Conrad

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

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.

Sure, so long as you can honestly state that you aren't pushing product on me! Sorry AsenRG, you've lost me! Thats obvious, but you don't have to have exactly the same rules for both if you don't want to. I don't know, its too soon to reach a conclusion. Do you take shampoo and conditioner into the shower? Thanks mate, after twenty odd years of gaming I really needed that point clearing up for me! You do not recognize me? Excellent, my memory wipe technique is perfected ha ha ha!

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. WTF does that have to do with this topic? Put that spliff down and concentrate man! Oh I see now; its about you pushing more product. 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.

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

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.

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 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!

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. 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!" Cue spaghetti western music! 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.

I agree.

Then I guess your comments could smell more pleasant. You're the one that needs to learn to proofread mate. Besides your comments read as a roundabout way of disparaging the efforts of Evil Schemer. Way to go; thats really positive. In this context what you're writing "could smell more pleasant". You sound like you're being an arsehole to someone that has done something constructive and positive. Evil Schemer has taken the time and effort to write a positive review of CotFE and all you can write about it is that it sounds like "fanboy talk". And you have the temerity to lecture others on polemics! You're the one bandying about the insult "fanboy", and you think that using the term "sounds as.." distances you from the insult to Evil Schemer. Please apologize to Evil Schemer. I know that CotFE isn't your work Rosen, but what is it with some RPG supplement writers? When someone takes the time to praise what they see as a good supplement some of you can't wait to sneer at them, applying the epithet "fanboy", as though you're embarassed to get such praise. You'd think that supplement writers would want some praise for their efforts. Or do you think that everyone that likes RPG supplements is intellectually inferior?

I understand your viewpoint completely Gianni; the time dragons (Shalai) seem most intriguing and I can't wait to find out what they're like. It is a pity that more of this setting wasn't published in that first supplement.

Why do you need guidance if you've got 100 ideas to every page?

Until I looked the word up, I thought that "polemic" was a type of Polish sausage! Politeness does not equal truth, and the person that read the supplement does show that the ranting reviewer (Dougla.s) hasn't done his homework. Which says to any person with half a cerebrum that Dougla.s' review is to be taken with a dose of sodium chloride. And the time it took for you to take the moral high ground, Rosen, and to insinuate that Evil Schemer is a "fanboy" for his decent succint review would be better spent proofreading your products before publication. What won't do much good is publishing a quarter of a setting and then having the author go on to other projects without leaving the rest of the background to be edited and published, but thats Chaosium for you! The scenario Children of the Worm should, at least, have been part of the original supplement IMO.

Dougla.s' review comes in for some stick by someone that has read the supplement. Its quite funny reading these replies: "There are constant references to psychic powers, but where are they in the book?" The reviewer asks this question failing to understand that CoFE is a supplement to be used with the Big Gold BRP Book, which has the psychic powers rules in it. It clearly states this on the back cover, and I quote- "This is a supplement for the BASIC ROLEPLAYING SYSTEM. You must have at least one copy of those rules to enjoy this book." "...his absolute lack of respect for people.." The author of this tome is a woman actually. Her name, Sarah Newton, is on the front cover. The reviewer should calm down and actually READ all of the book before going off on such a rant."

Its getting damned cold here in this cryo pod!

Yuletide merriment to you all, and a happy new year also! I think I'm going to avoid the absinthe and whisky after what happened last year!

Welcome to all the newbies, and a merry Xmas to you all.

So long as the supplement isn't sh#t!

Too much cheesey peas no doubt! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv60cnNSW7Q

Have you seen Jason Durall's BRP Conan rules? http://basicroleplaying.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=113 http://basicroleplaying.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=114

And has the advantage of keeping canon to a minimum if you so desire. If you've drawn a map of your invented world then you can answer the question "What's over there?" with "Shathen's Keep, where the Homunculus Plague that decimated the Third Empire originated", because you've sat down and written a brief but interesting history beforehand.