dragonewt

Oh yeah, based on an educated guess, the trolls would most likely have eaten Rurik's corpse (stopping resurrection ), and taken all his stuff. This is surely very cinematic, from a certain point of view. :innocent:

I am interested. Hey, aren't you dead? :innocent:

This is why corpses are burnt, or desecrated, so that they they may not be resurrected (in RuneQuest Glorantha at least). I am taking an educated guess that this is why the last part on Rurik questions the trustworthiness of a Goldentounge. I assume that the player character actually died in 1612, and was only used as an example character in Biturian's travels. However, this was an oversight on the part of the author because Rurik was already dead long before the time of the example encounters in CoP (verification needed). Also, consider that lesser characters (not of Rune status) may have less of a chance to take resurrection for granted.

The post included a link to the source and encouraged people to follow the link for more information. :innocent: No matter how events turned out for Rurik, he did hit hard times. The interesting thing to question (if he really came back to life) is how he was allowed to come back. Was it the GM being nice for the player by allowing Rurik to be resurrected after serving Yelmalio for a period of time (role-playing creativity), or did it involve a hero quest (performed by others)? The first example is a meta-mechanisms in the same way as fate points. If players know that the GM will always let their characters prosper via this degree of GM kindness, they can then take this for granted in much the same way they take fate points or "mooking" for granted. For the first 'event', players would not know in advance that they would receive some GM benevolence (as opposed to knowing about fate points up front), however, after a while the behaviour would become known. Given the tone of most games I run, I like to keep player characters alive (creatively and in line with the game, no railroading or weak excuses). However the players often forget about this in the middle of the action, and so they feel the fear.

I don't have a copy of Wyrms Footnotes #12 to verify against. Can anyone confirm that the article is valid? "I can dance all day!"

If two people are walking down a street, and one person finds a coin that the other misses, is that person lucky or just more observant (or both)? Back to POW vs POW versus MP vs MP; I like to use MP vs MP (in most games) as the way I play magic is that MP is similar to Fatigue or Endurance. If a mage's power is low, so is their resistance. It is not unusual in games for a mage to have many sources of POW/MP to draw upon (POW crystals, Fetch, Wizard's staff, etc...), and so I would assume that a typical mage of high power would be able to cast spells using other sources of MP and so continuing to resist with their full MP until those external sources are depleted. There are many examples in fiction where a mage fails to resist due to having used up their magic. Conversely, there are examples of using POW to resist. So the choice would depend on the flavour of a game's world and the balance that magic has in it. This would ultimately be defined by the type of magic that is being emulated and/or personal tastes of the GM and group.

If you can, it would be good to get permission to also host or post Sandy's small article "Sandy Petersen on Runequest". In my own personal BRP/RQ archive, I have a small section called "Reflections" where I collect peoples' views and experiences regarding RuneQuest. If possible (permissions etc...), it might be worth archiving these on BRC.

Ok. Oh, wait... More information via this link: Personalities of Glorantha - Rurik Runespear Boom! Head shot! :thumb:

I think the problem is that POW being Luck is a hang-over from Gloranthan RuneQuest, where POW is one's mana, power, influence on the world, magic and representation of the amount of attention the gods gave you (your spiritual and mental influence). For me this works well for Gloranthan RuneQuest and helped define the world and theme, but added to the issues some have where the rules are closely bound to the game world. Although I like to carry this theme over into other genres. For other genres, there are traces of the original intentions for the definition of POW, however they don't always apply as well to those genres. I think this is why POW also partially took over from CHA when APP was used. In some human cultures, Mana (the original meaning) and Charismatic influence are seen to be closely related or the same thing. For the original Polynesian meaning see: Mana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Here are some snippets from RQ2 that show why high POW added to skill bonuses, and are examples of what the authors understood POW to be. If the you have the RQ2 rules, there are many more examples in the character creation section: I think these are examples of why some players still preferred RQ2 over RQ3, because some of this world definition was lost in RQ3. PS: It looks like I have graduated from being a junior member. Time for me to go and hatch as a Beaked warrior.

It has often been pointed out in RuneQuest (2/3/BRP) combat that "Karl Kobold" or "Tom Trollkin" can take out "Ruric Runelord" or "Balastor Axe Master" on a lucky (unlucky) set of rolls. Sandy Peterson wrote a good article: "Sandy Petersen on Runequest". The original location is gone, however it is worth finding (or we can host it on this site if we can get Sandy's permission). I like how the "anti-heroic" grit and 'reality' makes life tough. You could never go head on with an arch-typical fantasy dragon (forget real Gloranthan dragons). However, it gives the opportunity for players to be heroes because they have to think and out maneuver their foes. Compare this to the way heroes survive Norse Sagas and Ancient Greek tales (ignoring Deus Ex Machina, which could be fate points or in-game divine intervention). I use fate points at a story level (meta-rules) to take the sting out a limited few unlucky roles in BRP for the sake of maintaining a story and for the game to be like a 'heroic' work of fiction (written in favour of the player). And as many have pointed out, these fate points (lucky dice, chips, etc...) need to be a rare commodity (subjective and based on taste) and also need to be used wisely and not taken for granted by the players. I guess a balance is hard. However, these are never a substitute for good GM'ing and creative playing (as many have pointed out), and with good GM'ing and creative playing most game session might not see fate points used at all. I like this (use Bad Guy evil points limited by a "Bad Guy" schtik), for some styles of play it maintains a genre. Examples are where a villain is slain, but the heroes never check the body, and he reappears later. Or the typical Bond villain who always has to explain the evil plan before killing Bond, where Bond always just escapes. Again, this can annoy those who prefer a more simulationist style of play. There are many levels of variety of mixing the two extremes. This topic again raises the difference between how people play a game compared to how a story is written. Both offer entertainment in two different ways: "kill them and take their loot" vs "suspense where a story character always goes down into the basement, when players would think of a more inventive solution". Sandy's article can be found at the following link, under "Sandy Petersen on Runequest": Dorkland!: November 2006

I always assume that players should play their character "in character", and that creatively playing a character in character is role-playing. So therefore, they have to role-play to gain any benefit from using their fate points. I normally run games like that, and even the keenest accountant-type players tend to get caught up in the action such that they forget about their "lucky save points". Remember, a bad or flippant choice on the player's part means that the use of fate won't necessarily save them, or the outcome may not be what they want, and so the tension is still there. They have to work, sweat, think and be heroes. Most people know that the main character of most fiction will somehow live through to the end, but they tend to forget that when in the middle of the action, risk or suspense in a story. Then there are others who like Call of Cthulhu. I use "fate points" to take a little of the deadly edge off the lethality of the BRP system (for some games), it helps curb some of the bad extremes of randomness (criticals or fumbles against players), although I still use hit locations. Given that we are doing practically the same thing, and trying to be fairly gritty and realistic, yet allow players to be heroes with a little bit of saving grace; both.

It was a bad typo. I meant to say role-playing. (Edited and fixed) RP is used to describe how a fate point gave a +X bonus to a roll that helped a character out of trouble. This requires that creativity is used to describe a reasonably feasible result (the more creative, the better and more fun), otherwise the fate point cannot be used. Additionally, here is a snippet of text from the Fate 2005 SRD (published under OGL 1.0a) that describes other uses and the general theme: 4.5 Fate Points ... They may also spend a Fate point for minor narrative control of a situation. Common uses for this include finding a convenient item, knowing someone in a particular town, or showing up at just the right moment in another scene. Effectively, this expenditure allows the player to take the role of GM for a moment. The GM has full veto rights on any such expenditures, in which case the point is not spent. More often than not, this sort of expenditure of Fate points is an attempt by the players to keep things moving. It’s more fun to just assume you have the tool you need in your trunk than to have to drive back from the haunted house, hit a hardware store, and then drive back. As a GM, if the expenditure lets people continue to have fun without breaking anything, it should generally be allowed. ... 4.5.2 Additional Uses of Fate Points Fate points can be viewed as small “votes” you can cast to get the story to go your way, within certain guidelines. ... I am not sure I understand what you said here. It looks like we are using a similar method for similar results, only with a different name and slightly different implementation.

In what way are the given example player-only rules not 'mook'-style rules? "give HP= SIZ/2", "characters don't die until -CON HP", "One other edge which primarily favours PCs is personality traits", "Dodge to be used in addition to Parry", "NPCs also have these trait-skills, but the GM doesn't have to bother using them, unless for dramatic effect" Depending on game play, the example PC-only actions that are described have a similar result as Fate/Action/Hero results, except that there is no limitation in frequency. This also means that there is more than wit being used. There are good examples where fate points encourage role-playing in order to avoid an otherwise deadly fate for a character (more so player wit than character wit). "Hi, I'm a PC, and I have twice the HP potential than you could ever have, move over, I am the new bully in town" On the other hand, if a game is not purely simulationist, and aims to entertain in a story-teller way, there needs to be a story-teller type of lucky-break (as seen in almost any hero story or movie), otherwise, statistically, most characters will never make it past that 01% hit roll to their head. It might not happen overnight, but it will happen. Statistically, most of our favourite action-movie, saga and book heroes would be dead long before the story finishes. How do we deal with that without 'mooking', fudging the roles, or giving some other advantage to the PC's? I guess this brings into discussion the big difference between watching/reading a story, compared to playing it. Another difference, in addition to the nature of character survivability, is that players often do things differently compared to those in a story being told. I can see how a fate/action points mechanism could cheapen the risk, however, this depends on how many and how often they are allowed to be used. Many uses would be a high action movie where it is often hard to suspend disbelief. A very limited use would be the occasional lucky save (used IN ADDITION to good GMing and smart player choices; they are always needed). In BRP and RQ, generally anyone of great skill can die very easily at the drop of an 'unlucky' roll of the dice. The way I use fate points off-sets that slightly, while leaving the core rules untouched, but it still doesn't allow for gratuitous Final Fantasy or Dragonball Z style 'mooking' (unless you are playing that style of game, with "whatever gives you the most pluses" ). RPG Motivational Posters/fumble

On a humourous note; don't let characters wear a red shirt... Character Mortality

The question to ask is; what makes a Hero a Hero, what makes them survive a story? From a story point of view, the main characters often have an edge because the story would end quickly otherwise (Fate points). Another point is that we only hear the stories about the Heros that survived, and hence those by chance (and wit) have survived long enough for us to tell exaggerated tales that portray them as combat demi-gods who slay dragons with their bare hands. In another light, think of how the Heroes of most Saga actually did succeed. Most were smart and witty or had the charisma that gave them support to draw apon (Always a good reason to not make CHA a dump stat. I always liked how CHA was dealt with in RQ2). Conan had Krom, and so Valeria's reappearance would be more like a RuneQuest (2/3) divine intervention, boosted by all the brownie points and alliances he racks up for himself (The way I see "Runes" in RuneQuest). For the Greeks, heroes were heroes because they took and survived risks (and could be wounded). It is how they dealt with circumstances and the actions they choose that made them a hero (and made a story interesting). This is why I like a mix of gritty 'realistic' rules (RQ, BRP), and something more akin to fate points. Often it is what a character does and how they do it that make them a hero and helps them survive (rather than just being a HP tank). Characters can take the risks yet still have the edge from a story point of view (as opposed to being purely simulationist). With this type of play, the main characters are the leads of a story (like some books) and so the enjoyment is in seeing them survive. I like the BRP POW/Fate ideas, however, for me this is the character directly influencing the story with the equivalent of minor wish spells (compared to using POW for other magic) which is fine in a game depending on the flavour and consistency of a world. For me, games like D&D abstract the act of being a hero too much, such that you can't play at being the hero, almost the same way that World of Warcraft automates action for you (apologies to WoW fans). In summary, for me and my current style of play, I like a mix between gritty realism (the risk) and story teller type of fate points which is a mechanic outside of the game world for the PLAYERS to enhance the story and character survivability. Two methods that do this well and adapt easily to BRP are: Action Points from Action! System and Fate Points from FATE (Spirit of the Century). I like how there is the option to allow players to have some input into the story line and events (this does depend on the tone of the game and players, etc..., compare this to the tone of H.P. Lovecraft stories where characters are born to die horribly and/or go insane). Action! System Core Rules (Free Version) Fate: Fantastic Adventures in Tabletop Entertainment (OGL)

This also links into an earlier discussion regarding using PP as "fate" or "luck" points and the choices this use presents.

You could do the reverse and use form objects in either MS Office or OpenOffice to display information from a database. OpenOffice Base (database) can be used as the database to manage data for either Writer (word processor) or Calc (spreadsheet). You could use ODBC to link Open Office to another database (eg: MySQL) which in turn could be used for presenting character data on a web site.

You could try a page layout program such as Scribus (which runs under Windows, Linux and Mac): http://www.scribus.net/ Another option is the NBOS Character Sheet Designer: NBOS Character Sheet Designer v1.0 I have also had success with OpenOffice.org Writer (Word).

What forms the spine of the Rockwood Mountains?

You are right, what matters is mind-set and intent. I think that today a lot of the arts have softened from a mental point of view. Many boxers (I generalise) are geared to punch your lights out quickly, and so maintain a 'simpler' effectiveness. However, if an aikido practitioner had the same mind set to intercept quickly with effort, then that advantage would be nullified. The irony is that the concept of "aiki" concerns interception.

I agree. Although it does depend on the granularity of skills used for a given instance of a game. For example, where many detailed skills are used (sword, axe, spear, maul; pistol, rifle, SMG; numerous sciences; numerous medical disciplines, etc...) compared to where simpler skill sets used (melee weapons, guns; 'science'; 'medicine'). The nature of the martial art skill(s) should match the detail used for other skills. For example, the level of skill detail I normally use is more detailed. So instead of "melee weapons", I would have: sword, axe, spear,etc.. In that case I would divide up martial arts into generalized groups or concepts, eg: ground fighting (BJJ style), throwing (judo), 'controlling' (aikido, chi na), joint locks (aikido, jujutsu), blocking/neutralizing (wing chun, aikido), atemi/strike (karate, taekwondo). These are just some rough ideas I came up with now. Although this is similar to one way martial arts are handled in HERO system (which are extra moves you can do based on a combat skill). The nature of a given art might determine the rate at which these skills are raised, given the types of techniques that are focused on. A person learning one style of karate might learn 'strike' 70% of the time, and maybe some throws or joint locks 30% of the time. Some versions of Eagle Claw Kung Fu might learn strikes, joint locks and throws at a 33% ratio each. If I was running a more 'rules light' BRP game, I might just use 'martial arts' to cover everything, in the same way I would use 'guns' and 'melee weapons' to abstract a larger set of skills.

Akikido evolved from Aiki-jujutsu. Aiki-jujutsu includes techniques for grappling and controlling an armoured opponent. Aiki-jujutsu - Wikipedia In tests where wrestlers fought against boxers (both western versions), only one of the boxers won. The only boxer that won had previous wrestling experience (Sorry, I don't have the reference for that).

What about aiki-jujutsu? Most armour will not protect against a joint lock or break.

An interesting contrast is that I only learned about Stupor Mundi via RosenMcStern's profile on this site. Which ultimately took me to RPGnow.com. In the past I have searched RPGnow for "RuneQuest", "BRP", "Basic Roleplaying", and other combinations; and never once saw Stupor Mundi. I guess that would place me in the category of someone looking specifically for BRP material. Update: This time the search finds Stupor Mundi. I am not sure if I am blind or whether it didn't come up last time I searched.

Do you have the author's contact details (for example, listed in the file)?