Jump to content

g33k

Regulars
  • Posts

    5,283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    48

Everything posted by g33k

  1. Just a tenner? Well, then! Looks like it very well might! Oh, no; it's not an *actual* historical game that I plan to run. The other thing I'd need would be some decent aerial-dogfighting rules, if you novik I mean... 😉
  2. I, in contrast, have *NOT* read it; but reading here makes me think strongly that a treatment with R-Maps -- lots and LOTS of R-Maps! -- for neighborhoods, for guilds, for families, etc, would be a huge advantage in a work like this. All mutually hyperlinked, of course, between individuals' text listing in each Section, and the R-Map(s) where they appear...
  3. Just -how- "not that hard," do you think? (I recall looking wistfully at the P&G/HoO duo, and thinking that sounded like an awesome combo to run, whipping out the wargame to run the actual naval battles, and the RPG for everything else. As I recall, my college (or just-post-college?) budget said "no, thank you.") At this point, however, a really good "1700's Napoleonic/Regency/American-Independence era BRP" game is a goodly chunk of one of my 2-3 low-key / back-burner passion projects, currently only a few notes in the cloud... and a lot of inchoate speculation still rattling between the eardrums...
  4. You didn't mention foreign businesses and oligarchs; they've been in the "influence" game longer than most! Of course, there's more than a little bit of karmic justice in some of these cases. The USA has been using "strategic de-stabilization" for DECADES (arguably, centuries... if you count things like how CA left Mexico and joined the USA, or how HI stopped being a soverign Kingdom and became a US Territory). Sometimes, when the US did it, it was a genuine humanitarian good-willed desire for a democracy instead of a dictatorship ("but it just so happened" that the US could be fairly sure the democracy would be pro-US, and the dictator was not (because pragmatism))... but all too often it was a cynical power-play, sometimes of the most venal and morally-bankrupt sort (q.v. "banana republics," Hawaiian "sugar barons," etc). Notwithstanding those examples, however, I agree that it's an IMMENSE problem to have foreign actors -- of ANY dimension -- active in US politics; the past wrongs of the USA do not justify the (similar) current wrongs against it. Here's a 'charming' little nugget I heard on the road, a little while back, in an interview with a leading authority studying violent extremism: there appears to be a non-trivial and intentional crossover between Islamic jihadi, Christian-extremist, and neo-Nazi methods. It's not that they are "giving" one another pointers, but that they are studying one anothers' (already similar) recruitment & radicalizations methods, and when either introduces a new wrinkle that gets results, it's quickly copied by the other side. 😖
  5. It's hardly new news that "sensationalism sells." Early journalism-magnate Hearst famously said, "You provide the pictures, and I'll provide the war," and around 1700's/1800's, the single-page "broadsheet" format was widely used for sensational and propaganda purposes. Still, I don't think many of us credit how potent this effect is; and we should realize that EVERYONE has hot-button topics (even our own selves) that short-circuit rational processes... and I guarantee you, someone (likely several someones) are working hard to press those buttons. 🤯 Almost certainly, you (the general "everyone," not any particular person in this thread (but, including everyone in this thread (yes, me too))) have some form of media "bubble." Almost certainly, your (our (my)) bubble includes such button-pushing sources; this notion may make you acutely uncomfortable (that's a good thing) and want to deny it (that'd be a bad thing). 🤬 As JonL says, the media has their profit-driven motive, and svensson notes how much politicians like/need to throw fresh meat to their respective bases. *** But there's an issue in this vein I've puzzled over for YEARS, and haven't found a good solid answer: What split the "sportsmen" from the "environmentalists"? The hunters and fishers were foundational to the environmental movement, and to this day most of what "envirosportsmentalists" BOTH want is essentially the same thing -- a healthy & robust natural world. They are natural allies <heh>. But, so often, they are at odds... 🤔 Did "someone" do that, intentionally? Did "someone" apply a divide-and-conquer strategy to prevent two such potent groups from being too hard to face down? Or was it simply a mutual case of "just being human" foolishness? 😳
  6. Hi, @svensson! I like & agree with much of what you said, but want to clarify and/or correct one element... or maybe it's a closely-connected suite of elements... This is, IMHO, one of the key misunderstandings of some people. Nobody today needs to (or should) feel "guilty" for actions they haven't committed. This is, nevertheless, the basis for a persistent pushback against anti-racist reforms. The issue instead is responsibility. If people today are suffering because of wrongs done to their ancestors by your ancestors... do you have any responsibility to redress that wrong (even if you aren't "guilty" of doing it)? If a government entity was involved in doing that wrong, and that same government entity still exists, shouldn't it be acting to redress the wrong? I too am a middle-aged white dude. I feel no guilt over that fact. Instead, I feel a responsibility to act (and speak, and vote) in ways that redress the wrongs (as much as possible, some obviously being beyond redress) done by my nation and by WASP-y sorts of people like me, within this nation, to "BIPOC." I would only feel "guilty" about it if I did not act responsibly on the matter.
  7. Worth noting, though, is that while actual *warfare* among Praxians is pretty common, the cattle-raiding in Sartar should always avoid bloodshed. Better to come home without the cattle, than come home stained with dishonorable blood...
  8. Huh. I recall the GM applying it to (at least some) other skills...
  9. I think the idea is, using those specific skills for-real instead of in-class; practical/applied skill vs theoretical. So if you're map-making, did it help the person you gave your map to? If you're doing alchemy, did you gather the correct herbs and other ingredients, process them correctly to be used in your alchemy? etc...
  10. Compared to other parts of char-gen, I don't find these rules "fiddly" at all. As you say -- motivation to go find rewarding adventures! Also: links to guilds... some of which are just the commercial/secular faces of Cults. Us, too.
  11. I'm considering a HR here. Bison/Rhino/Horse/etc riders - 1d12+8 hit location. Smaller mounts 1d10+10 (as per people on foot). But the small-framed Tribes, like Impala and Ostrich? On foot, it's 2d4+12...
  12. Hmmm. The munchkin player in me *loves* the idea of Axe-Trance'ing here... but the cold-hearted GM in me doesn't think it qualifies as B.Gor's Sacred Earth weapon(*). bleah. Sometimes my cold-hearted inner-GM is such a Danny Downer! (*) I'm even considering the notion that ONLY the double-bitted "labrys" style axes qualify (and only cross-guarded straightswords for Humakt). Because mythics, obvs.
  13. This. 100% The BRP family of games is -- in play, at the table -- largely inter-compatible. There are branchings at Newt's OQ-derived games (which I think includes Rennaisance?), and at the Nash/Whitaker (MRQ2/Legend/RQ6/Mythras), and minor variations/customizations within each branch (including among pure-Chaosium games), but mostly those differences are invisible from the other side of the GM-screen. Use *ANY* monster, from *ANY* of the different games... and your players will never notice anything amiss. Additionally, you can pretty much import the different magic-systems wholesale from one into another (sometimes you might need a bit more than "just" the magic systems, such as RQG's new Rune-Magic driven by Rune scores on the character-sheet, Cults, etc). So, pick the game-chassis of your choice, then add (or remove) subsystems to taste, until you get the FrankenBRP of your dreams... Just like we've been doing for DECADES now. Really, the BRP engine is remarkably adaptable and robust! If I were doing this project, I'd be choosing between: Renaissance / Clockwork&Chivalry - I think the "feel" of the world, the fluff/etc, is closest. I think this means it'd be the least work. Magic World - A nice clean BRP engine; a good basis to add onto BRP Quickstart - the PDF freebie from Chaosium; even leaner and more-stripped-down than MW. BONUS: a suite of mini-scenarios at the back, in a range of different genres, to help you see how to hit your own sweet-spot. Mythras Imperative - The low-crunch Quickstart for Mythras. Mythras has a lot of interesting "crunch" to add on a strictly as-needed basis, and MI gives you the best basic chassis to do that.
  14. Yes, exactly! (I'd put it as an "and/or" I guess, not a strict "and" -- but I'm persnickity that way.) It's some of the most iconic intro material, and a GREAT way to draw players into the world! It doesn't take anything away from the playable content -- the rules-mechanics & "crunch" -- of the respective books, so players who want to PLAY that content still need the full rulebooks. It honestly looks to me like 100% upside for Chaosium... And it's usful for us fans, looking to promote the game/world.
  15. I'd want to check in with all the players and explicitly get a bit of consensus going about the campaign arc. 2-3 points of drift from a starting "4" goes a *long* way from "middle of the road" assholeness, in either direction... Are some of them envisioning redemption-arcs, and being re-accepted? Are some of them figuring they're at the beginning of a long dark slide into villain-hood? Are some of them looking forward to a long exploration of this margins-of-society existence, neither fully-redeeming nor becoming genuine blackguards? Mis-matched expectations has IME ruined a more campaigns than anything except changing life-circumstances (as when a group of gaming school-chums graduate & move apart).
  16. 01 to the 20 is a thing, it's true. Depending on tastes, that may even be anticlimactic... I find the generally-smaller damages (after armor& magic) to weaker hit-locations to be inherently more-cinematic. As you say, "just a point or two more" and/or "if it had been to a more-critical location" make even non-crucial hits inherently dramatic: the player realizes how close the PC just came to Going Down Hard. Injured locations are also inherently stakes-raising, because you've got another Hit-Location that is closer to disabling. As a GM, I *always* narrate that: "He's definitely favoring the leg, and moving a bit slower" (or "your leg is trembling with the shock and pain; you're worried it may give out if you press it too hard"). And when a leg or arm DOES get disabled... the character is definitely HURT (and more-at-risk!), but not down-and-out; the fight just got more desperate! I haven't implemented it in my RQG, as yet, but may well re-up my old RQ2 HouseRule about 0-Point-Locations: the location is "teetering on the brink." If a leg, you need to make a DEX roll not to fall; if an arm, to keep hold of a weapon/etc. On the centerline (head/chest/abdomen) it's a CON roll, vs. passing-out / unable-to-breathe / collapse-into-ball. But if you can make the roll, you're still up & (semi)functional. IME, if you just give a realistic narration of most RQ combats, it's engaging in ways "bag of HP's" combat isn't (I've slogged through too many HP-attrition-fests). RQ combat inherently runs to the cinematic ... and to the entertaining! === And that, in the end -- the player engagement, the tension, the sense of ongoing & escalating risk-and-reward -- is something I'd like to see extended out of combat-only so that non-fighty characters have similar rules-levers to pull, rules-knobs to turn. So they are just as mechanically-engaged in their own spotlights.
  17. In that portion of the prior thread mentioned by @HeartQuintessence, somebody mentioned the idea of modeling some interactions directly upon combat. Take, for example, arguing something before a Clan Ring, or similar group. You might be trying to negotiate a trade-treaty, or the end of a feud, or whatever. If there's a "chief" present -- the person who will decide, hopefully with advice from the Ring -- he's like the "20" the head. Convince him, and it's over. People who will support him -- however his questions or arguments seem to be tending -- might be the "legs." People with their own agenda's (running counter to yours) might be like weapon-bearing arms; answer their issues, and the "arms" are disabled, no longer damaging your cause. Etc. Obviously, not every situation will be suitable for this model. Heck, I'm not even sure THIS one is... But still (to the degree that the ebb&flow of combat mechanics help raise tension and interest) it's well worth looking at re-purposing the same (or similar) mechanics. n.b. another user pointed out (in that prior thread) that realistically speaking, such "politicking events" are often settled BEFORE the formal "argue and vote" occasion. One side will have done better ground-work, convinced people ahead of time, maybe bribed the venal, maybe offered help to the desperate, etc. They'll have already lined up a the key decision-makers / influencers, and the actual vote is really just a pro-forma affair. Of course, as @Bill the barbarianpoints out, you need player buy-in that RP'ing through such things is "fun!" Others point to the Spirit Combat system, rather than melee... That too has promise! I too suspect (as others have mentioned) that all-new subsystems should be avoided (for the bloat/creep); unless nothing suitable for repurposing-or-adapting can be found in the existing rules.
  18. For me, D&D (and similar) class-and-level systems -- particularly with escalating HP due to HD-per-level -- just don't satisfy. My suspension-of-disbelief breaks HARD when I look (for example) at a tropic-themed Paladin/Barbarian/etc who has leveled-up and is now riding something like a "war elephant." My problem is not "war elephant" but that the high-level rider has more HP's than an elephant. The classic excuse (that the extreme HP's just represent the high-level's ability to better "roll with the punches" and slip-aside so an otherwise solid blow is only a graze) do not satisfy. A similarly-high high-level should still be able to land a fatal blow. Max-damage with a nonmagical sword should ALWAYS be disabling. Similarly, Vancian magic for wizards just calls for me to torque my understanding of "what a spell is" too far. Wizards are supposed to have spent YEARS of hard study learning magic & spells, and Vancian "fire and forget" spells just feel wrong to me, even re-cast (see what I did there?) as "this is just the trigger for what you prep'ed previously." That's what items-with-charges are for. The newer caster-classes like Src & War are what I play, when I play a caster-centric class; I like 5e better, for this reason... but it also feels "the least D&D-like" in many ways (also looking at Tiefling & Dragonborn as core PC races, instead of oddball outliers and "advanced play" options). I will play and enjoy low-level & mid-level D&D one-shots; I will (as a favor) occasionally run D&D, such as intro'ing RPG's to someone who won't have a chance to join my regular play-group & needs to connect with their local (D&D-centric) RPG scene. That's... about it, really.
  19. Hey Chaosium... @MOB, @Rick Meints or whoever... Any chance you guys are contemplating the idea of putting these up onto the Well of Daliath? They don't take away any game-mechanical goodness from their respective tomes, but they *DO* serve as some iconic intro / flavortext to Glorantha. It'd be great to be able to point interested Gloranthan newbies at these, without asking them to spend for whole-book prices (particularly as the whole-books are soon to be obsolesced). I can hand "Cults of..." or the Compendium across the table, but mailing it thousands of miles is prohibitive! TYVM!
  20. Combat has a bunch of subsystems that players engage with. It's got a WHOLE bunch of rolling, and (barring 1st-round Crit's to the 20, or the like) generally follows a course of rising tension before the climactic victory (or retreat, or defeat, etc). The players have more levers & knobs, more rolls to make, more choices (melee, missile, magic? If magic: attack, defend/heal, buff, or "outside the box"?) and thusthe "encounter" lasts for quite a few real-world minutes (allowing that tension to build). So here's my query to you: Do you have any rules you use for "Dance-offs, Sing-offs, passions contests, Oratorical battles and the like" that engage the players with additional rolls, additional choices, and sustain the tension of the event to an eventual (hopeful) victory?
  21. Honestly, Jeff... I think the things you mention *ARE* very on-topic !
  22. +1 (but more general than just "social" mechanics). In the RQ subforum, I think, as it's a "rules-y" topic, but HW/HQ/QW (as noted) already seems to have better game-mechanical support for such things ... I encourage such rules to not be clean-sheet "new" rules but (as much as is viable) to be based on the existing mechanics used in various combat subsystems. Rules-bloat is, I think, a serious risk to such a problem... I look forward to participating in that thread, too!
  23. I have seen some groups say online that their folks got so fond of the VTT that they did in fact use VTT for their in-person games. "Dynamic lighting" & "fog of war" effects on a live map, players & GM's relying on the *same* accounting of MP-spent / HP's / etc. I admit if I had the mad VTT skillz, I'd find a lot of those ideas/advantages to be tempting, myself...
  24. You are chicken-and-egg'ed, it seems. Cannot hatch new VTT products to feed your flock, for lack of egg-laying entities... errr... or something like that. I suspect (and I suspect you do, too (unless you know it for a fact)) that their "priorities" are heavily based upon their own internal marketing / game-share analyses -- CoC was reliably a top-10 game on Roll20 for years, and recently been showing top-3. *** I think your likely route is via freelancers... I believe there are "community content" providers for some/all of those VTT platforms, where "digital assets" are created by independents and sold on those platforms. Not everyone who can create dynamic-lighting maps and cool tokens and sheets work at the VTT companies. Be Ernaldan: There Is Always Another Way! If you could identify some likely content-creators, offer them up-front payment (and maybe ALSO royalty-shares as per normal "community content" programs) you might be able to get some traction through them. It isn't likely to be a terribly-profitable method for the first few years... but then again, CoC also spent years climbing out of the pack before it began showing up reliably in the upper VTT tiers. Consider it a form of marketing, and expect it to be a sunk cost, at least at first. RQ -- as I understand it -- needs to demonstrate market-share before the VTT folks will put in their own effort; Chaosium sales-numbers show market-share, but that evidently isn't reflected in VTT-share. But you can't get as much VTT-share for lack of VTT assets for GMs to offer and players to enjoy. So Chaosium itself will need to fund those assets; or wait for the market to organically create them (like the existing Roll20 RQG sheet; but much much more!). *** Depending on what "digital assets" are available for the Starter Set, that may become my own first serious foray into online GM'ing (hence my creating this thread).
×
×
  • Create New...