Stan Shinn

Very interesting! I'll check it out, thanks!

I'm definitely going to pick up Samurai of Legend! I didn't know it existed until you mentioned it. It has the benefit of still being a live product, you can buy PDF or hardcopies of both Legend and Samurai of Legend (unlike LoN which is out of print and expensive on the second hand market; I have a copy but players need a way to get to the rules).

Thanks everyone so much for all these insightful answers! My campaign is a few months away, but I will spend these months in advance looking over the rules and doing some prep work. I will also mine the old Bushido game for random tables and such. The campaign I plan will get firmed up in a Session 0 (getting feedback from the players), but right now my thought is to either set it in the 11th century or the 18th century. I'll need to read up on the two eras to better understand which would be better. I'm reading through Lone Wolf and Cub and love those gritty storylines. For anyone interested, here is the sketch of my campaign, flagged as a spoiler in case my players ever come here. The Path of Meifumado Campaign -- Stan

I have a copy of the 'Land of Ninja' box set that was published during the Runequest 3rd Edition era. It's basically the old Bushido fantasy-Japan setting but updated with d100 rules. Is anyone familiar enough with Runequest 3rd Edition and/or Land of Ninja to help me know if the latest edition of BRP (BRUGE technically, but I still think of the old acronym) is a good fit to run Land of Ninja? Glancing through the Land of Ninja materials it seems like BRP and using the optional hit point locations rules would do the trick. But were there any Runequest 3e rules that are materially different than BRP? Land of Ninja has it's own magic system so any quirks with Runequest 3e magic might not apply.. (Side note: this is what the Land of Ninja box set looks like in case you're interested: https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/publishers/avalon-hill/land-of-ninja-rq3-box-07/)

Ah, thank you so much @Questbird!!! I couldn't seem to find it in the index and I was looking at the Shield's table, and I forgot that shields work differently than armor because of the Parry rules. Anyway, thank you!

I believe in the 1st edition Stormbringer rules armor had a die rating (e.g. d4), and when attacked, you'd roll the die to see the amount of hit points the armor soaked for that attack. I can't seem to find those as optional rules in the new BRUGE SRD; is that in there? Or are those rules published elsewhere besides 1st edition Stormbringer?

Let's say you make your statement of intent that you are going to attack enemy #1. Then, as you resolve actions, enemy #1 dies before you get to attack them, but enemy #2 is within reach. Would you rule that: (1) The PC's original target is down so you lose your attack. or (2) The PC can use their 'attack action' to attack enemy #2, or any enemy with reach. or something else? -- Stan

Thanks for the tip!

Great advice -- thank you!

What are some good options for a published Pendragon adventure that would reasonably conclude after four hours of play? I'm new to Pendragon and not sure how long the new starter set adventure would take to run.

Posted a new version of my 'Alliance' QuestWorlds game. Aside from numerous edits, I've added a character sheet and sample pregen. Full release details are here: https://roguecomet.itch.io/alliance/devlog/619733/beta-update-and-new-character-sheets

Here's a rewrite -- does this wording make sense? "If the result is a Tie, look at the number on your dice roll compared to the opposition. Ignore any modifiers since those are applied to your ability target number, not the roll itself. The higher roll gains +1 success to break the tie. Ties don’t earn XP. Player roll is higher = Victory at a Price, (1 success, but suffer a consequence) Player roll is lower = Defeat with a Boon (0 successes, opposition gains +1 success, choose either 1 benefit to self or 1 consequence to the enemy) Rolls are tied = Inconclusive Standoff (0 successes, neither side gets what they want)."

There's probably a better way to phrase it, but what I'm getting at is if you roll a 12 with a +3 modifier (from a benefit or augment) to your 'Weaponmaster 13' ability, your 'natural roll' is a 12, so that's what you would use to adjudicate ties if you got the same number of successes as the opposition. Basically I was trying to clear up that you use the result of the d20 roll (a 12 in this case), and ignore modifiers (which should logically be applied to your ability, not the roll, but I know I've seen times where people use that +3 to subtract from the roll instead of adding to the ability). Anyway, your question means I need to reword this. Thanks for your feedback!

My first QuestWorlds product is now live! Alliance is a science fiction game that lets you play in settings inspired by Firefly, Blake's 7, and Cowboy Bebop. It's in beta, and until it's finished you can get it for free. I'd love any feedback you may have. Download it here: https://roguecomet.itch.io/alliance

I really do like the 'three strikes and you're out' approach; there should be a known point at which you're 'taken out'. -- Stan

@jajagappa, this was amazingly helpful! Thank you!

So let's say you have a group contest with three PCs in a fight with a mob of evil henchmen. I guess I'm confused what you do with ties in a group contest where the overall contest is decided but adding up the successes on each side. Let's say Player A gets 1 success (and resistance gets 0 successes), so a result of 1 success for this PC and 0 successes for the opposition. Then Player B rolls 0 successes (and resistance gets 1 success), so a result of 0 successes for this PC and 1 success for the opposition. Then Player C is using an ability rated at 13 and they roll a 9, so one success. Resistance has target number 10 and rolls a 1, also one success. Would Player A then end up with two successes since it is a tie but the PC rolled higher? Not factoring in the tie for Player C's roll, you'd have 2 successes for the PCs and 2 successes for the opposition, a tie. So does the Player C tied roll count as 2 successes in which case the PCs side wins the contest?

In simple contests, you resolve ties by the higher roll getting the victory. Does this also apply to Group Contests and rolls in Sequences? Here's the QuestWorlds SRD rule for Contests and ties: "2.3.7 Outcome ... If you both have the same number successes, including if you both have zero successes, then the higher roll has a victory and gains the prize. If your rolls tie, then there is a standoff with neither side able to take control of the prize."

My understanding is that so long as you are clear on what license covers what, you can mix many of the open licenses, e.g. "Chapter One is BRUGE ORC licensed, and Chapter Two is OGL open content." But I am not an attorney 🙂

I'm gearing up for a Firefly QuestWorlds game for a convention in the fall, and I like the idea of a ship having its own abilities and flaws. The Serenity in Firefly and the Enterprise in Star Trek are both examples where I feel like the ship deserves special attention. I am considering a simplified stat block for ships with fewer abilities than characters. Here's an example: I am conflicted about how you'd roll for the ship and also roll for the character operating the ship. One idea is to roll for the ship's ability and use the PC's skill as an augment. Or you could do the reverse. But since augments aren't rolled, it would remove the benefit of one or the other of the stat blocks rated since you don't roll for augments. Another approach is to have the ship's abilities not be rated, and they would only be used as an automatic augment when it made narrative sense. Yet another idea is to re-introduce the mechanic from prior editions of having to roll to see if the augment happens. Any thoughts on how to approach all this? Thanks in advance!

I've used (and written) various mass combat systems through the years, but in the end, in most cases, I've found the simplest and most satisfying thing is to simply zoom in to a skirmish battle (a small part of the overall battle) and have the PCs play through that, with the rest of the battle being a purely narrative thing. Ideally having the PC's actions being the key to winning or losing. So what I would do is have all the PCs be part of Luke's squadron, and all the gameplay and dice rolling is about what's happening to those particular x-wings. All the other squadrons an action would be off-camera and narrative. There is no 'right way' to approach these things, but this is what I usually do these days given my personal GM style.

Over on RPG.net, @Ian Cooper had summarized QuestWorlds as follows: Is "If you tie for successes (including zero) high-roll wins" only applicable for a simple contest (one PC rolling) but ignored in Group Contests? Consider the following: 3 PCs are having a group contest. The rolls come out as: PC #1 gets zero successes and the opposition has zero successes (but the PC has the higher roll) PC #2 gets zero successes and the opposition has zero successes (but the PC has the higher roll) PC #3 has the opposition getting 1 success versus PC #3's zero successes (but the PC has the higher roll) If you're simply going off of total successes, then the opposition would win (1 net success vs. 0 for the PCs). If the phrase "If you tie for successes (including zero) high-roll wins" applies then it seems that the PCs would win (since PC #1 and PC#2 would have both won their individual contests). My guess is that "If you tie for successes (including zero) high-roll wins" is only referring to simple contests where only 1 PC is rolling. Thoughts? Am I missing anything in my understanding?

@David Scott, I love this approach! Sounds like you've been in a campaign like this? How did it go?

I was looking at West End Games Star Wars (the beloved 1st edition), and it made me wonder how hard it would be to convert it to a QuestWorlds game. It seems to me like you could take the WEG Star Wars character sheet, convert the abilities like DEXTERITY and PERCEPTION to Keywords, and convert all the skills underneath the abilities to Breakouts. You'd need to tweak the math on doing CharGen, but in theory, wouldn't that work? As for Jedi, it seems to me like you'd want a 'Jedi' Keyword, and maybe somewhere you map out what powers are associated with Control / Alter / Sense, and Control / Alter / Sense would be breakouts. Alternatively, you could ignore the Control / Alter / Sense structure and just out every Jedi power as a breakout. Anyway, if anyone has any advice or opinions on this I'd love to hear it! I know you could always do a free-form ability approach, but I'm intrigued by the idea of using these skill lists. -- Stan

I find forms for tracking things like Sequences, consequences, and benefits to be helpful. Here's the beta version of what I plan to use in my games. Let me know of any feedback! Here is the online Google Doc source file: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PyOyXHyo70SF_x_WX7ySx50MEwgemxNC9N-Gmc2TyQw/edit?usp=sharing And a PDF version is also attached. Cheers! QuestWorlds Sequence Tracker.pdf