Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

240 Excellent

About lordabdul

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • RPG Biography
    I started playing The Dark Eye before I knew what an RPG was. Then I moved on to Cyberpunk, Vampire, and eventually found Call of Cthulhu. I'm still playing that.
  • Current games
    Call of Cthulhu/Delta Green, 7th Sea, GURPS, Runequest, Unknown Armies, Numenera, TimeWatch
  • Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Blurb
    Video game developer in Vancouver, BC

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks Jeff! I'm actually surprised at Esrolia, which I pictured as the more civilized and progressive place around Dragon Pass. But looking at those numbers, you could interpret it as a ruthless oligarchy where Nobles rules over a majority (55%) of people that are enslaved or partially enslaved, with little middle-class people. I didn't picture Ernalda as the type of deity to condone this type of society either but maybe I have her wrong, or maybe nobody bothered to free traditional slave families dating all the way back to the Vingkotling era, but that feels like an awful long time ago.
  2. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password
  3. Adblockers are your friends... but you didn't miss much if you're already a DG player, as it was basically a short presentation and historical recap of Delta Green as a game, and what books are available now with the new edition. It's great to see it get exposure like that, though, and I didn't even know Forbes ran a gaming column. Hopefully that will translate to more horror gaming sales... now where's that Critical Role Delta Green one-shot?!
  4. That's because it doesn't -- and I'm not sure that many video games provide what you say. That game is an adventure game with some RPG elements. There are many of them, but not too many in the horror genre, and even less in the Lovecraftian horror genre. I'll definitely buy it.
  5. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password
  6. Yes but my point was that if you use big blown up numbers, you can break pretty much every RPG system around. Some might break earlier than others, sure, but it often has to do with whether that given system made more assumptions than another (for instance, a system where you're supposed to all play FBI agents in modern day USA, vs. a system where you're playing super heroes). And that's a totally fair flaw to point out, yes. My guess is that it's because offsetting numbers (addition/subtraction) is way easier and faster to do than scaling numbers (which includes multiplications and divisions). But, assuming that one contestant is always of human levels, and also assuming you actually don't want resolution to be linear (as in: you actually want 150% vs 75% to be "easier to win" than 60% vs 30% because you want percentiles' "effectiveness" to curve up to help with scaling against big monsters), then yes, some of the peculiarities of the table are actually by design. But sure, yes, I understand your point.
  7. Interestingly enough, the CoC 7ed rules have a couple paragraphs about "Avoiding Nothing Happening When Both Sides Fail Their Fighting Skill Roll" (p125). While I didn't find that section particularly well written, it does spark a few interesting thoughts. A tie doesn't have to be "everything stays the same" or "nothing happened". It means "nobody got the upper hand", and that can be interpreted in different ways. For instance, it could be that "the 2 contestant both progressed equally towards their goal". If it's a race, a tie would NOT mean both runners stayed in place! No, they kept moving, but at roughly the same speed. The end of race drew nearer, so the situation after the roll isn't the same... there's less time left to win! If the task was somehow dangerous, maybe both contestants hurt themselves (or each other!) in a similar manner (1d4 damage each!)... again, the situation changed a bit, as there's now attrition coming into the equation, in addition to wasting potentially precious time if the task is time-sensitive. That's actually what happens in Spirit Combat! (RQG p368: if there's a tie, both combatants take Spirit Combat damage!) Another interpretation is that the conflict that sparked the roll is now moot. It's like the Gordian Knot of task resolutions. If it was a tie between 2 affinities/passions, it means that either the player is free to choose whatever they want (advancing towards a decision), or that the character surprisingly removes themselves from whatever debate it was, because of a clear conflict of interest (so again, the situation changed as a result of the roll).
  8. Sorry that's kind of my fault -- people mentioned other websites and I was like "oh, what are those websites like?". Have you ever been on the internet? But yeah, in theory, it shouldn't be that hard.
  9. That's a fair question. That's fair. While it's easy to recompute the special/critical success of the character that gets their skill offset down to 100% (it's always 20%/5%), recomputing (or looking up on the table) the special/critical thresholds of the other characters involved in the scene is annoying. But without it, you'd end up fighting, say, Cwim (RQG Bestiary p191) and his Claw attacks (200%) would always be a least special successes (except for when he fumbles with a 95+ roll). I'd say that it's probably a good call to selectively implement that "over 100%" rule. While that's potentially a candidate for either another instance of "RPG systems generally don't scale well" or for a new issue of Murphy's Rules, I'd say that it's a fucking amazing Dodge ability, and I could go with it: First, the character is so fast and skilled that yes, that big giant mouth is too slow and not precise enough to catch it. However, remember that it's not a 0%/100% of the time: you can still do a fumble 5% of the time, and the Bat can still succeed 5% of the time, with a 1% chance of critical against which you'd have to get a critical yourself to dodge. It's still very unlikely though. Also, watch out for the 3 tongues, each offset down to 25% (yes it has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make, but I felt bad for good ol' Crimsie there)
  10. It does but, like I said, such stat scores are for NPCs, as far as I can tell -- I don't see these scores being reachable when the human max scores are around 21-ish, even with a few extra points granted by your deity somehow. And if we're talking about NPC vs NPC, I don't tend to roll, I just narrate. But sure, it could happen... just probably not in my games. The reality is that problems with RPG systems not scaling well down to insect level, or up to superhero/god level, is not exactly new... if anything it's vastly more common than not. Even generic systems have some problems scaling, so I bet that RQG rules don't really care about that because they assume the PCs are going to be humans (exceptional, heroic humans, yes, but still human), so one side of the equation is "always" going to be below mid-20s. A roll of 30% is a special success for 150%, but once you scale it down to a base-100, it's not anymore. That's not a bug, that's... math. The other character in the conflict also sees their thresholds go down. If you didn't offset the scores down, I think it would actually increase the chances of a tie (which, I would tend to agree, is a somewhat problematic outcome... but not necessarily because it lacks value, but more because, well, most RPG systems only have success/fail, so I don't necessarily know yet how to handle that... there was a similar problem for me with FFG's Star Wars system where the outcomes can also be variants like "success but with a negative side-effect" and then you need to figure out what that is in practice). My first idea would be to make the guards suspicious -- like, they start looking around more, walking a few steps to look behind bushes and things, like they heard or saw something but they're not quite sure what it is. This would force the players to stop moving and hope the next roll goes well, while they waste potentially precious time.
  11. A "fully developed adventure" doesn't have to be a railroading exercise with a detailed narrative structure. Actually, good adventures (excluding the ones written for specific situations, like intro adventures or convention scenarios) are indeed written in a sandbox-ish style. Take any investigation based scenario, for example (pretty much anything from Call of Cthulhu). It's totally foolish to try and write it as a linear adventure, but I wouldn't call it a "sandbox" either -- Masks of Nyarlathotep surely has a sandbox aspect to it, but it also has a strong narrative spine. Snakepipe Hollow on the other hand is pure sandbox: a dungeon map, some encounter tables with a few story hooks, and that's it. So yeah, bring on the adventures. The short linear ones for running intro games. The big non-linear ones with a strong narrative spine. The pure sandbox ones. I want them all.
  12. Sounds like a task for... HOUSE RULES! But really, when do you ever need to roll with such stats? Sounds to me like an NPC vs NPC situation, which I wouldn't really roll for as a GM (at best, a fake roll behind the screen!). Unless you're letting your players have God-like characters or something, in which case you're definitely outside of what RQG is about.
  13. The old In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas game (at least the French version) used D666 (3 D6s)... if you roll 666, Satan, or God, might appear!
  14. Thanks for the behind-the-scenes glimpse! I had totally forgotten that Opposed Rolls only compare levels of success (resulting in a lot of ties indeed) and not margin of success (which has very rarely any ties). Sadly, with percentiles, computing margins of success is not very friendly, unlike systems based on lower scales (d20, 3d6, etc.) so that's one downside (or at least important aspect) of d100s.
  15. I was considering getting those but (if they're the ones I'm thinking about) I didn't like how they looked and passed on it... I'm hoping they produce different models in the near future though. I also wonder why they didn't go instead with twice the numbers, ending with a D8-shaped dice... someone must really like the D12 shape. Like you said, augments already fill that need, and feel a lot more Gloranthan than pushing a roll to me. Luck doesn't feel Gloranthan at all. I'm pretty happy with that side of RQG. That's one of the things I would have been OK getting rid of. Sure, I understand the nostalgic aspect of keeping it -- after all, that and the strike rank mechanic are 2 of the biggest contributors to making it feel like an RQ2 successor instead of some other BRP game. But, as a GM, I don't really like having multiple mechanics used to resolve similar situations. Choosing between Opposed Rolls or the Resistance Table is weird... at first it sounds somewhat OK: if you're going against something passive (like breaking down a door by overcoming its STR) you use the Resistance Table, and if you go against something active (like racing someone... basically anything that can do a stat/skill roll... unlike a door) then you do opposed rolls. But of course that breaks down when you go against someone with magic spells, where you actually use the Resistance Table... your argument that you need magical resistance's likelihood of success to be predictable is, errr, arbitrary? Why does it need to be predictable to attack someone with a spell, when attacking someone with a sword isn't? Is it to keep the number of rolls down for resisted Rune Magic? (I think that, if it was using Opposed Rolls, a resisted Rune Magic spell would result in 3 rolls... the 2 rolls for the resistance, and the roll for the Rune affinity... but in that case, we could just actually pit the Rune affinity directly against the opponent's stat to keep it in one roll)
  • Create New...