-
Posts
338 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Retained
- Senior Member
Converted
-
RPG Biography
None
-
Current games
BRP - the golden book edition; Call of Cthulhu.
-
Location
France
-
Blurb
I'm French
Recent Profile Visitors
The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.
Gollum's Achievements
Participant (2/4)
78
Reputation
-
Gollum changed their profile photo
-
As a French fan of Call of Cthulhu, and a buyer of Sans Détour's products, I find that decision sad but fair. We are duscussing about it on a French Forum (the Blach Book Editions' one) and none of us do understand why Sans Détour didn't pay the royalties during so much time. We are waiting for Sans Détour explanation, hoping there will be one rapidly. I personally think that Chaosium was very, very patient and thank you for that.
-
Yes, I totally do agree. Maths never have been a true problem with Call of Chtulhu's rules.
-
You're welcome. I'll have to look at Mike and Lynne's videos too.
-
Yes, multiplications are easier and faster to do in mind than divisions, as well as additions are easier and faster than subtractions. But, precisely, with Call of Cthulhu 7th edition, you do none at all (except adding dice when rolling for damage). Half and fifth values are calculated in advance and recorded on the character sheet. So, all what you have to do during game is comparing numbers (bonus and penalty dice even replace bonus and penalties that you had to add to the skill in the previous edditions).
-
You will have a lot of fun. Welcome in Call of Cthulhu! Also look at the videos mentioned just above, if you want to. They are very well made. I'm not an English native speaker and still did understand everything immediately. Paul Fricker is an amazing teacher.
-
And you did the good choice, in my humble opinion. Call of Cthulhu 7th edition gives the most flexible rules I have ever seen. Its rules can appear more crunchy than before but it's not true, actually. Rules wasn't that simple in the previous editions, especially when dealing with combats (grappling rules were quite complicated, for instance). With the 7th edition, everything has been streamlined and use the same mecanism, no matter what you do : trying to punch your foe, to knock him down, to pin him on the ground, to push him through the window... It is simple, fast, and makes sense because the result will depend on your size and strength compared to his ones. Likewise wound and healing rules are much more realistic than before and remain very easy. Finally, if you want to be sure to understand the rules correctly, they are explained by Paul Fricker himself in several short videos. Here is the first one: Have fun.
-
In call of Cthulhu, APP can be interpreted either as beauty or as magnetism. It's up to the player (or the GM, for NPC) to decide which one is valid for his high APP (or lacking for his low APP) character. Of course, a character can have (or lack) both.
-
Merry Christmas to you and to everyone else too. And a happy new year, full of amazing BRP games!
-
In Call of Cthulhu 7th edition, hard successes (1/2 skill) and extreme successes (1/5 skill) are not really different qualities of success, because there is no qualities of success (except for combat attacks, where an extreme success still allows to get a damage bonus). The general rule is only to know wether the goal of the Player Character (what he wants to achieve) is successful. So, hard and extreme successes are just here when there is a Non Player Character who resists (to achieve his goal, the PC must then get a better success than the NPC) or when the difficulty of the action is harder (the GM then asks for a hard or an extreme success). Thus, a hard success doesn't bring anything more than allowing to succeed a hard action or to beat a NPC's normal success. Ditto, an extreme success (for anything else than an attack) doesn't bring anything more than allowing to succeed an extreme action or to beat a NPC's hard success. When I first read that rule, I found that it was a pity to drop the different qualities of success. But now that I understand it better, I find it great! It avoids specially successful defenses which have effects on the attacker, allow an immediate counterattacks, and so on ... Brief all those things which slow down combats. What if the player wants to immediately counterattack or make his attacker fall down? Simple. He just has to tell it before rolling and to get a better success than his foe. If he only gets the same success, the attacker wins (while someone who contents himself with normally defending will avoid the blow with the same success than the attacker). But if he gets a better success than the attacker, he wins, which means that his counterattack is successful (he inflicts damage) or that he makes the attacker falls down. It's hard to make a simpler but still more living combat system. Every combat option (making fall, pining, disarming ...) remains possible with only two rolls (one for the attack and one for the defense or special maneuver) and a mere comparison of the results. Needless to say that I would like the possible future revision of the BRP to use that system!
-
Just note that Call of Cthulhu 7th edition disconnected POW and Luck. The future BRP edition (if any) may follow that manner of handling things.
-
It is what Basic, the french edition of BRP, chose. The only problem is that it gives a quite high average (13). Now, with the BRP system, skills are much more used than characteristics, so it is not a real problem.
-
In my humble opinion, Luck is tied to POW because POW is the ability with wich the character imposes his will to the world. As psychologists say, someone lucky is actually someone optimistic, that is, someone who strongly considers the world as good for him, while someone unlucky is someone pessimistic. It's more a matter of faith than a matter of external events. Now, for Will rolls, I fully do agree with Colin. But slightly differently. To my mind, there are two kinds of will. The POW based one: you want and you are sure it will happen like that (I resist my urge to eat that chocolate just because I want it, for instance). And the INT based will: you do something because you know that not doing it would be bad for you (I resist my urge to eat that chocolate because I already ate too many chocolates and I know I will be sick if I eat that one more). So, for the moral situation I would mainly use the POW based roll. Unless the NPCs know that fleeing would be worse for them (being killed by their side for desertion...). Now, Colin has a good idea too. An Idea roll before the Will roll is interesting: some NPCs may be too stupid to realize they will loose the fight and be slaughtered.
-
Yes. GURPS sounds strange ... But, as it is said in its rules, it was originally a joke, a code word to describe the game while Steve Jackson was designing it and searching for a better name. But he never found a better one. I fully do agree with Mankcam. A new edition of the BRP, more consistent (and consistent with the 7th edition of Cthulhu) would be welcome. Having said that, I don't think that changing the name would be a good idea. People know that the BRP is Chaosium's Roleplaying game, and it does exist since dozens of years. So, going on with that history is the best think to do. BRP is also the Basic RolePlaying Game because it inspired a lot of other RPG ... Including GURPS.
-
Yes, you're right. I was speaking about guns compared with other kinds of weapons ... Revolver, medium, 1D8; Longbow, 1D8+1+½db. Sorry for not having clarified it They could be named "simulators" because they give plausible results for a fictional story, yes. But they are not simulators in that their purpose is not calculating what would really happen, like scientific simulators would do it. Light club, 1D6+db. Pistol, medium, 1D8. In reality, a medium pistol is far much more dangerous than a light club. Especially when dealing with armors. Yes, I fully do agree here. But you also have to take into account the type of bullet. The FAMAS, for instance, uses bullets with hollow points, which increases damage inside the body ...
-
Invasion of the modern world by an evil fantasy empire
Gollum replied to Thot's topic in Basic Roleplaying
Sorry if I repeat what has already been said (I just read this thread diagonally) but, in my humble opinion, magic can perfectly be sufficient to face modern weapons. Just think about well used spells like Control, Dark, Invisibility, Lightning, Seal, Unseal, Teleport and so on. It could really surprise and disorganize a modern military squad. Especially if the monsters use these spells in a vile and treacherous manner.