K Peterson

 

What are your thoughts? How do they compare? In your opinion which is more fun/engaging? Which is simpler?

Future World is definitely simpler. There's not that much of it, really. I'm not sure how fun/engaging it would be; as a GM, you'd have to invest quite a bit of time fleshing it out and borrowing from other sources. Unless you stuck with a very minimalist approach and hand-waved a great deal.

I've owned Ringworld on two occasions over the past 10 years, and each time I've resold it. The first time, I read it and it didn't really strike a chord with me. It just wasn't that interesting. 5 years after selling it I questioned why I got rid of it in, repurchased it, and then realized, "Oh, yeah. That's why." I don't know if it was the presentation, its focus more on setting than system, or what. 

These days, River of Heaven is probably just a better option. It's not perfect, but if you can get past some of the OpenQuestiness of it, there are a lot more options than it provides.

Now seems to have gone from the Chaosium website. Couldn't find it under BRP rules, supplements or monographs.

That's really concerning. I placed an order for Mission to Epsilon and a pdf of Operation Ulysses on 5/25; MtoE was supposed to be released on 5/28; and at some point my order changed to a status of 'shipped'.

When I look at my order, the link to Mission to Epsilon (http://www.chaosium.com/mission-to-epsilon/) now leads to a page not found.

So I agree that many of the changes may not be for the better. But it does make sense for any new products to be consistent, so I am assuming that most new products may fall in line with 7E.

 

I think it's a bridge that Chaosium will definitely have to cross at some point. CoC7e introduces a game system divergence, which brings up the question of whether there's a need to homogenize the game lines. Or, do you leave CoC7e as its own entity and continue developing material for the BGB or Magic World as their rules currently stand?

God, I hope not. That has a feeling like erasure of BRP's mechanical past for the sole sake of an "upgrade" (to an edition of CoC that, in my opinion, is fairly lackluster, wonky, and unnecessary). Seems like it goes against the whole purpose of the BGB, which chronicles all the options for the BRP system that have come out over the past 30+ years. I guess I could see an added appendix in a revised BGB that introduced CoC7e rules, but not a wholesale rewrite.

Hypothetically then, would that rolling change continue to Chaosium's other 'brands'? Would we see Magic World follow suit with an upgraded 7e rules set - also severing its ties to its Elric!/Stormbringer/RQ3 roots?

FTF with character sheets and dice. I do use my Surface as an aide - recording my GM notes in OneNote; displaying images to the players; and playing subtle soundtracks or sound effects. But that's about the limit of tech involvement.

My suggestion would be making two pdfs, one for the rules and one for the setting. As long as the rules doesn't differ too much from existing systems, people could then either use the setting with their favorite set of rules, or with your d100 rules made specially for the setting.

That was the approach taken by the Age of Shadow Rpg (http://ageofshadow.freehostia.com/), which I thought was a great method.

 

So i guess this is an open letter to the d100 community on whether a new self-contained rules system and integrated fantasy setting would be of interest?

Probably not for me. As others have already mentioned, there are a lot of d100 system options already out there - many different flavors of simplicity and complexity. Your variant would need to be so exemplary that it really stood out from the rest of the pack, and I don't think that'd be an easy task (because a lot of the existing variants are really good).

Well in Legend, I don't think that there's anything a defender can do in response to an attacker who is 'Moving and Attacking' besides the standard reactions of parrying or evading the attack. The attacker spends his combat action, moves up to his movement allowance and attacks. The defender can spend a combat action in response only to parry, evade, or cast a spell. He cannot 'Change Distance' as a reaction. If he wants to 'oppose the attack' he must Evade.

"Closing" is specifically defined in Legend's mechanics as dealing with an opponent's weapon reach. And it can only be performed on your turn at the cost of a combat action. 

So the question is, can you use the Closing and Disengage rules to stay out of an opponent's longer reach until you find an opportunity to strike?

To answer the question: according to the Legend rules, no you can't. If you want to avoid the attacker's longer reach, in this situation, the defender must Evade the attack. The defender's opportunity to strike will occur on their turn when they decide to Close with the attacker.

I don't recall the wording either, but the situation doesn't make much sense to me.

In this case, the spear-man is not "closing"; he is performing a regular attack with a medium- to long-reach weapon. He doesn't need to physically close in within reach of the dagger to hit the defender, even if ridiculously 'choked-up' on the spear. The defender still has the option to Parry or Evade the attack. And Evading could result in the situation where the attacker 'chases' the defender around the battlefield.

Here's a link: https://cthulhureborn.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/hello-world/. And an add-on: https://cthulhureborn.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/re-reborn-in-a-different-light/. 

First I've heard of the scenario, so I've got nothing to contribute. 

EDIT: Messed up the URL.

I picked up copies of the GW RuneQuest and Advanced RuneQuest through Wayne's Books (http://www.waynesbooks.net/?keyword=RUNEQUEST&searchby=title&page=shop/browse) a while ago. They've got copies of the Monsters book currently, but not Advanced RuneQuest. You'll probably pay quite a bit through Noble Knight, but might find deals on eBay.

I like the art style of both GW RQ and ARQ, but to me the organization was really confusing. ARQ frequently made references to rules in RQ, so it would seem you'd have to have both volumes handy for referencing rules.

It certainly is a very shiny edition, with great full-color art and a solid layout.

Otherwise... I've got nothing else nice to say, so I won't say anything (else) at all. 

WoW is a set I've considered picking up for years now, but never got around to. I remember seeing a shrink-wrapped box at a game store about 8 or 9 years ago, but I balked and the next time I visited the store it had been sold. Kicked myself a few times for that reluctance.

How does MW, SW, and FW stack up? I don't recall reading any reviews of them in the past.

If I recall correctly, earlier this year, Mongoose Publishing lost the rights to Stormbringer/Elric! material and the content was pulled from DTRPG/RPGNow. This was their own published content, as well the older editions produced by Chaosium.

There's at least one thread in this forum discussing it. Dig around. You'll also find some posts on Mongoose's forum about it.

I wouldn't mind a few tweaks and some general tightening and clarification of the rules, but not an overboard revision. I wouldn't play a version that used the complexity of RQ6's combat actions and special effects. Too much detail for my CoC experience.

Sorry; my bad. I took nclarke's advice but didn't track back to this thread after getting some answers.

A couple off the top of my head:

MRQII uses hit locations, combat actions, and combat maneuvers - much more detailed combat. OpenQuest uses general hit points, and possibly the Major Wound table.

MRQII uses Basic and Advanced Skills, originally provided through occupations and cultural background and then added to with free skill points. OpenQuest has skills broken down into categories, with a specific pool of skill points applied to each category.

I have decided to go with the hit point route for the sanity point mechanic. What do folks think of sanity points equaling POW or being a combination of POW + INT or CHA divided by two.

I think that's how Renaissance does it:

A PC's sanity is equal to POW. Their major insanity level (MIL) is equal to POW/2. When a horrific event occurs, a Persistence test is made (with potential modifiers). In the case of a failed roll, or fumble, Sanity points are lost. If the number of lost Sanity points are equal to or greater than the MIL, the degree of insanity is worse.

I like both. Hardcopy for home. Bookmarked PDF for quick referencing during gameplay.

If you'd asked me this question two years ago, I would have vehemently answered 'starting values based on characteristics'. And, probably thrown in a few derogatory comments about the Resistance Table.

Now, my preference lies a lot more with flat values, and the Resistance Table. Simpler; fewer recalculations; less overhead during gameplay.

Generally, I find Skill Category Modifiers to be too fiddly to deal with. 

I think you need these two:

GM Guide

Player Guide

I don't own any of this line (looks cool though). I just gave them a quick skim on Drive Thru. These sounded like the core books and the others are adventures and/or fluff.

Are either of these available in print? If so, are they digest sized? Are any of the supplements available in print?

I have the Deus Vult core book from the MRQ2 line. I thought it had a great premise, but unfortunately didn't get any play out of it. I wonder if there's any point in 'upgrading' to the current version or if I'd just end up buying reprinted content.

Great site, and a nice face-lift.

Is this a product that's still available... from somewhere?

Okay. In Elric! a major wound take the character out of the fight, and the table is the long term effects.I take then that in Renaissance targeting locations results in different long term impairments?

Well, slightly different. Much like Elric! they involve penalties to characteristics that differ in severity - penalties which may or may not be permanent. The effects in Renaissance are just localized to the hit location targeted. Elric's are more... amorphous. With Elric, the characteristic loss is specific but the location affected is from a suggested list. The GM determines the specifics.

When I get off work, I'll post a comparison. To make things make a little more sense.

That's an attractive approach.