Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

About BWP

  • Rank
    Advanced Member


  • RPG Biography
    Started off with AD&D (1st) and Traveller back in 1981-ish, upgraded to DragonQuest and RuneQuest (2nd & 3rd), and have GM'd/played many, many other games since. Most notably/frequently Call of Cthulhu (1st through 6th), WEG Star Wars, D&D 3.5, Bushido, Aftermath ... generally I like my games crunchy.
  • Current games
    Running a WEG Star Wars campaign, playing in a RQ3 campaign
  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia
  • Blurb
    Melbourne, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

305 profile views
  1. BWP

    The new Dwarves

    Well, actually, they didn't. Judges' Guild products came in three flavours: completely generic, no game-specific information at all; game-specific, information and stats included for a specific game system (for most of their products, that meant original D&D); and "generic game system", their own invention, which provided stats for NPCs etc. that theoretically could be adapted to any game system, but in practice (since it involved levels and classes) meant a D&D derivative. I'm not aware of any JG product that included stats for more than a single game system. Of course such products did exist, but other companies published them, not JG. I have to admit that The Halls of the Dwarven Kings is one I had completely blanked on. I must have seen it advertised in the pages of White Dwarf, but I don't remember ever seeing it on a local game store shelf, and if I had I probably would have dismissed it as a D&D supplement that I didn't need to own.
  2. BWP

    The new Dwarves

    What supplement are you referring to? AFAIK there was no Judges' Guild RQ2 product detailing dwarves (or any other RQ race). Nor can I think of any supplement from any publisher detailing dwarves in RQ2, other than the articles in Different Worlds. I vaguely recall that Mayfair Games did a "Dwarves" book, but that was for AD&D, although it may well have been easily adapted for "Gateway" RQ settings.
  3. BWP

    Rules for bar fight?

    One way of implementing a "death spiral" in BRP games (not necessarily the "best" way, or even necessarily a "desirable" way) would be to compare damage-done (i.e., damage that has penetrated armour) vs. current-HP (in that location if using a hit location system, or total HP if not) on the Resistance table. Success indicates a "special effect", varying depending on the location, perhaps varying depending on the weapon type being used (a lot of GM discretion would be required here). So success in hitting the head = stunned or even unconscious, success in a limb = temporary paralysis, and so on. Different types of creatures may have particular immunities to certain effects, or even certain vulnerabilities. (E.G., arthropods would generally ignore limb damage other than movement penalties if legs are lost, etc.) Every point of damage then matters more than just being that much closer to total HP failure ... keep bashing on that troll's noggin and he may just keel over, or keep smacking him in the arm and you may force him to drop his maul, even if you haven't done enough damage in either case to cause "serious" injury. I also particularly liked the knockback rules from RQ3 for showing ongoing "combat effects" in a fight without necessarily representing accumulating damage. A lucky strike still might not take down your opponent if he's tough, but driving him back a meter or two will almost certainly disrupt his attacks, possibly make him fall over, etc.
  4. BWP

    So many errors and contradictions

    That's lovely, thank you. Why is this not in a downloadable format, and why isn't there a link to it from the RQG product page? (I understand that this isn't necessarily Jeff's job, but someone at Chaosium needs to make sure it's done.)
  5. BWP

    So many errors and contradictions

    And? If you volunteer for the job, you do the job. I have also spent many, many hours of proof-reading for games (mostly Advanced Squad Leader, a rules document not known for its light and breezy style). You don't do it because you want praise or rewards, but because you want the product to be as good as it can be. Please know that I'm not one of those individuals who idly speculate about a task that I have no familiarity with and that I'm too lazy to ever do myself. No, that is simply not true. Perfection (in proofing) is difficult to attain, but (a) it's not absolutely unattainable, and (b) it is certainly possible to do much better than the RQG products have so far demonstrated. Much better. The truth is in the evidence: the proofing of the RQG products has (so far) been crap; other similarly complex documents in the gaming environment are (usually) done much better; therefore the RQG products can be done better. It requires some skill in reading, some understanding of how the game actually works, and plenty of dedication, plus of course the desire to do it. Lots of people have some of these qualifications, relatively few have all of them; you make up for it by making sure you attract as many people as you can manage. I haven't participated in the RQG proofing process, so I can't identify specifically where the problem is, but there very clearly is a problem, and Chaosium needs to fix it.
  6. BWP

    So many errors and contradictions

    The RQ rules (any iteration) aren't especially complex. They're not especially simple, either, but people will gravitate to rules systems that suit them, and gravitate away from rules systems that don't suit them. The complexity (or lack of it) is a non-issue, IMO. What is an issue is the terrible editing in the finished documents. That's where Chaosium needs to focus their attention on for future products. No published product is perfect, and nit-pickers can find nits to pick anywhere. It is however possible to publish a rules document that does not contain gross contradictions within its own text, but that requires some editorial diligence not yet in evidence. (I'd start by finding some new proof-readers, because whoever is doing the job currently are collectively letting the team down.) Willingness to publish errata as required is always a good sign. Why are the "RuneFix" documents not downloadable from the Chaosium website? There should be a link to it right on the product page. (The product page for the RQG rules is excellent, full of lots of information. Too bad if what you're looking for is errata!)
  7. BWP

    Sorcery Questions

    I can't agree with that.If the caster can nod in response to a query, then he has awareness that a query has been directed at him and can spare enough mental faculties to respond to it. That's more than enough "spare" awareness in order to be able to move in a slow, controlled manner. (Consider real human beings totally engrossed in their mobile phones moving from place to place every day.) As a general rule of thumb I would prohibit anything other than slow movement, but would certainly allow it on a mount, in conjunction with a ride roll. For a sorcerer on foot, if the terrain is at all cluttered or difficult, I'd probably ask for a DEX roll. I wouldn't allow normal (or faster) movement. If the mode of transport requires that the person actively hang on to something to avoid falling off/falling over, that would probably be enough to prohibit sorcery as the necessary hand movements would be impacted. Similarly, if the sorcerer needs to perform some sort of ritualistic dance or other complicated movement as part of casting the spell, then that also is going to ko most forms of mounted movement (but not necessarily on foot). And of course some specific spells or rituals might absolutely require that the sorcerer be stationary (e.g., something being cast within a mystic circle). I agree that you should not "speed up" sorcery in ways other than those specifically allowed for in the rules. A good sorcerer plans ahead and has already cast the spells he thinks he will need.
  8. BWP

    Damage >= Double the Location's HP

    Easy to do when the rules you are "writing" are simply copied from a less-refined original set and concepts from later, more refined sets of rules are ignored. (Not that later rules are always better, but usually they are better explained, at least.) RQ veterans will chop and change and house-rule everything to suit the way they've always played, but I don't envy people with no experience with the system at all, trying to make sense of this first draft. I'm sure that the (hypothetical, but inevitable) RQG, 2nd edition will iron most of these bugs out.
  9. BWP

    The Beast Cult of Hykim & Mikyh

    > we have a rq3 monster generator in excel Would you care to share?
  10. BWP

    Maximum POW

  11. BWP

    Balancing combat encounters

    I don't think you have much experience with different role-playing games. I would say that "virtually none" of the RPG rules I've ever read over 40+ years include any sort of "system" for balancing encounters. (Many include advice or suggestions, though.) Name 3, and only one of them is allowed to be based on the D20 rules. You've proven that you can make broad, sweeping statements, now can we see something resembling a fact? You're correct that any set of game rules should discuss the idea of making sure the game is "balanced", but with any of the games in the BRP system, it's more about pointing out what makes the game unbalanced than providing a mechanistic method of "ensuring" balance -- as if that would even be possible. As pointed out above, the main issue is numbers. RQ (all versions) has always demonstrated that numbers will win a fight, except when the outnumbered side is amazingly better than the other side. If you have 12 "ordinary" opponents vs. 6 "decent" player characters, there's quite a good chance that some of those PCs will go down, possibly for good. Whichever side rolls the dice most often is the side most likely to be getting critical hits and special hits, and a trollkin armed with a spear is going to just flat-out ruin your day when (not if) he impales you. It doesn't matter that if it was a one-on-one battle you would almost certainly cream him, the point is how often are you going to fight puny guys one-on-one? The best balancing system I've ever found in playing any version of RQ is experience -- player experience. You quickly learn to judge what fights you'll "probably" win and avoid the ones you'll "probably" lose. The GM learns what encounters are "fair" to put in the way of the PCs and what ones aren't. [There's also always been an element of demonstrating Glorantha's "this is the way the world is, sucks to be you" in various Chaosium supplements. The Eternal Battle as a random encounter? Allosaurs in Balazar? In effect, sometimes Chaosium is positively encouraging the viewpoint the world exists not as a challenge, but as an insurmountable obstacle.]
  12. BWP

    Summoning RuneQuest Gamemasters

    I think your confusion is in the meaning of the word "player". (Man, it sucks when you have to explain the joke!) I absolutely 100% guarantee you that no players I know, nor indeed any player that I don't know, can cast a spell (even if they personally believe otherwise). At least, not one that will actually yield a magical effect. However, player characters in many, many games cast magical spells on a regular basis. Certainly NPCs in those games can be expected to do that too. Not sure why that would need to be shouted out as a principle. Magical or non-magical setting, no players are casting spells. To bring this back somewhat on topic, I'd point out that if the NPCs are smarter than the players on a regular basis, you may need to deliberately "dumb them down", otherwise the players may end up feeling frustrated and bored. There's not a lot of game fun in having the party agree that yes, the enemy's master plan is fool-proof, and I guess he's going to win, so we may as well just go home.
  13. BWP

    Peaceful cut and butchering

    Why would a "city dwelling butcher" even know about Peaceful Cut, let alone make any use of it? That's something that those savages out in the wild places do. Most city dwelling butchers are primarily concerned about maximising the meat (and other by-products) yield from any given carcass. Which is what the Butchery skill is all about.
  14. BWP

    Summoning RuneQuest Gamemasters

    OK, my players can't cast spells, so no NPCs can cast spells. Got it. Although ... kind of gives the PCs a bit of an advantage, doesn't it? Also kind of nerfs those NPCs planning to cast a major ritual to wreak destruction and havoc, since the players (and even the PCs) aren't (usually) able to do that.
  15. BWP

    Facing and Positioning in RQG Combat

    Where would you derive that understanding from? You might well be correct, but I don't know that there's ever been a poll taken? We don't generally bother with setting up the miniatures if the combat positioning is very "obvious", but any time the positioning or maneuvering gets even slightly complex, then we turn to the miniatures. (This is true for any game we play, not just RQ.) Positioning was is certainly important in RQ3, with a bunch of important modifiers that can apply. I'm shocked -- shocked, I tell you -- that little if any of that is to be found in RQG. It's increasingly clear to me that any time there's a question of mechanics (as opposed to character background info, world building, etc.) -- or, if you like, "hard" vs. "soft", or "how" vs. "why" -- then the RQG rules should at best only be used as suggestions. Or, to put it another way ... if you think a situation deserves some sort of special penalty or bonus, don't look for an answer in the RQG rules -- just go with whatever "feels right" to the people at the table. As long as you do it in a consistent fashion, there should be no cause for complaint.