Nikoli

Which reminds me, I've not played in Glorantha, but apparently the 'ducks' have turned people away. Emotions and engagement with fantasy, with suspended disbelief, can be fickle and fragile. Every little (detail) helps, imo. Though one can't cater for everyone's tastes. I love fantasy art, though. Good art and a good map, with a great system, is a heady combo for roleplaying.

Ideally, I agree. But I also recognise the impact that art has in generating an atmosphere for a game even prior to playing it. I recall the very first time playing MERP, or Warhammer, and how the art was a touchstone for inspiring both the GM and the players. It creates an emotional impact even before the first die is rolled. I used to just stare at those images for hours daydreaming, and returned to them again and again over the years for inspiration. I think we all would agree the game is what's most important, which is why I bought it, but there's an impact based on the art and format. Particularly when other games are competing for attention and players. What one would like is the sense of anticipation when displaying the book, just like Stormbringer 5e is evocative. It's a small thing, but the devil is in the details, and atmosphere is key in so many ways. Some of those ways are the 'tools' of the game itself: its presentation and art. Developers know this, to create an immersive effect - left brain and right - though unfortunately in our case a great system and game was unfortunately lumped with a poor package. It's just unfortunate. Nothing more. But I'd certainly buy a better presented version. I don't wish to play RQ6 or such, so alas I'm stuck with the look of the game I prefer! Hmm. Maybe I'll get a leather embossed cover!

Out of curiosity, because Chaosium said they would allow third party developments for MW, would it be possible to do a Kickstarter deal with Chaosium where we could get MW redesigned and reprinted into a more attractive book? I find the system great, but the look of the book is offputting when trying to entice players from other games with more evocative art and better production values. (As an aside, 'basic roleplaying' doesn't help as a brand name, either. I find it odd that Chaosium still goes with the BRP name for its generic system, purely from a business pov. 100% Roleplaying, or similar, would be better. In my view, few people would immediately warm to the idea of doing a 'basic' version of something they are interested in. And even after having done it, the implication is that they would eventually seek out more advanced games. That's why I like Magic World as a generic fantasy base, but the book needs a new look. Using it to entice hardcore DnD people who have never tried D100 is a difficult sell aesthetically.) Just curious. I'd love to see a new book and, even, a move away from the 'basic' core system label.

Actually, the more I think of it, the more I think a Maelstrom approach could work for super characteristics. Super STR could be a skill, with each use defining a rank similar to probability in Maelstrom. You go from 'strongman' (bending bars), to punching through walls, then up to lifting a car, a plane, and such. Perhaps a 5 degree scale. You get one free use per day per purchased level. After that, you spend a MP per use or attempt, or perhaps per level, regardless if you are successful. Allowing for failure at higher levels similar to Maelstrom would model how Superman might sometimes struggle to stop a plane dead in its tracks (he succeeded at lower levels and is slowing it down) or might be forced back by a missile yet slow it down. The complete stop might be played as an extended action requiring a certain number of successes. (Not to mention the fact that a dead stop would seriously hurt those onboard.) Similar to Maelstrom defining the rank for impossible, the above might define from exceptional but still human all the way to Superman. In fact, when I think of it, archetypal heroes could define the high levels of each power. Want to be like The Flash in Dex? That's level 5 speed. Maybe Wolverine is 2 or 3. A beggining, middle, and end might be enough to create a descriptive scale, with wiggle room between. Stronger than Wolverine (3) but less than Superman (5). That's a 4. Spiderman might be STR 2; The Hulk might be 4 STR (for the sake of example and argument, anyway, rather than truth to the character here); Superman 5. With the Hulk and Superman is a difference of 1. So Superman may get a bonus of 20% per difference to STR skills, including the effort roll and/or the resistance roll, in a fight. This would equal a starting resistance roll of 70/30 to the stronger. 90/10 if the difference is 2 (and plus 40% skills). 110/05 or 01 if more, such as Superman vs Spiderman. A super always has a chance to slip out, though, hence the 01. Maybe an extra % per spent MP, too. Dex would be similar; INT too. Lex Luthor could be 5. We use archetypes to define the end of the comic playable scale. Scaling beyond that might still be 5 rolls, but at level 6 level 1 is always on; at 7 level 1 and 2 is always achievable; etc. So higher levels result in guaranteed lower level activation, meaning the degree of 5 extra is always still present. We might then up the scale to 10, with Superman in STR a 9. (Since he did get killed once.) So he always has up to 4 'on'. (That scale might be lifting a car or a bus.) Perhaps a 10 scale might be ideal, with higher levels buying automatic lower levels, while still keeping the Maelstrom 5-roll mechanic. That would make a strongman 1; Wolverine maybe 3; Thor 5; Hulk 7; Superman 9. We have wiggle room between each and above each. So we can always narrate weaker, stronger, and similar. INT might also yield such combat bonuses with sufficient time to prepare a deadly narrative trap or environment to offset the stronger party. Maybe INT reduces by 20% rather than increases, and requires wealth. If some skill is reduced to 0, maybe the opponent is immobilised. Verbs and adjectives might also form the basis of powers, similar to how Technoir uses verbs and adjectives. We have fly as a verb; tough as an adjective. Oppositional rolls could force (comparative) adjectives onto opponents, such as 'weaker'. Or 'injured'. In technoir, these go from temporary to fixed. But this may need more work than the Maelstrom mechanic. Whatever the scale, it seems a Maelstrom approach, using archetypes and comic-style achievements to define each degree, or at least to typify the high range, might work narratively. If differences add to skill it can still allow for a skill-off. Super Toughness (CON) might soak levels of damage. Maybe an extra variable armor to the character, such as a die type. D3, d6, d8, d10, d20. At higher levels the die is maxed. So 3 + 1d20 for level 6. 6 plus 1d20 for 7. Up to 20 plus d20. Tough but not immortal, without other powers to block radiation or fire, etc. (In case you get nuked.) These are just ideas to spark a genuinely workable mechanic. As is, it's just a concept here for likely better system-minded people to tinker with.

Extra IQ would suggest that each point is an IQ point over 100, plus your starting INT. Making 218 the human limit. Or something similar. Perhaps it grants an extra 100% to relevant knowledge rolls. (See DEX below for a similar combat mechanism.) Super speed could be similar. Each point is an extra Dex for initiative. I saw that DC Universe had some crazy extra actions...sometimes 18 per turn...which would be a gaming nightmare. So I think extra speed could be modelled, as it seems to be cinematically (having watched Watchmen recently again, with Ozymandias) as making it easier to do things. Just like with INT and knowledge skills, others struggle to fight such a figure. So Super Speed at 100% could be an extra 100% to reaction or attack skills, like dodge. It could also be 100mph on entry to the power plus 1 or 10 mph per %. As with STR, you win against normals, but other superfast supers compare the level for initiative. Perhaps the difference in ratings is the skill added. So a fast super of 60% facing a faster super of 80% means the faster super gets +20% to relevant skills. Free actions maybe cost a MP. So you can't dominate the game without cost. Or maybe you can do lots of non-combat free actions, one per MP, so you could run around and do a lot, but combat actions require skill and typical deductions and the usual minuses offset by the extra points gained by super speed. So you could do 4 actions, with each extra costing -30, which you get extra skill points to help with, and they all happen before anyone else due to DEX initiative. You should be fast, able to do stuff, able to attack and dodge with more ease, but not be a ridiculous multi-action nightmare. Super tough would, like super STR, suggest 1% equals 1HP. It perhaps could oppose STR. Against a normal each % is like armor, so 10 is like kevlar or such, but against super STR they oppose. If STR wins, damage as normal human level damage. So a punch is still d3; if toughness won, it just does 1HP. A special or critical maybe just goes plink. Supers fighting supers perhaps always count as doing at least human damage if the toughness roll fails. It's like scaling the threat level. Needs a lot of work. But it seems super characteristics and skills could be combined. Buying into a super skill effectively puts you beyond the norm, but other supers could oppose. STR vs STR and Toughness (CON) vs STR. If each super characteristic had simultaneously a human comparison and also a built in super comparison (via the percentile), it might work.

I was wondering about that approach too, Chaot. I noticed Elder Godlike has skills for most powers, but for super strength or INT it modifies the characteristics. This means you can't quite scale them for what I would like. If we had super strength like a skill, it could oppose other supers as a skill, and the skill could have a scale for lifted weight developed for it. Perhaps every % in the skill would be +1 to the original attribute, or it starts at original STR in %. But now it has its own scale. So a PC with STR 15, who buys super strength, now has 15% in it. They automatically win in opposed STR against normals (as if they had 30), but have only 15% skill against other supers. I'm not sure what the scale might be. Reading the marvel fan wiki, it seems the target to reach is lifting 100 tons. That is the main limit or capacity, or so it seems, of heroes like The Hulk. Beyond that it gets crazy. But if 100 tons could be modelled, most heroes could be developed. That might suggest that each % is a ton!

Hi, It wasn't Star Wars I was interested in playing, though I did see that conversion. It was BRP with a good supers mechanic. I think it must be doable even at higher levels, but likely requires a rethink of the characteristics. I noticed that a 3d6 stat is only a jump away from the WEG approach, so I was wondering if the narrative difficulty of Star Wars and the percentile skills of BRP could be used together by making stats WEG-based. I've ordered the WEG D6 revised Powers system. (I have the pdf.) The body points match heroic hit points, so the game seems similarly scaled. I'm curious if all the powers (there are many) can be grafted onto BRP. By using WEG soak, the powers should scale, avoiding the problem of BRP lethality. I've also ordered Elder Godlike. It seems interesting, but it's unclear so far how to make a traditional hero with it. It wasn't intended for that, but I really want to make BRP fully 'superable'. There must be some way. (The BGB is not available locally. And due to mixed reports on Supers, I was looking for another possible option.) I'm tempted to purchase an expensive Superworld box set, but I chose Elder Godlike in the hope that a newer mechanic had been wisely devised. It could work if the STR stat was rescaled. If STR was matched on one WEG scale, the character would be lifting 100 tons or more at 77 STR. (Some reports here think Superman might have 800 STR or even higher - with extra zeroes. So scale is an issue that WEG solves.) I may get the BGB eventually. I love percentiles; MW and Stormbringer going over 100% was a revelation after playing CoC for years and never having seen such a mechanic. I firmly believe the skill system can be married to all sorts of mechanisms.

I only have Elder Godlike, which I started reading. But using that, and the above, 5EP (Eldritch Points) could buy 10D6 extra strength. (Instead of 10 per 1EP.) I think Con should be seperated, so strength and toughness are not identical. So a Superman type would need about 15 EP. Super strong, super tough, and the other 5EP for flight, laser eyes, and infrared vision. Elder Godlike uses 5EP characters, but it's interesting if a Superman can be modelled on 15. (The damage bonus can be bought directly in Elder Godlike, at +2d8. I don't know why this is; perhaps because buying strength direct didn't link up well with the damage bonus partly based on size. This 'could' be kept, but I think it's best left out and replaced with STR. Unless you want to have a very lethal attack independent of STR. Like a death touch. Maybe it's fine and a fair tradeoff if you go for deadliness as opposed to pure strength.) Magic points could be used like WEG character points, with a max expenditure of 5 on any roll. And 'Hero Points' like Force Points. So all stats can double, and all damage dice etc., for a round. This means a ray weapon doing 4d8 (in Elder Godlike) could do either 9d8 (plus 5 MPs; an average of 36) or they could spend a hero point and get all stats doubled (including skills), so the ray would be 8d8 that round. Dex could be scaled to derive some ascending speed. 4d6 would be 100 metres in 10 or less seconds. So perhaps some exponential scale after that. At 12d6 I think we want to break the sound barrier and maybe more. That speed does impact dodge, though, as mentioned above. But not crazily. Initiative can be the d10 plus the number of die. The damage needs more clarity, for brawling and lethal, if using BRP ratings. So a kick is 1d6 plus db, which here we replace with STR. So a normie would kick for 3d6. As it's brawling, another normie gets a full soak of an average 2d6. This is okay once we can tweak the variability as it will impact hits. WEG had stun, so a failed soak could result in stun or half the rolled over soak damage. Maybe you choose. So rolling a good 15 damage from 3D6 and the soak being a very bad 3 on 2d6 would leave 12, which halved is 6 off hit points. Not too bad and very BRPish. (Brawling is half rolled damage after soak; melee weapons are rolled damage after soak; firearms are half soak dice for supers only. Normies get no soak against guns.) So it seems we can still have understandable lethality, while also having pulp and heroic soaking. Armor is variable as it now adds pips, so 3 is a d6. It goes directly onto soak for supers. A normie would only get the armor itself as a soak. So being super tough (12d6) with 9 armor would be 15d6 soak. An average of about 51. As BRP has dynamite etc., perhaps the max damage that can be rolled, to fit the above heroic and galactic mechanics, is 30d6 against a comparable size scale. So super versus regular sized super. But a death star vs a planet would be comparable, so there would be 30d6 against the planet's standard 12d6. This is without hero points and fits the 30 heroic difficulty number, for neatness. Using a villain (hero) point would make it 60d6. Superman would be in serious danger here, on the planet, even if he spent a Hero Point. But he could get lucky. Even without the villain hero point, such a weapon of that planetary scale would pose a serious threat to any superhero. I forget the mechanic, but WEG has a scaling feature for larger things shooting smaller things. Just some ideas. I'm using Elder Godlike as a power builder, so of course the feel of the above is not EG. I just wanted to see if a Superman type could be modelled. With 15EPs, it seems EG could do it. Likely there are many gaping holes above. :-)

I'm very interested in the topic of BRP's superpowers and updating Superworld. Reading around some of the issues on this forum, about scale, I was wondering if a WEG (the D6 Star Wars) method might work. E.g., instead of having supers with fixed Str etc., might we just revert the characteristics back to the 3D6? Normies have 2d6. That way, by using the WEG difficulty scale (30+ is heroic) we can have a narrative scale while also having a superhero soak roll. For example, if shot for 1d10 damage the soak of 3d6 (I would opt for half soak, round down, against firearms - so 1d6) would model a more heroic game. Points over soak go to Hits. Damage die can explode, however. So 10 is roll again and add. Powers could buy extra D6s, rather than plus 5 or 10 to a 3-18 stat. WEG states that 12d6 is the best in a galaxy. By that scale, Superman might have 12d6 or even more in strength, since he is arguably powerful across many galaxies. (To limit roling, one can average half of these dice, resulting in 21+ 6d6.) That's 6d6 soak against guns. (Make every point of armour a pip, so 3 is an extra d6.) Strength can also replace Con rolls, as in WEG. (Perhaps regular humans have 2d6 in starting stats, as per WEG. But no soak against lethal. Though perhaps they could soak brawling.) This would seem to replace the damage bonus rules of regular BRP, as STR rolls for damage and soak would now be combined. Moreover, in terms of Siz, this can be used for starting HP, but perhaps just that. WEG had rules for scale, such as large things, which I recall being very inuitive. Very big things soaked a lot from smaller things! (I think they got an extra 4d6 or so, depending. I'd have to look. But it essentially linked Siz to ability to withstand damage.) To judge whether someone can lift something very big, like a plane, just set it at heroic difficulty level. It would require 10d6 STR to do this reliably. Likewise for bashing through very thick steel in one go. Just narrate it. Skills can remain percentile. Though they too 'could' be converted for narrative super play. Every 25% assigned or earned is a D6, with characters making skill rolls with attributes plus skills. E.g., STR affects brawling, as per WEG, therefore 5D6 STR and 75% skill points in Brawling means 8D6 brawling (averaged/streamlined to 14 + 4D6). This would effectively, or so it seems (this is very off the top of my head), transplant the narrative WEG difficult and skill success system over BRP. It seems nice, too, as the percentiles can still be used for improvement rolls. The benefit of the above is it seems to allow for the WEG narrative approach, and for scalable stats up to galactic level. One could even add in character points and 'force points'. Of course, at this point, especially if converting skills, one might ask why not just play WEG. Good question. I guess the main issue is we can still use the BRP sheet while thinking of the WEG difficulty rolls. The percentiles then replace the 'pips' of improvement, since now we only go up a d6 after 25%. You might make this 20%. 60% in a skill, and 3d6 in a related stat, leads to 6d6. But this seems a little too good at a 21 average for the narrative WEG difficulty level. By contrast, it would be 5d6 for a starting super and 4d6 for a normal. This seems to fit the WEG difficulty levels (10 to 15 was challening, if I recall, but not difficult). So the 25% skill to 1d6 conversion seems to fit. Also, with BRP, we can use the weapon damages as is. It seems to fit. A sword doing D10, from a normal, would add 2d6 normie STR db. A starting non-modified super would soak that with 3d6 STR. (It might be good to use half STR, round down, to soak from firearms.) Just some thoughts. If using skills as regular percentiles, with no D6, which does seem wise to keep BRP as BRP, perhaps every D6 over 3D6 in a related stat adds +5 to related skill categories. E.g., 6d6 in STR would mean a +15 to all STR skills, such as brawling and jump, etc. 12d6 would be +45%. This would replace the BRP skill modifiers based on a 3-18 stat. The stats would then just be used for opposed rolls and heroic stunts. And soak. A punch would be d3 plus 2d6 as standard. But is soakable. A firearm might do d10 but uses half soak against supers. (By extension, this above would seem to allow for star wars space combat.) Is the above pure madness? (I've been up late, so maybe!) I'm not sure if the above would solve any of the issues. But it does seem to refit the statistics to a 12d6 galactic level and to add a narrative difficulty level that fits a supers game.

I remember that. It's neat. I wanted the same mechanic for all users, so the flavour is the lists themselves. My concern would be tracking allegiance so that it raises or can raise in a comparable way to MPs. It seems easier (for me) to just use the same mechanic. But using allegiance for extra MPs seems good. Likewise for chaos sorcerors etc. The wizards who aren't too religious and are more self-reliant are left to their own power. Maybe for each MP drawn upon from allegiance, there is a 'wrath of the gods' or 'taint' mechanic. Each MP is a % chance of some disapproval. So drawing 5mps from allegiance leads to a 5% chance. What happens is up to the GM. Maybe no access to powers or that list. Maybe some other event. Because they are drawing from their deity, they are protected from the corruption mechanic below. (In the case of chaos sorcerors...they are already corrupt!) I was thinking of using the MPs cost as a corruption mechanic, like in MERP 2E. The spell MPs is the %. You cast a spell, but for each MP spent there is a chance of being noticed and tainted. The taint could be the MP cost added on to chaos allegiance. The 'noticed' is the chance of some nefarious servant or servants of the enemy being sent your way. So clerics can draw on their allegiance, but could evoke wrath. They don't suffer corruption. But they might still be noticed. (Perhaps they can use allegiance points to veil their good works?) Wizards can suffer corruption and be noticed. The casting roll and corruption/noticed roll can be separated or combined. E.g., casting a lvl 4 spell with a POW of 18 means a casting roll of 90%. But if they roll 4 or less, corruption/noticed. The spell goes off, but they suffer 4 chaos points and some lesser servants of evil, like orcs, are sent their way. (Spells over lvl 10 may result in greater servants.) Clerics might have a similar mechanic, but could be just the wrath of god. They lose the number of MPs from their allegiance. E.g., with the above stats, if under 4% they lose 4 light and must atone before they can use that list again. (I think calling lists 'litanies' and individual spells 'prayers' seems fitting.)

Hi, I recently purchased Elder Godlike on a whim, and am awaiting its arrival. (The pdf won't download yet.) Anyways, there's not a lot being said about it, here or elsewhere, so I'd like to know how it compares to the BGB or Superworld power system, if it's compatible with either of those, and basically whether it addresses any of the issues I have read about Superworld here. (I expect it's still fairly lethal.) But do the powers scale in opposition, as it seems they have some resistance mechanic that might address earlier Superworld/BGB criticisms? (Where a high POW mental power will wipe out the big guys.) So, if anyone has any feedback, comments, experience, and knows if Elder Godlike can supplement the BGB (which I haven't got yet - I would only really want it for the powers, but they seem to get a mixed reception), I'd love to know. (I have RQ3; MW; Stormbringer 5E; and CoC. Buying the BGB is tempting, but I would mainly want it for the superpowers. But they either seem problematic, or few in number, thus requiring a lot of work.) What I love about BRP is the use across genres, so for me being able to run a viable Supers game (or to use a workable mechanic for other games) would be important to take the splash and buy the BGB. I went with Elder Godlike because it was more recent and was designed with this end in mind. Maybe it addresses some of the Superworld/BGB issues? Thanks!

Come to think of it, allegiance could be linked to lists, too. E.g., an elf with 80% balance might be able to use a lvl 8 nature's ways, etc. Just some ideas. Or maybe they can call on such a power once per adventure or session, etc. The lists, being percentile in the above mechanics, can port onto arete and allegiance easily, as well as being their own skills.

Thanks, Questbird! I'm following in your noble footsteps! I would likely use either 6 or 8 initial spell lists at INT %. That way, if using the memorisation element for non-profession spells, the smarter mage isn't penalised...because having more lists means a lower lowest score on average. (If using the idea that you roll the lowest list skill as a non-professional skill % for other spells.) So setting the number will make it fair. Either 6, as per RM, or 8 to mirror the number of skills in a regular profession. But I would likely do 6. (I'm wondering if I might just go for full lists and leave individual spells...but they seem useful.) For higher level attack spells (e.g., lvl 7), if it says 'like shock bolt I' (lvl 2) or something, but 300 feet, I would count damage as lvl 2 (d4) but 300 foot range. So I would only count the higher level if a genuine attack lvl, such as a fireball. Or a lightning bolt. Yeah, the magic damage bonus seems useful. I got the idea from RM/MERP's idea of a directed spell OB. :-) Where a spell says 'lvl in mins', etc., I use POW. I agree. The lists allow for very flavourful magic users and clerics. An apprentice might be INT % in all base; a journeyman wizard 50%; a full wizard (magister in wfrp) 80%; a master over 100% in each; and a wizard lord or archmage over 150% (lvl 20 for me, or 200% if keeping with the 10% increments over 100%. I think making 5% increases over 100% to be an extra level works. A kind of arete for the deep secrets such mastery has produced, leading to 150 equal to lvl 20 and 200% to lvl 30. It seems neat. 300% would be the amazing lvl 50. Only godlike beings would have such power, as PCs are still limited by POW for maximum casting lvl.

Hi Mugen, The suggested conversion is 6 RM hits to 1 MW/BRP/RQ hits. So that works. Don't use the attack tables, only the critical tables. The conversion is the one recommended by RM, but you could modify it to a more conservative 7 or 8 to 1. You can of course base critical severity on another method, though I favour one tied to skill without needing to work out fractions of total hits. A simple method might be to increase the severity for every HP over half total hits. So hitting for 11 against a half total of 8 would result in a C critical. (9 is A, 10 is B, 11 is C.) I would allow casting spells exactly as you state, below list% divided by 10, but I also mix it with memorisation. One doesn't have to, but it enables grimoires. I like that there's a magical professional core along with room to maneuvre. RM normally limited non-base lists so that you could only learn a certain level outside your core profession. By having a listed core (about 6 lists) and the other slots being memorised, it helps to emulate that WHILE also allowing diversity. I think one might find that using only lists would prevent PCs from useful narrative spells or that it may box them in too much, thus reducing the appeal of Spell Law. So I see Spell Law as providing both magical professions and a huge collection of individual spells. (But you could certainly just use lists throughout. You may then need to rule if non-base lists can go over 100%. And if closed and open lists differed, too.) But I'd encourage anyone to use what suits themselves. My approach is just one way. I took some ideas from Questbird and modified them, to reduce starting and casting spell whiff, while aiming to preserve the core profession AND the spell grimoire effect. I envisage a grimoire as having either individual assorted spells, collected over time, derived from many lists, or being dedicated to entire lists. E.g., The Art of Fire (Fire Law). Best, N.

Yes, a lot of spells. 2000 or so, in the basic package. But many of those will be too powerful if you used my POW is max level rule, which I think is wise. So having 200% in a list won't get you a 20th level spell, unless you have the POW. (I would likely make every 5% over 100 a lvl, so 150 would be lvl 20. That makes 300% the effective limit at lvl 50, but my POW limit would prevent those spells from being cast.) My main problem with MW as a generic system was that it lacked the spells/miracles I wanted for magic users and clerics. I have the Magic Book, Advanced Sorcery, some updated Deep Magic posted by Chaot (which is good), and Classic Fantasy, but still couldn't recreate to my satisfaction, in an elegant system, the variety or types I wanted. Spell Law does it better for me and can create god-specific clerics (the Channeling Companion is needed for this), bards, paladins, etc. It also provides a huge selection of individual spells for memorisation, if using that mechanic. And lists as skills are more forgiving than individual spells as skills. It also allows for a nice sense of progression, so learning magic is partly built into the system I described since you get ticks and via experience checks you can learn new spells. I also wanted to use the critical tables. :-) The serious wound table needed some expanding, for me. I wanted to attract WFRP players, and wfrp had more critical tables. Mostly, I feel I can now model lots of wizards and clerics, and other professions or species like elven rangers. It also has alchemy rules. It feels more magical while still running on MW's very streamlined and elegant core system. And despite the complicated rolemaster base rules, you can ignore all of that. Any bonuses and penalties can be ported over, though, more or less. E.g., you might choose to use instantaneous casting at a -30 penalty, just as in RM. A round of prep is 0, and two rounds is +30. This just shows that the mechanics are useable with MW. So you can steal a lot of the detail with less complication. The Mentalism Companion goes into astrology and tarot, for example. It may not suit everyone, though. But I like the consistency of just having the RM books at the table. Even if you don't use it as above, the various lists can be used as Arete systems, so that after certain skills go over 100%, they could provide list powers. E.g., after Nature 100% you might give access to Nature's Ways list in the manner I described earlier, so 120% would get a lvl two 'benefit' or power. Alegiance could also be used, so one might grant Paladin powers over 100% Light, etc. It has a lot of uses, imo. N.

Hi Nick, Yes, the halflings are VERY resistant. But not immune to a powerful sorceror, although I feel few writeups in rpgs give any benefit to being a halfling. Only MERP or RM had a tangible benefit, which felt appropriate to Tolkien and their general willpower. In fact, in some d100 writeups they even get lower POW than a human! It's true, though, that in RM the resistance table based on level is more granular. A level difference led to 2 or 3 percentiles, rather than 5% as in MW, so +30 (6 POW) for halflings and +20 (4 POW) for dwarves seems close to the original intent. This is just for resistance, though, so the regular stat stays the same. I would also use fate points like in WFRP, with humans and halflings getting 3, dwarves 2 and elves 1. Humans need to spend a fate point to be a cleric or magic user. Dwarves can be alchemists, without spending a fate point, but they are best as NPCs. Elves can be rangers as standard or indeed magic users or bards, etc. Few humans would have such training in the ways of the woods or magic. Elves are fading but are still close to magic. So Dwarves and Hobbits benefit from resistance as standard in the absence of magic; depending on setting, clerics might be possible. (Rather nicely, for WFRP, one can use the Slaying column for Dwarven Slayers! You might also rule that large creatures use the next column up from their skill level, and huge creatures two columns up. That way a huge creature with 80% can do an E critical. Seems fitting.) In WFRP, halflings were all but immune to chaos. (Though a halfing mutant did creep into the published scenarios.) This resistance seemed to be based on the Tolkien aspect in which halflings consistently impressed the other races with their heart and courage, not to mention the ringbearer. I kind of like the idea that a halfling thief might prove a bane to a sorceror. What they lack in arms they can make up in other ways. Even in Age of Shadow, it's hard to see the appeal of a halfling without some tangible benefit. In RM and MERP, dwarves and hobbits were very resistant to magic. Especially hobbits. They had appeal for a PC. Anyways, just my two cents! Glad you found the other stuff interesting!

Hi, I'm indepted to Questbird, who a while ago posted about combining Spell Law with BRP/Magic World. For example, in my version, spell users get a number of base lists (half INT) at INT% and can cast spells on their lists equal to lvl x 10%. So starting characters can cast lvl 1 spells. In my version, the spells are cast at a POW times 5 casting roll, but the lists are ticked for experience if the roll also goes under the lists %. That way individual lists increase but characters are not unnecessarily whiffy when it comes to using spells. Spells relating to damage, like a shock bolt (lvl 2), do damage based on the demon power list (so a d4 if lvl 2; but in my game I use POW and INT to derive a magic damage bonus, using the same table as STR and SIZ. That way a shock bolt can be fairly offensive). Magic point cost is the lvl of the spell. (Classic Fantasy's Spell Lore can be used to provide extra MPs while being used as an Arcane Knowledge/Lore.) I would suggest allowing characters to have up to half INT in base lists, but the remaining INT is for memorising other spells, with each lvl being a point of INT. This means that characters can also diversify a grimoire and can only hold in memory spells up to half INT in lvl. Thus, a character of INT 18 can only hold non-base spells up to lvl 9 in memory, but can cast base spells up to POW in lvl. (Related to this, I have been thinking of limiting skill levels to a corresponding statistic times ten. This would mean that skill % can max out while being tied to PC stats. It also means a demon with a high STR or DEX can also have a very high skill potential. But I digress.) The aim here (with memorising individual spells, combined with spell lists) is to allow for finding spells as being a motive, and to make sure magic users are not too rigid in relation to starting base lists. However, lists allow for different flavours of magical professions. Casting any spell uses POW times 5 as a casting roll, but for casting non-base spells the maximum lvl one can learn and cast is equal to the lowest base list skill the PC has divided by 10. Thus if out of all PC lists the lowest skill is 23%, the PC can only learn and hold in memory, and cast, a lvl 2 non-base spell. This controls power levels while tying power and diversity strongly to skill in all of one's lists. So lists in general, as a measure of magical skill generally, determine the lvl of non-base spell one can learn and cast. The above system is best if using Spell Law along with the Essence Companion, the Mentalism Companion and the Channeling Companion. The latter is especially great for god-specific clerics, and can model wfrp gods and other dieties. Spell Law on its own fails to do this. (Mentalism might work well as being reserved for elves, but I haven't decided yet.) However, different from the above solely in relation to magic, I would also suggest that Arms Law (or the simpler MERP or A MILLION WAYS TO DIE critical lists) can be used too. One doesn't need to use the attack tables, only the criticals. E.g., anytime a serious wound is done, it is now referred to the critical tables. This is a small change and requires little change to MW as per usual. It is true that such hits might now be fatal, but they also don't inherently lead to the PC passing out after a few rounds. Stunned means parry and dodge at half skill %; unable to parry is self-explanatory, but you can keep dodge at half; and bleeding and extra damage can be converted by the recommended (in an ICE supplement for converting to Runequest) 6 equals 1 (in BRP/MW), perhaps rounding up. Thus an extra 10 hits and bleeding 1 per round can be an extra 2 hits and 1 hit per round. The description also ties in nicely with some healing lists, as nerve damage or whatever may require such specific healing. The sole issue for the above critical lists is what severity column to use: from A to E. This can be answered by skill level. Thus, if the attacker has 40 or fewer percentiles, then use A. 60 or fewer is B; 80 or fewer is C. 100 or fewer is D; and over 100 is an E. This seems to model nicely how skill level makes serious wounds more lethal, and the descriptions model the deadliness of the attacker. This also means that spells can also use the Spell Law critical tables (let the list % determine any severity column), without recourse to the convoluted attack tables which required rolling high. In this system, only the critical tables are used instead of the previous serious wound table in MW. I feel it adds to the flavour of the setting. In a way, the core BRP/MW system simplifies Rolemaster while allowing for the RM spells and gorey detail. In fact, when one considers that RM OB ratings are convertible to MW skill levels, such as creature attack levels, according to RM conversion guidelines, the RM treasures material are also useable. A +20 sword can now be used. (Although you might feel that such a weapon should only increase damage rather than skill rating. But the latter is effectively how RM did it.) In any case, the above provides some suggestions for RM Spell Law and Arms Law to be used with MW. It also suggests how MW can essentially replace the core of RM while still using its other elements. Again, Channeling Companion provides for spell lists based on religious spheres, such as war or fire, or nature/druids, and is essential to give fantasy world clerics the required detail. Wizards, too, are rather elemental in RM, so one might want to allow wizards/mages to pick three elemental base lists (from mage lists) and the rest from closed lists. The GM can decide if closed lists are available for further spell memorisation or not, or if only open lists are. Likewise the place of Mentalism in your world may need consideration. Naturally, dwarves make good alchemists. You might give regular dwarves the Inorganic Skills list as a species trait, which would fit their great crafting abilities. Likewise, elves might get some lists as racial/species abilities. (I would personally use the RM and MERP guidelines that make Hobbits and Dwarves very resistant to magic. Hobbits get effectively +10 to POW and Dwarves +8 for resisting magic. This balances the lack of magic users among these peoples, with the exception of Dwarven alchemists. But that's just me; MERP was my first rpg, so it left a mark!) Any thoughts on the above, let me know. Again, my thanks to Questbird, who started my thinking on the above lines. :-)

Hi, This looks great. I can't seem to find the BRP Ravenloft in the downloads or on Chaot's page. Is it gone? Thanks in advance! Nikoli

Hi, I neglected to add that the specialisations of Deep Magic would also develop after 101%, so they enter with 2 as usual, but gain an extra 1 per 25%. So the knowledge for spell creation develops, too. Likely the base damage/healing will need to be scalled to POW divided by 4 and perhaps Arcane Lore divided by 25, rather than MP, since the latter reduces as specialisation increases. So the base damage can be the die type suggested by the base manipulations possible to any magic user. But manipulations proper can still occur after casting the spell. Here we are concerned with the base level. Again, this may need tweaking; by adding a casting roll of -10% per manipulation, I think we can balance it. Reading these tomes, in CoC, took several months, so it takes time for lores to rise. I would not allow experience checks for lores. Only research. Such books are extremely valuable, awkward/heavy, and require time to study. Finding one on an adventure becomes a source of wonder and danger. They now must be read, too, prior to accessing their spell content, which are learned separately, too. Nikoli

Hi, I've been on a rather epic (but lazy) quest: the quest to find the right kind of magic system to port into or develop for MW. I'm thinking WFRP 1e spells, but I quite like some of the RQIII flexibility (I bought the deluxe single softback, and also have the GW hardbacks - I find the older editions more evocative; maybe because the art reminds me of classic wfrp, one of the first games I played). I see MW has my base for translating other BRP-related goodies/ideas into. I decided that I like magic users having some skill tied to their abilities, so that they feel a sense of progression, just like a player of a warrior might grow attached to seeing their weapon skill rise. I figured Arcane Lore would serve as both a knowledge roll and a casting roll, if such a roll is desired. I wanted to also include spell manipulation, but as a single skill, similar to Legend/MRQII. I felt these latter games got closest to the kind of BRP system for magic that felt best for me: streamlined and elegant, mostly. Especially when it came to manipulation. (Separate skills for duration, for example, just leaves me cold.) Using the advanced sorcery idea of deep magic's rule of 4, I figured that the inherent manipulation possibile could be a function of POW divided by 4 plus every 25% of Arcane Lore (25, 50, 75, 100, etc). So, a magic user of POW 20 and 101% Arcane Lore could manipulate their spells for 9 points worth. I figure that using Arcane Lore, also with raw POW, in this way would introduce the CoC dynamic where ancient tomes become sought after. It also explains why a library of great magic books can be a source of tremendous power. As in CoC, reading such books will bestow a bonus to the lore skill, and darker tomes may also receive a bonus to Dark/Blasphemous Lore. (I would add Arcane Lore, Dark Lore, and Academic Lore as skills, along with a Divine Lore for clerics. Academic Lore would be general history, astronomy, etc., while Dark Lore would be demons, necromancy, etc. So a few comprehensive, streamlined skills. I'd allow academic/magic users to take two extra skills with their profession. I'd start Dark Lore for such characters at a base of their chosen Shadow allegiance, due to reading, exposure, Faustian temptation, etc.) Dark Lore will add a dangerous twist to reading some discovered tomes or grimoires. I am currently thinking of a less dangerous Cthulhu Mythos mechanic, since in fantasy a wizard might know something of the dark (like Gandalf) without being utterly mind-blasted because of it! Maybe 1/5th of dark/blashephemous lore is taken from a max SAN characteristic....and added also to Chaos/Shadow allegiance...but I digress. My main aim is to give wizards an adventuring rationale not just tied to spells in grimoires, but to the knowledge of magic itself, which in turn has a real game effect via increasing manipulation and more (see later). I currently think that perhaps Int times 20 is the maximum for any Lore skill level, so a wizard of 17 Int could get their lore up to 340%. That would prevent the most powerful wizard being simply the one with the biggest library! (But books DO matter. A very important tome might confer as much as 2D10 to Arcane Lore after studying. I'd use CoC scales. Dark forces would kill for such a book, and not just because of the spells it contains.) Lastly, tied also to Arcane Lore, once a character gets 101%, I figured that Deep Magic, as presented, can be used to DESIGN personal spells. (If you still like relatively fixed spells. I do, for most settings anyways.) So now the magic user can create their own spells. Or perhaps enchant items. And all tied to their increasing knowledge of magic. Each magic point used is -10% for the arcane lore spell creation roll. The player devises the effect, the name, and with the GM, the final creation roll and time is decided. (A day or a week per magic point? Depends on how much a GM wants new spells.) We now have a good system for spell design! For damage, each GM would need to scale. Our POW 20, Arcane Lore 101% wizard above could do 9 manipulations to the final spell after creation, so for base damage (before such manipulations) perhaps a function of the invested MP, so D6 plus 1 (7) or D8 plus 1 (9). Then a manipulation after might be scaled like the demon effects (1 is an extra d2, 3 a d6, etc.) I'm less sure here. To help balance such power, perhaps an Arcane Roll to cast would be useful here, with a casting roll of minus 10% per spell manipulation. That way, great power is really only in the hands, for a while, of very learned magic users with a high lore skill to offset such powerful magics. Once again, a high lore skill becomes a major adventuring goal and also rationale for NPC power. That ancient 1000-year-old wizard is a force to be reckoned with, if he has a lore skill of 340%! He can manipulate his spells (if we imagine a POW of 30, he can do 20 manipulations in total!, and still succeed, since a 00 is the only way he'll fail. (340% equals 13 manipulations, from 13 times 25, and POW 30 equals 7, via 7 times 4. His casting roll is minus 200%, so he still has 140%! Ouch. His combined power could equal a damage spell similar to a small bomb. Like Saruman, he could blow a hole in a castle or fortress wall, or perhaps a dragon, if he desired. But still at significant MP expenditure. He's dangerous, but not unstoppable.) So, the above are just ideas. Perhaps at 200% Arcane Lore a wizard can use Deep Magic now on the fly, rather than just in research. (Or 200% is enchanting items via Deep Magic, and then 300% is fully freeform Deep Magic.) Truly, such knowledge of Arcane Lore leads to both terrors and wonders! Any thoughts are appreciated! Nikoli

I played wfrp 1 and 2, and have Zweihander. (Z) I've yet to read it all. My issue is that it has great ideas, but that it seems a little too gamey for combat. (I'm not a fan of maneuvres, etc., at variable action points. I don't like how Z feels at present as I simulate combat in my mind while reading it. Seems clunky.) I ended up getting Magic World as it was elegant and quick as a GM, but also as a way to introduce new players. But I imagine I'll take ideas from Zweihander, like the 'flip to succeed' mechanic. (E.g., if advantaged, you can read either d10 as the tens when you roll under.) The professions have nifty unique abilities, too, which can be ported over. My aim right now is to use Magic World in Warhammer. It's easy to model The Enemy Within campaign, I find, with Magic World/BRP. Including NPCs. Zweihander is interesting, and I'm still reading it (!), but it seems a lot of work for all involved. It's more complicated than wfrp 1 and 2, but in a way that seems awkward at present. (It made me miss the simple elegance of wfrp 1, yet that's what it was a homage to. I eventually discovered that BRP/Magic World/Runequest III can recreate warhammer more easily, but with the realism I want and freedom from rigid percentile limits.) I may change my mind in the near future. Zweihander is certainly an interesting tome, but a demanding read. I'm still following it and related publications (like the tarot-sized spell cards) with interest. Nikoli

With Magic World, does anyone award the automatic increase suggested in the book? I'm wary of it. But then again, if skills can go over 100% as a new metric for increasing mastery, maybe it's okay? (I noticed in a runequest adventure a cook with cooking over 100%!) I can't shake the feeling that it might be too much to allow as an automatic increase, even just to keep the mystique of getting beyond 100. I like it being a really difficult, yet incredible, moment to reach. (I'd probably limit starting skills to 75% or 80% max. I'd allow 90% for mastery, and then multiple attacks similar to the -30 defense rule appear at that point, but arete after 100%. I'd see it like chess: master at 90%, grandmaster at 100%, and then there are great grandmasters...Kasparov is in a whole other chess league! 150% plus. In chess they call them SuperGMs.)

The xp is mainly to keep the feel of wfrp for players of wfrp. Or maybe even just for me as a GM handing out a little something at the end. I don't do xp by any dnd encounter method; just 100 xp per session, on average. So a reroll seems ideal for me with BRP. I like the blend of the system looking after the advancement, in BRP, along with a little treat per session. Even if the experiences rolls are not every session, every session a player is gaining a reroll for the experience rolls they are earning for later.

Hi, I read people discussing dodge and when and why it might be of benefit, such as for elves, to use over parry. People seemed to have issues with it in comparison to parry. To help, I'd allow a special or critical dodge to create a riposte opportunity...only, naturally, you can now use the primary weapon. Therefore, even if armed with just a sword, a special dodge would allow a riposte. No more does the shield or two-handed weapon user have sole enjoyment of the counterattack! Another issue on dodges (in the realm of ripostes and defence!), is that Magic World seems vague as to whether a parry followed by a dodge results in the dodge having a minus 30% to its roll. I was initially going to split them as independent, each with their own reductions on multiple use, when I read some of the issues people had around dodge being somewhat neglected. But then I felt there was maybe a workaround. I think, that as a parry can't be used twice against a single attack, naturally, and to make dodge of more importance, a dodge (full percentile) followed by a parry (- 30%) could be used on a single attack. So, two lines of defence. But, importantly, NOT a parry followed by a dodge. The reason is you can move and then interpose, if moving wasn't enough, but if you fail to interpose, you get hit. So in brief, dodge can allow a single-weapon user to riposte/counterattack AND can be used prior to parry against a single attack, but the following parry suffers the -30. This makes dodge of importance in the combat economy along with parry as, I think, it should be. A persom of 40% dodge and 70% parry could parry for 70%, or they could both dodge and then parry at 40%. Dodge, too, can suffer armour penalties, I believe, so now no armour warriors can get some benefit from the 'fast and natural' style. Any thoughts? This is mainly around the whole issue of defence, including ripostes. I'm sure about my own use of dodging allowing a riposte as good for my game, but I'm less certain, without testing, of the two lines of defence idea. Nikoli Edit: If the attacker gets a special and the defender gets a normal successful dodge, there are maybe two options: allow the subsequent parry to futher reduce the attack value to a normal failure. I.e., if a critical attack was rolled, a successful dodge would make it special and then a successful parry would make it a normal success. Or, secondly, and maybe better as it's less powerful, do an independant dodge and parry and take the best of the two, assuming the player doesn't accept the first dodge roll as sufficient. So if the dodge reduced an attack to special, but the parry was a special and reduced it to a normal success, the player can take the parry result as it was better. That seems much better than the first option, which is too powerful in combination.

Thanks. And interesting idea on the fumble. That might even be worth an experience roll with a bonus! I'm more curious how frequently people award the experience checks, and if they tick on a success, a special success, or at some other point? In play, the reason for an INT limit is to maybe prevent players rushing to use every skill haphazardly simply to get a tick. This seems an issue other people mentioned, so I want to nip these things in the bud prior to a campaign. I'm sure I used to play CoC with ticks at the end of an adventure, so maybe two or three sessions, but maybe it morphed over time to each session? I can't recall, now.