Conrad

This is actually more a problem of trolls than of dwarves,

"A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore. In origin, one of the meanings of the term troll was a negative synonym for a jötunn (plural jötnar), a being in Norse mythology, although the word was also used about witches, berserkers and various other evil magical figures."

Not until later, after the viking period according to Pete Nash, did the trolls we know and love become a separate race of creatures.

However, the otherworld creatures of the Norse mythology were rarely well defined,

Therefore I think that stats for these beings are not of much use. They are a kind

of spirits which are and can do whatever the plot requires, and human attempts to

"classify" them into different "species" are just an attempt to understand what can-

not really be understood by humans.

That depends on how you want to run your game.

8 weeks is an eternity:_(

I like the slowness of Chaosium. If you aren't made of money it gives you time to save up enough cash to buy the book that you've been told about. It gives Chaosium the time to correct any errors in the publication too. And patience is a virtue! And if you have been following the tweets, it is out in the merry merry month of May!

Malleus Monstrorum for creatures

I use it too! Nice thread necromancy there Pansophy!

There's one other supplement after Advanced Sorcery, which is nearly completed. I've got two more on my radar which are in various stages of development.

Not until things are firmed up a bit, but I'm very excited about what's in the cooker right now.

You naughty little tease!

Interestingly, John "Mr Magick Man" Snead wrote the unpublished supplement for CoC, Unhallowed Wizardry - CthulhuWiki, along with a whole chunk of White Wolf supplements (John Snead's Resum) and Liber Ka for Nephilim. So magick rules seems to be his forte. I was wondering if Enlightened Magic was a republishing of Nephilim or Unhallowed Wizardry rules, like the latest Magic World is for SB5e? Does anyone know?

Site is safe now yes. No scans detect any malware or vulnerabilities, all passwords have been changed and the site is clean. Pruned a month of the database to be sure. God-damn cyber-broos!

It is a pity that you had to prune back the database by a month. But at least we have our favourite BRP site back!

Trif, can we have the facility to delete our posts, for if we've double posted or if, in a fit of pique we want to get rid of any ill considered words?

8 weeks is an eternity:_(

Why don't you convert the MRQII (or is it Legend now?) Vikings book to BRP? Better than waiting for the printed version of Mythic Iceland to arrive. Then you'll be able to meld both settings together, if Mythic Iceland turns up, for some Viking mayhem!

Please don't let the site be assimilated into the collective.

You will submit to timeline, resistance is futile! That was a Facebook joke, by the way.

Being a grumpy old man, I need only the Hate function ...

I still love you Rust!

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day BRP? Thouest maketh me sweaty and sneeze a lot and eat ice cream! Thou art mine own favourite gamesystem and I confess my undying love for thee! Happy Valentine's BRP!

The 'love heart' icon has to be ditched however, it's a bit too gushy for me to hit the 'Like' option and then see the 'love heart' pop up as a result...

We need a Hate function as well, with a dagger symbol, just to even things up.

Sir, from you I bear it as a mark of pride. No ritual suicide here.

Chaot, you've made an old reptile blush!

If someone likes something you've posted they now have the option to click on the Like in the right hand corner of your post. You have the dubious honour of having posts liked by me. Would you like to commit seppuku now, or suffer the humiliation for the rest of your life?

"Blood and souls!"

Cool

fudge it - don't cling to the words ...

Perhaps we could write up a mechanic for fudgeing it, called Fudge Factor?

In the description of Staros the Eternal (TCoFE page 43) it says: "...his temples are bright, cold, empty fanes filled with undead."

How can Staros' temples be empty and filled with undead?

Looks like the stuff from Monte Cook's Chaositech would fit in well with the CoFE setting. I wondered when it would come in useful.

It will probably be a surprise to you, but you can do that in a game with rules as long as 3 pages. Want examples ??

Sure, so long as you can honestly state that you aren't pushing product on me!

Yes, but it's not to invent games during play. There are enough in game events to track, you know !

Sorry AsenRG, you've lost me!

Both social and physical conflicts are forms of conflict. And both can kill you. ??

Thats obvious, but you don't have to have exactly the same rules for both if you don't want to.

Am I pushing my product as well?

I don't know, its too soon to reach a conclusion.

Are your combat rules there to supplement or to replace the combat descriptions?

Do you take shampoo and conditioner into the shower?

You don't stop roleplaying during combats, you know?

Thanks mate, after twenty odd years of gaming I really needed that point clearing up for me!

Well, at least I don't, haven't played with you !?

You do not recognize me? Excellent, my memory wipe technique is perfected ha ha ha!

I never said "do not allow roleplaying" or "do not give bonuses for roleplaying".

I just said "provide a well-defined procedure". You may think that "roleplay and then make one roll with a bonus for what you said" is a sufficiently defined procedure, but is it really? Does your game include only one - and always one - roll for social interactions?.

It may come as a surprise to you Rosen, but you can't actually have a "definate well- defined procedure" for every little thing in an RPG, or it would be infinite. GMs are there for a purpose you know.

In the situation that Evilschemer mentioned, if one PC interacted with the NPC law man, and the GM wants this not to drag on too much, then one roll could determine the outcome of the conversation. Does your game include one and only one game for social interactions? Do you take shampoo and conditioner into the shower? Methinks I smell an advert.

Would you find it acceptable for combat??.

WTF does that have to do with this topic? Put that spliff down and concentrate man!

Would you appreciate a combat in which you are not told how many hit points of damage your attack dealt, but just what skill to roll? Or one in which most of your chances of success in combat depended on how well you mimicked your attack moves, rather than your character's skill? Please note that I produce a game (Aegis) where this actualy happens - if you do not describe the attack in colorful words, it fails - so this is not "wrong" in itself, just not coherent with the BRP game model. But why should Fast Talk work differently?.

Oh I see now; its about you pushing more product.

In synthesis, I fail to see why "simply sticking to a well-defined procedural mechanics based on statement of intent and subsequent die rolls" is considered good for combat and "boring roll-playing" for social conflicts.

In the situation that Evilschemer mentioned, roleplaying and a skill roll are simple and effective procedures, in accordance with the BRP rules. If he wants to have some quick fix mechanic for that then fine, its his game. But I see it as a waste of a dramatic roleplaying opportunity for the players.

It is not a matter of "more mechanics" but of "more objectivity".

If it is "more objectivity" that you seek, why not play a computer game? You can't get more objective than software.

It is not a matter of "more mechanics" but of "more objectivity". Knowing what skill to use is not enough. In a combat situation you know what skills to use, but also when a conflict is over (one side runs out of HP). This is not true for social conflicts, where you know only what skill to use, and the GM is often tempted to ditch the roll if the players sweet-talked him - which is a MISTAKE as it creates "alpha players" and the suspicition of arbitrarity and railroading

.

All I see is more mechanics and a lack of a more enjoyable balanced rollplaying and roleplaying approach. If you prefer a more balanced approach then rolling for oratory, or fast talk plus listening to the player character plead his case seems more like the BRP game I want to run. No GM has to ditch the dice roll because a player "sweet talked" him. But if a player rolls well enough and roleplays well enough then I don't see what the problem is in giving the player a bonus dice modifier to reward good roleplaying. I've never had any complaints directed at me for the practice by my players as it encourages ALL of them to roleplay, as well as rollplay. I would think that relying too much on "objective" rolling is a MISTAKE which would lead to a boring lack of roleplaying; the players merely rolling dice with no chance to show off the characters they have made. We need a balance.

Roleplaying backed up with the players using the relevant PC skills (Persuade/Orate/Etiquette/Status/Whatever) to roll to convince the opposition, is a way out of a perceived impasse. I'd also give the PC a modifier to the relevant skill if they roleplayed the negotiation conversation well. But if you want to go down the road of a more Gygaxian fix with more mechanics added on YMMV.

But because this is a game, I had no bargaining position and I was trying to move the story along to the next part, the part that WASN'T about a 4-hour stand-off negotiation. Thus my first attempt was for rules that simulate and resolve a 4-hour stand-off negotiation. Then my second realization that I should have just by-passed the scenario with a third option.

It looks to me like this is more about you Evilschemer, than about the situation. You didn't want to roleplay the negotiations. The players had stated that they did not want to be disarmed, and were quite clear about the fact that they did not want to kill anyone. You stated that the NPCs said they did not want to kill anyone either. What should have followed was dialogue, roleplaying and making use of any of the PCs talking skills etc to resolve the situation. But you "wanted to hurry the story along to the next part". Is that railroading?

the guy who sent me the e-mail wasn't even in the stand-off! He committed the murder, but was hiding. The other PCs were covering for him. His e-mail and attitude aside, this thread wasn't about him. His comments, however, got me to think of alternatives to a mechanical resolution.

The PCs covering for a murderer are doing something stupid. If they get killed for this it is their own fault. And I'd ditch the e mail guy at the first opportunity. I've heard stories about such players, and the outcome of these tales is never a happy one!

I had a situation pop up in last week's game where the the PCs and the NPCs faced a stand-off.

The NPCs had no wish to start a fight, but they needed the PCs to put their guns on the ground and come in to the local jail for questioning. .

Are you sure they had to be taken all the way to the station for questioning? Why couldn't the local authorities have placed them under surveillance first, thus providing an opportunity for the PCs to grab one of the police and question him about what was going on. PC: "Who are you and why are you following us?" NPC: "I'm a Cowboy County law man an' I'm followin' you 'cause I have reason to believe that you had somethin' to do with the killin's at the Yellow Chicken Ranch!". Then if the PCs want to take the law on instead of trying to exonerate themselves, so be it. You've given them a chance to peacefully resolve the situation.

The PCs did not trust the NPCs and had no wish to put their guns down (PC's never do, ever). That being said, the PCs had no desire to start a fight either.

If the PCs didn't trust the NPCs then why not give them good reason to trust the NPCs, such as having the local law man know one of the PC's parents- NPC sheriff: "You're Tom Jackson's boy aintcha? We fought in the war together.." Or even have one of the law men a be brother to an NPC brother: "Jimmy, you always wuz a hot head. Cool it and just answer a few questions. We ain't wantin' to start a war here!"

No one had drawn their weapons yet. It was a tense stand-off.

Cue spaghetti western music!

And very annoying for me as the GM! I did everything I could to reassure the players that nothing bad would happen to their characters. I wasn't going to screw them. These NPCs were trustworthy. I also pointed out that the PCs were outnumbered and out-gunned and if fighting started, they would probably all die, and a TPK over this would be stupid. .

Outnumbering by NPCs can look like the GM lording it over the players. So it might have been best to have the law men outnumbered, then have them back down, thus letting the PCs have control of the situation and hopefully making them feel secure enough not to start a firefight.

NPC: "We ain't wantin' no gunfight mister. We just want to know where you boys were around 10 last night when the murders at the Yellow Chicken Ranch occured!" Thus giving the PCs the chance to tell the law men " We wuz whorin' 'n' drinkin' at Madame Feather's bordello!" Which then gets the law men off their backs for a short while, and hopefully gets the PCs interested in who killed whom at the Yellow Chicken Ranch.