SDLeary

Hello all, just a quick note to say that I won't be around that much for the next 18-ish months. I'll be enjoying Afghan cuisine for the nexr six months, then off to historic Baghdad for 12 months.

I just want to say thanks for the good discussions and good gaming...even you aikighost.

Don't delete my profile for at least 3 months.

-STS

Check Six and stay safe.

SDLeary

In another genre, though, the same mechanics can feel overly constraining. Certainly in a Cthulhu or science fiction game, the emphasis is on characters as investigators, explorers, scientists, and other cool-headed types. Another medieval or pre-medieval fantasy game with different premises (say, Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, or Elric) might require little or no mechanics.

Perhaps, but even in the genres you mention they could be fun. Think Mummy (a Cthulhu game) or Flash Gordon (Sci Fi/Sci Fan). You might have cool headed types next to mercenaries and shady slick willy types. But you are right, the game concept of the GM does dictate which mechanics/options are used.

SDLeary

Also, that way around, traits would prevent players doing what they want with their character (when they fail the roll, anyway). That makes character personality into a stick to beat the players with - controlling, not enabling. A classic GM failing.

Character personality should be a good thing, not an obstacle to avoid.

When playing out social situations, you might not make the roll, but that doesn't mean that you fail. The GM might impose a social penalty. Perhaps in your rebuff (or what ever the situation is), you angered one of the persons relatives, and they confront you in public. Perhaps in order to effect your course of action, the GM states that you have to remove yourself from the scene, annoying your lord. Its not that your succumbed to their lusty nature (to continue the example), but that by not acting within their nature, they are more conspicuous to those around them, and may garner additional attention that might initiate other situations in the future.

Is this more work for the GM? Not necessarily more. Mechanically its not much different than combat (roll, succeed, fail, etc), but the results are different, and they do need to think about that. I would assume though, that if they are playing in a game that has social mechanics, or are using the optional rule, that they already understand this.

Having been in a long running Pendragon campaign in the past, I can say that no one playing ever thought (to my recollection) that the mechanics were bad, or the GM think they were hindering.

SDLeary

OK, so not 'only if you go against your nature', then. I knew that wouldn't work - thanks for clarifying.

That makes it a bit intrusive, though - relying on the GM setting up situations specifically to test certain traits. Hard to be even-handed amongst all the possible traits, too, so as not to test just a few favourites and neglect the rest. OK for Pendragon, perhaps, with its particular focus. But for more normal RPG play I think a 'player-driven' system is better, like the one I oulined above.

emphasis mine

You mean such as when you have to use your sword, or when you have to make a spot roll? The GM sets up ALL situations, either through planning or pulling it out of their ass on the spot. Why should using the personality, allegiances, or any other social traits be different? :cool:

But to clarify my previous post. If you are going against your nature, you will probably be required to make a roll, modified by passions/allegiances. If you are the majority who have opposed values that are more middling, you may or may not, GMs call.

SDLeary

Yes, yes, I know the basics of these systems. But what I don't understand is how Greg's stated version would function. The problem is that for traits under, say, 70% the character doesn't have a definite "nature" to go against, so there would be no occasion to roll. That's why I don't see how it would work.

Of course there would be occasion for rolls. Whenever the GM calls for it!

If the GM has a particular situation, then they know the intensity of the "urge" that they are laying out. They call for the rolls, its not an automatic mechanic, like a roll in combat.

As for the spread in the pair values (ie, not a wide spread in some cases), that simply shows that its able to map a wide range of personalities, those that might waffle more in certain situations presented.

SDLeary

They can be useful if not over-used.

But, I'd be very careful about how you use them. Don't roll Personality Traits all the time otherwise they get boring. Don't use them rigidly to change the behaviour of PCs otherwise players will feel that they have no control of the PC. Always treat them as guidelines rather than hard and fast rules.

When you generate them, ask the player how they see their PC and get them to write down the pairs. Then compare the values with how the PC acts in gameplay. So, if a PC has Chaste 50/Lustful 50 and is always sleeping with every peasant or serving girl he can find then the GM should change the values accordingly. However, someone with Chaste 30/Lustful 70 who gets a celibacy geas may well have to roll that pairing to see if he obeys his geas or slips.

Spot On! :thumb:

SDLeary

I don't understand that system, it doesn't seem to work. What percentage is supposed to define someone's "nature"? Chaste/Lustful 49/51 wouldn't be a womanizer, so when would they ever make a roll and get a check?

Pretty straight forward... add the numbers on both sides together, and they equal 100. The higher the number on that side, the more likely you are to follow that course; that course is your nature (Chaste 25/75 Lustful: the character tends to go for it!). If the character makes a decision that goes against that "nature", the GM might call for a roll to see if your character can curb their natural tendencies.

If this is combined with Allegiances/Passions, then perhaps you get a bonus to your roll.

SDLeary

Opposed Personality Traits: A staple of Pendragon, a character has two opposed personality traits, e.g. Lusty and Chaste, or Courageous and Cowardly. If the rating for one trait goes up, its opposed trait will go down, and vice versa. The GM may call for a roll against one or another trait if the player wants his character to do something covered by those traits, e.g. the character must succeed in a Chaste roll to refuse the advances of a beautiful woman.

Any others?

Greg fubared the explanation for these; he admits it. The way its supposed to work is that the roll is only supposed to be made if you go AGAINST your nature. Thus, in the example above, you would only have to make the Chaste roll if you were, say, the castle womanizer, thus going against your "natural instincts". I don't have the book in front of me, but IIRC, your Passions also play into this as modifiers.

Its always been played that way in games that I've played as well. Its not quite the straightjacket that many think it is, and I look forward to subjecting people to it in BRP! >:->

SDLeary

SotC is a fun game, but its much closer to HeroQuest than BRP in flavor. I'm playing in a game now that is an adaption of DnD... introducing the child of a friend into role playing. Its working very well. If you look at Evil Hats wiki, there is even a fan group that is working on a LotR adaption.

Other than the advice given on how to run things, I'm not certain how things could be adapted, even for feats, etc. Unless you want to incorporate fudge dice into your game.

I still maintain that Ki skills from LoN are the best bet for "feats".

SDLeary

That's cool, and I'd have similar 'magical' abilities for great heroes to find/develop in my campaign, though since I don't run Glorantha, they would have nothing to do with 'Heroquesting'.

But what I'm looking for are abilities that transcend simply the mundane pass/fail that skills currently represent, and allow for a non-caster, non-religious characters to excel.

Ki abilities from LoN? They are tied to skills, but the mechanic can give that cool Irish Hero like ability to leap, run fast or forever, and still loose if the opponent is better.

SDLeary

I don't know why you couldn't just use straight POW vs POW, to avoid this problem? It didn't seem to be a problem when we played that way (though, to be fair, we weren't playing Fantasy or magic heavy settings, so I don't know).

If it feels better for you and your group to play it this way, then go ahead and do so. Nothing is really preventing this house rule. Watch out if you do any RQ 3 shaman type characters though. This slight change can make them much more powerful.

SDLeary

Having done all this rereading of old rules sets in preparation for BRP, I realize that my group from back in the day was playing the system (in some aspects) incorrectly.

I've noticed that in RQ at least, Resistance struggles involving magic are MP vs MP rather than Pow vs Pow (which was how we did it in all the other BRP style games we've played, specifically in CoC sorcery).

Now that always seemed to work fine for us. However, I'm wondering how it would have worked if we'd been doing it 'right'.

It can change things up dramatically. Especially if you are in a mixed physical/spiritual combat.

Doesn't MP vs MP lead to spell casters being unable to affect targets as they run out of juice? Even dumb brutes eventually have the edge on the caster, especially if they've buffed any of their friends. That just doesn't seem particularly fair to the caster who already has such a limited resource pool for spell casting.

Is it a problem? Am I overlooking something?

The way this was always explained to me is that it was a built in spiritual/mental fatigue. The more of your own MP you use, the more fatigued you become, the less you are able to focus enough to overcome your opponent.

One of the major reasons MP matrices were so popular, even for low powered casting.

SDLeary

And now that we have these... and "Allegiance"<s>, its time to try and shoehorn the Pendragon magic system in! >:->

SDLeary

Here ya go (these are from the BRP rulesbook, not Pendragon):

Aggressive/Passive

Impulsive/Cautious

Extrovert/Introvert

Optimistic/Pessimistic

Stubborn/Receptive

Physical/Mental

Patient/Nervous

Emotional/Calm

Trusting/Suspicious

Leader/Follower

Greedy/Generous

Energetic/Lazy

Honorable/Dishonorable

Brave/Cowardly

Curious/Incurious

Dependable/Unreliable

Pious/Irreligious

Honest/Dishonest

Clever/Dull

Humorous/Dour

Innovative/Conservative

I think I'd probably go with a Cruel / Merciful and maybe a couple of others too.

Hope that helps!

Cheers,

Sarah

As someone earlier stated, this is as much an issue of setting as it is anything else.

If you are playing in a High Fantasy (generic DnD) setting, where anything is possible, Elves and Dwarves walk down the town streets of the town along with humans, Elder races accepted as equal or superior, etc., then I can see "balance" becoming an issue. In most fantasy worlds though, at least the ones I've played in, this has not been an issue. There are ways the settings can normally take care of this.

In Glorantha, there are elves, and you can play them. If you are out adventuring though, you are broken, an anomaly, shunned by your race. You don't get aid from them. In some extreme cases I've seen, GMs have imposed random illnesses of varying degree as the elf moved away from their forests. Dwarves are much the same; in fact they loose their immortality if they break the tenants of their race. Also, both races numbers pale in comparison to humans, though they have still been able to raise huge armies and march them out in the past.

In Pendragon, this isn't so much an issue as you are all playing humans, but the issue of what to do with The Brick is still handled. There is the Winter Phase, where the game turns from adventuring to Court and family. You go to feasts, dances, try to win ladies favors, build your family, and gain grants of land from your lord. This all in an effort to assure that your progeny will have enough to become a proper knight (and to gain Glory).

Both of these are cultural based solutions in the setting. Family obligations, Lord, etc should all play a part in the interaction of powerful with non-powerful. This should limit the min-maxing of the races to a certain degree.

Other options might be natural predators?

SDLeary

Heh! My copy seems robust. I tested it on a fellow roleplayer by bashing him with it repeatedly about the head until he was unconscious. The book was a little bloodstained but it stood up to the testing and no pages have fallen out yet!:shocked:

You are lucky! Some reports I've heard have people on their third copy! :eek:

SDLeary

OK give me a few months and a couple of hundred sanity rolls!

Oh, and factor in some time for the DBRP rulesbook to reach the shores of Albion.

I assume the sanity rolls are for dealing with the number of times you will have to send the book back to Mongoose because it falls apart!

SDLeary

Also posted an old RQ III sheet that I made.

Have fun!

SDLeary

Just posted a slight revision of the sheet. Added the base skill values, and a few skills that were missing. Also added a section on Character Points and Failings, and a larger notes section.

SDLeary

What about returning to Penetration Value?

I applaud this effort, but it seems like we are trying to model the real world a bit too closely. More accuracy good; more complexity in the system (ie playability) bad.

Penetration Values

0 Pistol / ball ammunition

1 Small Cal. spindle ammunition (roughly 4-6 mm), or large or magnum ball

2 Medium Cal. spindle (roughly 7-9 mm)

3 Large Cal. spindle (those few between 10 and 12 mm)

4 Small Cannon (.50 BMG, 12.7x108mm, 14.5... etc)

etc.

Each substance would then have a Hardness which the penetration would match against. Armor grade aluminum and steel having noticeably higher Hardness than their non-armor counterparts.

Each weapons "Damage" would remain similar to what it is now, perhaps narrowing the overall range a bit, and allowing for the retention of Specials and Critical hits against soft targets.

Basic values for penetration and damage would be based on round, modified by weapon for penetration, damage, and range. Different round types (AP, SLAP) would modify penetration or damage up or down, as would "accessories" like silencers/suppressors.

Perhaps this IS what your talking about in the end. It just seems like a great deal is being passed back and forth here with no consensus in site!

Though if you are simply having fun in the debate <stands aside> then by all means continue!

It must be character sheet week!

Just posted my contribution. I'm not totally happy with it, but I'm unsure when I'll get back to editing it, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

SDLeary

Depends. Have they seen _any_ non-heavily-moderated RPG board? I honestly haven't seen anything on here worse than I've seen on the M&M boards, the Hero boards, the GURPS boards or RPG.net. People get invested in their favorite game systems; and invested people get worked up. And worked up people tend to vent on the Web more than they would in real life. I don't see much sign this is worse than most in that regard. I've gotten my fair share of attitude on here, but to be honest, its more civil than I've seen in many places.

And its _immensely_ more civil than was the routine when I was on the USENET rpg groups.

Not the point. I agree its far more civil than USENET. In some ways far more civil than RPGnet. Mongoose... haven't hit that forum in forever because its almost all noise.

The point is that first impressions do matter. Especially when your about to risk your own savings, that of your buddy or your family, and perhaps what ever investors you have.

"Woo! I'm gonna build something for my favorite system, publish it, and make some money to boot. Dayum... look at the flame level in that forum. Man, and here too! I wonder if my effort will be appreciated. Probalby not, I won't make much if any money either. Perhaps I should write this for brand D. Not my favorite game, but they have a much larger audience, my efforts will be more appreciated, and I'll make more money."

Yes... I realize thats somewhat unrealistic, at least the money part. That is, however, the type of decision that could be made based upon the noise level in fora.

I'm not saying that we should censor ourselves; The points should still be made. But they need to be made in a more civil tone, less flame and noise.

I think Jason is stressed for perfectly understandable reasons, and this was likely his first experience at being chief author on a new edition of an established game system with an established fan base; some of the mixed blessing present in the sale of Edition 0 has complicated this further. As such his reaction is understandable, but in the end, I don't think he got any more flack than is pretty typical under those circumstances; possibly less on the whole.

I do too. And I credit that as a contributing factor in the way Jason has been delivering posts lately, and venting in the last one. But go back and read his post again. There were some points other than his personal displeasure that he was trying to deliver.

Im not sure that this is his first experience as point author. He has written and contributed quite a bit to various game. As for the sale of Edition Zero, it is a mixed blessing. But its one that we (the fans) pestered Chaosium for. If we hadn't pleaded with them, then Zero would not be in our hands. On the plus side though, its probably better proofed than almost any RPG in recent memory!

SDLeary

Good to hear the edits are completed! :happy:

Sorry to hear that we will hear less from you. :ohwell:

That's harsh. I can understand you have had a rought time and all, but the respons on this forum to the publication of the Basic Roleplaying book have actually been massively positive. Even those who say they strongly disagree with some selected game mechanics in the book, and those who see RQ3 as the pinnacle of Roleplaying Design, say they will buy the new book. That should at least mean something.

SGL.

<don fire retardant suit; step on soap box>

It is harsh, but it needed to be said. Potential developers WILL look at fora like this one. Now, imagine a company that isn't really familiar with how rabid (yes rabid) we are as fans of this system, but they have heard good things about Chtulhu, perhaps played a bit. Now, drop them into this forum, and look at the overall tone of the threads.

In may cases they are not simply discussions of the merits, or perceived lack. They are rant and flame fests. Honestly, if you were a company interested in producing a product, and saw this, wouldn't you loose interest too?

Now, I'm not saying that this kind of discourse is bad overall. What we have achieved here has been stated in Jason's post above, meaning that we will not have to wait for three months for an extensive list of errata, though I'm sure there will be some.But the signal to noise ratio is way over the top for a product that is still in editing. Especially from those that have yet to see the pre-release/proof copy.

We all need to tone it down a notch or two.

SDLeary

<getting off soap box; walking away with fire retardant suit STILL ON!>

Pendragon is now owned by Arthaus, a subsidiary of Sword & Sorcery, which is a subsidiary of White Wolf (now a subsidiary of CCP Games), through some sort of licensing arrangement with Greg Stafford.

True. But the Personality Traits originally come from RQ, and are in Pendragon. There is no reason a similar system couldn't be put into a magic supplement, especially as Greg has expressed his dislike of the magic system itself for the current version of Pendragon.

SDLeary

Would need to shoe-horn a trait and passion system (either Pendragon,s THieves Worlds' or Prince Vlaiants) of some kind to make that work.

Ah! But we have Traits!

Option: Personality Traits (pp. 290-291)

Most of magic works off of "Talents", ie. skill. Passions can provide a bounus to cast through skill augmentation. Certain Traits are needed for certain effects in some of the spell possibilities.

Without passions, I would base bonuses on "Religious Bonus", a value of 16 (80%) or higher in each of the 5 traits that the religion values.

SDLeary

I suspect that as long as they have copies in stock, it'll be available, and that some BRP edition of it is a likely candidate for publication before too long.

I've encouraged people time and again on this forum and elsewhere to pick up the ball and roll with such a project.

And if anyone does, could you please not forget to shoe-horn the Pendragon 4e magic system in there? Thanks much!

SDLeary