NickMiddleton

Did you see this thread. Cheers, Nick

This is gamer hyperbole. there is nothing broken about RQIII Sorcery, RAW. It is, however, a magic system whose exact features and effects on the game are not immediately obvious, or intuitive, and many people never managed to comfortably reconcile their preconceptions of the system with how it actually works in play. It's really not a system for an adventuring mage. It mechanically reinforces the mage as sedentary, spending long periods of time preparing and casting spells: it thus is excellent at producing "evil wizzard in tower with minions", and in the right campaign can work very well. The GM does need to be on top of their time keeping however, as PC or NPC mages who spend a week casting season long spells need careful time keeping. Specific mechanical stumbling blocks vary with personal taste. My biggest bug bear was free INT: it is fiddly to administer and I prefer to use skill levels to govern casting and manipulation, as it seems more sensible that a skilled caster of Palsy (85%) can manipulate their spell MORE than a less skilled caster who knows fewer spells. Cheers, Nick

Good point - I was going from memory and assuming you could either boost the range OR go one day in to the past for each level... That's really not very useful as a clairvoyance spell at all then - it'll allow peering round corners but that's about it... The psychometry is more useful, but still not game breaking. Nick

It doesn't seem that powerful to me. To get 1KM of range requires 10 power points, and only allows viewing at real time rates... Plus the familiarity clause - so you CAN"T spy on the Sheriff's secret meeting with the Abbot unless you can get within ten meters (which sounds like an adventure possibility to me), or are familiar with the venue of the meeting... As for the psychometry, each level gives "a vision of a previous use of owner" - which sounds like carte blanche for the GM to drop cryptic hints, clues and otherwise mess with the characters heads - lets see, the last person to hold this, the last person it killed, the last person to curse the wielder, the creators reflection, the creators dearest love: and none of these are CSI-like perfect images, but smoky, tantalising visions from magic... It should carry a health warning - ALL Clairaudience / Clairvoyance powers should, as they need careful handling. But it's not badly out of whack IMO. Nick

Minor observation: neither Secrets of Kenya, nor Pulp Cthulhu are monographs - both are full distribution books. I like both the Pastores and the Abbey monographs for CDA, but have yet to be able to use either in anger in a real game. Of the two I think The Abbey has perhaps wider application outside CDA. Can't yet comment on the Ravenar Saga as I've yet to get a copy. I cannot recommend Cthulhu Rising highly enough - it's a fabulous setting in to which John has poured a huge amount of creativity and if you are interested in SF BRP it's well worth reading. Of the BRP setting monographs to date, I like all three (Ashes to Ashes, Berlin '61 and Aces High) - given my own preferences, and those of my player group, I think Aces High tops my list, as I'm not in a dark fantasy frame of mind these days and much as I'd like to do a Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy with supernatural / occult elements, I suspect my players wont... Cheers, Nick

The RQIII / Monograph BRP Magic Skill bonus was INT and POW primary, DEX secondary, but there's no particular reason to stick to that unless you are planning to use the Basic Magic PDF (which is the RQIII magic BOOK / BRP Magic Book monograph in PDF form); and even then, if all Magic skill category modifiers are calculated the same way it shouldn't matter. I think the only fair options are that either everyone gets to re-jig their skills whilst the magic using characters re arrange the numbers to add their spells, OR you give all the PC's a block of points, the magic using characters must spend them on spells and magic, and the non magic user can spend them on skills. Cheers, Nick

In case any one hasn't noticed the BRP quick start has been revised, and now includes seven short adventures and some creature stats... Cheers, Nick

Speaking from experience, there have been issues with some Chaosium PDF's and some PD readers - it would be helpful if people could confirm exactly what platform they are viewing PDF's on when experiencing difficulties - the last two I got from Chaosium don't display properly in Preview on my iMac (Intel Core 2 Duo, Mac OS 10.4.11) but are fine in Acrobat Reader 9 for Mac OS X for example. This sort of info will help Chaosium narrow don the problem. Cheers, Nick

As far as I can tell, they've simply repackaged the master files they used for the black and white tape bound print only BRP monographs back in 2004 in up to date BRP style monograph livery. I'm delighted they are available again, although I think it would have been better to get them adjusted to spell out the options in core BRP required to use them fully (as with Basic Magic) and billing them as "Basic Fantasy Creatures", "Basic Fantasy Gamesmasters" etc would have flagged that they are more genre specific than the core book. But these are minor quibbles - it is very heartening to see that the BRP items page at Chaosium's catalogue now stretches over more than one page,and that's with major works such as Pete Nash's Rome not yet released from Alphetar. Cheers, Nick PS: The full list of creatures in the previous BRP Creatures Book print monograph was: Allosaurus, Ant (Giant), Baboon, Bandersnatch, Basilisk, Bear (Brown), Bear (Polar), Beetle (Giant), Behemoth, Brontosaur, Broo, Cattle, Centaur, Chimpanzee, Chonchon, Crocoddilians (Small and large), Deer, Dog, Dragon, Ducks, Dwarfs, Elelmentals (Gnomes, salamanders, shades, sylphs, undines), elephants, Elves, Fachan, Ghosts, Ghouls, Giant, Gorgon, Gorilla, Grampus, griffin, Hafling, Harpy, Hawk, Headhanger, Hellion, Horse, Human, Insect Swarm, Jabberwork, Lamia, Lion, Lizard, Manticore, Minotaur, Mummy, Nymph (Dryad, Hag, Naiad, Oread), Octopus, Ogre, Orc, Panther, Plesiosaur, Python, Satyr, Sea Serpent, Shark, (medium and large, but alas, no lasers...), Skeleton, Spirit (Disease, Healing, Intellect, Magic, Passion, Power, Spell), Stoorworm, Tiger, Toad (Cliff), Troll (Cave and, er, non-cave...), Unicorn, Vampire, Werewolf, Whale (Sperm, Killer and Dolphin), Wolf, Wraith, Wyrm, Wyvern, Zombie.

If anyone hasn't read Ben Robbins fascinating piece on the origins of "role playing" and Dave Arneson's role (pun intended) in it, I heartily recommend it. It is very hard these days to conceive of our entertainment industry landscape WITHOUT the influence of D&D and RPG's - MMORPG, CRPG's, the interactive and viral marketing of film and TV shows we now take for granted has evolved from those seeds. As James Wallis recently pointed out in a thread at RPG net, one of the great strengths of TTRPG development is that, once you have developed a core setting and rule book, you also have something that's very useable as a setting bible for an MMORPG, or a TV series... Whilst it is almost certain that something similar would have happened without Gygax and Arneson what we have now is directly descended their pioneering steps that created this hobby. And if one ever needed a perfect image of what is awesome about playing an RPG character, Dave Arneson's character in Braunstein 4, dumping revolutionary leaflets on the town from the helicopter is pretty near perfect. The roll call of great figures who founded and shaped our hobby that we have lost in the last year or so is exceptionally painful - Gygax, Arneson, Eric Wujcik, Keith Herber, N Robin Crosby - hugely influential figures to whom the modern TTRPG owes its existence and form. So it leaves the challenge to us to keep playing, to find new gamers and new games, or new things in old games: because it seems to me the only decent response to the gifts they have given us is to try and pass them on. Best wishes all, Nick

Both parties roll. Higher degree of success wins. Where degrees of success are equal (both rolled a normal success, both rolled a special success or both rolled a critical success), the character who beat their skill by the most wins but with a normal success. Where degrees of success are different, but the loser still succeeded (so where the loser rolled a success versus a special or critical success, or where they rolled a special success versus a critical success by their opponent), the winners level of success but not the fact that they succeeded / 'won' is reduced by one level for each "level of success the loser achieved. Thus, a losing normal success will reduce a winning critical success to a special, and a winning special success to a normal success. A losing special success will reduce a winning critical success to a normal success. Note that in most situations where a contested roll seems the right rule to uses, I typically wouldn't as a GM be that bothered about the specific level of success in a skill - if a character is trying to sneak past a guard, whether the guard just hears the characters movement (normal success), or hears it well enough that he could probably identify the person walking if he heard them again (critical success) doesn't matter. So in effect the system I use is better success level wins; if tied, person who rolled furthest under their skill wins (if tied there, highest skill wins and if THAT ties, flip a coin). Cheers, Nick

Err, I installed Scribus on my work laptop and my home iMac last week and have been playing with it in amongst work, running weekly games of D&D and Call of Cthulhu, writing stuff for UW and other BRP projects and general life stuff (and watching a Grand prix...) So at best I'm a few days ahead of you guys in playing with Scribus! Yep, that should work - in fact I think you could probably go further and have master pages for first page of chapter, final page of chapter and so on - depends on how much you want to dig in to the layout details really. I should also point out that if you've seen Lawrence Whitaker's Hawkmoon monograph, that was laid out by Loz entirely in Word, so full bore DTP isn't mandatory for monographs.... Yes - see entries under the Pages menu, the Arrange pages item under the Window menu and the edit master pages item under the Edit menu. Again, looks likely. Will do some some experiments this weekend. Cheers, Nick

Err, I think it can - you mean link text boxes so if there's too much text to display in the first box it flows through and displays in the second one? Scribus can certainly do that, there's a button that lets you link text frames (select a text frame, hit he link button, select the next text frame), plus you can get it to show which text frames are linked from one of the drop down menus. Additional buttons (like the link text frame one) may be hidden if the application window isn't big enough, there are >> you can click on to expand the button bar and show tools that are hidden. Cheers, Nick

A further (tentative) suggestion - try Scribus. I did Outpost 19 and Uncounted Worlds Issue 1 using Pages '08, which worked OK, but I want something a little more high end for future issues of UW and other projects (especially in terms of producing PDF's suitable for Lulu's distribution deals) and can't afford InDesign - and Scribus is looking pretty good at the moment. As for art - clipart is OK, look for some public domain images as well, and ask around here for artists. No art is better than bad art - but serviceable if uninspiring clipart breaking up the text is better than excessively large blocks of text for readability. Proper indexes are works of art: subtle, complex and flexible tools that allow one to pursue a particular idea or concept through a work with ease. They are also a bitch to construct properly. I'd go for a suitable brief Table of Contents at the front and then something billed as a "detailed table of contents" at the back - something that picks up on all the section headings, tables and diagrams etc but makes no claim to be a true index. Cheers, Nick

You know, I've tried four draughts at a reply to this... "Antipathy" as in the opposite of "sympathy" - and I was saying you were not sympathetic to the idea that using luck makes it harder to resist spells (i.e. combining the fate point rules as written and resisting spells as current pp vs. current pp). If that is an incorrect interpretation of what you meant then my apologies. I don't see any point in further discussion between us on this digression as we clearly have irreconcilably different views of the BRP system. Regards, Nick Middleton

Err, it's a game mechanic; in fact, an interpretation of several interrelated game mechanics - if you don't find that interpretation plausible or suited to the settings or style of game you prefer to play, fine, but your antipathy for the idea doesn't make it fundamentally wrong or inappropriate or any less logical in any absolute sense. Cheers, Nick

Check the submission date - it's the 1st of August - which (since it's damn near April 1st now) gives us FOUR months - and a pretty good chance that this monograph will actually be released for Halloween this year, which is the stated reason for the early launch... Err, the entry details specifically state BRP adventures are ok - the only stipulation is "Adventures can be set in any time period you desire so long as the adventure is original and takes place during Halloween/Samhain." What stars are visible from the surface of Mars in the vicinity of Olympus Mons on October 31st 2037? Why would Halloween/Samhain have significance to the survivors of the Fall in Post-Apocalypse Limousin? Why would colonists on an alien world a thousand light years and ten generations away from Old Earth still celebrate All Hallows Eve? See - just take it as a challenge to ones scenario writing ingenuity. Cheers, Nick

"Being lucky" (having a high POW / reserve of pp) doesn't make you more susceptible to magic/insanity/woojoo - but riding that luck (i.e. spending pp as fate points and thus reducing your reserves for resisting malign powers) DOES. Now, whether that specific linkage between powers & fate / luck is appropriate to the specific setting and / or style of game the GM is running is another question - but it's certainly a plausible way of handling things. Cheers, Nick

Adventures would be good. Nick

Rather that fiddling with what the players get for their characters (albeit that's an entirely valid route), how about adjusting their opponents? For cinematic combats, think about using some sort of mook / extras rules e.g. NPC's that drop out of combat after one hit, or after one major wound; extras only get ONE action per round etc. In cinematic style games, only the major Villain should really be on an equal footing with the PC's. Nick

Thanks - you may also find the handouts useful (Characters, Planetary description forms and maps) I've nothing specifically planned - but then I (personally) have a pretty full schedule of BRP related writing commitments for the next 18 months or so and, alas, my local groups aren't as keen on SF as I am. Since what entertains them tends to drive what I work on, and what I do for UW is usually a re-work of something I've used before, whilst I can se small things getting done for the Gate Warden universe, I think it will be a while before another substantial piece appears. I have a few "Tales of Blood and Doom" (short scenario seeds) that will probably make an appearance soon though. Providing of course I don't get struck by a cracking idea I feel has to be in that setting, in which case I reserve the right to change my mind... Yes, on the understanding of course that it's not simply duplicating material already offered to Chaosium /in the existing monograph. And that the authors of the specific monographs are happy as well. Cheers, Nick

Dustin Wright - Chaosium contact details . Cheers, Nick

Ah well - if the new cover is all your own work, that's rather cool... Cheers, Nick

Also - Nephilim (Core and J SNead's excellent Liver Ka) and Pendragon 4th Edition... Nick

When I was using PC I used various generations of MS Publisher and printed the sheets to PDF, on the Mac I use Pages and do the same. Open Office (or NeoOffice on the Mac, the Aqua port of OO) are free Office packages and can export direct to PDF, but the advantage of a simple page layout set up like Pages or MS Publishers is that they are tailored to handling such tasks. Word can handle remarkably complex page layouts, if you are prepared to put the effort in, but I've always found it remarkably fiddly and irritating, where as even MS Publisher was much more straightforward for what i wanted to do. Cheers, Nick