frogspawner

Good to hear it's coming soon - sounds great! Thinking about it though, the new year would do fine (hopefully I'll get some Christmas money...) I wouldn't want to feel responsible for it being a rush job, risking editing errors like those spoiling Chaosium's Trollslayer adventure.

The Legend RPG is certainly on my Christmas List! But is there any point my putting The Spider Gods Bride adventures book on the list too (i.e. when's that due out) ?

(Aside: I think it's "lesser of two", and a "lessor" is someone who leases something. Sorry!)

That looks pretty good. Are there con-versions for AD&D 1e and/or D&D3.0/5 around too? I guess what we need most, for converting D&D adventures, is rules-of-thumb to translate the monsters and (which I didn't notice in the above document) traps, including how to deal with 'Saving Throws' and similar. Anyone got good 'rules' for that?

Even considering all those problems, BRP's Big Gold Book is good. The faults are totally forgiveable, given the monumental task of drawing-together all the different variations into a unified "BRP". And surely that was it's main objective? The major benefit for us is that we now have a system that is in print. While we're moaning, though, I will say that "In Search of the Trollslayer" (the only official Chaosium BRP straight fantasy scenario, right?) does suffer from dreadful production errors. Paragraphs out of place, map-scale different from textual descriptions. That made it difficult to use.

Exactly so!

So how many rounds can the Baker keep that up? More than three? Then he's a *very* lucky baker (and deserves to survive). Yep, you can attack AND parry - same round. (And I allow Dodge too...) You can have parry a separate skill if you want (or not if you don't). Strike Ranks? No thanks! I get this 'realistic caution' effect, without the complication of HP-per-Location, by halving HP - but also saying you stay alive until minus CON HP. Disabling blows kick-in at Zero. And no-one can criticize you for running away when you're on negative! Even wannabe heroes realize it's just common sense...

Thanks very much for your thoughts, gents. Not using the Mooks concept, and with an old-style fantasy campaign that doesn't support detailed command structures, I'll give my initial idea a try. (Despite the large benefit - it is only short-term, so hopefully that cancels out, and simplifies admin). I'll report back on how it goes down with the players - even when it's used against them!

The Strategy and Command skills are a bit rubbish, as described in the Big Gold Book. Does anyone have any better house rules for them? My complaints about them, as written, are: 1) Successful rolls get you no advantage, but failure gets you a disadvantage (a classic design flaw); and 2) They're too fiddly and minor to bother with, i.e. +10%/+POW% on combat rolls for d4 rounds. I'd prefer something like, on a successful roll... Command: all combat rolls are Easy for one round; Strategy: all enemy combat rolls are Hard for 1 round. Anyone see problems with that? (Apologies if this has been tackled before and I've failed to notice).

I agree with your point 1) and base skills on just one characteristic (usually at x3). You're probably right about point 2) as well, but I'm not worried about 'maintaining differentials' and couldn't be bothered with the extra admin (in fact I try to avoid adding bonuses at all, preferring just x2 or /2). Learning skills, all skills, I see more as derived from INT, so any increase roll over 100-2xINT earns an increase. The link between skills and their base stat can be maintained by altering the skill accordingly if ever the stat changes, can't it?

Glad you like the idea! I use it very like straight BRP Martial Arts - roll weapon attack, and if also under that weapon's MA%, they get the bonus. Just, in my version, the bonus is not damage but an extra attack roll (which can also gain further attacks, within limits, naturally). But whatever works for you.

My version of Martial Arts gives an extra attack, not extra damage. That works for Grapple as well as any other 'weapon' type.

I have a two-step mechanic for allegiance/alignment. For each cult/faction decide 5 traits (from Pendragon) that are most relevant; and monitor the characters' various traits in play. Then their allegiance to any cult/faction can be calculated by totting-up relevant traits (subtracting opposites) - without having to keep a separate number for every faction (so you can invent new ones easily...).

No experience, but I say 'Nay' - unnecessary complicaton.

Yes, Combat styles do seem to need greater - or, rather, clearer - explanation. Because that sounds like it's perfectly well modelled by the good old 'skill checks against skills used' mechanism. It seems that Gladiator should have several weapon skills and consequently not have had time to develop some other skills, that's all...

Usually not.

RuneQuest no longer exists in [Mongoose] RuneQuest. The concept of weapon classes hasn't vanished just because some publisher doesn't include them in their latest edition. So if someone finds 'em useful...

You're right! Yes, that's where the problem originates - with the decision to 'simplify' into one combined weapon skill for both attack and parry. O what a tangled web... But I for one am happy with that simplification, and others who know real weapons combat say it's unrealistic to have separate attack/parry skills - it's all one.

Let the player roll, whether they're 'active' or not. E.g. either to resist a spell, or to overcome a bad guy's resistance to their spell. Gives 'em more involvement.

That horse is very much alive! When you've found the perfect solution, please tell...

Surely you'd only get the extra CA when actually fighting with the mastered weapon? (Hmm, maybe that could be a benefit for two-weapon fighting... )

"Oh no, not again..." I mean, good question, but it's been debated SO often around here. This was the most recent, I think: http://basicroleplaying.com/showthread.php/2344-Shields-in-melee

Ditto. In a new thread though, perhaps...

I haven't really played BRP straight (who does? Everyone has house rules!) enough to comment on the fine details of your excellent questions. But for what it's worth... Personally, I think it'd be much harder to take HP away from the players than give them extra later (if you really must). A TPK, if it happened, can be worked-around in the 'story' somehow - or players might actually like an opportunity to make a character differently once they know the system a bit better (or just tweak the previous one slightly, as a younger brother/sister, perhaps... now itching for revenge!). To me, though, FP and/or doubled HP would feel like cheating. If they know they've got unfair advantages like that, your players may lose their sense of achievement. Why not try it 'straight' at first, then introduce fiddles later if required?

Well quite. Only traits significant to the character earn their space on the char-sheet. Maybe three for their own personality, possibly a few more favoured by their deity/pantheon (just to remind them what their culture expects) - say just half-a-dozen total. Other traits can be assumed average. Point is, with just that, you'll know their 'Affinity' (it's not really Allegiance, until consciously declared) to any cult they encounter. Any. Without clogging-up their sheet too much, I hope... Yes, RQ6. I wonder how much 'input' Mr Stafford will give, to make it compatible with His Glorantha...? He'd probably like Traits/Allegiances, since Pendragon is his. There may be trouble in other areas, though. Fingers crossed Pete & Loz ('The DM', henceforward) will have a sufficiently free rein...