K Peterson

On 12/14/2015 at 8:54 AM, Aycorn said:

Manly Wade Wellman even wrote a tongue-in-cheek tale where pages from The Necronomicon attack the reader.

I'm reminded of Army of Darkness, where Ash is bitten, buffeted, and nearly consumed by a flying Necronomicon. 

Got a transcription of the recording, by chance? I don't have the time to sit through an hour-long podcast to find the golden nuggets. Generally, I find most gaming podcasts to be too long, poorly-paced/rambling, and boring to be worth the effort. 

Quote

So, how do you want to play in the Dreamlands? And which dreamlands? 

Tough question. Even though I've played CoC for decades, I've never run it set within the Dreamlands, and I'm not sure if I ever will. There's always been more appeal for me to run it during the Classic era, or Gaslight, or the Modern era - or, really, any historical era rather than in the enigmatic Dreamlands.

If I do get around to running it, I'd prefer to run it in a rather dark and sinister fashion as portrayed by Pagan Publishing's Realm of Shadows and Arc Dream's Sense of the Sleight of Hand Man. Exotic, surreal, dangerous. Not pulp adventures in a fantasy world.

12 hours ago, Sunwolfe said:

Rooting about in my "house-rule" ben, I uncovered an odd HR for experience checks that I'd forgotten. The only way a PC could earn a skill check--or tick in the box--was if he/she rolled a crit when using the skill. This slowed progression down significantly as I recall, but my players never complained. 

That's a pretty conservative approach. Did your players leverage training rules during their characters' downtime? And if so, was training house-ruled to slow its rate of progression, too?

Quote

Also, players always waited for me to give them the green light to roll skill-checks regardless of tick box checks.

Do your players automatically get to roll for skill-checks after each successful use of a skill or do you regulate when they can or can't roll for improvements in some way?

Personally-speaking, if the skill roll is in the context of a stressful situation where consequences and randomness are risks, then I'm perfectly fine with a check being awarded for the skill. If the action is routine then no check is awarded; and in many cases, no roll is made if the character has at least some appropriate % of skill.

However, I don't go for rolls-for-checks after every session of play. For me, they occur at an appropriate break in the action/quest/adventure - a period of downtime and reflection. Usually every few sessions. By then, the characters will have a number of skills checked, instead of onesie-twosie-ing advancement. The rate of advancement is slowed some, especially for weapon skills.

14 hours ago, rsanford said:

Thanks! I am thinking about running this as part of a gritty magic world game I'm running.

I'd think that it'd work really well as an old school, Warhammer FRPG adventure.

1 hour ago, doomedpc said:

Apologies for the delay in responding - I've been on holiday (and returned home to power cuts and flooding! I sense occult forces at work, as it has been the worst rainfall in Lancaster for 1000 years or somesuch drivel). Anyhoo, the CotMP should slip in to a DS campaign as either an away mission for the Adventurers or as the beginnings of a campaign in its own right - but as it stands, Part Two of the Terror of the Toad is not complete.

Thanks!

Well, I'll summarize because I don't want to give away any spoilers, and because I haven't studied the adventure in great detail.

Basically, the Bow Street Runners (PCs) are asked to assist on a raid of a high-class brothel in London. This turns up clues that lead to an investigation which involves some powerful and wealthy NPCs. The investigation can then involve a trip to a hamlet on the outskirts of London where very bad things are happening. Queue the cultists, the human sacrifice, and a few Mythos beasties.

I need to sit down and give Hellfire another read-through. The ending left me thinking, I see a bloody end to some PCs in this adventure.

Alright, well I guess I'll take a gamble and pick up Missing Prof sight-unseen.

I am still curious whether there are other parts of Terror of the Toad in the works.

5 minutes ago, smjn said:

Whatever you call it, the phenomenon does exist. Just saying it doesn't does not make it so. I have withnessed it myself several times.

I agree; it does exist. I've had a player pull it on me once. And I gave him a look that expressed knock it off, and that was that. If he'd pushed it, I would have said, "stop being ridiculous", and thrown a few Cheetos at him.

Quote

Just because the GM may say something like this doesn't mean some people will no try. And even the strictest GM may let it slide on occasion. Players are slippery devils.

It's blatantly obvious when someone tries this. If they keep trying it, and don't like to be told to knock it off, then I'd question their motivations for playing - power fantasy wish fulfillment at the expense of others? And I'd talk with them about it, and if we couldn't come to an agreement, I likely wouldn't play with them anymore. Most people I've played with are far more reasonable and personable than this, but I've met a few odd-duck gamers that I haven't gotten along with and stopped playing with.

1 hour ago, smjn said:

Inciting rebellion in his home town he may attrach the attention and ire of the local nobles he's trying to undermine, therefore he's taking a much larger risk than the thief who's keeping to the shadows and never seen. But even when the bard is just chatting up people in bar to get some information, if he fails his Human Lore he may insult people in a way that escalates into something he is unable to deal with. And for Human Lore he doesn't even get a tick even if he succeeds...

If that outcome is the result of a single failed Fast Talk roll, instead of a concerted series of Fast Talk, Orate, Sing, Play Instrument, Human Lore, then .... wow. From my perspective, and using your example, undermining the local nobles would require a heck of a lot of effort, coordinating with a lot of parties, if that's the bard's goal. Fast Talking one or two people (the limit of the skill's effectiveness), is not going to be enough to do it for him, IMO. Orating to groups of people, singing, dancing, Fast Talking a few people if there are some poor reactions. We lead to a similar situation where the bard has the potential for many Experience Checks. Potentially as many as our thief. That dirty, tick-hunting bard.

And, if things go sideways in a conversation, and the city guard are called, the bard could, again, be rolling against a number of 'thiefy' skills to evade/fight-off pursuers.

I don't disagree with you about the Lore skills. I think that they should have the option to increase through experience. But, if our bard-revolutionary is trying to upset the local government, he should be training the hell out of his Human Lore if he wants a chance of success.

I've used Improvement Rolls/Experience Rolls before, years ago, and in the past I've considered them a reasonable mechanic. Nowadays, I wouldn't use them because they don't really serve the way I prefer to play.

Quote

Per RQ6, page 109:

It is recommended that all characters be given the same number of Experience Rolls, which helps maintain fairness and parity in character progression...

RQ6 presents them as a kind of everyone gets a cookie reward, IMO. "Fairness" and "Parity", so the players don't get jealous (essentially), rather than more risk = more reward. And I prefer to play the latter way.

6 hours ago, smjn said:

I don't think its a very good simulation that people don't get better in things that they do day-to-day but instead only in stuff they perform under pressure.

That's why, IMO, training rules exist. Day-to-day skills are acquired through "training", in a sense. (Lots of) time is devoted to the activity; "teachers" (peers) can provide instruction. You get good at day-to-day skills through repetition and observation, not by taking great risks. And taking great risks is what leads to growth through Experience Checks.

5 hours ago, smjn said:

This is a great problem in RQ3 because the way skills are spread out and tick-boxes handled. So the thief who is sneaking around is getting a check in several skills (sneaking, hiding, climbing, jumping, throwing) while the bard who does a lot more by influencing people only gets a check in Fast Talk while not in Human Lore, which is a Knowledge skill without a check-box.

In this example, the thief is taking far more risk and potentially reaping a greater reward in term of experience than the bard who's intention is far more focused. And these are risks, in my opinion.

If you work from the premise that skill rolls are required in situations of pressure, risk, or randomness, and not for any simple action; and that Experience Checks can result in this case; then the thief exposes himself to a lot of danger by attempting a number of actions. With each skill roll, the result of failure (or fumble) can be life-threatening, lead to injury, or lead to situations that can be life-threatening. Fail/fumble a Climb roll and you're falling a distance and getting seriously injured or squished. Fail/fumble your sneaky skills and you're detected by the tower guards and possibly impaled by a few spears? Fail/fumble a jump roll and you don't clear the gap between buildings, fall, and ... ouch. Fail/fumble throwing a rock/dagger at a target/guard and someone raises the alarm or attacks you.

What's the risk of failure for the bard? A grumbling crowd, and some thrown apples? Developing some enemies? Getting chased out of town by a disgruntled mob? (Which could lead to other skill checks, like jumping, climbing, hiding, sneaking, listening, scanning, throwing, weapon skills). The bard could get more in-game value from using Fast Talk (though I'd wonder why he wouldn't be using Orate, or Sing, or Playing and Instrument) but he's at less risk, and deserves less reward in terms of personal development. 

5 hours ago, Jeff said:

RQ2 is that foundational document. We are then building up from RQ2, incorporating concepts learned from RQ3, RQ6, Pendragon Pass, Call of Cthulhu, Ringworld, the Epic System, and the RQ Dragon Pass campaign (what? haven't heard of the last two? That's because they were never published!). 

That's an interesting mix of additions. To pick out one in particular: I'm curious what aspect of Ringworld's system is being brought to the party. The Mass characteristic? Research rules? Is there anything else it brought to BRP that's noteworthy?

Quote

RuneQuest incorporates many elements of RQ6 ...[snip]... while keeping the rhythm of RQ2 combat.

Smells like traditional Strike Ranks. That's a nice smell.

3 minutes ago, Mankcam said:

Yes that's certainly true, but in practice this can be hard to manage, depending upon the troupe.

I disagree that it's hard to manage. These expectations can be set before the first session begins; before the first skill rolls are made. Personally, I don't find it controlling or domineering - setting expectations and conveying them effectively is just another responsibility of the GM.

If players are that distressed by these decisions - or so entitled to get their reward/cookie - it's more a clear sign to me, personally, that I probably won't enjoy running games for them.

Tick-hunting/Tock-chase is only a problem if the GM/Keeper lets it become a problem. In many BRP rules sets, it's at the GM/Keeper's discretion when experience checks are awarded and when rolls are made for skill improvement.

15 minutes ago, Steve said:

There are a lot of "Chinese whispers" going on here, which is not an unusual thing on the web, of course. Jeff only said a couple of sentences about the new CRQ and all hell has broken loose in some quarters.

I hope Chaosium/Moon Design come forward on these forums and clarify things. They've expressed a desire to engage with their customers more openly than the last Chaosium regime, and it seems more prudent to make these comments on Chaosium's "official forums" rather than at conventions, which can fire up the rumor mill if some of the facts get clouded.

56 minutes ago, Akrasia said:

You don't find the combat system, and specifically its use of "special effects," innovative?

Personally, I find RQ6's combat system to be decisively superior to all others.  (Not that I want a detailed combat system in all of my games, e.g. CoC, but if I do want one, RQ6 wins hands down.)

I'll retract that part of my comments. By pure dictionary definition, it is innovative.

But, "decisively superior"? Nope, not for me. It holds some advantages (which you clearly appreciate), and it has some disadvantages; it's just another game mechanic that has well-designed features and design flaws, in my opinion. Much like other combat rule innovations that have come out since RQ1/2.

51 minutes ago, Akrasia said:

Now I could see Chaosium opting to use the Call of Cthulhu 7th edition rules as its base for BRP and the new re-Glorantha-ized RQ (even though it's not as good a system as RQ6, and has been somewhat controversial amongst longtime CoC players). That would at least 'unify' all their RPGs under one system. But what they're doing instead is baffling.

I feared that Chaosium would take that approach after the release of 7e - because, selfishly, I believe it's the worst edition of CoC, and one of the worst representations of the BRP system. But instead, they don't seem to be making any attempt at unification, leaving each known property as its own entity. Which I consider to be a little weird. Both variants of BRP are quite different - and you'd expect that they'd want to have a similar framework or mechanical starting-point for their game lines to share, to cross-pollinate new gamers between their lines - but perhaps that's what they want: to highlight the differences?

Perhaps - again selfishly - when the time comes due for CoC 8e, they'll round-file 7e and re-align CoC along the "New"-RQ2 framework.

43 minutes ago, Baulderstone said:

It does make the current RQ 2 Kickstarter seem a little odd. When the plan was to come out with an RQ6-based version next year, I could see the logic in giving people a chance to get a look at RQ2. Now, however, it seems they are currently selling a cleaned up version of RQ2 this year, and plan to sell and even more cleaned up version to us again next year. 

Agreed. It puts a RQ2 Kickstarter backer - like myself - in an odd situation. I'm already shelling out cash for the classic RQ2; will the "New"-RQ2 be worth it for me to purchase and use instead of classic? Is classic meant to appeal to the crusty grognard-collectors, and NRQ2 marketed towards a newer and younger fan-base? What's my motivation - or an older-gamer, or Kickstarter backer's motivation - to purchase NRQ2?

Personally, I find RQ6 to be serviceable, much like its predecessor, MRQ2. But, I don't find it any more advanced/modern/innovative than any other RQ or BRP version that's been released over the years, and not essential to my enjoyment of Glorantha. I'm glad that the Design Mechanism can continue on with their rebranded system and produce excellent-quality supplements.

Has anyone played through this adventure, or read any reviews of it? Any good?

I've got a copy of Hellfire, which is quite a brutal adventure - and I'm curious how the Missing Prof compares to it. Would it make a good start to Dark Streets campaign?

From its DTRPG page, I see that it's part 1 of the "Terror of the Toad" campaign. Have any other parts been released, or are there any release dates for when the followups are expected?

On 9/17/2015, 10:18:18, doomedpc said:

If you want a hardback with a free PDF, it'll be available in stores and on the Drivethru website - the hardback of Dark Streets 2nd Ed will be out soon.

Is the hardback closer to being released? What's the current timeline - still before Xmas?

I would like to play RQ2 with the reprints, but competition from other BRP-based Rpgs (CoC and CoC-variants, like Dark Streets) will probably monopolize my gaming time. I haven't run anything-fantasy for a few years now, and generally don't run fantasy Rpgs often. 

If/when I get around to running fantasy again it would be a tossup between Elric! and RQ2. Elric! would fit the bill for anything Dark Fantasy / Sword & Sorcery themed. And if I ran RQ2, it would be set in Glorantha... but much more of a scaled-down, interpreted MyGlorantha than using the loads upon loads upon loads of details that exist for the setting.

I have no desire to run RuneQuest with any other edition. I've admired RQ3 for years; played quite a bit of MRQ2 years ago; and tip my cap to RQ6. But I wouldn't run any of them now. My interests, and my game-mechanics-needs are elsewhere.

Thanks, the quotes cover any further questions I had. There are definitely some tempting additions - a fully detailed setting, scenarios, a player's guide. The rules upgrade is valueless to me. Perhaps I'll grab CDA 2e if the pdf is affordable, when it's available.

Actually, I do have one question: how does the page count of 2e compare with 1e? The quotes mention changes and additions, but also the fact that CDA is now a supplement instead of standalone. Is the page count a wash, or has it increased?

Going from memory and a few glances at TSotSoHM:

The campaign is very site-based, with the dreamers arriving at Sarkomand and potentially traveling to a number of cities and locations in the Dreamlands. The Underworld, Inquanok, Lhosk, Ilek-Vad, Sarnath, Ulthar are all locations that dreamers can pass through as they try to find a way back to Earth. Each location is described within a separate chapter, and while they aren't given exhaustive detail, they do provide some more perspective on the locations.

The 3rd chapter of the book provides some alternate rules for investigators in the Dreamlands, alternates from those in the H.P. Lovecraft's Dreamlands core book.

On 11/18/2015, 12:41:07, cjbowser said:

I will admit that I'm a big fan of CAS and some of the themes and tones of his work made it into CDA 2nd.

Sorry to take this off-topic... but, is CDA 2nd edition available anywhere? Doesn't seem to be listed on Chaosium's site or Drive-Thru Rpg.

Also, how does CDA-2 compare with CDA-1 in terms of content? I own a pdf of CDA-1 so I'm curious if there's any value to "upgrading".

I ran "The Edge of Darkness" last month for two players, and we easily completed it within a 4-hour session. (I think it took about 3 hours). A good time was had by all.

The scenario itself doesn't have pregens, but depending on the edition of CoC you're using, the core book should have some pregens that you can utilize.

Well, here's what I hope will be constructive criticism...

I ran a Call of Cthulhu Western campaign about 4 years ago, and pulled Wild West firearm rules (including fanning) from a number of different sources. The magazine, Worlds of Cthulhu, issue 2; Chaosium's Devil's Gulch, and just the 6th edition of Call of Cthulhu.

Fanning, mechanically, was similar to an Unaimed Shot in Call of Cthulhu, where RoF was doubled but accuracy was significantly reduced (to 1/4 or 1/5 of skill level). There wasn't a suppression-like affect (which is what you seem to be modelling) but there was some extra lead in the air that could be directed in an arc towards multiple targets.

Nowadays, I'd likely just grab the Investigator Weapons books, produced by SixtyStone Press, and utilize their firearm mechanics to cover just about everything. 

To answer your questions:

• I don't think -25% is a big enough penalty for the shooter. I prefer a fraction of skill level as opposed to a flat penalty.
• I don't think that targets should be at much risk of being intimidated (suppressed) in the case of a fanning attack from a revolver, even if your RoF is 6. Or if there is a risk of suppression it's because the target has a low POW. Any targets that survive the fanning attack will likely realize that the shooter no longer has a loaded weapon, too...
• I also don't think that the shooter's POW should be used if you are allowing 'intimidation' as an added effect, because I don't think it has anything to do with the situation. Investigator Weapons, vol 2, does use a contest with the Resistance Table against the target's POW - but it's the RoF of which is the "active characteristic".