frogspawner

Does Fantasy Grounds support "Play-by-Post" style of game? i.e. where each player can log-in ad-hoc to make their moves/rolls/statements-of-intent, without the GM necessarily being on-line at the same time?

I have been unable to upload the completed User Guide, with corrections to date, as the site refused to accept the pdf

Over the size limit, perhaps?

Sounds pretty sensible design so far, and FG itself looks quite good. (Main problem now is it's not free...)

Impressive. If it can handle two-headed walktapi and other wacky body configurations, you're doing a good job!

(I know - I did an RQ monster-generator prog years ago, which included that sort of thing).

The rules I do use are more like old-style BRP - i.e. they don't include the opposed-roll "Attack/Parry Matrix", but each side rolls independently. Also a different HP formula, and Major Wound/Death thresholds (i.e. characters can go into negative HP). Can Fantasy Grounds accommodate that?

My concern about VTTs is that they can be overly prescriptive. Mainly what I'd want is just the display & communication, perhaps with dice-rolling added, and possibly monster HPs/stats. (Characters etc can be separate text files or whatever - I'm not convinced incorporating them is an advantage).

Broo were in Nomad Gods (rather than it's companion wargame WB&RM, aka Dragon Pass). Whether that pre-dated RQ I'm not sure. But they are definitely Gloranthan.

When that is said, an average str 10-11 human would probably have some difficulties carrying the str 23 dwarf.

Won't characters have a weight (and height) in d100, then? Such details are fun to know, like hair/eye colour, etc.

I'm sure people will suggest other favourite ways of doing stat-blocks, but you could do worse than using the format of the creatures/characters at the end of the BRP QuickStart.

Have you looked at the free-to-download BRP QuickStart?

It gives a good idea of the what the BRP book is like (being basically extracts from it), but is very cut-down (no criticals, no magic, no options...).

It does have the 7 scenarios, which the book doesn't have, though...

What I like least about BRP: The Attack/Parry Matrix, which introduces "Opposed Rolls" for combat (and it's not optional).

What I like most about BRP: It's in print - and acting as a catalyst for loads of good stuff to be produced !

I don't actually use hit locations, and nor do any of the 8 official BRP adventures released by Chaosium either.

If I did, though, I'd want to know how well it handles my favourite recurring villains: a four-armed broo priest and his two-headed walktapus sidekick...

I suppose a GM could give any character who earns a skill check with the item an IDEA roll to see if the "gain familiarity". Or just say that by earning a check the character knows enough to become familiar with the item.

Sounds good!

How about using the skill check system?

If a character makes a skill check and improves his (modified) skill score he is then considered familiar with the item. If it above his normal skill score, his skill improves as well (as normal).

Er, doesn't that mean less-skilled characters would find it easier to become familiar?

He has to trust them not to make and distribute copies anyway ...

True. Though some who wouldn't cross that line might be willing to just share a link...

But it's academic, anyway. Classic Fantasy customers are all of the noblest breed, for sure!

...you could send them an e-mail with the download link...

But then, as Mr L is probably too polite to mention, he'd be trusting them not to pass on that link to others...

Faulty rewrite rule. Can you check your links again? Is it working now?

Fair enough. I updated my links to http://basicroleplaying.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=307 (the old version had "/forum/" in the middle, IIRC), so it works now, ta.

PS: Woo-hoo! 8 more downloads! My time put in over on other forums may be paying off! (Still a bit miffed about the ~250 lost off the count, tho'). Maybe now momentum will be regained...

Heck, have those downloads changed address again??

Trif, if you must change them, please announce it so I can fix the links in my sigs on those other forums...

... but please don't change 'em if you can possibly avoid it!

Where's the Wiki?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Coming back soon, allegedly. And implemented in something called "CMS", which should make it even better!

Ehh... Around 2 weeks? It's not highest on the priority list.

...and that was a week ago, so...?

I would expect grimoires to be 99.9% fluff, misconception, superstition and gobbledigook. The spell is buried in there somewhere, but it's unlikely that even the inventor knew which bits of his finally successful incantation were the "magic words" ...

Exactly! 1000 x our 1/4-page summaries. (So - 250 pages?)

In terms of verisimilitude I don't even see Gloranthan grimoires as books. IMG (in my Glorantha)...

Also true. (I keep forgetting, now, that MRQ is primarily for Glorantha).

Been there. My kids are 12 & 10 now and play regular role-games, but here's what I did when they were younger...

Sounds very like the D&D board game.

Please note that the "One spell, one skill" philosophy works well only with the experience check improvement system. If you use improvement rolls for character development, having each spell as a skill makes sorcerers progress too slowly.

However, as Pete said, the rules explicitly allow to have grimoires that contain one spell. In a low magic world, you can have all grimoires be spell scrolls.

Or put another way: "Improvement rolls don't work well for One spell, One skill".

But then personally I prefer one (or just a few) over-arching "Magic" skills rather than individual spell-skills anyway.

And also, realistically ("verisimilitudinally"?) spells wouldn't have their details neatly summarized like we get them in rulebooks. I see them as filling (at least!) one entire book each, with not only the magical formulae themselves, but detailed case-histories of castings and variations, from which the sorceror character has to get a feeling for the effects to expect.

Well, it wasn't completely essential, but I enjoy the potential of the CMS, being able to drop a couple of add-ons for functions that now are included and having software that's compatible with whatever new they put out. Still, an element of upgrading "for the fun of it" was probably present.... I'm quite happy with the upgrade.

Trif's the client here not us. He just lets us play in his sandbox too! (Thanks for that, trif!) If he's happy, that's what counts.

Isn't cider just apple-beer?

Yes.

While I like the idea of a skill based system, I don't agree with the concept that people get better at bleeding to death (or the opposite, getting better at not bleeding to death).

Yes, that's clearly a D&D-style "levels" idea and I can see why you might regard it as pestilential, if you don't want that.

I must admit I use something similar in my homebrew, though.

Very best of luck!

Don't worry if it doesn't work out though. They're still a bit young imho. Plan too much and you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. And I doubt they'll appreciate it. I remember myself at that age, playing up at the back of the class while the poor teacher was trying to read us The Hobbit. I wasn't interested, just a naughty kid. A few years later I was totally different (I hope!) and loved it.

I really dislike MRQ1 and wasn't planning on ever looking at MRQ2, but this is getting me curious.

Same for me. I suspect if the old MRQ had used these rules we wouldn't be here now - we'd be busy playing it.

And calling it RuneQuest.

As I mentioned, it is a multiple choice poll, and I voted for both "Unhappy" and "Turtles" ...

Aaaah, I didn't realize we could vote for more than one...