.
  2. I never did. In my games it's still CHA. Any adult ought to be able to understand that one can be highly charismatic while physically plain, unusual, or even unattractive.
  3. Well, I'm only active here sporadically, but it's always seemed a friendly place and still does. I think basic, adult rules of courtesy are more than reasonable. I visit rpg.net even more sporadically, and yes I gather politics has become a divisive issue over there. Unfortunately, we are living in polarized times, esp. in the USA. But I haven't seen a lot of harsh words here, and don't expect to. PS - BGB is great and death to COC v.7! (just kidding) (not)
  4. I had a lot of fun with it at the time, but now find the rules pretty appalling. I'd love to see a BRP spy thriller game, though.
  5. (Here I go again, wading in again, suicidally). This may be a matter of interpretation, but I don't run it that way. Firearms (Pistol) is your skill, and it applies to any make/model that would be called a "Firearm/Pistol". There's no separate skill for a Walther PPK or any other specific gun model. We are in agreement on this: "not being able to fire a shotgun" is an exaggeration. Similarly, the Mathematics/Physics analogy doesn't fly for me. If someone gives their character a significant skill in Physics, logic would dictate they'd have to have at least a decent Mathema
  6. I should never have weighed in on this. Sorry. It's the sort of debate I have zero interest in. I'm absolutely a believer that everyone should play the way they want to play. I do. So, you have my blessing - if this works for you, you should go for it. It wouldn't work for me. For me, Chaosium's system ain't broke - and don't need fixin'. Best wishes anyway.
  7. I'm afraid I don't see it the same way at all. And I'm left thinking you must be looking at very different books than I. The books describe a Climb skill. It says you can climb things. If there's something about the climb (how steep, nature of the surface, etc) that make it more difficult, or less difficult, then you can modify the roll when the character is performing that climb. You're suggesting breaking it down, so that you have to track your ability to climb and/all different climbs - thus taking one skill and effectively breaking it into a host of sub-skills. To me, that is
  8. Hate to say it, hope not to sound rude or condescending, and I'll probably piss off everyone in this thread, but I think you're taking something simple and elegant and making it a hundred times more complicated. A Climb is a Climb. If you're using the BRP Big Gold Book, you can say its a more difficult, or easier, based on any number of factors. But its still a Climb. I suppose it may just come down to style of play, and if you and your players really want to drill down into it like that, and that's fun for you - well, more power to ya.
  9. I have never supported the "strategy" of putting out a new version every few years, whether with minimal changes or, in the case of COC7 and the various D&D's, a huge overhaul. Of course I've already vented my views here. I've got the Big Gold Book, and I'm good whether Chaosium produces new stuff for it or not. I agree that the setting has come to be the selling point. I suppose that's been true for a long time. A shame, really - part of the excitement of getting into D&D in the late 70's/ear;y 80's was developing my own fantasy world using the building blocks in the bo
  10. Basically, it's one more calculation. Also, for my own games, it adds a certain uncertainty factor. You can Dodge, or you can Parry. And if it doesn't work - well, you'll wonder if you should have gone for the other one.
  11. I agree with you, but if I've learned anything from RPG forums, it's that many people see enormous differences where I see inconsequential ones. And they seem to outnumber me I don't say they're wrong. Maybe it's just like a conversation I once heard at a party in the late 80's/early 90's. Several people commented on Sinead O'Connor's then-new recording of "Nothing Compares 2 U", and how beautiful her singing was. And one fellow piped up with "No no no - she goes flat on a couple notes." Guess it just depends on where your attention is focused.
  12. Well shame on me for being so dumb....
  13. Actually, I felt none of the RQs satisfactorily clarified whether "sacrificed" POW was gone for good (until your POW was raised) or would gradually come back over the course of hours/days as it normally would. So I always cut priests and cultists slack assumed that it did.
  14. I agree. "Pulp" Cthulhu always seemed a bit redundant somehow, conceptually. The Cthulhu stories were, after all, pulp fiction. I know S.T. Joshi et al foam the the face tentacles at lumping HPL in with the rest of the "Weird Tales" crowd, but I think he was more at home there than many adherents care to admit (and yes, I am speaking as a Lovecraft fan). I'm not sure a "noir" edition is/was ever needed - the 30's/40's isn't that distant from the 20's. A trip through the library 20th century history section, a couple Robert Mitchum movies on the DVD player, and a couple Raymond Ch
×
×
  • Create New...