foolcat

I don’t know about the others, but the Mythras Gateway License is decidedly not an OGL. In the sense that any potential creator wanting to incorporate Mythras Imperative (a fully functional subset of the full Mythras rules) is required to request and being granted permission of use, even when there are no fees. With an OGL, there is no such exchange; you grab it and run with it, no questions asked—as long as you follow the clauses of said OGL to the letter, of course.

That's the very table I was asking about. Why is there a "Critical Success" column, if a critical success and its effects--e.g. in success comparisons of opposed rolls, in the Combat Attack and Defence Matrix (p.16), or on combat damage--are not mentioned or defined elsewhere in the document?

Quick question: the table "Success and Failure Result" on p.10 of the SRD has a column for critical successes. And yet, critical success (and its effects) is defined nowhere in the document (special success is).

I think I know what you're getting at: AFAIR, the Pathfinder (1st Ed, that is) SRD is close to being identical to the text of the rule book. Same with D&D 5e, except for a few more "fluffy" omissions. Layout, artwork, etc. of course are all gone and not part of the respective SRDs. The BGB, i.e. the last and officially still current edition of BRP, included--again AFAIR--all kinds of optional mechanics from all over the Chaosium place: e.g. it was your decision as GM whether to use strike ranks from 1-10(12) or go with DEX values; different way to determine stats; use hit locations or not, etc.pp. (I really have to dig it out and give it a thorough skim...has been a few years since last I did this.) The BRP OGL feels stripped down in comparison to the BGB, but from what Jeff said here I take away that this was done so intentionally. You may add any game mechanic from any other D100-based game that you can think of, except for the ones explicitly falling under the Prohibited Content clause (e.g. you could add the Bonus and Penalty Dice rule from CoC 7th Ed. to your BRP OGL-based game; the former may or may not have been directly inspired by the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic from D&D 5e). Speaking of which... Of course it isn't. You're covering your bases here, which is undeniably your prerogative. The FAQ states "don’t repackage unique features of other Chaosium games!", which is clear enough. But the list of forbidden mechanics confused me at first: e.g. both Passions and rules for augmenting skills with them exist in Mythras. But they clearly differ in the way they work from the features of the same name given in RQG . So, for example, if I was to create a sci-fi horror setting using the BRP OGL (based on the Lovecraftian Mythos or not doesn't matter), I couldn't just add a diminishing "roll on or under, or be affected" resource and call it "Saneness" (abbrv. as "SAN", but the N references the second N, not the first 🤔). I could instead use a raising "roll over, or be affected" resource and call it "Insanity", "Madness", or "Corruption" (this would be a bit clunky, since it breaks with the general BRP "roll on or under x to succeed" paradigm).

I guess that means no KA stat then, with derived stats for Air, Earth, Fire, Water, and Moon? Just asking for a friend. 😇

Yeah, I see it. Guess what I missed was all the alternative ways to roll or buy stats. Again, this first version is very barebones.

Now having thoroughly skimmed the SRD, some unkempt thoughts: Overall, I think opening BRP to the general public with an OGL is both a great and the right move for Chaosium to do, and I applaud them for it. In the long run, it will help to grow and sustain an ecosystem around BRP, getting more players in contact with it (who will in turn come to find Chaosium’s other setting rule sets hauntingly familiar). Think of someone doing something like Beyond the Wall for younger players, but with proper rules... The SRD is barebones. From the top of my head, I’d add Hit Locations and Crit rules (5% of skill value). No word about the creation of characters, either. Intentionally or due to time restrictions? The term “substantially similar” to define what game mechanics are and what aren’t “Prohibited Content” as per Section 1(e) of the OGL may prove to be too vaguely coined, and thus act as a deterrent to some. I totally get Chaosium’s point saying “no reskins of our existing games” (see my post above), though. Why Pushing? Getting a re-roll at the cost of something (whether it’s brownie points or greater consequences of failure) has been done elsewhere before. All in all, the SRD is something to build upon; both for Chaosium to expand and refine, and for takers.

I concur. Yet: I get the necessity for Chaosium to shield themselves from someone doing a „Holler of Hastur“ rule book, using the BRP OGL without ever having to check back with them, and adding rules that mimic CoC in all but name. On the other hand, there isn’t much left that Greg Stafford already did back in the 70‘s.

Nope. Next scheduled 2 day session is going to go down as planned. 6 players + GM meeting for another fine installment of our current WH40k Dark Heresy campaign. Just keep in mind that while the Emperor protects, Grandfather Nurgle cherishes each and every one of his children! ...well, maybe the one germophobe person among us may find more pressing reasons to stay at home, but that’s their loss.

They also had a 4-panel, A4 portrait format GM screen (6 pages of rules, 2 cover pages w/ artwork). Article #3010, ISBN 3-927903-08-6. Made from thin plastic. It served as a cover for the 32-page b/w booklet of „RuneQuest Freunde und Feinde — Das Kreaturenbuch II“ (lit.trans.: RuneQuest Friends and Foes — The Creatures Book II), which came enclosed within. Article #3032, ISBN 3-927903-32-9; (c) of the translation and German edition 1992 by Welt der Spiele. This was a translation of „Monster Coliseum: Monster Book“, by Steve Perrin and Sandy Petersen. Translated by our own magister ludi Lutz Reimers, of course.

Zooming in, I see the German „Die Götter“ (the gods) box, by ex-publisher Welt der Spiele. Very nice!

Broo represent!

Sooo... I take this to mean there will be no Sci-fi RPG with BRP/D100 DNA in the foreseeable future. Bummer. Would have loved to see Chaosium’s take on how to translate BRP into a futuristic setting—especially in comparison to M-Space. The latter is proof that it can be done, and the result goes to show that a D100-based Sci-fi RPG system doesn’t need to hide from, say, GURPS Space, Traveller, or (gods forbid) Starfinder.

Just found this gem in Expert Nova section 2.4 Language Proficiency, had to share it because reasons: “Example: A Dane understands spoken Swedish as Good Danish, whereas a Swede understands spoken Danish as Broken Swedish.” 🤣🤣🤣 On a more serious note, this is one well-written and -structured rules book so far, well done!

Didn’t know what to expect, yet piqued my interest, and read it. Wow, what a blast to read! I always love reading about the history of my beloved hobby. KSR sounds close to my preferred style of playing. 🤠 NB: I was under the impression that Warhammer FRP also always had a strong following in Sweden. Touched on my favorite subject, system building, quite nicely as well. Sure as hell will I check out Expert Nova! Thank you for this, @clarence!

Mismatch in enumeration: in the TOC and chapter titles, appendices are numbered with numerals 1..4, but in the headers of odd-numbered pages, they’re called “APPENDIX A...D”. Appendix 2/B, p.256: in the entry for the year 983, it should be “Brandenburg”, instead of “Brandeburg” (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince-Bishopric_of_Brandenburg) Appendix 2/B, p.257: in the entry for the year 1046, it should read “forbids”, instead of “forbid” (as in “[the pope] forbids the marriage of priests”). re: Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos or Porphyrogenitus (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_VII ) on p.251, entry for “Automaton”, his name is given as “Konstantinos VII Porfyrogennetos”, whereas on p.259, section “Byzantine Emperors”, it’s given as “Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus”. In chapter 6, first paragraph, his name is referenced as “Constantine”. Although both Greek and Latin spellings are equally valid, it might be best to choose one kind of spelling and stick with it. Avoids confusion. 😉

Impressive voice! \m/

CoC 7th ed. has gone in the direction many other "modern" RPG systems have taken before it. I.e, with the introduction of meta-gaming mechanics (colloquially known as "brownie points"), players now have more rules-sanctioned influence over the (formerly more unforgiving) outcome of dice rolls, or may even to a degree influence/contradict narrative as determined by dice rolls (ultra-modern, even more "narrative" RPGs are taking this to extremes--pay a brownie point and narrate whatever outcome you want as a player). CoC7 uses Luck as an expendable resource to rectify dice rolls which failed by a small margin. The "Pushing" mechanic allows for re-rolling failed dice rolls once, at the cost of more dire consequences for failing again. And, as you said, Keepers may allow players to make rolls with Advantage, or impede them with Disadvantage. All methods are introduced to soften the traditional, somewhat binary "roll on or under value to succeed" success/failure qualification of BRP/D100 systems. Gone are the days of: Failed your perception roll by one percentile? Sorry, you failed to notice the Shoggoth drooling on your back. You die. (Which incidentally, would never had happened like this at the table of an experienced Keeper/GM. Information rolls should be rolled in secret by the Keeper, and may thus be handwaved into the desired direction at any time.) I certainly would welcome CoC's new player leniency as optional rules within the scope of a modernized BRP. As I would RQ4's mechanic of boosting skill percentiles with other skills (or runes, in this case).

Will the discount code be applicable at the UK Aeon Games store as well? Just asking for us Europeans. 😎 There are definitely some books on that list I wouldn’t mind owning in print.

Thank you for this bit of information. While diversity can be a good thing where it’s warranted, having options to choose from, especially the option to go with something more familiar, may even be better depending on the situation. Thanks for the URL, skimming through it was educational.

Intriguing setting, thanks for the preview. I would like to inquire about the rationale behind using Gumshoe as the setting’s system, though. I’m not familiar with it, yet from what I could glean in the preview, it doesn’t look like anything which I’m currently accustomed to (like, you know, Mythras, BRP, and a plethora of others). From a GM’s perspective, not only do I have to get familiar with ”yet another system” (at least up to a functional level) in order to make it work at the table, I also have to take into account players who aren’t that eager to learn about new rules every time we start something new. I’m grateful for the existence of generic RPG rules, and I prefer to make use of them whenever possible (oh, I do count Mythras as one of them; exhibit A: M-Space). I choose to buy into wisdoms like “the right set of rules for the right setting”, and “ideally, rules shouldn’t get in the way of good, collaborative storytelling” when it’s convenient for me. Yet not having to learn about new rules and justify their use to my players may, sometimes, be even more convenient. What can Gumshoe do (for me, for the players, for the game) that Mythras can’t? Using a d100 rules variant for investigative kinds of RPGs does work, and there is ample proof in the form of CoC.

„It ain’t d100 if you can’t lose a limb.“ Can‘t quite remember right now where that wisdom comes from, but it’s accurate. HP per location is not necessarily deadlier than an overall HP pool per se, but it can be much quicker to inconvenience and hamper characters, leading to potentially deadly situations faster. Case in point: a character that, through an unlucky crit, gets reduced to 0 HP in the groin hit location loses control over his legs (which might both be hale at the time) and falls prone, putting him at a severe disadvantage towards his opponent. So yeah, it’s a good idea to think about which system to use beforehand. 😉

I really like how psionics are handled in M-SPACE (based on Mythras Imperative), and I‘m definitely going to use the whole shebang or parts thereof as I see fit for a sci-fi setting I‘m converting to M-SPACE. Powers, which unsurprisingly are handled as separate skills, are divided into the three domains of Sense, Mind, and Matter, with a total of 31 powers over all three Domains being described in the book. There’s a hint about forgotten domains/powers, e.g. Destruction (Pain), or Weaving (Teleportation). Characters may be restricted to using one domain, or are free to learn powers from all of them, depending on GM decision. Each domain may further be divided into three Power Arcs, with each arc representing a set of requirements that have to be met in order to learn or use powers from that arc, like having a POW of at least 16 to learn powers from the first arc, POW 18+ with one power at 90+% and the lowest at 60+% to learn powers from the second arc, etc. All in all I think this is an excellent and balanced foundation to start using psionics in a setting, with enough room for developing own ideas. Shoutout to @clarence for writing and releasing M-SPACE, I really enjoy it.

Nope, not at all. Still looking for my sweet spot as well, preferably macOS based—as long as “rudimentary, but quick and costing next to nothing because it’s already there” suffices, there’s always page layout mode of Pages. But pretty, it is not.

Soooooo... (running up to confess my complete ignorance on the subject at hand) ... Cubicle 7 didn’t hold the LOTR RPG license itself in the first place? It was my understanding that a license holder (Tolkien/Middle Earth Enterprises of the Saul Zaentz fold) gives a license to a licensee on the grounds that said licensee does something immediate with it, like, produce a game. What was C7’s role in this? I always was under the impression that they are more than just publishers or distributors, because TOR and the buzz around the upcoming TOR2 always seemed to happen exclusively with C7. I had no idea that a third party, which is the actual licensee to boot, was involved. Is that even legal? (last question is tongue-in-cheek, because obviously the arrangement existed, and a LOTR license is nothing to be trifled with) What the balrog is going on?