Jump to content

fmitchell

Regulars
  • Content Count

    389
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

fmitchell last won the day on September 6 2015

fmitchell had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

80 Excellent

About fmitchell

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Chronological (sort of): The Fantasy Trip, AD&D, Traveller, Champions, RuneQuest II, GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, Spirit of the Century, D&D 3.5, D&D 4, Basic Roleplaying, Star Wars D6, Warhammer Fantasy 2 & 3, Star Wars (FFG), Numenera / Cypher System, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Eclipse Phase
  • Current games
    none at the moment
  • Location
    Dallas, TX
  • Blurb
    Occasional tabletop RPG player, RPG system enthusiast.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.frank-mitchell.com

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well I spent the weekend thinking about this and I think the BRP SRD is mainly geared at fans who want to produce BRP content. As someone up-thread said, Chaosium isn't in the BRP or monograph business any more, so it's (literally) license for fans to write more BRP ... as long as they avoid plagiarism and Prohibited Content. (They direct anyone wanting to write Arthurian, Cthulhu, Glorantha stuff to use their Community Content program on DriveThruRPG instead.) But I can't imagine any commercial publishers using the BRP SRD as a basis for their work, as they did with d20 or Fate. (This m
  2. But that's not how the license is written. I'm not talking about playing chicken with Chaosium's business. I'm more worried how Chaosium's current management, or their lawyers, or their successors will interpret the license.
  3. That's the intent, I know. What prospective third party publishers may see might be different. Clearly I'm not a lawyer, so I did not know "substantially similar" is a legal term. What constitutes "substantially similar", however, is -- as far as I can tell -- decided case-by-case, in a lawsuit. That may be a problem. The point of an SRD (at least as far as I understand it) is to encourage fans and publishers to build an ecosystem of games, adventures, and assorted supplements with broadly compatible rules. Other "open licenses" like Wizards' OGL and Creative Commons define unambiguo
  4. Having an "open" version of classic BRP is awesome ... but I'm a little concerned about the Prohibited Content clause, notably the definition of "substantially similar". Is a magic system that uses Magic Points to power small utility and tactical combat spells "substantially similar" to Battle Magic / Spirit Magic? Is any rule that adds a fraction of one skill as a bonus to another skill "substantially similar" to Augments? Are loyalties, allegiances, and/or emotional attachments expressed as percentile ratings "substantially similar" to Passions? I get that Chaosium wants
  5. While I haven't played CoC 7 yet, one mechanic I'm really interested in the advantage/disadvantage equivalent in which a player rolls two or more "tens" d10s and picks the better/worse. It seems like a quicker way to handle difficulty levels than adding/subtracting modifiers or multiplying by some factor. I've used similar techniques in other games, e.g. rolling 3d6 and keeping the higher/lower two, or adding/subtracting dice from a dice pool, and those work reasonably well at the table. I'm just a little concerned that the CoC 7 version is a little too coarse-grained ... otherwise why would t
  6. BRP is both flexible and forgiving. If a particular setting wants to posit a magical (alchemical?) technology, especially one involving immovable wards against intruders and certain forms of magic, it's not too hard to add a skill. Costs in time and materials could replace POW sacrifices. Penalties (maluses?) might grow slowly with area, so a rich merchant or petty nobleman might be able to protect his bedchamber and treasury with two separate enchantments, but only an emperor working with an arch-wizard could protect his entire castle. Or you could adapt "Glyphs" (formerly Runes) in Adva
  7. P.S. On the subject of limiting magic items: You may want to look at Numenera or the Cypher System Rulebook, although its systems probably won't translate easily to D100. It breaks its "magic items" into three categories: oddities (which do weird things but nothing useful), one-use "cyphers", and "artifacts". The latter two have "levels" which may influence the strength of their effects but mostly determine which devices override which. Artifacts also have "depletion rolls": after every use, the player rolls dice (d6, d10, d20, or d100) and if the dice show a 1 the artifact becomes useles
  8. By "enchantment" you mean the creation of "magic items", correct? (Warning: vague advice and pontification ahead.) You might want to adapt the rules for "invention" or "research" in other RPGs, notably science fiction and/or "mad science", or rules for ritual magic. Usually they work as follows: 1. A player decides what they want to build. 2. The GM (somehow) determines how much time the PC must spend, what special tools or material they need, and the difficulty of the task. Something "routine" like holy water or a one-use scroll might simply require time and raw materials,
  9. I don't know if you can call GURPS's PDF-model "dwindled": they have a monthly magazine and a steady stream of supplements. PDFs allow SJG to deliver smaller supplements which would be impractical to put into print, and at less risk (as so many other companies have discovered). Add to that Steve Jackson's iron grip on GURPS quality (whatever you think of the system) and the fact that Munchkin is their big cash cow that could easily squeeze out other projects, it makes sense for them. D100's history makes that approach impractical, but there are still a few lessons to learn. First, it h
  10. I guess "d100" isn't a bad name for the extended Chaosium / Mongoose / Design Mechanism / Alephtar / etc. clan. After all, the D&D-like games are called "d20", but unrelated games use d20s (e.g. Cypher System, HeroQuest, King Arthur Pendragon).
  11. There's a lot you can do in 32 pages. (Just look at GURPS Lite.) Since you need only 10-12 pages to explain the core concepts of BRP, you have 20+ pages for RQ-esque combat rules, multi-genre skill and equipment lists, and some useful GM advice. Let's hope they don't 1) fill space with the traditional "what is roleplaying" section, 2) use big type and a lot of hand-holding like the 16-page "BRP" pamphlet, and/or 3) fill up most of that space with art and a long-winded adventure. As I said in another thread, I'm still hoping for some kind of eventual BRP Elaborations book with a
  12. I chose Magic World, although in some places I'd prefer rules from other sources: - Fixed/constant Armor Points (BRP, RQ6, CoC) - Skill vs. Skill rolls replacing the Resistance Table; by extension, skills to replace Characteristic x 5% values like Stamina, Luck, Effort, Idea, etc. (RQ6) - Special success = skill / 10, critical success = 1% exactly (RQ6 with a smidge of CoC7) - No magic system; ideally a "roll your own magic system" section, but that will take lots of time and effort to write. - Difficulty factors based on +/-20% increments or doubling / halving chances of success (BRP w/ RQ6 o
  13. I had to read the OP's description twice (or more?) before I understood what was happening. Arguably one can restate the rule as "a skill in a specific weapon also applies without penalty to similar weapons." But just because a solution is venerable doesn't mean it's optimal. Most people think one sword is much like another, but I can imagine arguments about whether a khopesh, gladius, or scimitar is sufficiently like a falchion to use without penalty. (Maybe, no, and yes.) Also I wonder why weapon skills get singled out for this "simplification". Why not have Fast Talk, Harangue, Blat
  14. If your skill in a Shortsword also applies to other forms of sword, why not call it "Sword" instead of "Shortsword"? Why "Glaive-Guisarme" instead of "Polearm"? Why have the extra verbiage explaining that specific weapon skills transfer (unmodified) to the general class? If using a longsword with the Shortsword skill imposed some sort of penalty -- which would make sense since one would use different techniques -- I could see how naming a skill after a specific weapon made sense, but if "Short Sword", "Long Sword", "Bastard Sword", et al. are all just aliases for "skill with any sword", it'
  15. Isn't this just a complicated way of having one skill for all weapons in a class? Am I missing something?
×
×
  • Create New...