frogspawner

Go ahead and tell me why this is a bad idea. I've actually thought about this before for generic RPG supplements: write up everything, but provide state blocks for a variety of game systems for free download (possibly supplying a password with the purchased game).

Unscrupulous players could find out the stats/abilities of the opposition? Apart from being unsporting, it could seriously blow plot secrets if that 'friendly' innkeeper is revealed to have Brew Pratzim 80%. And just what opposition there was should itself be secret, even if you don't care about the exact stats. (Yes, passwording it might help a little but people would get around that). It needn't be intentional cheating, either - if they were some of the few statted-up NPCs around, GMs might over-use them till they were too familiar.

Alternatively, along the same lines as the "Foes Generator" program I mentioned earlier, a utility could allow character/monster stats to be put in for a specified option - and then format-up the stat-block for other options, at the click of a radio button (or twelve...)

Dream Dragons are a plot device, not a real foe you'd face with a sword.

I think you've confused your Dragons here. (True) Dragons are the BIG ones, (Dream) Dragons are merely big.

Gosh, guys, I must say I'm quite surprised at the negativity shown on this thread...

Well, you shouldn't be. Didn't you know? As Rurik implied, this thread was specifically set up to discuss Soltakss's dissatisfaction with BRP (to avoid clogging up the 'glorantha' thread), in answer to direct questions about it (in the full knowledge he hasn't seen Zero).

I've thought about how to stat up creatures to be universal based on bits' from this board...

That is why I suspect most supplements will include stat's for the base core rules only. I hope I'm wrong.

Don't worry, let 'em stat-up for base core only - it's won't be a problem...

Imagine, if you will, an NPC stat block containing all of the optional stuff, perhaps in parentheses to distinguish the stuff. I'll walk you through a combo of the options...

[<long long list that fully justifies the core-only option> snipped]

And I could go on...

Yes, having all those options makes it (almost?) unfeasible to print all the possibilities...

I understand it might not be what older fans were waiting for... and I am sorry for you, but for a newcomer like me, it is exactly what I am looking for.

So the books really should use only the simplest, core options - to be newbie-friendly.

Therefore, we old-timers and others who don't want the defaults, could do with a kind of interactive "Foes". A java prog or similar could do the job, I'm sure. Chaosium could stick in on their site. A few radio buttons for options, pop-down the number/type of creatures, some other parameters, press the button - and bingo! Monsters with whatever options you want, ready-to-print...

Why is that?

It's something I've tried but am not quite happy with. Perhaps because it's a double-whammy reward and/or the percentage for 'Observant' is arbitrary and/or it's unnecessary complication. (Although it's still in my current written houserules...)

I like that simple elegance of using a stat base, but miss the the RQ method of depicting some skills as easier than others.

Using Weapons for example PoleAxe could be STR (or STR -5).

Sword could be DEX+10, while Mace could be STR+15.

Thanks. Yes, that's precisely what I meant by +/- modifiers: different for each skill. I'm using a fairly similar system already, but this does seem like it would be neater.

I'd be inclined to shout "Questworld" if we could get enough people to want to game in the same fantasy setting. Some sort of baseline setting would be nice, as long as the rules don't limit other uses of BRP.

I think any "in house" setting needs to be "in house" at Chaosium. ...

That was precisely the original motivation behind Gwenthia, albeit we wandered quite some way from that original motivation fairly rapidly...

The difficulty is there is no "in house" at Chaosium: ... Indeed, and perhaps something that this community could do in it's wiki, or on a clsoed sub set of the forums?

What was the concept behind Questworld? Gates from which you could travel form world to world or something like that?

Not a bad idea. A problem could be agreeing on the type of setting/world to create though.

Fantasy earth, with all the myths being true, could be one idea.

OK, there are problems with existing proprietary worlds. Another problem is editorial control.

BUT...

If the "QuestWorld" concept allows travel between worlds, then it's easy. Anybody who has their own world, and wants to take part in the project, can publish what they have. (Perhaps in the downloads section of this very site, if Mr.T would be so kind). If you like someone's setting, and develop additions to it, just ask them if they'll include it as "canon" for their world - if they don't like it, you can mark it up as a "parallel of XXX's world" and publish anyway. Some may get popular, and some not. Maybe polls, download counts or ratings could be rigged up, and the download list arranged as a "league table". (Brutal, if your beloved creation languishes at the bottom, but...)

That way it could be both QuestWorld and Fantasy Earth, at the same time...

I think I'd prefer skill bases equal to a single stat, perhaps +/- some modifier. Anyone tried that and found problems with it?

Also, don't forget that RQ gets really boring if all you are doing is fighting people with no chance of hurting you. What's the point? You need challenging encounters to give you a sense of danger and excitement.

Exactly. And the benefit of getting tougher is the glory. You could stay low-level and kill hordes of trollkin in relative safely, but who will tell camp-fire tales about that? If the characters are proper Heroes, not just bullies, they'll get tough and seek out the Big Ugly Monsters - to become immortal! (If only in song...)

(BTW, has some glitch cross-threaded this with the "Balance" topic?)

I don't see Greg licensing Glorantha back to Chaosium.

So, can we choose a different homeworld for BRP, and make it the 'New Glorantha'?

I'd suggest an already-established setting, if possible. I've seen Jorune praised hereabouts...

I'll probably go with rolling for hit location (so you can have different armor), and say damage above 50% of total results as below 0 HP in that location for RQ, 100% of total leads to sever/maim, and death at -POW HP or any round below 0 total HP that you don't succeed with a POW x5 roll (or if severing/maiming a vital location).

One thing I was thinking of was to use hit locations, but get rid of HP/location. Instead kicking the damage dice up a step for head hits and down a step for limb hits (or maybe up/down two steps). Then treat a major wound as a disabled location.

Sounds pretty similar to what I've been using recently (have I said this before?):

HP = SIZ*/2, roll location (if rqd), 0hp or below disables location, -5 is Serious wound**, -10 is Critical wound**, -CON is dead.

* (Or use your favourite method to calculate HPs, and divide that by 2.)

** Each location has a small sub-table of possible Serious/Critical wounds, i.e. one for each sub-location (elbow, forearm, etc).

(Edit - Serious: break or similar; Critical: sever/maim).

Only if Greg Stafford gave permission first. Glorantha is a protected Intellectual Property. If you did a 'rewrite' to fit BRP specifically without acquiring a licence or the appropriate permission, they'd be opening themselves to litigation.

Or even if the ersatz-Glorantha was 'system agnostic', presumably. But I was hoping more to elicit opinions as to what essential elements (without infringing IP) would be needed for a Glorantha 'tribute' world (or even a take-off, 'Bored of the Rings' style...). But it's difficult, just like identifying the "RQ-ishness" of RQ2/3 which holds them apart from, and superior to, MRQ.

"The setting will be the same world, not the same copyrighted words."

It could have a race of Dark Trulls that worship Kigur Littor. Humaked could be the God of Death. And of course you could have a war between the invading Loonies and the rebel Orlunthi. Watch out for those Hurricane Cow berserkers!

Brilliant! :thumb:

(I propose that the cult of Kigur Littor should be a "Blank Religion" - that there will never be an officially published write-up for it ).

And this new homeworld for BRP needs a name. Anyone?

(Time to shift to the 'BRP worlds you'd like to see' thread?)

We have been told that MRQ is the new version of RuneQuest. ... But it is not, it is an entirely new game and is just claiming to be RuneQuest. ... That is why people became upset.

Rightly upset. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Just like tomatoes. I hate tomatoes. It's the... the... pretence. The lies, the deception. They sit there, pretending they're a vegetable - but they're not! They'e a... ...a fruit! I don't like tomatoes.

Since you ask for opinions, I'll say I still can't get rid of the thought that GS has deliberately let Mongoose cobble-together a d100-based version of D&D using the RuneQuest name, in the hope of air-brushing real RQ from history - while probably also hoping BRP and MRQ, too, will fail - leaving only HQ... :eek:

However, that doesn't stop people producing systems and settings that are compatible with both RQ and BRP and could even be used in Glorantha or in other worlds.

Produce settings like/for Glorantha? Really? Somehow I doubt it. I've included a sort of mini-Glorantha in my campaign world (of Sartar/Prax exiles), but I presume Mr Stafford would sue if it made any money.

Or do you think a world that captured enough of the essence of Glorantha could be sufficiently un-like it to avoid legal problems?

(Re.: Observant/Unobservant)

Basically it would be the GM's call, depending on how alert he wants the watchers to be.

Very sensible. Just wondered if you were thinking of tying it to a particular % of Spot/Listen skill - but that's probably not a good idea...

What about this one? ... Keeps roll below, easy math, levels of success. What do you think? Any other ideas?

Mmmm, yes. I like it! I'd probably add-in extra stages ("closer... closer...") for particularly dramatic sneakings/spottings. How do you define observant/unobservant?

I know most of you won't like this but...

Too right. I'm sure the good ol' "1/5th Special, 1/20th Critical" is too ingrained for you to get many (any?) takers for that one...

It can also be addressed by GM fudging. I know some people have an unreasoning hatred of GM fudging, but it is a time honored tool.

With all due respect, my Lord, but you can keep yer 'time honoured tool'! Maybe it's lack of fudging confidence, but as GM I want the support of a system I can trust - then I can sit back and enjoy the unfolding story, like the rest of 'em...

Personally I'd have preferred a 1-1 basis with a CAP per attack of something like 1/2 POW. I did assume a 1-1 basis for my Spot Rules I posted a month back.

(BTW, I'll be checking out your spot rules straight away. Sorry for not spotting them sooner! )

Aha! Buried in "Old West Spot Rules" - no wonder I missed 'em (soz, not a western fan).

They're good: clean and simple. Pretty close in essence to the system I'm trying. Having to make a Luck Roll before you get the benefit seems a bit too chancy, though. (Some risk is all you need to be a Hero - too much and you're just some other dead guy, before long). Mine's a bit clunkier but should let you escape/survive at least one Killer Blow, up to 95% of the time - if you care to spend the PP, that is...

One of the least attractive features of BRP (at least with full blown RQ) for many people is how remarkably easy it is to just get a bad roll ...

You can't completely buffer bad luck, nor, in the end, do you usually want to except in very stylized games, but there's matters of degree here.

I still hope to devise a system that buffers it better (without massive PP expenditure in Round 1 by both sides, farcically attempting to out-Hero each other). Currently I'm trying a "Defence x PP spent" % chance to avoid 10/20/All damage ('Defence' starting low, 0-ish, but increasing for good RP). Hopefully, it should reduce thos Bad Rolls by nearly a factor of 20. We'll see how it goes.

If you give both sides the same amount of points all the time, yeah. Like I posted in another thread, if you give a squad of 20 stormtroopers points to spend, they will become an insurmountable obstacle.

THe idea is that the points should either only be available to the major characters, or be alloted in proportion to the character's significance. So an extra would get not or very few, while a major villain would get a lot.

Understood. I was assuming the 'grand denouement' with the villains - the encounter that you least want to degenerate into farce.

I don't think the spending 6 to alter a success level is too complicated. If you think it is, then stay clear of any of the magic sections. Functionally it is simpler than casting Protection 6, and will a shorter duration.

I meant the array of different BRP options makes it too complicated. OK, the GM may only use one or none, but he may allow any, or any combination... too much!

I think you are missing the purpose of the points. They are not there to add to the excitement, but to help mitigate some of the extreme effects-especially when players have little they can do about them.

Case in point, long ago in a campaign, the GM got a hot hand and criticalled every PC in the first two rounds of battle.

Ooo, nasty! I do get the purpose - but I think Fate/Luck/Hero points can be used for that in some way that also doesn't detract from the excitement too much. Having a totally reliable way to escape killing blows would spoil it, for me. I reckon the system I'm now trying would have saved most of your unfortunately criticalled PCs (but just cost them some/all of their power points...)

As for it not being heroic. in what way.

To be Heroic, you need to be taking a risk. If your Fate Points options guarantee you a way out - there's no risk. Totting up points to buy your way out of danger makes you an Accountant, not a Hero.

My only real issue with the points is how they are regenerated. POW is okay for "Luck" points. But I'd have preferred a method of earning new ones rather than regenerating POW.

I hope combining an earned "Luck" (Defence) skill with having to pay PP to use it will do the trick. (BTW, I'll be checking out your spot rules straight away. Sorry for not spotting them sooner! )

So, the lucky ones got even luckier...

There certainly ain't no justice! You could try giving them out as rewards for good roleplaying, like I do...

Whadido?:confused:

Suggested the 'spending PP' part. Upthread, I thought, but can't find it now - maybe in another one. Ta, anyway. It's currently under playtest...

Rurik the Restless didn't die, as far as I know. He's from RQ3. Rurik Runespear, from RQ2, however, lived in Pavis and did a lot of adventuring before becoming a Rune Lord and then getting killed by a trollkin near Troll Bridge. ... To be fair, he did pop up later on a HeroQuest, so perhaps he didn't die permanently.

Nah, RQ3 was Cormac & Co. Rurik the Restless was RQ2 and he didn't die, just got captured and ransomed by, yes, trolls (well, who hasn't?). I guess he became known as "Runespear" when he was a RuneLord. (Is it him in an old Wyrms Footnotes?)

Rurik Lives!

(I confess - my first and best RQ character was of Yelmalio...)

An expenditure of three power points per point of damage allows a character to, ''…ignore [said] damage…from a single attack…''

Oops, I missed the "per point of damage" before. OK, so it's not super-powerful like I thought but instead it's insipid. And, without a roll involved, where's the excitement? It's just a bit too calculated, not Heroic. And all the other ways to spend PP makes it too complicated.

Where would this lead? One side spending points to re-roll better hits and increase damage, the other side spending points to downgrade those hits and then (maybe) negate some damage too. So, everyone's out of PP by the second round - and then the real fight can start!?

Most games also tend to limit the points to significant NPCs though, or limit the points for extras and other minor characters.

And normally I would too. It's just I'm calling this ability Defence, and the NPC stats I was using gave had the baboons listed with "10% Defence", so... (yeah, I know it's GM laziness, not reworking the stats - I've been busy, ok? ) Good way to test the new rule, though!

(Edit: I should explain I'm giving Defence x PP spent chance to avoid damage. Again - thanks for the idea, Atg!)

I remember reading a game a few years back that had Hero points but when you used them, you got this kind of negative Hero point in return. Kinda like Doom points. These points the GM could use to cause you trouble later on down the line.

Not seen it, but nice idea!

Phew! That was my thought - thanks for your support!