Trotsky

How you like to visualise things is of course up to the group. I like to keep spirits very strange and otherworldly. We don't think about real world physics with them - yes they are visible but they are still spirits. Being able to see them is not the same as being able to interact with them - there is some crossover but they are still very otherworldly. We don't visualise using weapons as in regular combat but the combat is more abstract than that.

I think of the spirit as inhabiting the same space at the corporeal entity it is attacking - anyone else striking against it will more than likely hit their friend. But it depends how you visualise it.

I like the Strike Rank system - the quasi-action point/initiative hybrid leads to some pretty dynamic combat. But that is a matter of taste and I know most of us do things a little different from each other.

I am really quite happy with the spirit combat now. I like the way it is different from regular combat - feels suitably different.

I don't think you can gang up on a spirit unless you are also discorporate. I believe only the corporeal being engaged in spirit combat may use a weapon, 'They may choose to attack the spirit attacking them using enchanted weapons' (p366).

Agreed, a very useful and interesting thread.

Thanks Yes - just my clumsy phrasing... I think you only use your weapon when you attack - otherwise it is your Spirit Combat skill That is how I understand it.

I keep my ‘special stupidity’ for reading on the net - what you say is so true...

Interesting, I would not consider the second option due to the location of the ‘only’ in the sentence.

I think I missed this in my summary: Casting Spells: corporeal entities may only cast offensive spells against spirits engaged with them (eg. Disruption). Corporeal entities require INTx5 to cast

Thanks Scotty - what was quite interesting putting this together is that this is all in the rules. I think what I and some others misunderstood was the opposed roll nature of using a weapon - we sort of defaulted to the regular combat process.

So, just trying to summarise what has been said here - is this right? Initiating: Only initiated by a discorporate being. 1 melee round for spirit to become visible Combat mechanics: Any number of discorporate spirits may attack a single entity Corporeal being: INTx5 to cast a spell or to use a skill/combat against anything else besides engaged spirits Spirit/discorporate being: no INTx5 to cast spells – go off on SR1 Resolving Spirit Combat: opposed Spirit Combat rolls (greater success wins) Winner/Loser: winner does spirit combat damage to other Tie: no effect, unless both critical success then both roll damage Loser/Loser: no effect unless a fumble (p.370) Damage Bonus: Special x2, Critical roll damage twice (ignore Spiritual Armour). Special/Critical causes physical damage: random location = number of D6s rolled Resolving Weapon Combat: may only attack spirit engaged with them Enchanted weapons (no STR+SIZ bonus), Rune Magic damage boost (eg Truesword) Spirit Magic damage boost spells do not usually harm spirits, but may affect weak ones Divine damage gifts such as from Humakt only doubles any magical damage Weapons attack on regular Strike Rank – Spirit defends with Spirit Combat – opposed roll as above. Skills over 100% reduce opponent skill as usual and can attacks can be split Resolving Spells: Offensive damage spells such as Disruption can harm spirits. Corporeal require INTx5 to cast Multiple Enemies: Resolve each combat separately. Melee weapon use limited to SR restrictions, but unlimited Spirit Combat rolls may be made with no penalty

I am sure there will be an announcement when there is something to announce. I am as eager as anyone for the gods’ book but I guess until all the art is done we won’t hear anything.

Thanks that is really helpful

No problem Runeblogger - I wrote that to learn the system - now have a few months of play under my belt...

As spirits do have generally anything to parry with - we have used the their Spirit Combat physical defence roll is a dodge. The rules do not state that Humakt's double damage gift is viable against spirits so I would not consider it so. Again the rules state that only physical attacks are resolved normally - the spirits's attack would have to opposed by the character's spirit combat skill.

Ben, the tokens are generally quite small so accuracy adding tattoos and other things need not be that precise. It is all quite forgiving at that scale and it is nice for the players to have something personalised. I’m pretty new to Roll 20 so if you find any other good tokens please let me know.

The latest instalment - where our heroes meet a Storm Ram, return to Ungbar's Bite, nearly die climbing a low cliff, and come face to face with an earthworm spirit... New stuff begins on page 13 - The Rams of Storm Season. LINK TO FILE (GOOGLE DRIVE DOC)

I think of ransom as much as a social contract as a monetary one. I would tend to encourage the players to return them with their belongings as what they are really committing to is a contract that they will be treated the same. Of course, they can take the stuff but they will have to accept the same might happen to them… Agree with Badger, in the Telmori exchange that I mentioned above, the Telmori didn’t have enough disposable wealth to pay the debt and so a deal was struck that was not just the immediate payment of coin… can lead to some interesting situations.

Caras, we had a situation recently where the party managed to catch a Telmori Alpha and wanted their clan to receive the ransom he offered. I let the players work out the details. First one of them decided that making a sign from twigs and twine that was placed at the intersection between the two groups territory was a mutually recognised sign of parley. They then came up with there being a large stone formation covered in Beast Runes that the two opponents treated as common ground to resolve such issues. When each side placed a hand upon the rock negotiations could take place. I think these sort of interactions are great to leave to the players and see what they come up with.

I never played much D&D back in the day but is it common for a GM (suppose I should say DM) to tell the players the value of something they discover rather than just describe it? That seems an odd way to do things.

This is an interesting and timely question for our group - up until now the players have been part of an active clan and therefore money did not have a great deal of relevance to them - most booty was just handed over to the clan, with them just keeping a few trinkets. However, now they are estranged from their clan and the reality of money is going to become important. It is interesting to think about the use of coin in a clan-based world - I imagine most people are far more interested in getting something they can use rather than money and other valuable but less practical items. Which means unless they can interest a Thane in a particularly interesting item they will have to use trading posts or more likely visit one of the larger towns in order to off-load anything of substantial value. But as tnil and Windchild has stated above for mundane expenses we will probably just keep it simple and keep the interesting interactions for an expensive item or if they are going to try to move on something like several sets of armour they now ‘somehow’ have in their possession.

The tokens are from the Roll 20 marketplace – Jans Token Pack 16 – Ancient Greek Heroes. I added the runes and a few extra things using photoshop. Septimus was a little trickier - as there was no great sword figures so had to modify that quite a bit.

I have only recently returned to RPGs, I have not run the Apple Lane scenarios yet but have run the Six Seasons in Sartar campaign – which is effectively running a small clan for the players to interact with. We are just about to have some action in Clearwine as well. I am still learning much and will probably always will be… I think it is a choice of creating a few memorable NPCs or many non-memorable ones. I find it is difficult to keep a large group of NPCs distinctive and so I concentrate on the main NPCs and have a couple of ‘personalities’ sketched out that I can add to any character that I have not prepared. I can managed at most about eight distinctive NPCs in any one session but much prefer around five. I agree with David that character portraits really help – some player are more visual than others. And while I do not use, ‘Little House on the Prairie,’ I do link NPCs to memorable characters from print or screen, which helps fix them in my mind. I try to get an emotional response from the players to a NPC, or at least a memorable interaction. They tend to remember, ‘Oh that guy who….’ Or ‘She is the one that….’ Finally, in a community role-play situations I think it is important that the players take a very active role. Make them do the work – there were several additional episodes we added to Six Seasons, including a HeroQuest, that came directly from the players’ motivations and actions with the community. On a practical level, having some domestic background events I find is a good way to start NPC conversations: Asking if they had seen one of their children who has run off after being told off. A couple having a domestic argument about some minor household task and being embarrassed they have been overheard. Having animals acting up is always useful – trouble getting the cows in or the pig has escaped…

The map was a download from https://jaredblando.com. I wanted to have the construct as a vast interlocking machine - what happens in one location has an effect in another. I have kept a record of what the party did - in terms of pressing buttons, dials and such like. I the game we are using, there have been hints that the construct might hail from a time when Nysalor was hailed by the dwarves - and it could somehow be linked to the trollkin curse... This is something the party might get back to - currently they have more immediate pressing matters they need to address...