• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sunwolfe last won the day on September 22 2015

Sunwolfe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

157 Excellent

About Sunwolfe

  • Rank
    Book Burner

Profile Information

  • Location
    California's drought-ridden Central Valley


  • RPG Biography
    Sigh...same as most: started with DnD, then ADnD, then...Arduin, TFT, TnT, Stormbringer, Gamma World, Traveller, hybred, hybred, hybred using Stormbringer rule set, blah, blah, blah, Warhammer, Ringworld, Hawkmoon, Elfquest, BUT...skipped over all the RQ I, II and landed on III--I'm not sure how that happened being familiar as I was with BRP-mini and playing all the other BRP based games--moved on to BRP-BGB, then RQ VI (now Mythras), then MW and finally OpenQuest. I am not, nor ever have been, a Gloranthaphile (though I respect those who are) preferring the alternate earth camp which fits my home-brew setting that folks have been playing in for nearly 40 years now.
  • Current games
    Presently GM's an OpenQuest variant and plays in a D6 Star Wars game and a 1st Edition Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game
  • Location
    Damn near smack dab in the middle of California's Central Valley
  • Blurb
    I'm a high school teacher and a bagpiper. I have a gorgeous wife, two grown daughters, a grown son, three amazing granddaughters and a grandson (yeah...the gray ain't make up); I enjoy writing and have a load of killer friends, both here on the boards and abroad!

Recent Profile Visitors

1,532 profile views
  1. Let the nerfing begin! Here's the way I interpret the ruling: it all depends on the situation. If they are disengaged/unopposed--say on a battlefield full of combat, but without any present attackers, I'd rule: for your action, roll athletics or sprint or deception and don't screw it up. I might add a difficulty boost or penalty based on the proximity of cover, enemy vigilance, physical condition, AND their plan. If they are engaged/opposed with an enemy intent on capturing, defeating or killing them, and the PC wants to "...fight their way out..." I'd say: for your action, roll dodge successfully (no fighting back only parries) and ...don't screw it up. Next round, dodge a second time (no fighting back only parries) and you've disengaged. Then run." If they are engaged/opposed but want to sneak off the battlefield, that's a bit more problematic. PC: "But my Dodge roll sucks; can I use deception--combat's scary." GM: "Hmmm, okay, let's hear it; just how do you intend to sneak off the battlefield?" PC: "Well, are there any dead horses about?" GM: (chuckles) "Oh, this better be good, 'cause this guy has I.D.ed you as a PC and wants your sh!t...if it is, I'll let you roll your deception and we'll see what happens." Regardless of his or her story, they're going to have to deal with difficulty modifiers on their rolls. I refuse to get caught up in the gritty details. Granularity is--for me, for ME--like grit in the role-playing eye: painful and no fun.
  2. High-Fives, Newt! Ordered mine and d/l-ed the .pdf. Looking forward to fielding to displaying it at my next game. Cheers!
  3. I too thought of doing this with my OQ based variant, but in the end, decided not too as I felt it did indeed make things a bit more granular and "complicated again." If my players want to do something cinematic, say, leap an extra-wide gap roof-to-roof carrying an unconscious companion, I ask 'em to burn a Hero Point and then I do my narrative hoodoo :-). If they are applying a skill and have a descent rationale for why it should have a boost, say for training or prior experience, I quickly eyeball the situation and offer them a one-shot bonus % to their skill roll. Done well, this could end up as part of my Improvement Point rewards at session's end, e.g."Bob, you approached that lock intelligently, especially when you asked if it was similar to the one on the temple doors--have an additional IP for good thinking." For my GM approach, simplicity works best. Cheers!
  4. Looking forward to hearing about it when you do!
  5. Greetings All, I agree with Aycorn and Atgxtg. I immediately began creating my own setting almost from the moment I played my first DnD game. It's one of the reasons I was so delighted in RQIII's culture-centric basis for character creation. Even though I've gravitated to a simplified BRP with a house-ruled OQ, I still use that culture-centric foundation for character creation. On the other hand, I see a point Questbird might be trying to make. I game with a tight group. We've been playing together for over four decades now. Recently we were playing a Star Wars D6-variant and having a rocking good time in an alternate SW universe. Part of the success of the game was due to the superb style, imagination and intuition of our GM--he is truly a master of the RPG craft. The other was due to the common Star Wars vocabulary we players had prior. When the GM described our ship fleeing a planet pursued by TIE fighters and taking refuge in the open belly of an opposing fleet's Star Destroyer, there was very little exposition needed. We all had the verbal and visual vocabulary from the enormous number of books we'd read and the movies we'd seen. Frankly, I have to admit to being a bit envious of that. When players are in my world, one I have tried VERY hard to make unique, I have to do a lot of "'s kinda like this, but different..." descriptions or visuals. How wonderful to simply be able to say, "he swore by Crom" or " Interdictor class star destroyer hypers in..." or "...he introduces himself as Arioch..." or "...a strange octopoidian shape was drawn in the man's blood..." and everyone gets it. Published/franchise settings can give that. Would I give up my home-brew setting? After this long?! Oh, heeeell no. It's deep, rich, and satisfying like no published setting can be and after this long, my players are there; indeed the very fact that I have to work so hard to give them visual clues is a testament to my success in creating a unique setting. I have to admit, however, the only reason I'm considering returning to my BRP Barsoom project is that my players are so familiar with Burroughs' vocabulary and Disney's visuals, I won't have to do so much to make it work. Interesting. So...Viva la'home-brew settings--the original flame of RPG-ing shines brightest there. That being said, I hope the next version of RQ the company puts out is polished to a definitive luster for the sake of those looking forward to it. Good or not--I won't buy another version. I am of Aycorn's mind on that point! I do, however, miss looking forward to Alephtar's BRP setting publications (I'm so glad they went Revolution). When the whim was on me and I or my players needed a quick change of pace: one of their settings and its appeal to a pre-known vocabulary was a boon. I also have an odd view for the 'need' for an RPG to have great art that is the opposite of many here. For me, it really isn't much of a factor. Eye candy is great, but if the game behind it sucks, I see it as nothing more than a marketing ploy. It's probably a good marketing ploy, but for me, it has never been a must as it might be for those here who cut their RPG teeth on the super art budgets of TSR or WotC. That doesn't mean I like bad art...LOL! Although I must admit a bit of nostalgia for some of the silly drawings in various early TSR publications, the Adruin Grimoires, and Judges Guild modules and game aids :-). Even with good art, I find myself telling my players, "...well, it kinda looks like that but..." :-) Cheers
  6. Hear! Hear! Hear!
  7. Think about recording some of the demos, or compiling highlights, and posting 'em to Youtube...on the...the...D101 channel! Yeah, that's the ticket! Here's to a successful Expo! Cheers!
  8. Exactly! Indeed, I think that's what it's all for. I have done just this thing when my house revisions and additions mix with OQ rulings. Therein I have waxed silly with my Apache Open Office software and modified tables, margins, fonts, point-size and colors with abandon! Oh, the joys of desk-top editing and publishing DIY powers! I wait for no man/publisher...LOL! Cheers!
  9. Greetings Newt and sundry: As I've posted in other areas of the forum, I'm interested in creating a John Carter of Mars, Sword and Planet, game setting. A few long ago conversations with Jason Durall and others about the once-upon-a-time Sword and Planet BRP possibility left me ever yearning for "...the red sea bottoms of Barsoom." I didn't get too awfully far in my attempts to interpret Barsoom's races, beasts, flyers, and radium weaponry BRP-style--though I did finish delightful re-read of Borough's series as part of my research. I decided to use MW as a foundation, along with a few other resources, Agents of the Crown, for example, as it looked promising and supported. A bit disillusioned with Chaosium's new direction, I turned to Mini-D6 instead and made further headway. After a pile of work, I did an initial Chargen test and though things went okay, I still wasn't satisfied and decided to put the project on the back burner in favor of being a player for a time instead of a GM. Now that I've used OQ to such satisfying effect as my Sword and Sandal setting engine, I'm wondering if it might not be time to take a third crack at my Barsoom.
  10. Greetings Jakob and sundry: "What skill what you use to truss someone up?" In my game, this is an opposed roll. If PCs have a knot-tying craft or specialty, they'll use that and the target will, if circumstances dictate, oppose it with a straight-up athletics roll. If the tied target beats the PC's roll, it equals escape. As a GM I have a slightly different view of such situations in that I don't want my PCs to know they've won the contest for sure...even a crit can be countered. That being said, I find skill application entertaining and try to make it a living part of my game by honoring a PCs particular mode of application. Some of my players are naturally blithe (both in-game and in life--LOL), applying their skills without much thought and moving on. Others are more fastidious, wanting to role-play the situation out, describing what they do with detail and care. In such cases, I honor that, allowing a role-playing PCs to re-apply a skill, such as a crafty-knot tying, if they recognize they've rolled poorly, as in: "I didn't fail, but, man, that 16% pretty much sucked; can I try again?" or by taking their role-play into consideration with bonuses or penalties if/when the NPC finally responds: "Okay, I loop the rope around their necks, then tie their hands, then tie their feet AND do it all behind them so they bend like a bow!" Otherwise it could simply turn out that the PC rolled a 16%, and the NPC rolled a 27% athletics and, "the first thing you notice when you return to the closet is your rope neatly arranged in a rude gesture but no prisoner." "...does anyone ever use [engineering]?" Yeppers :-) Three particular games come to mind. The first involved two PCs who had reached a legion "town" on the frontier. After an audience with the commandant, they were granted shelter. To make a long story short, they realized a few hours before sundown AND after any chance of escape had evaporated, that the soldiers were actually shape changers ready to done their bear guises with the Cobalt moon rise that evening. The twain hid themselves in a stout looking yet "unused for some time" building that they figured out had belonged to the legion's foragers: "How do we barricade the door so no one can get through with...a bundle of half rotten ursine pelts and a dozen huge pressure traps?!" I'm sure many GMs would rather use Mechanisms for such a situation, but I felt it called for more than a fix-lock type response. My next two examples involve PC concepts which leaned heavily on Engineering-like Lore skills (not OC but still BRP). Both players initially conceived their characters with similar apprentice-to-master backgrounds. The first involved a player who conceptualized themselves as an apprentice to a famous military builder. He used his Engineering skill to figure out that a supposedly god-touched statue was actually a man-powered mechanical device. He had to do this by observation only without handling/examining the device--"None may touch the holy face of Molaten! Back! Or you shall be punished for blasphemy!" He used Engineering a lot while applying his trade...especially after the architect died in transit to an important job and the PC had to masquerade as his master! The second, and best, involved a religiously pious novice who had been apprenticed to an obscure military designer. The master-designer had created a War-Wagon featuring mounted windlass crossbows that lobbed spiked and magically exploding petards. The wagon, weapons and ammunition were highly experimental, advanced, and top-secret. When assassins killed his master in an attempt to steal the plans (during a demonstration of the weapon before officials of the sponsoring government, of course), the apprentice drove off with the wagon, weapons and petards and destroyed them in a fiery explosion. Injured in the blast, he'd been fished from the river by a good-natured priest. After recovery, he learned that he'd been blamed for the assassination and that his family had been summarily executed for his "crime." To add insult to injury, he also learned that the original assassins were not so fooledth by his supposed death and were actively in search of him--along with agents of his own country! "By the sun-god's fiery balls! If I'm going to be blamed for it all, I'm gonna get my money's worth!" he declared and quietly left the country for the continent. Holing up in an abandoned warehouse in one of the largest cities in my world, the PC began building his own war-wagon and armaments with an intent to sell them to the highest bidder, plans and all. That guy used a lot of Engineering-type rolls, let me tell you :-). Cheers!
  11. Newt, Mankcam, Simlasa and sundry, I am so stoked about this "refresh," I just have to make a few more comments. Feel free to ignore me, gentle reader, if my gushing happiness that yet another game I've invested myself into is NOT going the way of the Dodo embarrasses you. It's fascinating and gratifying to me that even though our reasons and approaches differ, even though we produce individually unique game results, we're all satisfied with the same game mechanic (Newt, I know we're but a small sampling, but, if you ever needed more confirmation than you already have...:-)! I came OQ (following MW) for its simplicity and the room it gave me and my players to role-play without an overabundance of dice-rolling, book consultation or conflict resolution flavors to learn. Mankcam, some of the things OQ affords you a break from when you're settling in to leisurely, "...crack a few goblin heads... :-)"--setting plausibility, the nature of its mythos and the world's inner workings--are the very things my players complained that rules-heavy versions of BRP (in all fairness I must admit: as I employed them) had gotten in the way of. My setting has been ongoing for almost four decades now. Over time, with each iteration of BRP, layers of mechanics had settled on it like sediment until my game was damn near fossilized. For example, almost no one wanted to play a magic user so burgeoning had the process of spell casting become, and combat was like watching a slow tennis match. I was guilty of Rules-Creep in the first degree and nobody was having "...junior high..."-like fun. After some soul and system searching, I concluded the SQ/OQ model was the best fit for me and my crew. My setting is more Sword, Sandal and Divinity than it is Sword, Sorcery and High Fantasy (think linothorax, horse hair corinthian helmets and god-touched avatars rather than chainmail habergeons, sponges helms and fire-breathing dragons--though Howard and Leiber have surely been an influence), where simple Dungeon Crawling, though not unknown, is quite rare. Even so, SQ/OQ still fits my well as, low and behold, Mankcam's old school gonzo goodness! Even though I don't use a lot of "...random tables full of crazy possibilities..." as Simlasa's OQ does--OQ still fits our games Tah-dah!. Even though my games are more about marching armies, city-state skullduggery and religious fanatics than evil sorcerers, nesting monsters and treasure hunting, which OQ does well--SQ/OQ still fits our games. And I just want to say, I bloody well LOVE that and think it's awesome! There...I'm good now. Seriously though, Newt, thanks for keeping this a living game and not letting it go. Cheers, mates!
  12. Newt, I am looking forward to this refresh with great anticipation. I am particularly pleased to hear your production plans AND that you came to the conclusion that OQ has a place in the D100 continuum; I could not agree more. After MW's future was sealed, I felt adrift. I was not comfortable with the heavier BRP iterations. I eventually realized I was looking for something simpler, and yet something that was still BRP. OQ turned out to be what I was looking for: simple yet adjustable, lots of room for role-playing. The additions and changes you outlined sound excellent. I'm particularly eager to read your Shamanism modifications. Cheers, mate!
  13. Absolutely nothing stops you from playing it that way, surely. That's the joy of D100: we each get to play it just the way we'd like--and it works out perfectly :-) Cheers!