lawrence.whitaker

Is there a reason why this discussion is in the Mythras section? If it's just a general discussion of dystopian SF, then perhaps Alastor's Skull Inn is better? If there's a connection with, say, Luther Arkwright, or After the Vampire Wars, then by all means continue...

All changes are since the second printing.

The background was completely rewritten, vastly expanding the descriptions of Tragic Millennium Europe. The original game was severely lacking in such detail. I also wrote the game to be compatible with BRP/Elric! Although it's largely stat-free.

We have updated the Mythras Core Rules (TDM110 Mythras 3rd Printing Interactive 301018) with outstanding errata and a few tweaks and clarifications to both rules and layout. A full list of the text changes is included in the PDF, pages 306 to 308. If you would like a print version of the updated rules, we are also making the book available as a hardcover POD option through DrivethruRPG/OneBookShelf, and this will be active very soon. A separate message will be sent once the POD version is ready. A softcover edition is already available from our Lulu Store: http://www.lulu.com/shop/pete-nash-and-lawrence-whitaker/mythras/paperback/product-23853955.html How to download your updated PDF If you’ve bought Mythras from us via the TDM webstore, our Lulu store, or DrivethruRPG, then you are entitled to the PDF free of charge. If you bought your copy via Aeon Games, then they will make their own arrangements for the updated PDF. TDM Webstore Select Store from the navigation bar Sign into your Account from the Store page Click on ‘Your Account’ (top right hand section of the category listings) Click on the Orders Tab The products you’ve ordered appear here, along with links to the PDFs for each book ordered from us. Find your Mythras order, and click on the link for TDM110 Mythras 3rd Printing Interactive 301018. Your download should start automatically. DrivethruRPG You should received an email notifying you of the change to Mythras, along with a link to the product in your OneBookShelf library. Lulu POD If you are a Lulu customer buying the softcover, please email us at , including a copy of your Lulu receipt, and we will send you a discount code to redeem the PDF from our web store. Mythras 3rd Printing Changes List.pdf

Empires will handle it at the domain level. If you're looking for something Feudal/medieval, there are a couple of very good Pendragon supplements that also work well.

While the underlying mechanics are similar, they are designed to handle things at very different scales.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/254891/Mythras-GM-Screen Designed to be used with the 'World's Greatest Screen' (landscape format), the Mythras GM Screen contains 16 11x8.5" cards featuring artwork and essential tables from the Mythras core rules. Seven of the cards feature cover artwork from Mythras titles and are player-facing, while the remainder contain the tables and charts that GMs can insert on their side of the screen according to play needs. Don't need the Theism charts this session, but you do need travel tables? Simply insert the Travel & Environment card along with three others that will be needed for play. The set even includes a duplicate, player-facing copy of the Special Effects list. This is an essential addition for any Mythras Games Master, and the 'World's Greatest Screen' offers excellent durability and flexibility. We'd encourage you to buy the print option, which gives you the insert cards on high quality, durable stock, but you can of course, download the PDF to print your own if you wish. You can also add-in 'The World's Greatest Screen' if you don't have one - and we encourage that too. Contents: 7 x Player-Facing Art Inserts 9 x GM-Facing Inserts (Skills & Game Reference, Fatigue, Armour & Protection, Environment & Travel, Melee/Range Weapons, Natural Weapons, Combat Charts, Special Effects, Spirit Magic & Sorcery, Theism) Prices: Card inserts only: $15.99 Add 'The World's Greatest Screen': +$12.00 PDF inserts download: $5.00 (free when ordering the card inserts and/or screen)

It really is very heartening to see something that I first wrote almost 25 years ago still being used today - a great integration between the Unknown East and Old Bone's Mythras adventure. Thank you for sharing!

This is heartbreaking. Greg was truly unique, and I feel honoured and privileged to have been able to count him as a friend.

As Google have announced the demise of G+, a great many folk are migrating to MeWe for their community support. TDM has been there since February, and our group stands at 125 members so far. This isn't bad going, but we want to grow more, so do come and join us! MeWe's group tools are as good as G+, better than Facebook, and has an attractive interface. I want you to join my group on MeWe: https://mewe.com/join/the_design_mechanism We look forward to seeing you there.

Well, arse.

Announcing the Mythras Character Creation Workbook - A set of free tools to aid with character creation. Everything you need for the process in one place: Attribute Calculation summaries; Cultural Skill Packages; the full range of Career Skill options; a handy Skill Allocation worksheet; and the latest character sheet design. http://thedesignmechanism.com/resources/Downloads/Character Creation Workbook.pdf

No, that's not true. RQ6 (pages 425-426, or pages 286-287 of Mythras) deals with grading and balancing combats, along with some extensive guidelines on running combats in general. All the advice in there is applicable to RQG.

Actually, tigers in RQ6/Mythras have a Stealth of 72%, plus the Camouflage ability, which imposes a hefty (two difficulty grades, which effectively halves the Perception skill in normal conditions) penalty on attempting to spot them...

[quotejSo basically, you have no suggestions to make other than those already in the rules? [/quote] I’ve just offered you several very valid suggestions that don’t involve imposing arbitrary mechanics to impede one particular character example (that you suggested). Mythras makes every effort to avoid arbitrary restrictions, penalties and limitations (without very good cause) throughout its mechanics. It’s part of the game’s design philosophy and quite carefully thought through. So, no. If I had such mechanical solutions to offer, they’d be in the rules already. And I think Matt E makes an excellent suggestion; take a look at how Classic Fantasy handles class and race parity there - although you’ll find it’s based on structuring advantages, rather than imposing disadvantages.

Rather than imposing arbitrary (and divisive) mechanical disadvantages on the dragon character, highlight the social and roleplaying implications: 1. How is a 40' dragon going to fit into Ye Olde Tavern to meet the patron? How bored is the dragon player going to be when the characters decide to explore the Grimdark Caverns where everyone of SIZ 13 and over has to crouch? How about the delicate trade negotiations where the dragon has to remain absent because the ambassadors of Grimdark Kingdom are simply terrified of giant fire-breathing reptiles? 2. Everyone for miles around is going to flee when the party shows up, their tame dragon in tow. This is going to make life tough for everyone, no matter how friendly the dragon might be. 3. The sheer amount of food the dragon needs to consume means it will likely be more concerned with feeding than adventuring 4. Those eager to slay a dragon to prove their worth/take vengeance/wear its hide/steal its gold are going to target the party and come up with highly inventive ways of beating the dragon. And the characters. 5. Dragon psychology is most likely quite alien to human psychology, with separate passions and drives. Reinforce those to the hilt. Would a dragon even want to go adventuring? Part of the problem of imposing mechanical restraints to achieve some kind of parity between characters can be difficult to do. It always breaks down at some level, and quite often, the mechanics have to be tailored to the species. You wouldn't apply the same mechanics devised for levelling a dragon to, say, a harpy, or an iqari (side note: Pete played an iqari very successfully in one of my campaigns, and despite the game advantages iqari enjoy, there were plenty of social limitations that meant we didn't need game mechanics to enforce parity in the party), so there's no one-size-fits-all solution. I'd also balk at the Negative Luck Pool idea. Why should my dragon be incredibly unlucky for X% of the time? What, aside from game balance, is the justification for this? Basically, if GMs allow non-human species in their games, and especially highly exotic ones, then you need to accept that they will not be the same as human characters, and trying to engineer balancing mechanisms are likely to become arbitrary and unsatisfactory, the more removed one becomes from the human norm.

On the fence regarding Classic Fantasy? Wondering what it does that other dungeoneering games don't? Take a look at Pookie's review to find out more.. http://rlyehreviews.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-other-osr-classic-fantasy.html

Correct.

The MRQII book is (or should be) clearly labelled MRQII. They MRQ1 version has the convoluted red and black cover with the garish 'RuneQuest' logo.

I think it depends which version. There was the MRQ1 version, which focuses on Empires exclusively, or the MRQII version, which contains an overhauled combat system for warring states, and folds into it the rules for factions. It's the better of the two.

It's a terrific piece of work that crams a great deal into a small space.

The use of 'The Fens' appears in our marketing blurb to help those not overly familiar with this area of Britain, and to help visualise what the Great Mire is like. In the campaign itself, the people of the region call it The Great Mire, or refer to their local settlements, and don't use the word 'fen' at all. To convey the kind of area it is (which is more than just a marshland or extensive bog), the words fen and fenland are the best ways of conveying the impression.

Change the title perhaps, but certainly don't throw away the idea of compatibility, because, as I think has been shown, the compatibility between seemingly disparate rules may be much higher than first realised. If one knows that the least one has to do is multiply a skill's rating by 5, and perhaps add a bonus of some kind, it makes many supplements and adventures much more useful.

Well, in Rolemaster, it's take your skill value, add it to a d100 roll, and if you score 101+, you succeed.The probability of success is no different to rolling under one's skill with d100. Very true. But my point is that, if one wants to specifically exclude certain systems from the d100 compatibility matrix, it involves building in more and more conditions that actually dilutes the original intention. I agree with your earlier point that what's really important is how easy/intuitive it is to pick up say, a Bushido scenario, and run it with the d100 rules of your choice with minimal effort. It always helps to know a little about the system of creation of course, but if you know that the skills in a Rolemaster stat block are essentially %ages, then you can, by and large, wing it well enough. Or multiply the Bushido BCS by 5 to gain the equivalent Mythras skill rating, remembering that Bushido characters add their level, which is on a 1-6 scale, thus conferring a 5% to 30% bonus. What it really comes down to is, with an exercise like this, the moment you make an exception for one system (and even for the best and most legit of reasons, as is the case with Pendragon), then it potentially opens up cases for more and more exceptions, that then require more and more disqualifiers to avoid the sort of situation you'd get by taking the d20/d100/roll under/roll over situation to its logical extremes and finding that D&D and RQ are, in fact, more closely aligned than one might otherwise consider.

Correct. It would. And herein lies the difficulty with trying to create a taxonomy like this. All d100/BRP games have exceptions designed to emulate either the fictional work they represent, or their genre, or something else. You then end-up having to build a very complex set of rules and conditions to accommodate everything comfortably, and, in so doing, find that you're pulling in systems you'd have never considered to be d100 compatible or technically shouldn't be, but, because they fit the bulk of the criteria, somehow find their way in there. Pendragon's a case in point. It's a Chaosium game, and has most of the common d100 elements, but uses a d20 as its resolution mechanism. So, if we want to include it in the d100 grouping, a new exception is created to cover d20 resolution. This pulls in the FGU games, HeroQuest, and probably a whole bunch of other games one might not have considered. And then you get Rolemaster, which has characteristics, skills, crits, fumbles, and uses a d100, but works on a roll over mechanic. Some would argue that the roll over mechanic disqualfies it, but others rightly point out that it's just a reversal of the maths involved; so arguably, it should be in there. And, if you then apply the logic used to include Pendragon, then you could argue that taking a d100 roll-over mechanism and dividing by five gives you a d20 roll-over mechanism. Which just happens to apply to D&D (3rd edition and above), which also has skills, Hit Points, Crits... Essentially, all roleplaying games are related. Mechanics developed for one system are copied, or used as inspiration, or readily lifted, and find their way into games that one might consider to be completely unrelated to the original hypothesis, but, because you've created a whole bunch of exceptions, actually end up qualifying. I'm actually finding it quite interesting as an exercise to see just how inter-related many different systems, by many different creators, really are. But it's a very difficult exercise to keep 'pure'.