K Peterson

Yeah, I don't think it works for every situation. (Maybe damaging the lockpicking tools so they're less useful for other contests??)

I know that some modern (indie?) Rpgs have used that approach. And on other forums I've seen it defined as "failing forward". But it's not something I've seen in D100 Rpgs.

I'm more of a traditional gamer, but I tend to run Call of Cthulhu very loosely - using interpretation, partial successes, and a lot more judgement calls than when I run other D100 Rpgs.

7 minutes ago, clarence said:

Good to hear someone else is experimenting with partial success/failure. What do you think it adds to the game?

Personally, I think it can offer a wider range of results which can help determine what happens in a skill contest, descriptively. The results can be tailored to the contest in the case of partial-success. As you said, it can add 'interesting twists'.

Late at night, an investigator prepares to climb the tall, wrought iron fence that surrounds the Penhew Foundation... with a partial-success on a Climb roll, you could get all kinds of interesting descriptive results. He snags and tears his jacket during the descent. He lands heavily on the other side - or otherwise makes a hell of a lot of noise doing it - alerting the nightwatchman or dogs.

On 3/15/2016 at 6:07 AM, Dudemeister said:

I am not very happy with the way BRP handles crits, specials, etc. <snip> ... does the basic method just need a few sessions to feel smooth?

It's really just going to come down to what feels comfortable to you. There are plenty of options out there.

Give 1/5 and 1/20 a shot in-play (emphasis on in-play and not just rules theorizing) and see if it works for you. And if it doesn't, move on and try something else.

4 hours ago, clarence said:

To add another layer of complexity, I wonder if anyone use systems for partial success/partial failure? Examples: "You succeed, but she will never do business with you again" or "You fail, but you're positioned very favorably for the next round". Or do you feel it's not necessary?

I do, but not with a published system, or extensive bunch of house rule docs. It's mostly just looking at the roll, seeing what the margin-of-failure is, and making a call as the Keeper/GM based on that specific situation.

I use a reverse-Special-Success threshold. So the 20% of skill above the skill level is the grey area where partial-success or partial-failure occurs. (Frex: with 50% skill, rolling between 51-60).

I set a calendar event to remind myself, because I've never been to a FLGS for Free Rpg Day. Hell, I forgot it was still going on.

Cannibalize? I hope you don't mean literally.  I think it would be more effective to "suck" INT from other people than pull from your own diminishing resources. (Gather your dim-witted apprentices/cultists together and use them as your battery). I don't know if that capability exists within Advanced Sorcery, as-written.

Elric! had the spell Wisdom of Slortar which allowed for a temporary increase in the INT characteristic. Up to 9 extra INT, but the duration is limited to the caster's POW in rounds.

Different editions of RuneQuest had the Tap spell which did "characteristic-sucking" from unwilling participants. I can't remember, though, if that was a characteristic-drain-for-characteristic-gain, or if the drain converted into usable magic points...

2 hours ago, Frunk said:

So when you ask "what are you running"... I think it is a blend of background, mechanics employed, game style (cinematic, etc) and GM style that can answer the question properly.

Do you agree?

I think it's great to provide more context with the answer, which can show, more explicitly, how and why people run the games they do .

52 minutes ago, Baron said:

It will be as canon as old school Prax usually got in practice, ie see the Okamoto logs for play examples.

What now? What are these logs - got a link to them?

8 hours ago, Mankcam said:

Potential future games ( I can't decide):

(Well, the OP asked...heh heh, and that's my life sorted)

Yeah, I've got a laundry list of 'potential future games', and that list gets longer and longer as more time passes. I maintain a separate OneDrive folder for each one and gradually add campaign notes, homemade character sheets, and images. Sometimes these ideas actually reach the game table (like the Cthulhu by Gaslight 6e campaign I ran last year), some sit in stasis for a long time, and a very few just fade out when I realize I'll probably never get around to running them, and archive them away.

Some Potential Future Games

Cthulhu Dark Ages using the Abbey monograph - CoC6e with strike ranks.

Dark Streets - converted to 6e with some minimal house rules.

1920s CoC 6e set in Lovecraft Country - a sandbox to explore, hopefully.

Sword & Sorcery - Elric! with Corum magic and strike ranks, in whatever dark fantasy setting I finally decide upon.

My own answers:

I'm currently running Delta Green using the playtest rules for the new edition that's coming out in May. I'm using a number of published adventures and 'shotgun scenarios' to string together a campaign that'll probably run over a dozen sessions, or so. For those familiar, I've started with Puppet Shows & Shadow Plays already, will likely move on to Last Things Last, Metamorphosis, and then "end" with A Night on Owlshead Mountain. After we reach that point - assuming that there aren't piles and piles of dead agent bodies, and the players aren't too demoralized  - I'll see if the players want to return to Delta Green some sessions in the future.

My 'Sunday CoC group' meets every two to three weeks, so we tend to play one-off mysteries, or short campaigns. Running some mega-campaign, or something seriously open-ended wouldn't be that feasible. So, if we find a campaign premise that we all can latch on to, we return to it over time.

It's a bit of a cliched forum topic, but what the hell...

What D100-based system are you currently running, and in what setting are you running it in? Published system as-is, tweaked and house-ruled, Frankensteined from various parts. Official published setting, altered published setting, historical or DIY setting.

How long have you been running it? Is it open-ended or do you expect to conclude it at some point?

If you're not currently running (or playing) anything D100, what would you like to run in the future?

16 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I don't think the "Ladyhawk Gambit" really needs to be addressed. One of the problems with the tactic, even if allowed, is that there is no guarantee that the weapon will hit and incapacitate the opponent. Thrown weapons can be parried or dodged, and the character has just thrown away his weapon and has nothing left to defend with. 

Clearly you need a greatsword-quiver to keep your arsenal, and a sturdy pack-mule/pony/horse to ferry them around for you. Draw, throw. Draw, throw. Ad Nauseam. 

6 hours ago, Zit said:

You could have opponents throwing great swords, halberds or great axes at your player's PC, why not a mob specialized in this kind of tactics, he may then reconsider his position after the combat.

While funny as hell, that's a smidge of a passive-aggressive approach to handling the situation. "What? Don't you know that many of the mercenary guilds throughout the South Lands teach 2H-Polearm throwing?? Anyone with the strength and the coinage can be trained how to do it."  I can already imagine the howls of cheating! and unfairness! from the player(s).

As tempting as it might be to whack a power-gamer with a clue-by-four, talking with them sensibly will probably lead to better results.

Seems like something that might be well-suited for the blog functionality here, rather than as a separate forum that might not get much traffic.

For example: post your own Frankenstein on your BRPCentral blog, get some feedback in the comments section, see if other bloggers will participate, discuss. Engage in blog-community type posts. (I don't read Rpg blogs as much as I used to, but I know that some OSR blogs would have polls/Q&As among their community. What's your Top-10 modules, what do you think of this rule, what is your personal Appendix-N, etc).

Sure, a GM can cheat. But I tend to think that occurs when a GM fudges dice rolls, engages in 'illusionism', or alters the opposition, in-play, in order to further outfox the players. IMO, it doesn't occur when GMs make spot-rulings that alter core book rules.

As to fairness, well I guess it depends. You say that the characters have already advanced their Throw skill to better throw around their halberds. Have they been halberd-tossing over multiple sessions with your acceptance, and gaining experience checks? Or did they generate their characters recently, dump a ton of free skill points into Throw, and start using this silly tactic? If the former... well, you might have let things get out of hand, and I can understand their criticism. If the latter, then I don't see any unfairness in setting things straight.

I voted BRP as a base system because that's primarily what I've used in the past. I am really fond of the new Delta Green Rpg, though, and could easily use that as a baseline going forward.

2 hours ago, krzysztof said:

I wanted to point out, that BRP is not emulating reality, at least in case of thrown weapons.

I'd have to agree, in the case of thrown weapons. It doesn't help that the BRP BGB states within the description of Throw, "This skill allows your character ... to throw a weapon otherwise not balanced for throwing (such as throwing a greatsword or shield". I can see how @krzysztof's power-gaming (ridiculous) players latched on to this sentence and tried abusing the hell out of the rule.

No rules set is infallible, and those rules sets that try to cover every loophole become bloated doorstops, IMO. Fix the problem yourself, hopefully quickly in play and add the change to a house rule document. If you get grief from the players, have an immediate, and frank discussion with them about the BRP rules, and your responsibilities as a GM to make spot-rulings. If they detest spot-rulings then maybe it's better to use another game system that meets their "heroic" requirements. As already suggested, maybe something super-abstract, like FATE or go the doorstop option, where everything is spelled out exhaustively.

I think that you've received a number of good responses already. Pick one that works best for you, or use your 1D6+ DB preference. Maybe get the opinions of all your players - power-gaming and otherwise.

In the BGB, Missile fire can only be parried with a shield, and the chance is based on the size of the shield. Thrown weapons can be parried with a shield, and with a hand weapon (though that requires a Special Success).

Regarding the OP: Well, Crits and Special Successes will still be a threat from opponents, so near-auto-parrying will not always be the case.

It's not too tough to get a copy off eBay. Probably for less than $20 if you're patient.

Thanks for the details.

You're not wrong. PDFs were pulled about 2 years ago.

I have no clue about 7e releases, but you might find some options with 6e (and prior) material, if you're not already familiar with them.

Pagan Publishing had a couple non-mythos releases: the Bumps in the Night scenario collection, and the campaign, Coming Full Circle. CFC is a great campaign that I heartily recommend. I ran it for a gaming group back around 2008 and they loved it. I own BitN, but I haven't looked it over in some time, so I can't vouch for scenario quality.

Let me question your philosophy.

Why are non-combat crits/fumbles always beneficial/detrimental to the next skill roll and appear to have no impact on the results of the present roll? Are you combining crits/fumbles with Experience Checks or Improvement Rolls?

Many d100 (and other) systems place the emphasis of crits/fumbles on the current results. With non-combat skills, the task could take less time, have a significantly better result, or produce a side-benefit. (And the converse with a fumble). Your method seems a little peculiar, and I don't see what you're going for, especially with non-combat skills. And especially considering that your combat crits/fumbles have an immediate effect.

It is a nice looking cover. The text really pops.

Is this product coming out towards the end of the RQ6 license, and retaining the RQ branding? Or will the final product feature a "Mythras" logo instead?

I haven't had any problems recently, and haven't noticed any issues for some time.