Jump to content

Nikoli

Regulars
  • Posts

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    I'm a roleplayer since the 80s, beginning first with MERP, Rolemaster, then Warhammer, and having by now played many of the classic games. This includes lots of CoC, some Pendragon, lots of Vampire the Masquerade, a little Werewolf, lots of Warhammer (1st and 2nd edition), Shadowrun (great world, painful system), WEG Star Wars (D6 - a real favourite), probably two games of D&D(!) - because MERP spoiled me - and some others. I'm currently looking for a good system for Warhammer, which has led me to BRP variants.
  • Current games
    I'm reading Zweihander at the moment, in my quest for a Warhammer system that works for both the players AND the GM. (Ease, yet detailed and flowing.) I'm thinking of buying Magic World.
  • Location
    Ireland
  • Blurb
    I teach psychology, hypnotize people, and take a serious interest in philosophy.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Nikoli's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/4)

35

Reputation

  1. @Questbird I did! I got the full bundle. It’s almost perfect. I would likely make the tens units in stamina a damage bonus and a toughness/soak, so a monster with 30 would get +3 to damage and -3 to damage done, as a kind of size/scale modifier like WEG Star Wars. A character would have +1 and -1, so they’d cancel out generally on the PC scale. That way a dragon is not just a lot of stamina, but can splat you and take a lot of attacks. The rule where a successful attack is always -1 stamina means it won’t make things just go plink. I like it when large creatures FEEL large. My main issue is the wizards and priests using the same spells and the same scroll mechanic. It lacks any distinction, which is odd. Warpstar uses half the career skill as the maximum number of spells (glyphs), without scrolls, so I might use something like that for priests. So a priest with 10 in Priest can receive up to 5 prayers (spells) and cast them from memory. I guess I’ll keep the resource pool of stamina, though I was thinking of Luck for Faith. I frankly don’t like the scrolls either. I might allow spells in memory, but the character needs to study a grimoire each night for an hour or lose one spell. I really wish one of the compendiums did something more with the priests. It’s the one thing I don’t find satisfying. Having said that, though, I suspect the old WFRP 1e spells could be used with a little tweaking. If you have any thoughts about making the initiates/priests feel more like priests, do let me know! N.
  2. @Questbird, I’ve just bought the Warlock bundle and also Warpstar, thanks to you! 🙂 Warlock looks very nice. I read online that a possible conversion to percentile is skill 1 is 10% (because 19 and 20 is a success on a D20), and every number after is +5%. So 10 is 55%. It looks like a fine system as is. Warpstar also looks great. I’m very interested to see how it works. I like simple but not too simple. Warlock doesn’t have any different mechanics for the races (communities), so my inkling is to use something like the career skill. I would probably use Fate Points as per WFRP, and fortune points as per WFRP 2e, but only allow fortune rerolls for race-relevant things. An elf shooting a bow, for example, or a Dwarf doing an endurance test. Maybe a table of relevant adjectives can be drawn up related to the races, like ‘keen-eyed’ or ‘doughty heart’ etc. Humans are ‘adaptable’ or ‘survivor’ or such. Just some way to get the races involved as ignoring them altogether is too simple. I think the magic is interesting, though I’m not crazy about everything being about scrolls (easily fixed) or about priests and wizards having the same spells. I’m not too sure what to do about that. I’ll read a little more. There might be a fix in a later compendium. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! 🙂 Nikoli
  3. Hi Michael, I’d be very interested to hear how you get on. I love The Old World, mostly the first edition version and some of the second. I have some fondness for the system, but on the whole I prefer Magic World. For races, I think the Middle Earth document on this site has some great stats and options that fit the WFRP first edition feel, especially for elves and dwarves. For professions, Magic World has a nice way to model those with experience being D8 instead of D6 for professional skills, and one automatic increase too. I think adding in a bank of talents from wfrp 2 might be good to give it more flavour. I would also consider a possible generic skill linked to each profession, like ‘Bounty Hunter’, that perhaps might work like a profession specific knowledge role or for various less-than-obvious skill rolls, or which interacts with skills by conferring a 1/5th bonus to profession related skills. So tracking game is one thing, but tracking a bounty activates the bounty hunter bonus. (A bit like the alignments maybe.) I only mention it as it means something of the unique profession, independently of the shared skills across professions, can come into the game. Like a speciality or an advantage. That might help give the professions a bit more of a presence in the game as opposed to just being reflected in skills that two different professions might share. So now a bounty hunter bargaining and a merchant bargaining can be quite different, depending on the nature of the bargain (e.g., a mark’s location versus a crate of wine). I suspect your main challenge will be magic. My own view would be to use Rolemaster spell lists as skills and to divide the spells into the colleges. Though again I prefer the first edition that was less stylised with the magic and only brought in colour magic at higher levels. Adjusting to the second edition magic never felt right for me, mainly because I didn’t like the options and felt they overlapped with the clerics too. For clerics, the Rolemaster channeling companion is great, as it divides spell lists by ‘sphere’, like war, so you have your various god’s reflected there. I’d love to know how you get on and would be interested in what you design for your game. Good luck! Nikoli
  4. I agree with the OP that MW needs more magic. I think Spell Law is a great approach. I believe there’s a compiled fan or ultra spell law edition, which has maybe even more spells across numerous companions. Not entirely sure; I’ve seen it, but not in detail. I personally sought out and bought the companions I mentioned in my post that Questbird cites above. The only issue I have with Spell Law is that some of the professions are perhaps too rigid at times, expecially for Mage, since it’s so elemental. I think it might be useful to just use profession lists and closed lists for a PC to design their approach, or if the GM has an idea in mind. But the channeling companion does that work well for priests/clerics in a way that feels appropriate. I only mention mages because it was a typical MERP class but it now reads as very limited relative to other games like D&D or BRP. So more flexible profession design might be good for wizards. I think that could work well though. E.g., a wizard with perhaps two or three alchemy lists might reflect a Saruman type. One could also use Spell Law as a massive grimoire and buy individual spells with Int. I discuss a combination of the list and grimoire approach in the post cited above. I think with a bit of tweaking, Spell Law and its companion books can give one everything in terms of magic, with MW becoming a more elegant and streamlined chassis on which to run Rolemaster magic. I do love lists as skills as opposed to spells as skills. :-) Nikoli
  5. As a further thought, one could always use a d10 for each of those outlook skills too, if the bonus is a worry. It might mean some players get unlucky and roll low a lot, though it creates an average of +5 with the possibility of more, which seems to make it motivationally worthwhile to include in chargen for the players.
  6. I agree. Though Climb (rope) might suit. I can see how some players, perhaps based on concept or the ongoing adventure, might choose or end up with specialties that are not strictly as useful. But I’d aim to make them useful and not be TOO specific. It’s definitely important to keep in mind!
  7. Thanks! Lots of ideas to mull over. I like the idea of giving specialisations to the professional skills at character generation. Makes sense. I think the 51% also makes sense. I had considered it, and saw the 75% as something to attain, though it likely makes more sense to make the threshold at the entry to the professional level, or to profession skills generally, since the benefit of specialisations is the dept it gives to characters. So in that case having it as a carrot for development is maybe not as good as allowing them earlier on, either at 51% or in professional skills. Perhaps house ruling that increased professional skills get a specialisation as standard, as you do, and all other skills at 51%, might be the way to go. That would further make professions differentiate, so two with Bargain can have very different specialisations right out the gate (e.g., Bargain - for horses; Bargain - for contracts). Nice!
  8. You might be right about the mechanic being a bit fiddly. Maybe an extra reroll is enough, though I might try the flip mechanic. I like your ideas. I’m also sympathetic to the general melee, missile, unarmed, etc., skills, with specialisations in particular weapon classes. WEG Star Wars does that. Though perhaps a person really can be a noob with certain weapons, like a swordsman trying to use nunchuks. But specialisations in general give more depth and colour to characters, which I think is needed in a game that is not heavy on skill lists and, with MW, has no talents. I kept looking at the character sheet and imagining that characters would appear too samey...but now I feel they can have some colour, with specialisations relating to their histories or, if a skill goes over 75% in play, it should relate to the adventure. A WFRP Troll Slayer might have Battleaxe (trolls) and dodge (trolls), for example. Previously I was struggling to pitch the game to counter the way D&D can allow such customisation/differentiation. I think specialisations are the key to do it. I’m wondering whether to allow more. Perhaps another ever 25% or ever 50%. So either another at 100 or 125. I’m not sure. I suppose allowing it at 100 would also further allow customisation and for the adventure to shape the characters. So an adventure that took players navigating through the High Nines, where the navigate skill increases over 75% or 100%, would see High Nines taken as a specialisation (if being quite specific) or, perhaps my approach, with ‘Navigate (passes)’. The current MW character sheet has plenty of room to write in specialisations, so I’m quite happy about this. I neglected to mention the flip (or reroll) might only occur once per session. I’m not sure if it should be a constant, but maybe it should be? I suppose it might make sense to have that benefit always on. I’m not sure if it’s too powerful then.
  9. Hi Guys, I’ve always liked the idea of talents to diversify characters, or the old White Wolf and WEG Star Wars (2e) system of specialisations. For Magic World, this could be easily implemented to further diversity characters and give then more colour. -System When a skill reaches 75%, the player chooses a word to specialise the skill and to denote an area of talent or further focus. E.g., Climb (trees/building/sheer surfaces/wet surfaces); dodge (swords, axes, etc); track (greenskins); Sense (danger, lies, movement, ambush) etc. Anytime a character gets 75%, he chooses a speciality. When the player rolls under the sphere of this speciality, he can ‘flip’ the die, making the units tens and the tens units, in order to succeed. (I would use this instead of a reroll, as I would use fortune points for regular rerolls.) So a roll of 63, whether successful or not, can be flipped to 36 at the player’s choice. Weapon skills might denote the particular weapon being used, such as broadsword, though if you have other suggestions, let me know. Perhaps the type of opponent: broadword (orcs; humans; duels) or bow (long shots; hunting; from cover) etc. Knowledge skills can likewise be specialised, such as Own Language (research/translation/oratorical tone) etc. So, what do you think? It seems a relatively simple and colourful way to add depth to player characters and NPCs. Thanks, N.
  10. Thanks. Yes, I’d aim to do that anyway. (Within reason. I wouldn’t expect a noble to be entirely helpless in a rural setting due to familiarity with landed estates, game, etc.) Though I’d be interested in a way to balance. But since the careers seem haphazardly pointed, it looks like the only way to do so would be to give out a standard amount of points to all careers and use the current listing as ‘skills you can choose from, coupled with maximum values’. So if a career has +20 in X, one can choose to put up to 20 points there. Advanced skills might cost 10 points to buy the base level. Maybe 100 points would suffice. It’s just unfortunate that the careers are so variable, as it also makes creating new ones an issue. I’m surprised the game recapitulates a well-known wfrp 1e issue. A standard approach, as with CoC, seems more useful. It’s maybe not an issue for most, though it doesn’t sit well with me. I was curious if others house ruled it. N.
  11. Hi Guys, I’ve recently become interested in Renaissance Deluxe and C&C, however despite being almost perfect it looks like - maybe similar to 1st edition WFRP - that the professions are not balanced in terms of awarded percentiles. Is this the case? Has anyone managed to balance them? I loved 1st edition WFRP, but I also don’t want people being short-changed because they want to be a certain concept and yet the system rewards X and not Y. I know, of course, that reality is like that. But in a game, it seems to me, it’s good to give everyone an equal footing - especially when the game has social standing. If there was a random roll for career, it might work, but even then it would be nice to balance professions so that people can choose a concept without being mechanically limited relative to another concept. I like the idea of every profession having value and so representing that in the game mechanically, too. Any thoughts or tips? Thanks! N.
  12. Putting a limit of one modifier use per adjective per session might be good. So a Vulcan can call upon ‘disciplined’ once a session, for a stat (1/20th) or skill (1/5th) bonus, and likewise can use the other three adjectives just once in the same session. Or alternatively 4 uses of any adjective per session; so a Klingon might use warlike 4 times in a session, rather than calling upon others. The situations would shape what might be needed. Edit: One might use other keywords or tags, too, to simulate abilities with the rating acting as a skill. For example, ‘Vulcan neck pinch’ and ‘Mind Meld’. They would not be adjectives but special racial abilities with the skill to use equaling the passion. (The GM would work out particulars of what the abilities can or can’t do with the player.) So a Vulcan racial profile might then be: logical, strong, neck pinch, mind meld (implies limited telepathy). The latter two abilities would rely on the Way rating itself; the other two would add to either skills or characteristics as mentioned before.
  13. Hi Hix, I had the same idea. It could be three or four adjectives. So Klingon might be: warlike, honourable, brave, intimidating. Vulcan might be: disciplined; logical; telepathic; strong. (The latter would be a bonus purely for strength, whereas Klingons would get their bonuses for combat generally.) Humans: Cooperative, adaptable, just, curious. Etc. I wanted to avoid working out specifics for each race/species, so the allegiance or passion would maybe start at 40% or 50% Way of X, and would increase as the player roleplayed and used their species traits. Like any skill, it could increase at the end of an adventure. Thanks for the book! I’ll take a look! 🙂
  14. Hi, Any more news about Space Cowboys? I was wondering if there are files available to look at. Unrelated to that, I’ve been thinking about Star Trek a lot lately, and to avoid the trouble of figuring out all kinds of species stats I think a general ‘Way of X [e.g., Vulcan]’ might work as a percentile passion. 1/5th of The Way of X would add to relevant skills or situations (like a Vulcan using a science skill) and 1/20th to characteristics (e.g., a Vulcan using Int to play 3D chess, or even to Str due to their low gravity homeworld). The player asks the GM if it can apply. It would be a flexible source of modifiers while keeping the core statistics for all characters the same. It would work for species previously defined in the setting (Ferengi; Klingon; etc.) New species would need development.
  15. I agree; it’s great. It seems to have fleshed out more background detail relative to Cthulhu Rising, such as extra info on psionics as well as making them rarer (and the rules allow for more than one power, so there are changes too; I think extra powers as well). It also has interesting rules for personality restructuring in case people go permanently insane. One may not use them, but it’s nice to see these mechanics as they can be used in futuristic settings to simulate various procedures. I really like the core mechanics; it will take me a while to survey all of them. All it’s missing are aliens and starship design, and some clearer (for me) starship combat examples. But I reckon the book is filled with many more useful nuggets to play as is or to use or adapt for other related systems. Even with Cthulhu Rising, one could use that at the table but keep NH as a compendium of extra info and options to add to CR, or as an alternative game of its own. I think it’s a significant compilation either way, and definitely an unofficial big book of sci-fi for more classic BRP as opposed to, say, Mythras.
×
×
  • Create New...