Darkholme

You are correct, I was referring to the game with the title Stormbringer 5e, because I figured others would see it as such. But when I actually think about Stormbringer, I do think Stombringer 5=Elric! and Stormbreaker 5.1, or 5.25, or 5 revised (whatever you want to call it) is what was published as "Stormbringer 5e", and then Stormbringer 6 would be Magic World.

Absolutely. But the way I see it, we should either have a General d100 board, or two separate boards for d100 and BRP – but having a BRP board that serves the secondary purpose of being the general d100 board seems less than ideal to me.

Oh Boy! Finally, the detailed basketweaving supplement I've been waiting for all these years.

I'm the same way, but to be honest, I think I am very poorly suited to a Call of Cthulhu game. I'm not a big Investigation+Horror guy. I'd have been investigating this grim reaper, and trying to figure out how to kill it, Winchester Brothers style. I've yet to play Call of Cthulhu (though my girlfriend picked up CoC 5.6 used at our local gaming shop, and I have read through it), but when people describe it they tend to compare it to other things that I just didn't understand the appeal of/'get it'. I think I'm a bit too action-adventure/pulp for a typical investigation horror game. It's possible that I have misunderstood some stuff, however, and that I'd actually enjoy Call of Cthulhu. I did like the Hellboy movies. I thought they were fantastic. But I'm not sure you usually get to kill the eldritch horrors by making them eat large quantities of explosives, in a Call of Cthulhu game.

Oh. I wasn't saying it was a major hurdle; just that it was the biggest hurdle to keep in mind. I agree. It's not that hard. I'm not familiar enough with the formulae to do it off the top of my head, but it still doesn't take that long to calculate while I'm planning.

Personally I'd suggest consolidating Stormbringer with Magic World, if anything. It would make more sense than consolidating it with any of the other boards. The way I see it Magic World is Stormbringer 6e, the same way MRQII/Legend are RQ5e

I am confused as to why you copied my post, but didn't respond to it. Were you just doing a "Me Too" or did you mean to reply and had technical difficulties?

Looking at it from that approach, maybe just renaming the forum to d100 General and not having a BRP board would be the best approach. But it can be a little frustrating if everyone assumes the BGB is what is being discussed in a general d100 thread, because for some of us, it isn't. I don't own the BGB and from what I've heard about it I'm unlikely to/don't see a reason to pick it up - I may pick up a couple of other Chaosium BRP supplements, like Blood Tide, or some of the Monographs. When I make a general d100 thread, I'm typically talking about MW+Legend+RQ6, but I have been considering getting one of the other d100 core systems, namely OpenQuest2 and Renaissance Deluxe. I guess my point is, while I may be discussing several d100 systems, if someone assumes I am specifically discussing the BGB instead of any of several different d100 systems (with none of the ones I am personally using being the specific one they think I am using), then part of the thread gets rather fuzzy/unclear, and that can be rather annoying.

That could work as well, ptingler. If there are more general d100 threads here than BRP specific, renaming it and/or making a new forum that's specifically for BRP stuff may be a better approach than making a new general forum and making this one the BRP specific one.

I don't think that's entirely accurate. The first edition of RuneQuest is dated 1978, whereas the first edition of Basic Roleplaying is dated 1980, so RuneQuest would be the mother d100 system regardless of game or publisher, not BRP.

I have a friend who is finishing up a degree in classical studies. He points out terrible latin to me whenever it comes up. In D&D 3.5 they released a book of undead-themed campaign options, for players and DMs, called "Libris Mortis - the book of undead". Apparently Libris Mortis translates to nonsense; I think he said it translates to "the book that is dead" or "of dead books" or some other such nonsense; Which is of course rather funny. Unfortunately, translators are expensive, but you'd think WotC, especially back in 2005 or 2006, could afford to check the single phrase of latin they printed on the cover of their book.

The current setup (since I started using the BRP board for general d100 discussion recently) has already occasionally resulted in the confusion of thinking I was mostly referring to BGB stuff, when I was mostly referring to MW/RQ6/Legend, but in a way that was general enough that someone using the BGB might be able to get something out of it. A separate board for general, non-BGB d100 talk would be helpful, if for no reasons other than clarity.

RQ6 Has notably different combat, and uses hit locations. I think those are the biggest differences from stock BRP in terms of compatibility. I don't think you would have much trouble using a RQ6 Supplement with your BRP Stuff, unless you're looking to use it for creatures/NPC Stats (they wouldn't have a general pool of HP, you'd have to calculate it, for instance)

Thanks! I Appreciate that!

Haha. I'm now picturing High-Tension Basketweaving Deathmatches. This sounds like a Ranma 1/2 episode plot.

It covers non BRP Games, sure. I dont think thats a good place to discuss, say: 3 BRP Games Simultaneously.

Absolutely MatteoN. Well said. I'm not going to tell people they can't run their Humanocentric games, but I see value in having better support for multi-species player parties/multispecies settings than is currently available.

Sure, If you were to sink all of your skill improvements into basket weaving, you're going to be weaker than the guy who put it into magic. How was your character so "powerful" with weaker numbers than the other characters? Was this a matter of "I cast spells and they swing a sword"? Because most people agree that that is poorly handled in 3.x. Out of curiosity, why don't you think game balance is desirable? I would think you would want to avoid Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit situations, because they won't be fun for BMX Bandit.

What? No it doesn't. At least not in Pathfinder. If you have PC Quality WBL (as opposed to NPC WBL) your CR is +1, and if you have a better point buy total, your CR is also +1.

Hmm. Your other approach might be something to consider. Your example you posted, however, does not cover what I was describing, at least not the bulk of it. The elf wouldn't be just working around a cap in individual skills of 50. He'd be working around a total skill value of like, 600 (to choose a reasonable looking hypothetical number). So while, yes, none of his individual skills could pass 50, the cap that everyone would have to reach before it would be increased is 600. Said elf would add up all of his skills, and all of them added together could not surpass a total of 600. Once he hit that cap, he could raise a skill (but not above 50) - but he would have to lower another skill by the same amount to compensate. (and could not lower any skill below its base value). Throughout this process, you allow partial reshuffling on normal improvement rolls (with a smaller die, but the smaller "reshuffling" die would be in addition to the normal improvement roll). Once the humans have hit the cap you'd give them a bit of a reshuffling period as well. Then, you raise the cap from 600 to 700, and raise the cap on individual skills up to say, 55. This means that elves would be more likely to hit the caps first, but they would not surpass the humans by a large chunk at any given time - keeping the power difference to a minimum, and not always being a thing.

The skill maximums I mentioned upthread would deal with this problem. Your total skill points would be hard-capped (or soft-capped), until the rest of the group also reached the cap, and while you're at the cap, you can re-spec things until the other players have caught up to you. After everyone has reached the cap (or is within X total of the cap), the GM can raise the cap, and you can all work toward that new cap.

And that works fine, when you're wanting to encourage the players to play basic humans. What about when *I* as the GM, want to run a game with (5-30) different species/races interacting on a daily level, and would like to allow the players to easily play as one of those species without it causing hurt feelings or vast mechanical imbalances? Your approach is "figure out how much to punish the player for wanting to play something different, because the game designers in this case made different just be better". Apparently I seem to be the only one to routinely want half a dozen or more playable races. It's not that weird for me to run a game in a homebrew setting with several races of varying size and different special abilities; none of which are human. I remember a game I was running using a custom system, back before I backed everything up to the cloud, and before having my apartment robbed, including the laptop and backup harddrive. The game was Iron age, in a Jungle, with tribal magics and stuff. Playable races included two or three varieties of 5-6 foot tall catfolk, 3 or 4 varying sizes of plant people, and 2 or 3 8-12 foot tall troll-ogre things, Genocidal Deer-based Elves (think Magic the Gathering: Lorwyn, if you're familiar), as well as 3-4 foot tall rodent people. It was tricky, but they all had their stuff that they were good at. I really enjoy a good sprawling metropolis in a multiracial cosmopolitan nation as a setting - focused around guilds and skullduggery, some pulp, and maybe some intrigue/investigation. Needless to say, I don't want to punish players for making characters that make sense in the setting I provided to them. Not to mention, I don't want to change my setting like that (I likely spent time building it) because of overpowered races in the game - I'd rather come up with a selection of not-overpowered races, or figure out how to mechanically offset the power gap so there isn't one, or so it's close enough that players aren't being overshadowed.

Absolutely Chaot. Sometimes game imbalances can be addressed simply by tailoring your adventures to your group. And you are absolutely correct regarding the sort of balance that matters being "player feels overshadowed by the other player's characters", or occasionally the very awkward "player's are getting frustrated and feel that a poorly built character can't pull their own weight and is dragging down the rest of the group". IME though, if you have a selection of races that are at roughly the same baseline power level, that can help reduce the situations where that comes up. Particularly in a metropolitan or otherwise omniracial party composition. If your party consists of a human, an elf, a satyr, a lizard-man, and an orc, you don't want to step out of the gate with a wide power difference already present. Ideally you could build a human character who is close enough in usefulness to each of the other characters that they don't feel significantly overshadowed. And if you can figure out approximately how much they'll be overshadowed (before they pick their skill options) you can then use that to form the basis of "how much should I compensate so the group's enjoyment doesn't suffer for it".

I downloaded that the other day, but haven't had a chance to look through it yet. I'll see what it has to offer, but where it's largely based on RuneQuest and Warhammer, I don't expect it will have a great deal of material to offer that is not in either of them. Perhaps a new magic system or something of the sort.