Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aycorn

  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 Mathematics background, so toss some points into Mathematics (if you must), or just assume its there, and/or if a game situation came up where a Mathematics skill would be applied, use their Know roll. I'm well aware many would disagree. Right after the BGB came out, there were many debates about gun rules, and several homebrewed firearms tables giving ranges/damage/etc for different makes/models of firearms. To some that's clearly very important, but not to me. Again, this is how I like to do things. I prefer to keep things simple, and I'd rather improvise a bit based on my understanding/interpretation of the rules. I think the beauty of BRP/Chaosium is that it lends itself to that approach. But others prefer to do things differently. The important that everyone and those they play with agree and are having a good time.
  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 obviously more complicated. What is this about mastering a Walther ppk, but being unable to fire a shotgun? I've never seen anything like that in BRP or any Chaosium/BRP publication.
  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 books, and pulling in all manner of elements from the famtasy/sci-fi books, movies, comics etc I was devouring at the time. But I guess what I like and what the masses like are two different things. I can understand, from a marketing standpoint, that game books are now expected to have slick, color artwork and lots of graphic decoration. I can see the aesthetic appeal, but I confess that, for example, I find the artwork in later D&D books far more generic, Bros. Hildebrandt riffs, less interesting than say, David A Trampier's gorgeous line drawings. And I really hate the big-eyed anime/manga-style character designs in the Pathfinder books. But again, I guess I'm in the minority. In any case, does it occur to anyone that having slick, color hardcovers as the standard also means that RPG books cost more?
  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 Chandler or Ross MacDonald books and you've got the facts and the feel.
  15. Nah, I don't debate. I occasionally proclaim...
  16. I'm mystified by most such debates. If people like them, well okay. But I'm unconvinced they actually ADD anything other than to fulfill a personal preference.
  17. That's true. And odd to me. But what have you. These days, when I'm creating NPCs or characters for players to play, or helping someone create a character, I say "start with the personality - who is this person?" and then stats and skills and whatnot flow from that.
  18. That is good to know, and I hope it remains the case. I'm glad to hear Jason is back on board, as well. My blog is http://swordofsorcery.blogspot.com/ ... if anyone is interested
  19. Absolutely agree. I have that experience with books (mostly), quite frequently.
  20. I posted this on my RPG blog, and thought it appropriate to share here - cuz I feel like it needs to be said... I love BRP. I flat-out LOVE it. It is the simplest, most logical, most straightforward, most elegant RPG system I have ever come across. Period. If BRP was a dancer, it would amaze me with its moves every time I saw it dance. If BRP was a musician, it would make my jaw drop every time I heard it play. I’m being a little bit facetious and hyperbolic there, but really that does describe how I feel about it. I love the big gold book. One cover. 300+ pages and its got 99% of everything I need to run any kind of campaign I could want. Say it’s too long, or too overwhelming. Sorry. I don’t agree. And, by the way – I love the Resistance Table, and Strike Ranks. Yes – I mean it. A year or two ago, I acquired a huge cache of D&D books – from original to 3.5. Oh, and Pathfinder stuff, too. I got kind of intrigued. And I decided to not only check them out thoroughly, but, for fun, to convert my favorite old AD&D characters, long ago mothballed, to 3.5/Pathfinder. And also to BRP. It was an enlightening experience. Certainly, 3.5 improves on a lot of things from clunky old AD&D. It’s a lot more streamlined, quite a bit more logical and flexible, and it flows much more nicely. But as I began to adapt these characters, I found myself getting irritable. It’s a lot of work. All the tables, the feats, the skill system, the levels. Why don’t the experience levels and the spell levels of magic-using characters sync up? Wouldn’t it make more sense if a being 10th level meant you could cast 10th level spells? Why is the combat system so damn complicated? It still looks like miniature warfare rules. In fact, it looks more like miniature warfare rules than the AD&D combat system! I would never want to play it. And then I converted them to BRP. And it took mere moments. Because there’s so much I don’t have to think about. Break down the characteristics, calculate derived stuff, assign the skills and – boom – you’re done. Nothing is lost – it’s all there – just a hell of a lot simpler. A few years back I got GURPS Cabal, an interesting occult RPG setting, and looked at with an eye to doing a BRP adaptation. The biggest revelation was the magic system. See, the Cabal magic system is built on occult arcana, and there’s a host of modifiers that will affect the outcome of any spell. It takes a whole (lengthy) chapter to detail it all. And yet, looking at it, I realized that the entire thing could be boiled down to a single, simple table of modifiers. One table. One page. Why do people like to complicate things? That’s another thing I love about BRP. It’s ridiculously simple to add to or subtract from. If you must. Still, I keep seeing posts about adding things, like “feats”. I can’t see the purpose – when I converted those old characters to 3.5 and then BRP, there was nothing in “feats” that couldn’t be covered by skills and skill levels. Oh, “advantages/disadvantages” – I see that one come up a lot. I once gave someone great offense on yog-sothoth.com when I said I couldn’t see any real benefit to adding them to the game. And I can’t. Hey don’t get me wrong – if you really like “feats” or “advantages/disadvantages” – by all means – add them. But you’ll never convince me they’re necessary, or make the game better somehow. Okay, I admit, I’m feeling a little bit like, well, let’s put it this way… Lately I’ve been reading my way through the run of The Dragon magazine. It’s sometimes hilarious to see Gary Gygax’s infamous rants about players monkeying with his game, foaming at the mouth over things like critical hits, hit locations, point-based magic systems, weapon proficiencies, monsters as player-characters, etc etc etc. And how the game was perfect and you would screw it up royally if you changed or added any little thing (of course, strictly speaking Gygax wasn’t totally wrong – AD&D didn’t have a lot of flexibility and any changes always seemed to feel bolted-on) (I should also note that many rules-variants that appeared in The Dragon were pretty awful). Well, I won’t say BRP is perfect. I don’t believe in perfect. But its perfect for me. It’s the closest thing to perfection I’ve seen. I won’t say you can’t or shouldn’t mess with it – actually, it’s a lot easier to mess with than many (most? all?) other systems. But I will say I don’t feel the need. So, yeah, I love BRP. And I’m going to play BRP. And nothing else, really. Because as I said – it can handle any setting or genre I care to throw at it. I hope that Chaosium will continue to support it. But if they don’t – well – for years before the big gold book came out, there was a community out there – well not really a community, just a bunch of us out there in the wilderness - who basically adapted our own versions of it, cobbled together from RQ and COC and Stormbringer, et al. We played BRP even though it was barely on the market. And so, I’ve done it before. I’ll do it again if I must. I love BRP (said it again) and I have great, great affection for Chaosium. But I’ve got what I need if they decide to shut the taps off. And by the way, Chaosium – with all due respect, CoC didn't need "fixing".
  21. Actually, I did a BRP adaptation of GURPS Martial Arts you might look at. It's in the downloads section.
  22. Unortunately, I don't remember exactly where I encountered the alternate Sanity rules. I kind of wrote up my own adaptation but I think it's 99% similar, so I don't feel right posting it. The gist of it was, instead of getting an arbitrary mental illness assigned to you, at a certain level your character is rattled and skills are effected. And then it escalated from there into getting a mental illness. Maybe someone else recalls where this came from. And I apologize to the author for not having a better memory.
  23. I use the Sanity rules that were presented in, I think, Unspeakable Oath some years back. A little more logical than "classic" COC SAN rules.
  24. True, in HPL's stories the books themselves are not innately sinister - but they are in some other authors'. Manly Wade Wellman even wrote a tongue-in-cheek tale where pages from The Necronomicon attack the reader.
  • Create New...