NickMiddleton

Hey Nick, thanks--between you and Sarah I've got this understood now, I think. Extrapolating upon my own confusion is like audio feedback

I guess, the only question I want to make clear is which missile weapons are subject to the shield's passive block chance, and which are parried at the shield's base skill chance. It sounds like only slower (hand-thrown )weapons are subject to this passive defence but 'faster' missile weapons aren't, and have to be parried at the shields base skill chance. Where do bows and crossbows fall in regards to this?

We're beginning to get into an area where things aren't as clear cut as the could be.

My interpretation:

"...shields cannot effectively parry extremely fast missile weapons like firearms or energy weapons, and are of limited use against hand propelled weapons like arrows, sling stones, and spears. In these cases, a default chance is substituted instead of your character’s skill."

Fast weapons ARE subject to the passive defence: there is simply that chance that your shield will "happen" to get in the way, and that "passive defence" is not, as previously discussed an active parry. If using hit locations, it would only apply if the location hit is one the shield normally covers (see the shield table).

Against hand propelled missiles (arrows from bows, spears, sling stones) you ALSO get to actively parry if you wish, but only at the base skill chance for the shield; and doing so uses up your Parry action, precluding using it against other attacks, or for something else. Personally I'd probably allow the base skill parry chance for crossbow bolts as well, but you can argue that either way.

But aren't hand-propelled weapons subject to the passive defence block chances? Do you have the option of using the passive defence block chance and if that doesn't work, trying to parry at the shield's base skill chance?

I think the passive block chance is always operating if you have a large piece of armour strapped to your arm.

I'm a mean and nasty GM, so I would say you have to declare as part of you statement of intent whether you intend to try and parry missile weapon attacks, and wouldn't allow a character to wait and see whether the passive defence worked before committing to use a parry. If nothing else, in my steel weapon combat experience (and some hair raising stories from an ex-army mate) it IS possible to dodge or block arrows or bullets (well, the first bullet at least) - you just have to be able to see the shooter...

How's that?

Nick

Very cool! Didn't Sandy Peterson work on the original West End GB game? I loved that game in high school.

Designed by Sandy Petersen, Lynn Willis, and Greg Stafford IIRC and arguably never properly credited for the influence it had on WEG's Star Wars that followed in '87

Cheers,

Nick

Sorry guys, I'm banging my head against this. Page 206 discuses the 'base chance' to block missile weapons, starting with 15% (for small shields) and going up 90% (if you're using a large shield and kneeling). In this case (as described on page 231) these chances of blocking missile fire are not successful against special or critical hits.

The third paragraph on page 206 says "Under most circumstances, shields cannot effectively parry extremely fast missile weapons like firearms or energy weapons, and are of limited use against hand propelled weapons like arrows, sling stones, and spears."

Though this paragraph says that shields are of "limited use against hand propelled weapons" the above base chances of blocking missile fire (15% - 90%) seem pretty good.

I've been told these base chances (15% - 90%) are a passive defence, not a parry. Is this so? The example given on page 206 refers to the above game mechanic as a parry.

Err, can one really describe kneeling behind a shield as a parry?!

Is the 15% in the above example the base *skill* chance given in the list of shields on page 263, or is it the base chance of blocking missile fire, based upon the shield's small size, as described on page 206? Since in both situations the chance is the same, I'm not sure how to read the example. It could suggest to me that arrows are considered fast missile weapons and treated as such, as described on page 231. Is this the case?

The 15%/30%/60%/90% chances are the chances the shield will block the missile. Character skill is not involved, and the highest chance (90%) requires that the character be stationary, kneeling and taking cover behind a large shield.

The term 'base chance' suggests to me that you can add something to it, like your skill level, but in the case of the base chances (15% - 90%) described on page 206, this would make a foe carrying a shield nigh impossible to wound with a bow. Plus, adding your skill level would make it an active parry, correct? I think I'm having a problem with semantics here.

Just to clarify: if I try to parry a firearm with a shield, I can only use the base chance with that shield, as given on page 263 (not including my skill level).

I'm not sure if I'm making the source of my confusion clear.

I think you are over reading the phrase "base chance" in the following:

Against missile weapons, a half or small shield has a base 15% chance to block a missile, a full shield has a 30% chance to block a missile, and a large shield has a 60% chance. If your character kneels behind it, a full shield has a 60% chance to block a missile, and a large shield offers a 90% chance.

In this case "base chance" means that chance starts at 15% for the smallest type of shields, and then is increased by other factors, such as size of shield, and character action and position: the chance starts at 15%, a bigger shield makes it 30%, the largest size shield increases it again to 60% and taking up a static defensive position behind a large shield increases it again to a 90% chance of intercepting normal successes.

The subsequent section:

Under most circumstances, shields cannot effectively parry extremely fast missile weapons like firearms or energy weapons, and are of limited use against hand propelled weapons like arrows, sling stones, and spears. In these cases, a default chance is substituted instead of

your character’s skill.

For example, if your character tries to parry an arrow with a

small shield, his or her chance is an unmodified default chance

of 15%, rather than his or her normal skill rating.

See “Missile Weapons” below, and the spot rules for “Shields and Missile Fire” on page 231 of Chapter Seven: Spot Rules for additional detail.

... is saying that if a character wants to actively parry a hand propelled missile, they do so at the shields base skill chance.

Does that help?

Nick

I don't want to come off as being an ungrateful curmudgeon-- so for clarity, I've been gaming for nearly 32 years and I've never been as enthusiastic about a system as I am about BRP. I'm eating it up--really. I'm happy as hell.

But I'm wondering what the chances are of Chaosium printing a second edition (hardbound, hopefully). Now that it's out and being played and supported with relative fervor I suspect people will develop ideas and improvements that could help the game evolve.

The current book was reprinted in late September I believe - which was presumably just a re-order from the printer from the same master files, so the same current text.

However, considering that the first print run was back in May/June, that's a pretty rapid need for a reprint from Chaosium, which suggests that as far as Chaosium's estimates are concerned it's selling well.

It is, bluntly, far too early for a "2nd edition" (in the sense of substantive mechanical revisions), however a revised hardback, correcting all the typos found so far and any other minor textual corrections that could be made without necessitating revising the layout would be rather nice. Charlie Krank of Chaosium has on a couple of occasions indicated that a hardback edition is possible, but has never given a time frame.

If only they would support BRP with the same exuberance as Call of Cthulhu.

Write something for them. Chaosium are a publishing house - the vast majority of their output is content created by freelancers, and in a lot of cases came about because some one pitched an idea to Chaosium. Whilst they are clearly doing what they can to get BRP material out there, the can't publish material if they don't have it.

Cheers,

Nick

I notice that there really isn't any requirement for a PC to become a magician; couldn't and wouldn't every PC just become a magician just for the hell of it (though I'm sure some will be more devoted to raising their magic skills than others)? I'm wondering if I should institute a rule like Sorcery's requirement of a 16+ POW, though maybe it would be more like 14+ POW.

You could include such a rule, but bear in mind that a Magician has to have separate skills in each spell, which all require development if they are to be a well rounded caster - and that's time they cannot devote to training their non-magical skills... Plus becoming a Magician after character creation is a considerable undertaking, and without that training, a character's spell casting capability will be limited at best.

The nice thing about Magic (as opposed to to Sorcery), is that Magic allows the possibility of dabblers like the Gray Mouser, who know a little magic.

Cheers,

Nick

To this list of obscure items, I'd like to add Skyrealms of Jorune.

It's a lovely dream, and some of us (Vagabond and or myself not least) may yet release fan conversions - but sadly I think any "official" BRP version is doomed to remain a dream I'm afraid.

I'm just glad, given what's happened to Morrigan Press recently, that they never got involved with Jorune...

Cheers,

Nick

I was curious about what is involved in writing a monograph OR licensed setting for the BRP setting. I realise the latter is far more involved than the former and that Chaosium isn't going to toss out licensing to just anyone.

Chaosium's sample license can be seen here. It's not particularly "amateur friendly" - but that's clearly not the intent, and from a small press publisher's point of view I gather it's terms seem pretty reasonable.

Also, does Chaosium give the writers of the monographs any sort of payment when they sell their work or is it just a way that Chaosium supports fan produced materials?

Chaosium's monograph submission guidelines can be found here.

Cheers,

Nick

Interesting where can i get more information?

Here. It's the setting for Translight.

Cheers,

Nick

Isn't Green Ronin's generic Thieves' World setting still available?

Yes, albeit heavily discounted at present, as they have to dispose of all stock in the current form soon, as it carries the d20 logo. Whether they will re-issue it as OGL (or system-less, or True20) only I don't know.

I guess sladethesniper is assuming christopherhouse was referring to the Chaosium version of Thieves' World from the early 80's.

Nick

I wonder what's keeping Translight, actually, because I was under the impression that MJD had indicated it was due out any day. The setting certainly looks interesting, although I haven't seen that much of the rules apart from some early playtest files. MJD is known to be fond of percentile dice, though.

Err, his RPG writing is secondary to his work as a freelance writer, and his writing on Translight etc is secondary to his paid RPG writing (for Mongoose Traveller)?

I'm not super excited about Translight, as my impression is that whilst its roots are in BRP it has diverged a fair bit: I'm more interested in Far Avalon, the setting, albeit I have quite enough settings as it is if I'm honest.

Cheers,

Nick

Hmm... I don't think they own the pictures no, it's just a collection of old ones from various century old sources. But DirkD might be onto something. Too bad, it would have been a great resource.

Is the copyright assertion a blanket one for the whole book on the frontispiece, or s specific one on each image? You may well find that what they are claiming copyright on is the complete work (the layout, accompanying text and presentation) which doesn't preclude specific images they've used being (and remaining) public domain.

If you believe the images are public domain, contact the publisher and ask, but be clear it is the images you are asking about.

Cheers,

Nick

After I posted my initial comments, I did some research into FGU and found they have a bad reputation for being really anal about their products--and simply not taking fan requests and such to heart. I was at their website, but I don't remember seeing any 'contact us' links.

Fantasy Games Unlimited - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wasn't talking about FGU (who are indeed a deeply dubious operation, especially these days) - the copyright of Other Suns has always resided with its author, Niall Shapero, as he had the sense to cut a more sensible deal with FGU to publish OS after Chaosium decided not to.

He was talking back in '04 or '05 on the RQ Rules list as was about may be doing something again with OS, but as far as I'm aware nothing has come of it as yet, but now strikes me as an opportune moment for BRP related games, so I rather hope he'll look at it again.

Cheers,

Nick

There is a woefully formatted text copy on the web, but the author specifically asked people not to reformat it, so posting a PDF copy wouldn't be right

The only text version I ever found was actually an incomplete draft of 2nd edition Other Suns, and IIRC Niall Shapero wasn't best pleased that even that version was online. I doubt he'd be happy about any PDF scan of the first edition being distributed either...

When he was posting to the RQ rule list a few years ago he sold a "galley proof" of the 2nd Edition - I did urge him then to look in to Lulu or similar means of distributing it as it's a shame its not more widely accessible. If anyone here is in reliable contact with him it might be worth raising with him again.

Cheers,

Nick

I think POW gains are only legitimate in settings where POW is also lost, e.g., in older versions of RQ you had to sacrifice POW to get Rune spells, hence the interest of being able to re-gain lost POW through POW gains.

But in settings where PCs never lose any POW, why should there be POW gains?

Becuase it makes sense that someone can exercise the will and refine their attunement to the magical flow of the universe and thus increase their chracterisitc POW in the same way they can train and imporve their STR or DEX?

I certainly agree that I don't think POW should shoot up the way it could in RQII when it can't be lost in a similarly profligate fashion (which is why I've long used rules simlar to the new BRP's) - but on the other hadn it does make sense to me that a character should have SOME faciilty to improve their POW.

Cheers,

Nick

I noticed that in new BRP, you only get a POW gain roll if your chance of success in a Pow vs Pow contest is less than 50%, whereas in old RQ2&3 you got one every time you overcame a target's resistance.

So, why the change? Was the old method too generous? Is there a probably playing it the old way? If I switch over, will there be a downside I'm not seeing?

It's mostly a question of logic, and heading off a bit of munchkin power gaming. If ANY POW vs. POW roll will do, what's to stop the PC from spending a quiet week casting Disruption (or the equivalent) on worms, squirrels and the occasional rat? The rule simply insists that for there to be chance of gain, there must have been a substantive chance of failure...

This is mostly just an extension of the RQII rule (where you got no POW gain roll if your chance of success was greater than 95%).

What are people's personal experience of the old and the new ways of handling it?

Funnily enough, I've had a house rule that's basically the same as the new BRP rule for a long time, so I can't really contrast the two - but I can say that I've been largely happy with the BRP like house rule I've been using.

I'm running a fantasy campaign and I'm finding that unless the casters go after other casters directly, there is little chance they'll improve their POW, without facing steadily increasingly potent enemy casters.

One of the reasons for my house rule is that I was never fond of the "personal stat inflation" that the RQII/III rule caused, but others will no doubt have a different view.

Cheers,

Nick

The problem is that "SRD" (or even "System Reference Document") is not IIRC defined anywhere in the Open Gaming License - so simply calling a document an SRD doesn't assert anything about its contents. Mongoose should really label ALL their SRD's the way they've labelled the MRQ core, to remove the ambiguity.

Or, it may be deliberate, in an attempt to "guide" people towards using the MRQ System Trademark License...

Cheers,

Nick

Marcus,

hope everything is OK with the youngest now!

Great to see Old Hrolmar and Calisander available again - I have fond memories of play testing Calisander for Richard. Have only skimmed Andrea's article, but looks good to - especially for the way it addresses stuff like necromancy for those without access to the Bronze Grimoire.

I look forward to more updates, and will ahve another rummage through my hard drive...

Nick

Sandy Petersen had some rules written up for Shaman , besides his sorcery rules.

I went looking for them but could not find a working link so maybe some one else can help.

Hmm that's weird - his Sorcery rules are all over the shop, but the Shaman stuff mostly 404's...

Found these at the Stabbing Cat - https://www.msu.edu/user/moulinfr/spirit.html

https://www.msu.edu/user/moulinfr/Votanki.html

Ah Ha Found 'em:

Philip Hibbs' Link Page

All safe and sound on Phil Hibb's site...

Cheers,

Nick

Thanks for pointing those out, but they don't really constitute fully-fledged shamanism rules (how to become a shaman, fetches, bound spirits, allied spirits...)

yeah, I realised after I posted that I'd got rather fixated on the "spirit combat" bit... oops!

Cheers,

Nick

The new BRPS book doesn't provide anything.

Err, page 114? And pages 342-343 (Ghost write up).

Has anybody come up with any great ideas?

Can't see any issue with using RQIII Shamanism (other than my long standing gripes with that system) with BRP, provided one fine tunes the BRP options to suit. Likewise with the RQII version. Not tried building anything specifically from what's in BRP but the basics are there (pardon the pun).

Cheers,

Nick

To be honest, the only really problematic power systems when used with others are Mutations (which has some weird outliers that could be severely unbalanced with other options) and Supers, which by its very nature does everything the other power systems do as well...

Cheers,

Nick

But, as written, it seems to imply that you can get up to 5 attacks if your SR is low enough.

Which is a clear variation from how Strike Rank worked in RQII/III and Elfquest. I'd reinstate the minimum SR separation of 3SR between combat actions, and the "two actions in a round unless you have the skill to split oe action" we've already alluded to - so with a skill of less than a 100% you could take the second attack, but only at the expense of being able to Parry or Dodge that round.

Was this meant to be at full percent? It seems so.

Per my earlier comment, it being full skill doesn't bother me iff it's at the expense of the other "action" the character gets in a round.

Cheers,

Nick

I had thought but could have it wrong that in RQ3 you had to have both the SRs and the skill in order to make multiple melee attacks in the same round.

Or two weapons - in which case you sacrifice the ability to Dodge and can attack or parry with either weapon. You can't use both Parry's against the same attack, and if you attack twice your second attack comes at 3SR after the first. But a charcater with less than a 100% skill can attack twice in a round by this method - which is why I'd allow a character with the SR to strike a second time in the round using the same rules.

Thus if you had 120% skill in 1h sword and attacked on SR 5 then you could make two attacks; one on 5 and one on 8. (We had tried the house rule about using your DEX SR as the gap between actions rather than the flat 3 but it did seem to make DEX SR rather overimportant.)

And, unlike the less than 100% skill two weapon case, you STILL got to PArry or Dodge as well...

Cheers,

Nick

Does anyone know if Chaosium retains any rights to the old RQ mechanics such as the magic system? I mean, I realize the fluff has gone to Mongoose, but if they wanted to publish a book with some variant Divine Magic or whatever, could they? Or do they not have the right to do that with BRP? Anyone know?

RQI/-/III are copyright to Chaosium, as were the BRP Monographs (the text of RQIII with all references to Glorantha removed that Chaosium had in print from 2004 until earlier this year). Mechanics (abstract rules ideas) can only be protected by patent. The text expressing an idea is, in theory at least, protected by copyright§.

So Chaosium retain the copyright on the exact text of RQII/III and the BRP Monographs and yes they could republish the BRP monograph text§§ - there has in fact been considerable talk of a BRP Magic book that wold be a supplement to BRP and include not only the RQIII Magic book, but also (suitably adjusted) the material from the Bronze Grimoire (the Elric! supplement about magic), the magic from Nephilim and its supplement Liber Ka, plus more. Whether anyone has actually formally pitched a proposal for such a book to Chaosium we don't know.

Cheers,

Nick

§ see the recent interminable thread about BRP and the OGL, or better yet, consult an experienced and currently practising legal professional with specialist knowledge of intellectual property law rather than a bunch of opinionated gamers on an internet forum...

§§ They could in theory do the same with RQII but would have to remove ALL Glorantha material and IP, which is a lot of effort when they already have the BRP monograph text...

It's not a direct quote and I read it the same way as the OP. I don't know if that's what was meant, but I don't like the idea of getting two attacks per round just for having a low SR...especially since so much of SR is determined by weapon length which is generally not conducive to a weapon being fast.

And yet in RQI/-/III, missile weapons got to launch as many attacks as their sheer speed allowed...

The question is what was the rule in RQIII for a SIZ 18 and DEX 18 man with a Pike? He strikes at SR 2 in RQII: +5SR for second action, +2SR for the next strike and that's SR9 (well within the 12 SR of the RQII round. In the RQIII the first strike is at SR3, and the second at SR9 +3SR for second action, +3 for strike): still within the round of 10 SR.

Since second (or third) shots with bows weren't penalised (possibly we got that bit wrong), we always ruled that if you had the speed and reach to get a second attack, you did so at full skill - but by doing so you were sacrificing your other action in the round (the Parry or Dodge), as you do when wielding two weapons.

I like the tactical option of choosing to split an attack when skill is high enough. (Though I'm seriously thinking about just going with the DEX system from default BRP, which is pretty much identical to the Elric! system.)

For free flowing combat, it is hard to beat the Elric! DEX rank system - it imposes just enough order on the chaos of hand to hand melee that it becomes comprehensible without bogging down in excess detail. I dearly love RQ's Strike Rank system, but they can be a bit fiddly.

Cheers,

Nick