frogspawner

So what option have you found to work for you? The only one that is making any sense to me at the moment is to add the difference between the two skills to 50 and make the attacker roll (ex: 80% Stealth sneaking up on a 60% Listen would have a 70% chance of success).

I've never found a system that's entirely satisfactory (and not for want of trying). Your idea seems pretty good, though.

But why is 50 the best number to add? If it was 25 (the normal Listen/Spot skill value, which most defenders could be expected to have) then the Stealth could normally be rolled unmodified. (And your 80v60 example would have a 45% chance - is that unreasonable?)

I think the 'Shared World' should in fact be separate campaign areas, with creative control retained by their respective authors (to which they could add others' contributions, if desired).

So, there would be Rurik's Portal, Puck's The Green, Rust's own setting (if he cared to publish), and whatever anyone else cared to add.

Individual GMs woud be free to combine them as they saw fit...

Oh yeah, based on an educated guess, the trolls would most likely have eaten Rurik's corpse (stopping resurrection ), and taken all his stuff.

Or reanimated me. >:->

OK, guys, coming out with this nonsense is all very well for the fun purpose of winding me up - but you should be ashamed of yourselves. Some readers not so familiar with Glorantha might actually be fooled into believing your guff.

The Travels of Biturian Varosh from Cults of Prax, probably the foremost Gloranthan tale, has Rurik alive in 1614, two years after his supposed death to the trollkin in the Personalities - Rurik story (which lies within a section of the site called "Eurmal's Bag of Tricks", btw). If you dismiss the possibilty of his returning to life then, of the two tales, it is the story of his death that we must reject as unreliable.

But both could be true - that is the beauty of Glorantha, after all.

The death-story merely poses the question of whether a Goldentongue should be believed - yet the same source says of that other famous Goldentongue, Joh Mith, that "most outsiders take his word as fact".

And remember that the fateful mission of 1612 was said to be co-led by Rurik's rival Jonathan Trollsbane. There can be little doubt he would have lived up to his name, rescued Rurik's body, and taken it post-haste to the Healers, Friendly to Yelmalio, for Resurrection. For certain he would not pass up the chance to ever-after tease Rurik about his ignominious death to a mere trollkin...

Just sayin'.

Fine. Likewise, I'm just sayin' the more common view around here: BRP is best.

Was it the GM being nice for the player by allowing Rurik to be resurrected after serving Yelmalio for a period of time (role-playing creativity), or did it involve a hero quest (performed by others)?

Plain old Resurrection from a friendly Chalana Arroy Healer would do the trick. No need for any Fate Points or similar story-bending machinations. Anyway, he was clearly very much alive and kicking again in 1614/15 (The Travels of Biturian Varosh).

Actually, I was ret-conned back into existence when the MRQ rules came out... MRQ is more cinematic than BRP by default.

No need for any such desperate measures, either (MRQ is poo, after all). Better by far to optionize (or tweak) the BRP Rules to suit your taste.

What about the following rules tweak ?

Characteristics scale :

"Trash" NPCs : 4 to 8

"low level" PCs and NPCs : 10 to 20

Important PCs and NPCs : 20 to 30

Derived characteristics :

Hit Points : equal to CON

Number of actions per turn (including defenses and reactions) : DEX/10

Optionally:

Base Melee damage : (STR+SIZ)/6 in D6 (modified by weapon)

Base Ranged damage : (DEX+INT)/6 in D6 (modified by weapon)

It could also be possible to use "Healing surge"-like rules : allow one to spend Magic points to get Hit Points back.

Can't say I'm keen. The concept of "Trash NPCs" probably being the worst aspect.

Can anyone confirm that the article is valid?

Odd that you should leave out the rest of that story. The self-same source says...

[This was in the summer of 1612.] ... Some priests think that Rurik now fights at the side of his god. Stories of a trader named Biturian Varosh, though, state that Rurik walks once again among the living, but how much trust can you hold in the word of a Goldentongue?

Well I prefer to trust that word, rather than believe the forked tongue of a dragonewt! Rurik Lives! :happy:

Just don't forget there are alternatives to giving PCs extra HPs (if you find that too unfair/D&D-like) and/or Fate Points (if you find them too intrusive/meta-gamey).

stat * X% to make a characteristic roll

stat vs stat on resistance table

skill%

skill% vs skill% for whatever system you're using to resolve opposed skills.

If you're used to BRP this complexity is pretty invisible but it's a bit of a hodge-podge when you're new to the game.

Which is exactly why I simplify it even further:

Skill%

Stat* x 5% (*sometimes modified as noted - which makes it identical to the resistance table)

(And certainly no opposed rolls, which throw simplicity out the window!)

I don't use the Resistance Table at all - just STATx5 rolls instead, because that's so much simpler.

Though frequently 'modifiers' apply to the Stat, typically: +/1 per Point the opposing STAT/POW/POT is under/over 10.

Personnally, I don't like rules that gives different mechanics to different characters depending on their "type".

Absolutely. Me neither.

I also like Hero Points, if they are not restricted to the PC and specific NPCs can have some.

Hmm - Players may be happy with a system to fiddle the story in their favour, but I'm not sure they'd like it letting the GM openly fiddle things against them...

Very fun, in a slightly disturbing way, to see the players exchange worried looks over the table when there's only one die left:innocent:

... or, when the Serious Roleplayer's character is reduced to a nasty red stain by an unlucky die roll shortly after the Power Gamer used-up the last three Fate Dice to bargain a better price for his armour without a second thought, they might exchange something else - like blows!

I find a Hero Point system to work the best.

Fair enough. it's just they feel too meta-game for me.

How does this make things more cinematic?

Normally not much, but the extra layer of Dodge/Defence makes it very much so at 100%+.

Advantage 1- Feel, heck it is more dangerous...

Not really, since I don't play they go unconscious at 0 (or even 1hp). When they pass out isn't strictly defined (another potential advantage to heroic PCs!) but generally they only pass out if they go 0- from a head-hit, or a very serious wound elsewhere.

You could get the same effects much more simply by just saying character don't die until they are -MW in HP.

Ah, but the players wouldn't feel more vulnerable that way, since they'd know they had normal HPs, plus the -MW safety buffer too. That mechanic also doesn't give the subtle "licence to flee"-effect of 0hp until much later, when it may be too late...

A "mook" rule by any other name. You create a special dodge skill that only PCs and significant NPCs will have high scores in. Looks a lot like the RQ2 Defense ability.

Yes, inspired by RQ2 Defence, blended with RQ3 Dodge. I think there's a difference between 'mook rules' and characters just having different values for skills.

A neat way to bring Pendragon Passions into RQ. Systematically though, it doesn't favor the PCs. The GM might, by not giving NPCs many traits, but that is, in essence a "mook" rule.

But how "mookish" the NPCs are is up to how the GM plays them at the time, not built-in to the system.

No, the advantages are gained by rolling under your trait. I don't see where role playing "brave" is giving an advantage. Don't get me wrong, I like Pendragon. Where the reward for role play comes in isn't in the application of the trait, but in the improvement check awarded for role playing the trait. But, a character can role-play brave until all the other players hide under the table, and it isn't providing an advantage--the die roll does.

They have to be playing Brave (or whatever) to qualify for a roll. And if they RP the trait exceptionally well, but don't make a roll, the GM could award a tick anyway.

I'd also say that writing down and keeping track of an actual score for things like Bravery or Stubbornness, certainly seems like accountancy to me, with some character being 20% more brave, honest or lustful than others.

It's no more 'accountancy' than the rest of the skills system, which we're stuck with anyway.

The OP asked for any suggestions, so I felt obliged to outline the system I use, since it is quite different from the usual Hero/Fate point mechanisms and offers a real alternative.

RP is used to describe how a fate point gave a +X bonus to a roll that helped a character out of trouble.

Additionally, here is a snippet of text from the Fate 2005 SRD...

As a GM, if the expenditure lets people continue to have fun without breaking anything, it should generally be allowed.

...

Thanks for that. I would have thought a GM should usually allow fun like that anyway though, without a tally limiting the number of times they can. And I still don't get the RP connection, I'm afraid. OK, the player has to do a bit of justified storytelling for their +X bonus (good to note it is just a bonus, btw, so they can't rely on getting out of trouble), but that still doesn't mean they're in-character, which is what I call role-playing.

I like to think my trait-skill mechanism does encourage them to act according to their chosen personality, as much of the time as they can, so they can justify any bonus-roll they may need.

I am not sure I understand what you said here.

The GM should create situations where the players think their characters face genuine risk. PC-only advantages detract from that, because the players know the system is on their side. To be truly heroic players need to know the risk, feel the fear - and do it anyway.

It looks like we are using a similar method for similar results, only with a different name and slightly different implementation.

And we both know which is best, don't we?

In what way are the given example player-only rules not 'mook'-style rules?

In that they apply equally to PCs and NPCs, not player-only. (Yes, including "give HP= SIZ/2", "characters don't die until -CON HP").

...fate points encourage roll-playing...

Do you mean role-playing? Roll-playing is a bad thing - that's what I'm saying. But I don't see how Fate Points encourage RP. Can you explain?

Statistically, most of our favourite action-movie, saga and book heroes would be dead long before the story finishes. How do we deal with that without 'mooking', fudging the roles, or giving some other advantage to the PC's?

The Art of the GM is making the players feel like heroes. But if the odds are stacked in their favour by the Science of the Rules, then they'll know in their hearts they are not. My rules-suggestions above are even-handed - but in how much of a simulationist/storytelling way to apply them is up to the GM.

(PS: I guess I should have mentioned that I do in fact limit the Personality Trait-Skill bonuses to one successful use per session.)

Have any of you seen rules to make characters more durable? I don't want characters to be as invincible as high level D&D characters, but would like them to be able to take a few wounds without dying.

Should I raise starting HP? Increase armor values? Decrease weapon damage values? Increase the starting level of Parry and Dodge skills?

Fate/Hero/Action points (just like lots of extra HP), where players can completely rely on their 'luck' until it's all spent, are unrealistic (i.e. unbelievable) and un-heroic. It's less like adventuring, and more like... accountancy.

Similarly 'mook'-style rules, where the PCs have big advantages over (nearly)everyone else, turn it from heroic adventure into contemptible bullying.

(Of course that's all IMO. But I feel it quite strongly). So, bearing in mind those two principles, what can be done for PC survivability?

What I do is give HP= SIZ/2, actually less than usual... BUT say characters don't die until -CON HP. This has several advantages: 1) It feels more dangerous; 2) it's a bit safer as they have 50% more HP than normal; 3) it's politically OK to run away on 0hp (and hence survive), whereas on half-hp they'd be expected to fight on (and hence die). (This also has the beneficial side-effect of Major Wounds occuring at a more intuitive 0hp, rather than at an artificial-seeming half-hp).

What I also do is allow Dodge to be used in addition to Parry on any hit. This is unreliable (so not accountancy), and everybody can get it (so not bullying) - which improves survival-chance quite a lot. (I also make Dodge a special skill that improves only via role-playing (or is GM-assigned for NPCs, obviously, but usually low or zero) - so PCs can earn this big heroic advantage).

One other edge which primarily favours PCs, though, is personality traits. They can have one or two, rated as skills (e.g. Bravery 25%, Stubborn 30%). Doing something in that manner gives that chance of a x2 bonus on the action they are attempting. (NPCs also have these trait-skills, but the GM doesn't have to bother using them, unless for dramatic effect).

This way, any advantages to the players are gained through their own wit and role-playing. Neat, huh?

Jason gave his reasoning behind the current BRP ones in another thread, quite a while ago. Something like "would resistance be harder if you were tired" differentiating between POW & PP contests, IIRC.

...pull the data into a database, so character sheets could be reprinted when needed (every session someone seems to have forgotten their sheet)...

That's why I use the Java/txt-file method I mentioned - so the 'master' versions can be published on-line, and printed/referred to as-and-when. (e.g. Dranlen the Bard)

Perhaps I'll give the player the option of which they prefer the BRP special or roll on the crit chart.

Your suggestion is a replacement for the standard BRP special/critical effects, rather than an addition, right? If so, then it's actually simpler than the usual, rather than adding complexity. That's good.

I can see a drawback though - it may work fine for human-size (and shape) opponents, but the effects from the HARP crit chart (I don't know it, please correct me if I'm wrong) may be unrealistically lethal on bigger creatures, and may need customizing for winged, multi-limbed and/or other wacky-shaped things.

If there's something fairly similar to the look you want, I'd suggest scanning it in and tweaking it with Photoshop and/or Paint.

Personally, I have written a Java applet that draws everything, and fills in the details with data read from a .txt file for each character (working out critical/special/fumble chances and encumbrance/move rate automatically). But that's probably a bit over-the-top for what you want...

The difference between a proper Chaosium publication and a monograph is?

Monographs get to see the light of day within a year of their announcement.>:->

Harsh - but fair!

I'm not sure even Chaosium know the difference. Is BRP Adventures really a monograph? It's by multiple authors (so not 'mono'), Chaosium arranged the layout (I assume) and Chaosium commissioned it in the first place. I reckon they've just got into the habit of calling everything they actually publish "a monograph"...

Depends what you're wanting to achieve.

Basically, rules to convert MRQ-statted characters so they can be used in BRP campaigns. That shouldn't be hard, should it?

If Resilience/Persistence can just be crossed out (and POWvPOW used instead), then that's a great start!

Depends on how they use the,m. What I7d like to see is the runic sysmbols being used, rather than physical "left overs". For instance, making the runic symbols focuses for spells. What I could see for the "bones/blood of the gods" idea would be something like a maxtrix and/or POW storing device.

Sounds like a good implementation. Probably too compatible with pre-existing versions for them to use in HQ2, though...

Or ignore MRQ and play with RQ3 or BRP with RQ3 options.

To play Glorantha, I'd use BRP with my usual simple options (and a few house rules). Ignoring MRQ of course.

For those among us who might want to use Mongoose Glorantha material, what else (aside from Runes!) is there in MRQ stuff that needs conversion for use with BRP?

I do realise that you believe physical runes that can be integrated by someone after the previous host has died ARE AN ABOMINATION AND HAVE NO PLACE IN GLORANTHA AND ANY POSSIBILITY OF THEM BREAKS GLORANTHA AND RUINS IT AND STEALS MY PET TEDDY BEAR (sob, I loved that teddy bear).

Really? Then I'm afraid you realize wrong. My previous postings have said how the new idea of physical runes could have a place in Glorantha - if done properly.

I think you'll find that players who like to kill things and steal their stuff will do so regardless.

Rules shouldn't force such behaviour though. MRQ does.

2nd Age - lots of physical runes.

Owners/attuned die runes may either a) disappear back to the god plane or hang around to be stolen

3rd Age - very few physical runes. If you want access then you join the cult of a god attuned to them.

Maybe THAT's the real reason that the Gloranthan gods are so keen on keeping their worshippers souls after death. if you pledge yourself to a deity when you die they get to keep your runes. If you haven't then some other puny mortal gets to attune them and keep them where THEY SHOULD NOT BE

Yes, that fixes the physical Runes problem nicely...

...so long as ( is reserved for extra-special occasions!

The default position in MRQ is that runes manifest physically, are attuned for a lifetime, can be re-attuned after death and that rune magic can't be cast without an integrated physical rune object. There is nothing broken about that characterisation.

No. The point in bold breaks Glorantha by turning it into just another D&D-style "kill things and their stuff" setting (or can do, if Runes are anything other than extremely rare).

There is a breakage between that characterisation and rune magic for cults which makes the system internally inconsistent. My interest is in addressing that breakage is to allow for the possibility of runecasting without needing to integrate a physical rune object and allowing cults to be able to map different magics to the runes their God possesses based on their myths.

Yes. Rules supporting that are necessary to allow GMs to play their Glorantha without Runes being common, if they wish.