Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


fmitchell last won the day on September 6 2015

fmitchell had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

80 Excellent

About fmitchell

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • 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

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. (Arise, stale thread! Arise!) Unfortunately I spent way too much on the Aces & Eights Kickstarter, mainly because of the Shot Clock. I'll probably regret it. Any comments about the Western system itself?
  10. Not having played it, I think it provided a "Platonic ideal" of RPGs, or at least something close to The Simplest Thing That Could Possibly Work. It tossed out all the wargaming mishegoss of hit points, armor points, movement rates, damage dice, modifiers for every little situation, and so on. Did you roll better than your opponent? Then you Did the Thing! If it's an extended contest, you each roll to Do the Thing until one person Did It more than the other and/or Did It the required number of times first. Granted, the "cancel masteries and roll low then calculate a success level" mec
  11. A crazy idea I had two weeks ago, but which I thought it ate: Off the top of my head, what if we always rolled 2d6 - 2d6 for damage, adding a fixed positive damage modifier for a weapon (and +db) and a fixed negative damage modifier for armor? E.g. a Scimitar (1d8+1) would have a +5 damage modifier; with a decent Damage Bonus (+1d6, for example), that would be +8. Leather and Ring armor (1d6+1) would take away -4 of that damage. So the average damage would still be 4, but the standard deviation would always be +/-3.42. or roughly 3. That is, about two-thirds of the time you'd get the
  12. Unless your Glorantha includes a Time Turner.
  13. Maybe also with a section on making monsters, because that's what I end up doing anyway (when I'm not making humans or stock monsters weird/creepy despite their familiarity).
  14. FWIW, Numenera has a limit to the number of one-use "cyphers" a character can carry. Beyond that, they react unpredictably and start losing power / melting down / going off. The number ranges from 2 to 5 (6?), but cyphers can literally do anything. In another hypothetical game maybe there's a separate, higher limit for health potions, minor amulets of luck, and the like. For that matter, you could look at D&D spells not as mystic potential but as little gizmos that "magic-users" carry around.
  15. While most of us like the variety of d100 magic systems, sometimes a setting or set of players would like one system that stretches from the minor buffs and curses of Battle Magic to the heights of Sorcery (or Divine Magic). Battle Magic at first blush seems like a good basis for such a system; just convert spells from Sorcery or elsewhere to a fixed or variable MP cost. However that cost may be huge, and a master magician will need pockets full of Magic Point Stores. Ways to mitigate that cost that I've thought of (i.e. stolen) include: Instead of using their own MP, master magic
  • Create New...