Nikoli

I've always loved the elegance of the CoC mechanic of rolling over, since it controls inflation and power gaming by itself. (I'm rather new to the general BRP and the extra options - I never even knew of them, and yet I had Cthulhu Dark Ages, etc., and always wondered why Chaosium never developed a better combat system - turns out, they did!) But I also love experience points, and feel some room for them is needed. As I was doing wfrp, I was thinking of the usual 100 xp per session, but now they could be percentile pluses added to experience rolls. E.g., a player might use +25% of his 100% to add to a roll. Magic World allows for an automatic professional skill increase, which I'm wary of, so I'm also wary of allowing 100% on to a single skill. Hmmm. Actually, now that I think of it, the 100 can be a d100. I.e., they get an extra experience roll over and above their normal INT limit. (Assuming I use that limit.) I think that's ideal. (For me.) For anyone's normal game, this could be a reroll to a failed experience roll. So, a player with 200xp would have two rerolls to use should they fail an important and valued experience check. I don't think I'd require training time in-game also, as it wasn't a facet of old wfrp and it would change the feel too much, me thinks. I like the training rules separate. I actually did an M.Sc. in the psychology of expertise, and most of the gains for people, like chess players, occur within tournaments. Real-time feedback is essential. I feel the current system simulates that nicely, though adding in reflection and/or other training is a nice touch depending on the setting and general feel of the game. (With combat, sparring is key, so it's definitely got a place in a simulationist game.) So it seems most people award experience rolls each session? All food for thought. Thanks!

Hi All, I plan to use Magic World for Warhammer, and for that wfrp 1e feel, I've noticed that the warhammer spells work in Magic World with just a little tweaking (e.g., POW resistance rather than WP rolls; I have the hardcopy of Realms of Sorcery 1e, which is awesome). I feel the Warhammer magic system, also with magic points, offers a fully portable system for both wizards and divine magic. First edition with Realms of Sorcery is amazing in detail and variety and is fully useable for any general sword and sorcery game. I would use learned spells as individual skills (I've been getting my head around that notion - it's a very different mechanic than I've experienced in a long time!), starting at INT (petty spells at + 50), but allow magic points to enhance a spell roll by 5% per point. (In Warhammer, extra MPs can also enhance the roll against Willpower/POW by 5%, so this fits the resistance table in MW, too.) An alternative I was thinking of is that petty spells start at INT x 5; level 1 at INT x4, lvl 2 at INT x 3, etc. There are 4 levels of spells in wfrp, so INT x 1 for those. I'd still perhaps use the MP boost, but experience checks are only gained if the spell is cast successfuly even if the boost wasn't present. (So it must still roll under to gain an experience check.) Any thoughts? Nikoli P.S. Ingredients could mean an automatic success. Nothing to sniff at in the heat of battle. And now that I think of it, maybe each spell as a skill is too punishing for magic users. Especially as wfrp didn't have it. I might use the general casting level (petty, lvl 1, lvl 2, etc, as separate skills). The first time they learn a spell in a lvl, they get the skill at the corresponding level. But lvl 1 casting ability is gained with a sacrifice of a POW, lvl 2 with 2 POW, etc., to control power and advance. The same for clerics. Alternatively, lore skills (like wizardry) could be tied to entry into lvls, with up to 25% for petty; 50 for lvl 1; 75% lvl 2; 90% lvl 3; 101% lvl 4. PC magic users, in Warhammer, could then start at an apprentice level on the cusp, after perhaps their first adventure, of becoming a real lvl 1 wizard. The Lore advance could trigger 3 spells at each level, pending perhaps the usual rolls and then a POW sacrifice.

Hi All, I was having queries around experience checks, which I posted in the general BRP thread, and was wondering how often experienced Magic World players/GMs use them. (I'm a long-time CoC player, but recently joined the Magic World guild for wfrp roleplaying!) I've heard of 'tick hunting' on these forums, which I haven't encountered in play, such as when people swap weapons just to try and get an experience tick. I recall in old games of CoC that only a special success would get the tick. That way, ticks are always significant, and that way a reward at the end of the session fits, too. I think this phased out of later editions. I was a player in those early days, so I'm not sure now whether this was an old rule. (I've not GM'd or played CoC, though, for many years. I played wfrp for a lonnnnng time, and decided I needed a new, but percentile, system. Searching around led me to Magic World.) In terms of frequency of experience rolls, RQ3 mentions in a table that only 3 ticks are given. (It doesn't say it in the text, but in the hardcover GW version there's a table which limits the ticks.) Extrapolating, whether you use the special tick rule above, you might only allow 3 experience rolls per session. (Perhaps 5 at the end of a whole adventure?) The 3 experience rolls would limit tick hunting, since players will focus on the ticks they want, as would the special tick rule constrain what gets ticked. To avoid players not getting a tick if they never get a special success, the 3 experience rolls seems sufficient if you give ticks for dramatic, yet non-special, use of skills. Maybe changing the numbers so that up to 4 profession skills can be rolled (more even than 3, fitting with the 8 profession skills), and 2 non-profession skills. That way you allow players to grow within their profession, as befits, with some growth outside of it, too. Another and perhaps better option I'm playing around with is to allow experience checks on non-special'd skills, if dramatic, but to limit the number of experience rolls per adventure (or session?) to half their INT characteristic. (Similar to the skill modifiers.) A player with 14 INT could attempt a maximum of 7 experience rolls. If over the course of an adventure, these could be used after a session on successful skills, but the total experience tally of 7 is used up. So if the player fails two experience checks after a session, he has 5 left for the remaining adventure. If this 7 limit (based on an INT of 14) is chosen, one might allow rolls per session, but also allow the tally to be applied several times to a single skill. (This might replace the automatic skill increase in Magic World, as I'm not too comfortable with that.) So, the player could effectively try to increase a skill two or three times, spending his experience tally on retries, but the skill only increases the once. It's a re-roll. Perhaps limit this to 3: three strikes and you're out of luck. That way you avoid players burning all their rolls on an unlucky streak. E.g., if a player only gathered three ticks in a session, he could get up to 3 tries to increase two of them (6 towards his INT 14 tally of 7), and 1 roll to increase the remainder. This would help balance the players who had a lucky session (ticked lots of skills) versus those who didn't (but they get the option to reroll), as the experience tally is a spendable resource. As a result, any tick-hunting players might be constrained. The tally matters if players want to improve the odds of boosting their higher profession skills, rather than just using it to boost low surplus weapon skills, etc., via weapon swapping. A spendable resource makes a player think about the future more! Any thoughts? I kind of like the idea of a spendable resource for rolls per session. Basing it off of INT seems nice, but I'm wary of players whose characters have modest INT suffering in the long-run. But maybe it's realistic, since all the other stats matter significantly. A smart warrior is now quite dangerous in the long-run, too, due to rerolls, which seems fitting. Just some ideas! Nikoli

Hi All, I was having queries around experience checks, too, and was wondering how often experienced BRP players/GMs use them. (I'm a long-time CoC player, but recently joined the Magic World guild for wfrp roleplaying!) The experience/tick hunting is not something I've ever encountered, though. I recall in old games of CoC that only a special success would get the tick. That way, ticks are always significant, and that way a reward at the end of the session fits, too. I think this phased out of later editions. I was a player in those early days, so I'm not sure now whether this was an old rule. (I've not GM'd or played CoC, though, for many years. I played wfrp for a lonnnnng time, and decided I needed a new, but percentile, system. Searching around led me to Magic World.) In terms of frequency of rolls, RQ3 mentions in a table that only 3 ticks are given. (It doesn't say it in the text, but in the hardcover GW version there's a table which limits the ticks.) Extrapolating, whether you use the special tick rule above, you would only allow 3 experience rolls per session. (Perhaps 5 at the end of a whole adventure.) The 3 experience rolls would limit tick hunting, since players will focus on the ticks they want, as would the special tick rule constrain what gets ticked. To avoid players not getting a tick if they never get a special success, the 3 experience rolls seems sufficient if you give ticks for dramatic, yet non-special, use of skills. Maybe changing the numbers so that up to 4 profession skills can be rolled (more even than 3, fitting with the 8 profession skills), and 2 non-profession skills. That way you allow players to grow within their profession, as befits, with some growth outside of it, too. Another and perhaps better option I'm playing around with is to allow experience checks on non-special'd skills, if dramatic, but to limit the number of experience rolls per adventure (or session?) to half their INT characteristic. (Similar to the skill modifiers.) A player with 14 INT could attempt a maximum of 7 experience rolls. If over the course of an adventure, these could be used after a session on successful skills, but the total experience tally of 7 is used up. So if the player fails two experience checks after a session, he has 5 left for the remaining adventure. If this 7 limit (based on an INT of 14) is chosen, one might allow rolls per session, but also allow the tally to be applied several times to a single skill. So, the player could effectively try to increase a skill two or three times, spending his experience tally on retries, but the skill only increases the once. It's a re-roll. Perhaps limit this to 3: three strikes and you're out of luck. That way you avoid players burning all their rolls on an unlucky streak. E.g., if a player only gathered three ticks in a session, he could get up to 3 tries to increase two of them (6 towards his INT 14 tally of 7), and 1 roll to increase the remainder. This would help balance the players who had a lucky session (ticked lots of skills) versus those who didn't (but they get the option to reroll), as the experience tally is a spendable resource. As a result, the tick-hunting might be constrained. The tally matters if players want to improve the odds of boosting their higher profession skills, rather than just using it to boost low surplus weapon skills, etc., via weapon swapping. A spendable resource makes a player think about the future more. Any thoughts? I kind of like the idea of a spendable resource for rolls per session. Basing it off of INT seems nice, but I'm wary of players whose characters have modest INT suffering in the long-run. But maybe it's realistic, since all the other stats matter significantly. A smart warrior is now quite dangerous in the long-run, too, due to rerolls, which seems fitting.

Hi, I'm new to the forum and am interested in those files. I noticed the links were broken to the character sheet, rules, etc. Any chance they can be uploaded? Maybe Jason would allow it to be reposted here for download! Thanks, Nikoli.