NickMiddleton

Kinda related: was Risklands: Further adventures in Dorastor every anything more than a title?

Sea King's of the Purple Towns; Perils of the Young Kingdoms; Unknown East. That’s what I picked instinctively as the three to recommend, but as Marcus says, pretty much everything published for 4th edition onward is really good.

Given your use of the word “legally”: consult a lawyer, or other suitably qualified legal professional. Do not rely on opinions on internet fora.

3 hours ago, NurgleHH said:

Being honest i hoped for a new setting a bit more like stormbringer - dark and grim. In the moment Mythras feels a bit like "my little pony" (Take care, it is meant in an ironic way!). So, instead of Luther 2, why not Not-Elric 1????

One could adapt this: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/340976/Through-Sunken-Lands-and-Other-Adventures to Mythras?

Yeah: there’s a natural weapon attack & parry fumble table in the BGB (Big Gold Book) whic derives originally from RQ3 I think, but Elric! / SB5 just threw that phrase out there and assumed GMs would improvise suitable details I think.

7 hours ago, SDLeary said:

In most BRP flavors, that would be a Critical.

For reasons I don't have an answer to though, it was called an Impale in Stormbringer, and the normal BRP Special/Impale was called a Critical.

The ONE thing I think was a mistake in Elric! was that weird change in terminology / definitions - In SB1-4 the only critical successes were 1/10th of skill... In Call of Cthulu 1-5 "impales" were 1/5th of skill... Having a specific special effect for impaling weapons has long been a thing in BRP / RQ derived games, but can be handled by rules exceptions for that category of weapon, rather than revising success category calculations and or naming conventions that at least some of the player base will know from other games...

AIR I lobbied Ben quite hard to revise those in MW to be in line with the BGB terminology - I was thus really annoyed that the printed version and first PDF kept the Elric! / SB5 versions, despite Ben having agreed to revise them. The Revised PDF corrects them, thankfully.

Quote

As far as padding not helping vs bludgeoning weapons, I agree with you. I'm not even sure the large outer-armor style Gambesons would really be good against them. But when combined with something else they could be very useful.

It is one of those, how much detail do you want to havequestions?

 When I was steel weapon re-enacting, a friend made a double canvas layered rag stuffed "padded jack" armour. So entirely composed of cloth, not even stiff leather facing material. It was in use for ~ 5 years, admittedly in re-enactment combats (not full melees, rebated steel weapons etc). I borrowed it several times and it was the most effective armour I ever used. Better coverage than most of the plate harness I ever got near (it was long skirted so in one piece did what otherwise required multiple pieces - back, breast, plaquette and tassets) and nearly as good as well padded plate in dealing with either point attacks or blunt trauma. I doubt it would have lasted against real sharpened weapons particularly well, but at least initially I suspect its performance would have been pretty good - given its construction effectively presented multiple cross-laminated and tightly interlocked compressible fibre layers, I think it would have impeded sharp thrusts and spread force from real weapons pretty well, but would have degraded quickly. It was also bloody heavy and a nightmare in remotely warm weather as it appeared to trap ALL heat inside... 😄

So the question is, does one care enough about evoking these details in game play? If one does, then one needs a more nuanced approach than RQ3's; for me, RQ3's approach captures "enough" of the feel of hand to hand combat as I have read about it and approximated in my HEMA / re-enactment days for me to be happy with it.

Cheers,

Nick

Quote

You can try to parry a weapon unarmed, but your success level has to be above the attacker's. If you then succeed, you also get to grab the attacker's weapon or weapon hand (your choice) and can use a wrestling maneuver on them right away with my next action.

Don't see a problem with that and as you noted, lines up with how I interpret things. In the Arete rules I wrote for Advanced Sorcery, masters of Brawl / Wrestle (skills of 101 or more) can effectively have "hit points" for their parries, so even if they DON'T get a whole degree success over their opponent, their successful unarmed defence can block some damage.

OK, what follows are my readings of the rules.

1)If the opponent chooses to parry the wrestling attempt, for example with his sword, how would you handle damage to the wrestler, if the parry succeeds?

The opponent is on the defensive: they can thus attempt to parry with Brawl, Wrestle OR a hand held weapon - per the combat results table, any result where the difference in degrees of success would result in damage to "Attacking weapon" I'd say the parrying weapon can roll damage against the character attempting the Wrestle manoeuvre.

2) With which weapon are you allowed to counterattack? Only with other hand? The same weapon that was just grabbed?

Here I think the wording is unhelpful: the phrase "counter-attack" actually should be read as "parry with a weapon".  To quote the whole first paragraph:

Quote

Parry Wrestle with Wrestle or Brawl, or make it less convenient by counterattacking (with a knife, say), but only in the first round of the Wrestle. If a Wrestle attack succeeds and it is not parried or broken off from, then the attacker holds and has subdued the target.

So, if the attack makes a Wrestle attack and succeeds (see below), they have a hold of the target and the target's options are now restricted to basically breaking that hold (STR vs STR, see below).

3) When is the attempt broken off from? After a successful counterattack?

Per above, I think the only "counter-attack" is actually a parry with a weapon against the initial Wrestle attack.

• If the Wrestle in the first round succeeds, the opponents ONLY option is to attempt to "break free" on their action in that round (and subsequent rounds) by winning a STR vs STR contest (per penultimate paragraph of the the Wrestle entry in the Skills chapter).
• If the first Wrestle succeeded, and the opponent did not break free (STR vs STR) then if the Wrestle in the second round ALSO succeeds, the Wrestler has seized the weapon and the opponent is no longer "Wrestled" but has lost the weapon.
• If the Wrestle in the SECOND round fails, the attacker still has hold, but has not succeeded in taking the weapon away. The opponent can attempt to break free on their action (STR vs STR).

4) Could the wrestler use his wrestling skill to parry the counterattack, effectively rolling twice for wrestling in the same round?

First paragraph of the Wrestle skill: "If a Wrestle attack succeeds and it is not parried or broken off from, then the attacker holds and has subdued the target."

• If the opponent did NOT successfully defend against the initial Wrestle attack, the attacker "holds and has subdued the target" and no counterattack is possible, only an attempt to escape the hold via STR vs STR: so there is nothing for the Wrestler to Parry, per se, and they certainly logically can't Wrestle someone else.#
• If that first Wrestle DID fail, then (subject to existing caveats regarding parrying with Wrestle) yes, Wrestle (like any other Combat skill) can be used a second time in a round. Just as you could attack and parry with a sword in the same round, one can do the same with Wrestle and Brawl I believe.

Now, there is the question of if both attacker and opponent roll successes in that first round, does ANY Wrestle success start the whole process, or does any successful defence "block" the Wrestle sequence from beginning? My opinion is that any combination of Wrestle attack and Defensive roll (Brawl, Weapon Parry or Wrestle) results on the Attack and Defence Matrix that mentions "attacker's weapon takes damage" or "Damage MAY get through parry"  ALSO means that the Wrestle is NOT established. Any combination of results that says "roll damage normally" or "double weapon damage" means the Wrestle IS Established.

Does that make sense? And side rhetorical quesiton: why are Wrestling / grappling rules always such a problem?!? 😄 

#we will for the moment exclude weird multi-arm demons and Octopi / Squid etc... 😛 

On 4/4/2021 at 11:24 PM, Seldak said:

I'm working through the combat spot rules in preparation and am puzzled by the knock-back attack rules.

First, whether you have a shield or not, you roll to attack. So far, so good. Then the confusion begins.

 

The example states "Bregdan...wrestles a SIZ 14 opponent on the Resistance Table".

How do you wrestle an opponent on the Resistance Table? That table is only for comparing attributes, not skills. Is this a STR:SIZ test? Or STR:STR?

The shield example also speaks of "A sucessful Resistance Table roll" without mentioning the minute detail of what actually to resist!?!

 

Am I better off ignoring these messy rules that can never have been used as written or playtested and just make stuff up on the fly?

How do you handle this at your table? Any insight would be appreciated.

OK, the full rules text of the Knock-Back spot rule is:

Quote

KNOCK-BACK ATTACK
A Knock-Back attack is generally performed with a shield, pushing the defender back and hopefully down, and at the same time slamming the rim of the shield up against 
his or her chin to stun and disorient. An Adventurer knocks back an opponent one yard for each point that the attacker’s STR exceeds the foe’s SIZ, with a minimum result of 1 yard. Two sorts of Knock-Back attacks exist: neither can be parried:

• A successful Wrestle roll for an attacker without a shield. Example: Bregdan is STR 16. He successfully wrestles a SIZ 14 opponent on the Resistance Table and knocks him back two meters. The opponent must receive a successful Agility roll, or go sprawling as well.

• A successful attack roll with a shield. Use the skill chance for the shield. A successful  Resistance Table roll drives back the opponent for two meters. (A successful dodge can cancel a attack of the same success level.) Hit point damage for the shield also applies. An opponent failing to dodge must make a successful Agility roll, or go sprawling.

So CASE 1: Make a Wrestle attack roll, IF successful, make a STR vs SIZ test on Resistance table IF successful, push target back by (Attackers STR-opponents SIZ) in meters. Bregdan wins, so pushes his opponent back 2m.

I would allow bonuses to the attackers effective STR for degrees of success on the Wrestle roll (say x 1.5 for a special and x 2 for a critical): so a relatively weak wrestler (STR 8 ) who is very skilful can have a chance to knock back even a mountain of an opponent (SIZ18).

CASE 2: Make an attack roll with the shield IF successful do Shield damage (plus db if applicable) to opponent. Then match attackers STR vs Opponents SIZ on resistance table, and if successful push target back by (Attackers STR-opponents SIZ) in meters.

 If the attacker gets special or critical results on the Shield attack, I'd give them the choice of EITHER enhancing the damage from the shield strike OR improving their STR for the Resistance table test to push their opponent back.

In both cases the skill roll is made first to allow the STR vs SIZ test on the resistance table.

Does that help?

On 4/6/2021 at 12:40 PM, NurgleHH said:

The last update at drivethru is from the July 17th, 2015. So I don't think that there happened a lot of correction.

I bought a spare hard copy form Chaosium last year, and thus got an official copy of the latest PDF direct from Chaosium, which has the same created time stamp (17/07/2015, 17:48:35).

I think, but have not actually done a careful sweep, that there are some further typos and minor omissions that have come to light in the subsequent 6 years.

Big Jack Brass collated / saved for posterity Ben's original errata listing, plus some additional items IIRC, and I think most were included in the revised PDF.

One genuinely constructive thing those of us with access to the latest PDF (mine is called "magic_world_revised.pdf") could do is to comb our PDFs for all such typographical errors / oversights that other users might appreciated knowing about and compile a further errata list.

Such a comprehensive list of typographical errors could also be of use for Chaosium in prepping a PoD version, if that ever happens. It's hard to see they'd want to dedicate the resource to any substantive revision of layout / art, but simple typographical mistakes etc one would hope could be accommodated, and if there's already a robust list to work from it can only make that easier.

These a real great, thank you!

And let’s be honest peeps, excellent though tooley1chris’s work was and is, the flagrant, blatant mis-use of copyright material throughout was a sword of Damocles that was inevitably going to cause a problem. Frankly, I am surprised that it’s taken this long, especially since these forums have been the “official” Chaosium forums for 5+ years.

Kinda surprised there isn't something close in the downloads section, to be honest - there's a load of character sheets in there, in various formats.

On 3/4/2021 at 12:58 PM, Mugen said:

That's how you deal with it, but I don't remember rules for this anywhere.

For instance, if two blacksmiths with different skill levels work on the same tool, does the one with the best skill create a better tool, or does he create it quicker ?

 

Which was he trying to achieve? I generally allow masters of skills to "pick" one improvement to the outcome (better quality, reduced production time, more economic of resources etc), where as "journeyman" (50-100 skill) have to roll a special success or better to get such a thing, and novices (skill < 50 ) don't get this option - it is a "companion" approach to some of the stuff I put in the Arete rules in Advanced Sorcery for Magic World, spun out of house rules I've been using with Elric! since the mid 1990's, which in turn evolved from stuff in the 2nd Keepers Companion (?) I think for Call of Cthulhu and some features of the Skyrealms of Jorune 2nd edition system I really liked.

Looks like some sort of mistake when the revised cover for the quick start was created -  there are differences to both 2020 (the softback BGB) AND 2026 (the hard back BGB).

I have a comp copy as a contributor, and it looks like that - iirc they did sell print copies at one point, for those who wanted hard copy.

2 minutes ago, MOB said:

Advanced Sorcery is $2.99 as well.

It wasn't when I was just looking, honest! 😄

But it is now, so I assume some caching snafu or such at my end.

MW and AS in PDF for a smidge under $6 is a very good deal...

Is the current PDF price of Magic World ($2.99 marked down from $24.42) as a result of a particular sale? I don't recall it being so heavily discounted previously, and it seems oddly out of kilter with Advanced Sorcery still being $13.17 (with no discount)?

How do you want it to  work?

Note that the description of Physik suggests it’s not hugely helpful against diseases (mundane or otherwise) “This  skill  little  influences  the  course  of  diseases  and  ailments  where  Hit  Points  are  lost over  time.  Physik  has  slight  effect  on  many poisons;  see  poisons  in  the  spot  rules.”

I’d allow successful Physik rolls to “assist” the patients own Stamina / stat rolls versus disease effects.

The major wound table makes it clear that exercise / training / exertion is the only way that characteristic loss from major wounds are recovered: “Make  up  points  lost  from most  characteristics  through  special  response  or  training  of  the  characteristic,  but  the  scars  remain.  The  loss is  permanent  if  nothing  is  done.” Whether this would apply to losses caused by disease is of course the question and not explicitly addressed. But note that in MW “typical” “mundane” infections don’t damage characteristics but hit points iirc.

I would carefully consider whether Disease spirit possession and a non-spirit disease are the same thing or not. In a setting like Glorantha, I’d tend to there being no such thing as “non-spirit based” diseases (even if there is a minor category of disease spirits that use different rules); in my Southern Reaches game mundane diseases and Disease spirit caused diseases are quite different, and “mundane” treatments cannot cure but may slow the progress / ameliorate the impact of Spirit diseases.

I am hugely fond of Elric! - it is pretty much my favourite incarnation of BRP, and it is mostly focused on the era of of the Elric saga (original early 1960's novellas up to circa 1980) that I actually enjoy; I'm not a fan of the 1990's and more recent additions to the saga. But, even in its re-packaged form of Stormbringer 5th edition in the early 2000's, it wasn't hugely accurate even to that portion of the saga... ...leaving aside the philosophical conundrum of "canon" for a series by an author who's fundamental approach is antithetical to the the sort of codification and coherence the notion of "canon" rests on.

MRQ2 is not a flavour of D100 I particularly enjoy: for all it fixes the IMO huge flaws of MRQ1, it does so by adding detail and intricacy in areas I no longer find such things satisfying. But the Elric of Melnibone game and its supplements do the best job of all the D100 versions of capturing that problematic "canon" of the Elric saga I alluded to above.

Basically. if I was to ever run a game in the Young Kingdoms again, I'd use the Elric! rules, with heavy borrowings from Elric of Melnibone for the setting, magic and cosmology. And frankly, whatever particular flavour of D100 rules one prefers, Elric of Melnibone is the best starting point.

...I mean, there was that Italian (?) company back in the early 00's that did miniaturised print editions of the classic AD&D core books...

...https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000WLTSMS/ref=nosim/waynesworldof-20

8 hours ago, Andrew Collas Presents... said:

Thanks, but that's just the book

https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/jackals-9781472837400/ is SPECTACULARLY unhelpful in getting to buy the EPUB / PDF file...

...but I eventually got to this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=9781472837431&i=digital-text&ref=nb_sb_noss 

8 hours ago, Andrew Collas Presents... said:

Guess I'll keep waiting. What is the difference between OpenQuest and BRP normal?

OpenQuest is based on the "MRQ" fork, rather than the "Chaosium" fork of BRP... So no resistance table or Stat x 5 rolls, skill base scores are based on stats, skills are only divided in to broad categories (Resistances, Combat, Knowledge, Practical) not RQIII / SB1 / Magic World style categories which is an option in the BGB version of BRP), only catgeories (Unamred, Melee and Ranged) combat skills not per weapon or weapon class... That's a very quick thumbnail of the differences off the top of my head.

Chaosium's existing  CCP's have a simple explicit clause prohibiting ANY "Products that infringe on the intellectual property of others", as do other CCP's with much smaller libraries of content than Chaosiums.

Precisely the point is a Community Content Program operates by allowing a publisher to clearly and narrowly define what they allow, and a platform for fans willing to comply with its requirements to publish material for their favourite games with a reach and profile they would not otherwise get. And both publisher and fan get a modest return.

I can’t conceive of any CCP that would allow tBDBoM in its current form (my recollection is that there’s stuff that plays to loose with copyrights in a way that a purely informal fan work can get away with, but that sort of thing will not wash with a CCP), but the success of the existing CCPs shows that it’s an entirely viable option.

The issue of course is that setting up and running a Community Content Program, even with two already running, is a non-trivial exercise that requires resource from the publisher. I can only assume that Chaosium, at least until now, have calculated that the  returns / benefits to their business of a generic BRP (let alone a specific MW) CCP do not warrant the resources required to set one up, modest as one may infer they ought to be given they have two running already.

A program that says you can refer to the BGB (and maybe a few other key texts, e.g. the Magic Book, plus the monographs the Creatures Book and Gamemasters Book) and nothing else, and that specifically precludes any currently or previously published Chaosium setting IPs (no Cthulhu, no Ringworld or ElfQuest) and no IP that belongs to anyone else (no Delta Green, no Forgotten Realms, no Earthdawn etc etc) looks, from the outside entirely feasible. From within Chaosium, one assumes things look somewhat different.