filbanto

This is really great news. I'd about given up on them after the last two books I bought.

 

Somebody please invent a time machine, take Greg and Sandy back in time and have them convince their past selves to do this before Mongoose gets ahold of Runequest and CoC 7 is even thought of

My group and I have been playing The Strange lately. I've written up 3 horror scenarios set in 18th Century Massachusetts that you could convert to Renaissance. I hope to have another posted in a week or two. I realize they might not be up the OP's alley, but if anyone else is interested, here's the link.

 

https://filbantostew.wordpress.com/adventures/

I think Cthulhu Rising will be resurrected by d101 games using OpenQuest someday.

 

Also there was just a Strange Aeons kickstarter for a miniatures game that ended a week or so ago.

Nope. I'm a "lumper". Just more places I'd need to click to find stuff.

Stumbled onto this Cthulhu Invictus adventure book on crackstarter - I mean kickstarter - and took the plunge: De Horrore Cosmico

 

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/goldengoblinpress/de-horrore-cosmico-six-scenarios-for-cthulhu-invic

 

Ends in a day.

Clockwork & Chivalry may also be worth a look. They have a similar major wound table based on a hit location.

We were working on a Norse Dark Ages game that took elements from BRP, Pendragon, GURPS/Melee and others. Like GURPS, you didn't have HP per location. There was random hit locations for armor and wounds. The base rules were pendragon, so there is no real concept of a Fumble. If I was using BRP, I'd have a fumbled CON roll mean a permanent injury (or death for head/torso wounds). Not sure if this will make a lot of sense, but here are the rules we used. 

 

Hit location:

1     Head

2     Right arm

3     Left arm

4-8  Torso

9     Right leg

0     Left leg

 

 

Injury

Hit points (HP) represent the state of a character’s health. When a character is injured he will take one or more points of damage and the player immediately lowers the character’s hit points by that amount. If the character takes greater than or equal to his Major Wound level in one blow, additional effects happen.

 

Flesh Wound

Flesh wounds are caused by attacks or other mishaps dealing damage less than the character’s MW. A character can soldier on after receiving a flesh wound and suffers no additional penalties in combat.

 

Major Wound

Damage equal to or exceeding the MW value means the character is badly injured. Minor NPCs will be out of the fight if they take a major wound. Characters who attempt to fight must make an immediate CON roll. The effects of success or failure depending upon where the blow was struck:

 

 

Head or Torso

Critical

The character is stunned and unable to perform any actions next round.

Succeed

The character is stunned next round. On later rounds he may make another CON roll to become un-stunned.

Fail

The character falls unconscious, and begins bleeding out. He loses 1 HP each round unless healing is applied or he succeeds in a CON roll.

Arm

Critical

Any item carried in that hand is dropped. He may pick it up or draw a new weapon next round.

Succeed

Any item carried in that hand is dropped. On later rounds he may make another CON roll to regain use of the arm.

Fail

The arm is rendered useless until the character receives healing. Any item carried in that hand is dropped.

Leg

Critical

The character falls prone. He may stand next round.

Succeed

The character falls prone. He may stand next round, but MV will be at -1.

Fail

The character falls prone. He may stand with a successful DEX roll, but MV will be at -3.

I've long had an idea of "flattening the swing" by using a smaller die and a bigger bonus for someone armored head to toe. The wilder swings for someone wearing less armor and more weak points would still be appropriate. Options for plate armor would look something like this:

 

Full plate harness: 1D6+6 (range = 7-12, average = 9-10)
Three-quarter armor: 1D10+2 (range = 3-12, average = 7-8)
Half plate: 1D12 (range = 1-12, average = 6-7)
Cuirass only: 1D10 (range = 1-10, average = 5-6)

Just uploaded the file for you! PM me if you are having trouble - I can e-mail you a copy off list if you'd like.

There's an old in the archives about this. I wrote up a bunch of firearms in it and also my house rules for them. Formatting is terrible, but I could probably dig up my Word doc if you would like a copy.

Cheers - Mike

Backed! Looks like fun and will compliment our Deadlands game well too.

Thanks for the info! I'm guessing I am firmly in the camp of "no need to rush out and buy it" and it sounds like the changes will be easy enough to ignore if I pick up a new adventure as well.

seneschal & nclarke -

I haven't followed 7th ed. developments since the initial discussions. I have to admit that I didn't like the route it seemed to be taking. Does it still have the crazy stat blocks (example 70/35/14)? I think there were also some new dice mechanics - maybe that is the "pushing" one described above.

Aren't there already optional rules in BRP to mimic this? I thought there was a sidebar on using POW points for things like reducing damage or "downgrading" an opponent's attack. Maybe I am thinking of AA rules though... For a pulp game make the POW cost cheap to reduce damage to minimum or force mooks to re-roll to hit.

Rich (rdeluc) ran a game for us a couple years ago. We decided that we were playing the "elf-ridden" since our wolves were much better characters than our elves. I think my wolf may actually have been as smart as Spritely (INT 6) was... Rich wisely separated us from our furry friends to make the game more challenging.

 

We played RAW and, to be honest, it wasn't a bad game. There were some pretty squirrelly things with strike ranks as I recall: Spritely had DEX 21 and he could get 3 arrows off in combat turn 1, but after that he was slower than the characters with lower DEX. Damage could be brutal since there was no armor. You didn't have much chance of getting any psychic powers and that was a shame since some of them were really cool looking. Looking at it from a modern perspective it isn't a good game. I'd say it was a transiton game though and it introduced some concepts that were used in later version of the BRP system.

 

I think one of the reasons I have such fond memories of the game was because of the fantastic adventure Rich ran. He blew me away with the description of an underground "forest" intricately carved out of the surrounding stone, complete with birds, squirrels and so forth. Somebody had way too much time on their hands and spent it all on masonry.

If I were overburdened with duties and only paid once every five years, I might not be enthusiastic and energetic about hunting an elusive outlaw either.

I imagine that most of those soldiers have relatives being oppressed by the Alcalde and his minions. They're secretly rooting for Zorro! Maybe they should only hit him if they roll a fumble?

Characteristics like OQ/RQ6/Legend. They feel a lot more meaningful when you use them to calculate your starting skills.

 

I like the resistance table too though:)

I'll second the Flashing Blades suggestion. It'd be a great system for this. Even so, numbers tell in Flashing Blades just like BRP. You need to be highly skilled to engage numerous opponents in that game.

 

For BRP (or Flashing Blades for that matter) you'll need some mook rules - especially for firearms. I'd suggest allowing the hero to Dodge firearms attacks. Bullets from mooks should only "crease" the hero for minimum damage. Maybe full damage if they get a Crit?

 

Overall this looks like a really fun game in a period mostly overlooked by RPGs. Let us know how things go. It'd be great to document some of your game session synopses here if you are so inclined.

Looks like digest. The block of text right below the Legend logo in the webstore is where you need to look (bolded bits are mine).

 

 

Using the core rules from RuneQuest II, Legend is a new fantasy roleplaying game that serves as the basis for a multitude of settings and worlds. 100% compatible with all previous RuneQuest II books, including Elric of Melnibone, Deus Vult and Wraith Recon, Legend repackages the rules into a new digest-sized format.

I'm not particularly medieval-savvy but this would probably mix well with Chaosium's Val-du-Loup monograph (10th or 12th century), which I'm still waiting for them to make available in print-on-demand, or even Arion Games' Maelstrom Domesday (11th century).

Val-du-Loup is excellent and the author includes info on how to run it in the dark ages or medieval period.

Alephtar has some great supplements for the early 13th century you might enjoy too. Crusaders of the Amber Coast is really good. Merrie England has a lot of great info, but it was hard to digest. More like reading a scholarly work on the period instead of a game book - if you can follow my drift.

I'd freely mix and match all this stuff. Unless you are gaming with a bunch of medieval history majors, nobody is going to have any idea who lived when or what date a particular battle was fought on. So King John is on the throne a couple of years too long. You're hunting demons in France for Hastur's sake:)

I think you need these two:

GM Guide

Player Guide

I don't own any of this line (looks cool though). I just gave them a quick skim on Drive Thru. These sounded like the core books and the others are adventures and/or fluff.

Here's a very simple tripwire trap described, straight out of Life and Death one of the published adventures.

Traps from d101 dungeon crawls are excellent. Really concise and easy to adjudicate. I think what folks are asking about is "how can player characters make their own traps?". Here's an idea:

Describe what you are making to the GM. He'll give a penalty to something that is ill-conceived or a bonus to something really clever. If you can make use of existing terrain/material (example: you camouflage an existing hole in the ground) it'll take less time to build the trap.

- Difficulty to detect: Roll Deception skill to camouflage the trap. Success means it requires a Perception check to find it. You can voluntarily take a penalty to your Deception check to make it harder to find. For example the tripwire builder took a -25% penalty to make it harder to see.

- Difficulty to avoid: This is your Traps skill (or whatever they call it in OpenQuest). The GM and player should figure out what is the correct skill to avoid the trap. The builder can take a penalty to their Traps skill to make it more difficult to avoid.

- Result: This is how much damage (or other effect) and determines how long it will take to make the trap. A nuisance like a trip wire would take minutes to setup and only slow down the victim, but do no damage. A rule of thumb might be 1 or 2 hours per D6 damage the trap causes. If the player can cleverly use existing terrain (example: a trip wire at the head of a flight of stairs) the GM should set the appropriate level of damage.

I don't think you can fend off as many as you'd like. The rule says "in place of an attack". Most folks only get one attack per round. If your skill is over 100% I think there is an optional rule that you can split your attacks. I guess I'd say you can keep a zombie at bay pretty easily with a long weapon and room to move. Problem with zombies is there is always a lot of them:)

Good thing you're here to decide for me.

You just told me you're biased going in: "I like C&W products." Hardly an unbiased position from which to review a product. I'm glad you enjoy their material. I'd like a review from a neutral party. But I guess that's not necessary since you can just tell me what I will or won't like.

Matt, one week ago in the Freeport Thread you wrote: Thanks for the answer. Guess I'll pass on that and whatever Pirates & Dragons is. I don't go for " fantasy" much, but even less in historical settings like the age of sail, the Old West, 3 Musketeers, etc.

I certainly don't want to tell you what you will or will not like, but Pirates and Dragons is clearly fantasy in the age of sail. I was hoping to save you some time reading a review of something that didn't interest you a week ago. I'm sorry if I've come as dictating your desires. It was not my intention. I'll take steps to ensure it does not happen again.

I'm not certain how to respond to being biased because I like C&Ws prior products. A track record of quality products is something I do take into account when I purchase a game. If you need a review written by someone who doesn't like their prior products your going to need a first-time C&W purchaser to write it. They put out quality stuff:) I believe every review is going to have some bias in it and the reader has to weigh the review with those facts in mind.

Would love to see a review of this by a disinterested party, especially if it answers the question of whether this book would be useful for historical-setting pirate game without the fantasy/magic elements.

From the thread on Freeport I'm pretty sure this is not the game for you. You already dismissed it in one of your replies, something along the lines of "not liking fantasy mixed in with your historical stuff". I think you've got High Seas for Flashing Blades and it is dead simple to convert that over to BRP. Pirates of Legend is the other "historical" pirate game for the BRP family.

A review by someone who funded the game isn't one I can accept as unbiased.

Can I ask why? I like C&W products. I liked the pitch they made for Pirates and Dragons. Based on their prior work I was pretty confident they'd deliver a good book. I backed them. If I hadn't stumbled across the Kickstarter I would have picked up the book for the same reasons. If I write a review why is my opinion less valid for having backed them?