K Peterson

Stormbringer 1e and 4e state that variable armor points is due to the possibility of being struck in a location where the armor isn't present. Elric! described it as being due to weaknesses and openings depending on the type of armor used. So yeah, potentially a combined-abstraction of hit locations, armor coverage, and durability of armor based upon type.

Definitely a sharp name.

That skill list is surprising because that character sheet seems to be an odd amalgamation of RQ2 corebook skills and skills taken from a variety of RQ2 supplements (or maybe other sources?). Compare it to this RQ2 character sheet, which is more representative. The sheet you reference drops off some standard RQ2 skills (like Map Making) and introduces what I'd consider to be 'fringe' skills (Masonry, Cattle Food(?), Peaceful Cut(?))

Is there any edition of RQ that doesn't have some aspect of tabular reference? I can't think of any that fit your design preference, unless you're referring to modeling a new version of RQ after HeroQuest Glorantha or another Rpg entirely. Ironically enough, if you know how values in the Resistance Table are derived, you can calculate them quickly, in your head, without ever needing to crack the book and disrupt play.

Eh, no big deal. I probably reacted too defensively and could use to dial it down. I can see what you're getting at.

So, what is Cthulhu Icarus and what is it based on? Did it originate in some 6e product that CTTA converted to 7e, or was it created whole-cloth for CTTA? I've found very little details on it, and have no desire to purchase CTTA. A Review of CTTA that I found references Worlds of Cthulhu, apparently incorrectly.

How do you define a variety of circumstances? The nature and layout of the 'battlefield'? The tactics deployed by the NPC antagonists? Circumstances such as surprise, ambush, and betrayal? Are you presuming that these were vanilla battles on same kind of chessboard where Character A steps forward to battle NPC A, and so on? I can assure you that they were not. They were quite tactical and 'cinematic' situations where a lot was going on and a lot of options were open to the characters. This campaign took place within Xoth Publishing's Sword & Sorcery world of The Spider God's Bride. There wasn't a lot of moral ambiguity, or shades of grey, and the best way to deal with many threats was to kill them dead. (Especially Serpentmen wizards. Especially!). There was one situation where the character slayed an NPC who could have turned out to be an ally, and they paid a dear price for their blood-lust. But it did not change their Special Effects selection for the future. They found the most optimal SEs to use across a variety of combat situations, and many of the others were considered inefficient. Multiple copies of combat and SE documents were on the gaming table, but the options did not lead to any decision paralysis. I ran a campaign following this adventure using RQ6 - and an adventure within Book of Quests - and these players utilized similar strategies and the same group of SE's. And they did very well against the challenges they faced, again. Other gaming groups may have other tendencies - but those leveraging some aspect of player-skill will probably latch on to those SEs which prove to be most efficient tactically. I'd agree that it is great to have options available, and sound rules for the resolution of these options. Personally, SEs did not work that well for me, and I don't find them to be the godsend of cinematic combat resolution that many profess them to be. If they work well for you, stellar.

When I ran MRQ2 a few years back (mixing in rules from an early version of RQ6), there seemed to be little agony of choice taking place. Players would use the same, favorite Special Effects over and over again, because they found them the most effective - damn cinematic variety. It was always a mix of Choose Location (head), Bypass Armour, and Maximize Damage. It became rather tiresome, but it was always an effective strategy that lead to their success in many combats. You might blame unimaginative players, who didn't leverage the cinematic creativity and choices that Special Effect offers. But I guess they had the creativity to find the most effective tactical strategy open to them. Choice was focused, and it lead to rather boring and redundant combat, and soured me on Special Effects. Sounds a bit like Elric!/Stormbringer major wound and fumble tables, minus a hit locations table. More abstract and less complex, but they add some 'flavor' into combat beyond hits and damage. They're my preferred approach these days.

Sounds pretty damn unimaginative.

Definitely. Please continue. It's great to see the thought process behind this new version. And it's nice to see Chaosium draw upon the wealth of BRP rules that have been produced over the decades, cherry-picking the best parts for this new RuneQuest.

I think it's how I described above, where I quoted the Elric! core book. But, with @Aramone's comment I've been re-reading Elric's demon summoning section in case I was in error. Think I'm still right. INT-space appear to be per-demon, whether lesser or greater demon. You're just dishing out more magic points for a tougher demon. Less restrictive than MW's version, but still not easy (when you take into account the massive magic point requirements, and the POW sacrifice for binding the demon).

Advanced Sorcery's demon summoning is based off of Elric!/Stormbringer's, if I remember correctly. Per Elric!, page 73: If that's the right source, then I would say that each bound demon counts as 1 point of INT for the limit. Greater demons just require a ton more magic points to summon - they don't appear to take up more INT-space. To do that, you need some kind of magic-point-reserve (like a Brazier of Power) or have a number of people helping you out (using a spell like Chain of Being).

Agreed. I prefer the Aimed Blows (optional) rule in RQ2 over the RQ3 version. (The first option on page 113 of the 'classic' RQ2 pdf; the second option looks identical to RQ3's).

Strike Ranks have always made perfect sense to me, and for the players that I've introduced them to. I prefer them to the (very boring) d10+[value], and a little bit more than DEX determining initiative order. I think that they're a very intuitive mechanic - pretty much the best initiative mechanic I know of.

Still not available? That's a bummer. Where's that doomedpc guy? Paging @doomedpc, how about an update for those wanting to give you cash for a hardcopy of DS2e?

At most, one rulebook and potentially one GM screen are brought to the gaming table. I typically work from one rules framework, and import subsystems from other BRP systems. I bring the core book from the framework and I have printed notes for the framework and subsystems. These system cheat sheets include details on task resolution, chargen, combat, and any subsystem that would be appropriate. For example, I'm working on Hyperborean fantasy campaign that is using Elric! for its framework, and includes subsystems taken from RQ3 (strike ranks and training), and from Corum and the Bronze Grimoire (magic). The Elric! core, its GM screen, and my cheat sheets would be what I'd have on-hand for game sessions.

Dang it. You got my hopes up. Yeah, that's the first edition. This is the DTRPG page for the second edition, and pdf is the only option that's currently available.

RpgGeek might be a good resource for that. I just stumbled upon it, and it looks like it provides some breakdown of articles based on issue.

Even closer to 'home', RQ3 (Avalon Hill) had characteristic adjustments for human women in the Monsters book. The adjustments were intended for NPCs, and I recall a comment in the text that female PCs were considered to more heroic (or something like that) and had characteristics generated the same as a male. I don't recall if there was rockiness back then over those rules.

I'm open to whatever my players prefer. Whether they want to generate characteristics before coming up with a concept, or assign characteristics to fit a pre-conceived concept, it's all good for me, as Keeper. I like random generation as well, but I tend to be a Keeper more than a player.

Not too hard to find d20s numbered 0-9 through online sources. I've got a few of them but don't really use them much for d100 play. Standard d10s work well enough for me. Somewhere I've got one of those d10-inside-a-big-clear-plastic-d10, but that thing rolls like hell.

I've used a number of house rules over the years. Some I've played around for a while and discarded, and others I've kept. Alternate Aging rules that were based off of Mongoose's RuneQuest II. More detailed than standard CoC but nowhere near as punishing as CoC7e. Roll-and-assign characteristics (with characteristics of the same die type, 3d6, 2d6+6). Combining Occupation Skill points and Personal Interest Skill points together into one lump total. (Which was something suggested in the core or a supplement for Delta Green). Keeper rolls all social, perception, and stealth skills for the investigator and describes the result. Ditching the 'reaching 90% in a skill results in a sanity point gain' rule. Combining Fist, Headbutt, and Kick into a single Brawling skill that deals d3 damage. There have been others that have included optional rules from the BRP Gold book. I've also done serious kit-bashing of systems like MRQII and CoC for some campaigns.

Worlds of Cthulhu, issue 2, had a Mythos-in-Space scenario called "The Icarus Project". It was for 6th edition, though, and the magazine is out-of-print. Here are details on the scenario; spoilers/Keeper-info included!

What exactly is "Spiral Magic"?

Niche protection makes me think of archetypes which leads me right in the direction of rigid classes. Defined roles that excel at one gameplay feature better than any other role. Perhaps a comfortable playstyle for some, but a straight-jacket for those that enjoy BRP games. BRP/RQ as a system has rejected archetypes since its beginnings as a system, allowing the player to develop their character in a more natural and realistic(*) fashion. Characters are differentiated by either their cultural and occupational background (which in some versions of BRP defines starting skill levels) to start, and then by how their skills develop through play (Experience Checks or Improvement Points) or through training. Few versions of BRP have used advantages/disadvantages or perks/flaws. BRP characters are often differentiated through more than just a handful of skill points, and have the freedom to evolve in whichever direction their player chooses. More wide-open choices than are offered by classes, or even multi-classing. If your players are happier with their characters having their own archetypical "thing" then maybe D&D, Vampire, and Savage Worlds are just better options for them, and BRP won't work for them. BRP doesn't work for everyone, clearly. * - I hate to use the term realistic when it comes to fantasy games. Perhaps verisimilitudinous or natural is a better way to phrase it. BRP characters are a simulation of a character, and that character's development, within a game world. That is the real advantage of BRP - a strong emphasis on a simulationist style of play - a style that I've only seen equaled by GURPS. D&D/Vampire/Savage Worlds, IMO, can't even come close to touching that playstyle, because they're geared towards the high-powered, the super-heroic, the anti-verisimilitudinous.