Baron

I'm enjoying the read of the OQ-based Age of Shadows, my first thorough exposure to the OQ version of RQ/BRP. I kind of like this version, although to me there are probably too many combat options and modifiers. In any case I'll probably give Age of Shadows a drive, pretty much as written, just to see how it works as a unit.

My favorites are Waha, Storm Bull and Humakt. All from a player's perspective, of course.

I'm gonna say that's fluff, not system. The campaign setting you create for your players can have whatever population distribution you choose.

I myself would love to play in a BRP-ish TES pen-and-paper game. Those were the greatest games, Daggerfall being my favorite, followed by Morrowind (which I didn't really like the art for). Haven't played Oblivion or Skyrim though, old computer. <sigh>

Yeah, Google has become kinda scary. Just switched back to Firefox on my pc, and using DuckDuckGo for searches now.

So far I like chargen and combat, still have to read the Magic chapters. A little different than what I'm used to from RQ2, but no deal breakers really. It might be a handy volume to use as the base for players to refer to, for a Middle Earth game. It's funny that the 'Silmarillion' comment keeps coming up everywhere. I'm not sure how a rules set could be more 'Silmarillion' than 3rd Age Middle Earth, except for the fact that Hobbits are not in the book, you have to download them separately from the author's website. But really, what else would be different in the rules set itself?

Isn't anyone playing this? I'm finally taking the time to look it over, and I'm curious what your opinions are.

Dammit Seneschal, how do I +1 / Kudos your comment?!

Me, too!

Would anyone disagree that Waha and Eiretha, the default cults for Praxian nomads, are indispensable to a campaign set in Prax that includes nomads as player characters? Prax being one of the two main campaign settings for Glorantha, I don't understand why they wouldn't be part of the core list of deities.

I would buy a few copies for my table.

Regarding the OP question, Classic Fantasy was specifically designed to run a D&D-style game using a d100/BRP system. Which makes it fit exactly into what you're looking for. But keep in mind, its attempt to emulate all the bits and pieces that make for a D&D experience makes for a lot of rules that you won't find counterparts for in Magic World. Or any other d100/BRP game. Magic World, as an Elric/BRP iteration, is simply a fantasy roleplaying game using the d100/BRP system. It is not trying to emulate D&D, it's just doing fantasy. BTW, from what I heard about Classic Fantasy, the designer is doing a second edition based on RQ6 or Legend or somesuch, not Openquest. I believe Age of Shadow was Middle-Earth-with-serial-numbers-filed-off. It looked great from my very brief skim.

And I absolutely don't allow that. There is no IC reason to do such a ridiculous, and dangerous, thing. You want to have one battle with your lead Troll sneak-attack toothpick, and the next with your God Learner's razor-sharp bookmark, and the one after that with your baboon toe-claw extension, well, I guess I'd allow that. But no switching within a combat as a ploy to exploit the rules system.

Well, that seems simple to me. Some players are notorious for trying to attempt skill rolls constantly, wanting to 'climb the ladder' of power as quickly and improbably as possible. Frankly I like not rolling all the time, and the limitations that puts on skill increases.

Thanks, will look it over when I have a chance.

Funny as hell...

Thought I'd chime in on your thread. I live in the West LA area, and like to include my almost-eleven-year-old daughter in my gaming. I have yet to teach her a BRP game, but we've played d6 Star Wars, Faery's Tale, and both the old Basic D&D and 1st ed AD&D. We currently have an infrequent group of dads and kids that plays the Basic D&D, but no other games. As for BRP games, I like Call of Cthulhu and the Chaosium 2nd ed of Runequest. I also like several old-school games, please feel free to click on my profile. I'd be interested in a kid-friendly group of like-minded players, so Paul, and any other like-minded Angelenos, feel free to drop me a line! Thanks.

"Action Points?"

Don't know about that. But from what I've read, Roll20 and Tabletop Forge (the Google hangout VTT) and their customers are now merged into Roll20. And FWIW, I've toyed with several VTT programs, and Roll20 looks like it might fit my needs better than anything else. Streamlined, not too complicated or demanding; then again, I don't need all that much functionality anyway. I've been reading Roll20's updates, and they keep mentioning regular increases in their user base. So it might very well be a good community to get involved in.

I like the star.

Yeah, actually you did help clear some of it up. I think I fall under the 'cautiously optimistic that I'll personally find it to my taste' category. For which I'm glad. Thanks for taking time to respond, I know what it's like to have a huge amount of writing to do. (Like right now...)

I've never made a secret of the fact that I prefer the older versions of the d100 rules-systems. I was disappointed in Mongoose-era RQ, mostly because it went off in directions that didn't appeal to me. Although I was struck by a very gentlemanly post by Loz that I saw recently, which has helped me acknowledge the effort and intentions behind the work on his RQ6. So nowadays I like to state that my preferences are just that – personal preferences. Now that I've got all that out of the way, I have a question. What I got from reading the post above is that CF2 uses Legend as the rules system. Then there are specific areas discussed: It uses the Legend Chargen System. Combat is Legend without Combat Styles. The Magic System is custom. So my question is, what does that leave? Where's the Legend material, vs what's unique to CF and not a part of Legend? How is the Legend material in CF any different from the BGB or my Chaosium-era RQ? For instance, aren't Combat Styles the major difference between Legend and original-era RQ anyway? That and Magic, for which CF has its own rules? So what's left? Basically I'm trying to figure out if I will like the CF2 materials, given my preference in d100 systems and the fact that I already own CF1. I want to like it, which is why I'm posting. Oh, that and the amazing cover. Thanks!

Wow, I really like that!

Thanks Bob, you said that better than I. I like CF! I don't want a 'different version' that I might not like. I want more of the CF I enjoy!

What I'd like to see is for 2nd edition CF to basically be compatible with the 1st edition. A "smoothing out" of things that for some reason were not optimized in the initial playtesting, an expansion necessitated by CF's divorce from referring to the BRP book, changes for the sake of clarity and reorganization, and the additional material that never saw publication. What I wouldn't like to see is something that is essentially a new game: new systems for this-and-that.