Jump to content

Philotomy

Member
  • Posts

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Philotomy

  1. Ah, okay. You want consistency in the rolling; for example, if rolling low is good, then you'd like a lower roll to always be the better roll (if the degrees of success are equal). I get your objection, and I understand why it bothers you. I can't say that it bothers me, though. I find the "blackjack" approach to be easy to remember and apply, even if it is not as aesthetically nice as "rolling low is always better." (Actually, the discussion reminds me of similar objections to the way surprise rolls work in 1e AD&D -- it's usually good to roll high, unless your roll falls within the range where you're surprised, in which case it's better to roll low.) Anyway, I don't want to steer the thread away from discussing different approaches and into an argument about whether a different approach is needed; everybody has their own preferences. I was just curious about what your objections were.
  2. What is your criticism of the "blackjack" mechanism? (I know you've probably said that in the other thread, but it's a lot to dig through.)
  3. When you're prepping an adventure (for your own use, not for publication), how do you approach it? Do you write everything up like the (excellent) descriptions in something like Snake Pipe Hollow? Or do you just make a few notes? How complete are the stat blocks you use when you prep? What do you consider essential, and what is just extra work? Sandbox? Storyline/Plot? Or Just Situation? Do you tend to make maps, or use a flowchart, or just have events and wing the physical locations? Do you write up separate NPC lists (especially combat lists)? Et cetera. Just curious about how much variation there is in peoples' approaches.
  4. Just for completeness, here's how RQ3 handles it: The PC attempting knockback acts at his standard SR (as if using a fist attack). Compare the PC's STR+SIZ vs the SIZ+DEX of the target. Success indicates the target is knocked back as if the PC's STR+SIZ were weapon damage, minus the SIZ of the target, as for standard knockback. On a special success, the target's SIZ is *NOT* subtracted. On a critical success, the target loses any weapon he's holding (that isn't strapped on). On a failed intentional knockback attempt, the PC makes a DEXx5 roll or falls. If he *doesn't* fall, he (not his target) is knocked back as if the target's SIZ+STR were damage vs the PC's SIZ. If the failed attempt was a fumble, the PC suffers the penalties for a natural weapon fumble and the normal results of a failed knockback. If the target of a knockback is surprised by the intentional knockback attempt, the target does not use his DEX when resisting the knockback. If the knockback attempt comes at the end of straight-line movement towards the target, the attacker making the attempt adds 1 point to his STR+SIZ for every SR of movement before hitting the target. Other modifiers to the intentional knockback attempt are as per a standard attack. So instead of an attack roll, it's a resistance table check. At first I wasn't sure about this, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. It would be a very effective technique for big creatures (e.g. trolls, giants) -- especially if there are convenient immovable objects to knock their enemies into.
  5. Maybe we need some threads like "BRP in the Style of RQ3" and "BRP in the Style of Stormbringer/Elric" and "BRP in the Style of RQ2"?
  6. Yeah, I think I prefer the RQ3 rules for multiple attacks.
  7. Are the (optional) Strike Rank rules in the gold book the same as the RQ3 rules? I'm thinking maybe the gold book's strike rank multiple attacks rules are different. Is that correct? If so, where did the gold book's strike rank multiple attack rule come from?
  8. That's my guess, too. (I'm running into the same problem trying to save a new avatar, here.)
  9. Same here. Very annoying. How hard would it be for Chaosium to just provide a download link for the free adventure instead of a "purchase" through their screwed up online catalog system? Is it available anywhere else?
  10. I'm still not through reading Mythic Iceland, but I agree it's a great book and a great BRP rules implementation. One thing I really wish it had was an area map of the Snæfellsnes region (i.e., the default location for the "Trouble with Neighbors" adventure). Such a map might include some notable features like the troll cave, Skorri's farm, et cetera. One thing I'm uncertain about is how far apart farms in such an area might typically be.
  11. You're not kidding. When I saw this thread I thought, "Cool, now is a good time to pick up Mythic Iceland!" So I went to Chaosium's site, put it in my cart, and calculated the shipping. Even with the the sale and the cheapest shipping option for me, which is take-forever/no-tracking-number U.S. parcel post, the total price is higher than what it costs me to order the book from Amazon with 2-day shipping included (I have that "Amazon Prime" thing). So I ordered it from Amazon for cheaper and should have it on Wednesday.
  12. I agree with pretty much everything in your post, including this bit. I doubt Chaosium will burn their bridges with old players, and I don't think any changes from "classic CoC" to "CoC 7" will be as drastic as say, TSR D&D vs. 4e D&D. Nevertheless, I don't think the kinds of changes being proposed are a good idea, and I'm frankly skeptical of arguments along the lines of "don't worry -- these changes are not a big deal and don't change the way the game plays/feels."
  13. "This I pledge to you: while there will be room for refinement, zthee game will remain zthee same... "
  14. Well, it's not totally a bad scan job. The text isn't scanned; it was re-typed and re-set. They didn't have the original art, so artwork is scanned and touched-up. Overall, I think they did about as good a job as one could expect. Better than I expected, actually. My advice is to take a look the actual books and then decide if you want them or not.
  15. If they're going to make significant changes/additions/etc to Call of Cthulhu, I'd like it better if they called it something else: Tales of Cthulhu, Calamari Rising, Cthulhu Next -- anything but Call of Cthulhu.
  16. Thanks for the feedback. (Let me know if you come across the RQIII rule.)
  17. Yeah, this pretty much mirrors my own reaction, which is pretty close to classic "Do Not Want!"
  18. Can any melee attack be designated as a knockback attempt? The combat chapter notes that unarmed throws and shield attacks can cause knockback on a special success (in addition to damage). And the Spot Rules chapter says "If an attack is designated as a knockback attempt...," which implies that you can make deliberate attempts to knockback. However, there doesn't seem to be any downside to designating an attack a knockback attempt. I like the idea of allowing melee attacks that are designated knockback attempts (shoving/thrusting/pushing). I'm thinking maybe you can designate a knockback attempt that is more of an effort to create distance or knock-down than it is to do any damage (i.e., damage to be used only for the purpose of determining knockback). What do you think?
  19. Philotomy

    Shield Stats

    What do you guys think would be reasonable stats for some ancient shields like large oblong Celtic shields, phalangite-style pelte, wicker pelte, and Greek thureos? The large Celtic shield seems similar to the Hoplite Shield or the Kite Shield in protective value and weight. My understanding is that Celtic shield construction varied considerably by tribe, but I'm modeling a heavily-constructed shield. I'm thinking it would not be as easy to carry as the hoplite shield, since it would lack the deep rim that can be rested on the shoulder, etc. My first pass: Damage: 1D4 STR/DEX: 13/- Size: Huge Reach: Short ENC: 3 AP/HP: 5/18 Notes: Infantry use only. Can parry missiles. Considering bumping ENC to 4. What do you think? On to the phalangite pelte (wooden/round/faced/~60cm diameter), which isn't too far from a Target Shield without the spike. So: Damage: 1D4 STR/DEX: 9/- Size: Large Reach: Short ENC: 2 AP/HP: 4/12 Notes: can parry missiles And then the wicker pelte (a "half-shield," often crescent shaped, usually faced with animal skin/hide): Damage: 1D2 STR/DEX: 7/- Size: Large Reach: Short ENC: 1 AP/HP: 4/4 Notes: Can parry missiles On to the Greek thureos: usually oval (sometimes more oblong), leather-covered wood with a central spine/handgrip. A large shield, but apparently weighed less than a hoplite-style round aspis (hard to find reliable data on this). No deep rim to rest on shoulder, though, so probably nets out about the same as far as carrying it around. My first pass lists it almost the same as a hoplite shield, but slightly less durable. Damage: 1D4 STR/DEX: 11/- Size: Huge Reach: Short ENC: 3 AP/HP: 5/12 Notes: Can parry missiles. Comments/suggestions welcome.
  20. I like the rule from BRP Rome: Life and Death of the Republic. It's designed for when you're using hit locations, and it allows you to use half your shield's APs as armor covering a number of hit locations the character is principally defending. It stacks with armor, and counts even without a parry, or if they parry fails. All shields protect the shield arm. Small shields cover one additional location, medium shields cover two additional, and large shields cover three additional. The players picks the additional locations, which must be adjacent, and can change from round to round. The player can also crouch behind his shield for maximum coverage, doubling the number of additional locations covered, but can do nothing else except advance at a slow walk.
  21. Philotomy

    MRQ1 SRD Files

    Oh, brother. So they released the SRD with the OGL license, but never formally declared any Open Content? Yeah, that's kind of a mess. The OGL requires you to "affix such a notice" of Open Game Content to any content that is going to be Used under the terms of the OGL. It could be argued that the inclusion of the RuneQuest SRD in the listing of copyright notices under section 15 demonstrates intent to license it as Open Content, and the absence of a formal notice of Open Content was an oversight. Section 15 is where the copyright statements for the other included Open Content (i.e. from the d20 SRD and the d20 Modern SRD) were placed, per the requirements of the OGL Section 6 ("You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of the License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying, or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.") The listing of the RuneQuest SRD, in the proper format, in that part of the included OGL suggests that Mongoose considered the RuneQuest SRD as Open Content. Unfortunately, it's not really an open and shut thing, though, if someone wanted to argue otherwise. One could certainly argue that the absence of a formal declaration of Open Content makes the included OGL invalid or meaningless.
  22. Under "Autofire" on pg 214 of the gold book, it says "Unlike most missile weapon combat, autofire or bursts occur on the attacker's DEX rank, rather than at the beginning of the combat round before DEX ranks." I can't find any other reference in the gold book to misile fire occurring at the beginning of the combat round before DEX ranks. I recognize the concept from Call of Cthulhu (e.g. "…aimed-and-ready firearms shoot once in DEX order before any hand-to-hand fighting takes place"), but I don't see any mention of this kind of "ready missile" rule in the gold book. Am I just missing it?
  23. I'm reading through my newly acquired copy of MRQII. Haven't got to magic, yet, but I like the combat system. Very nice.
  24. Thank you for your responses. I've gone ahead and ordered MRQII. The heroic abilities and other aspects of the system sound attractive and worthy of a closer look. Interesting that MRQII does not use the Resistance Table. All other BRP-derived games that I'm familiar with have included it. Daxos, you asked about my previous RPG experience, and how long I have to develop the campaign before the game begins. I've been playing RPGs since the late 70s. I have a lot of experience running Call of Cthulhu (including recently). I also ran (1e) Stormbringer, back in the 80s, but it's been a long time. While I played Runequest a couple of times (Chasoium's RQ2), I never owned or ran it. Anyway, I'm not unfamiliar with BRP, but running Call of Cthulhu isn't quite the same thing as running a more heroic and combat-oriented BRP variant. I'm trying to bring myself up to speed, basically. I like to tinker with rules to fit them to a setting, in any case, so it's not that I feel overwhelmed or out of my depth; I'm mainly looking for "landmarks" that give me an idea of what to expect and which direction I might go. For example, knowing that MRQII is already "tweaked" for gritty fantasy and has a lot of that customization built-in is very helpful knowledge. Even if I don't decide to use MRQII, I can still reference it as a guideline. I'm also intrigued by the fact that it has more detailed rules for Allegiances, since I've been thinking about a Liberty vs. Domination dichotomy (similar, but not quite the same thing as Chaos vs. Law). As far as urgency goes, I have the luxury of time. I'm running an ongoing original D&D campaign, so my group is already gaming and there's no pressure. No one is waiting on me. RosenMcStern, which pseudo-historical fantasy supplements are you involved with? Those kinds of things are right up my alley, so I'll probably end up picking them up at some point, even if they're not directly applicable to what I'm currently doing. I've been wondering about the Rome supplement. For example, I imagine that it covers Gauls, and grabbing some of that might be a no-brainer. Thanks, again, for the advice!
  25. I'm planning a pseudo-historical/fantasy heroic Celtic campaign. I have the BRP gold book, but I heard some good things about MRQII, and am seriously considering that, too, although I haven't actually seen or read it, yet. What are some pros and cons of using one or the other? How easily would it be to mix them? Anything to watch out for? For magic, my initial idea is to have a setup like this: Sidhe/Foreign Wizards: Use basic magic. Druids: Use sorcery, with certain spells associated with certain gods. Seers: Use psychic abilities associated with divination Bards: Use psychic abilities associated with influence Does that seem like a good approach? I realize there are a lot of options for magic. I haven't really looked into anything other than what is in the gold book. Should I? What about the magic system(s) in MRQII?
×
×
  • Create New...