Jump to content

Sunwolfe

Regulars
  • Posts

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Sunwolfe

  1. I used the OQ SRD as a base but seriously hacked it and built my own lean-rules booklet.
  2. Good luck and Godspeed, my friend. Sending you and your team good wishes and creative vibes! Cheers, mate!
  3. I know it's pretty accepted on the boards to bag on statements-of-intent. I get it. They can be unwieldy and interrupt the flow of combat. I still call for at least one however, at the beginning of the first melee round. It's a given that no battle-plan survives the first shot, and players are going to change their minds as circumstances on the ground develop, but I like melee to have an agreed starting point wherein, within reason, each player knows what they plan to do and how they (hopefully) plan to handle the initial situation at hand. In the excitement of melee, I always have those players who will do their damndest to be everywhere and do everything at once, but with an initial statement of intent to anchor things, the melee can develop an a linear fashion with a clear agreed starting point. I know where the PCs are; the players know where their PCs are, and everyone has had a chance, subject to circumstances, to "get ready." After the fur-ball plays itself out and if things went to hell-in-a-hand-basket turning ugly, players have a ground-zero point to reference, helping them to more readily accept the outcome. No: "I lost my arm?! But I was over on the left attacking the troll!" "How could the spell have hit me if I was behind the magic shield?!" "But I'm using my magic X on Z, not my Y!" "I said I was running!" "I'm going to A with my B, or no, Y with my Z, okay...that's what I'm doing. Huh? What do you mean I already used the Z?! I just pulled it out." "No! No! I was in front of the wagon, so I know I had line-of-sight on the sorcerer!" "But I thought I was over on A...under B... fighting with my C...casting an X...talking to Y...listening to Z...etc." For me, in my game, an initial statement of intent gives me a handle on where my players are, and they feel they've had their moment to consider the circumstances and employ their PCs in a way that seems acceptable and advantageous to them. I feel such a moment can forestall much misunderstanding and butt-hurt.
  4. Heya Newt! One of the things I enjoy most about OQ is the ease at which I can make any changes/additions/revisions my preference, need, or taste requires. In some ways, I feel that's my part, so I can make the game my own. Therefore any suggestions I offer should be taken with a grain of salt, and because of that, I'm only going to offer one ;-). In the end, though I voted, I really want you to pursue the option you're most excited about--the one you think about when you wake up in the morning--the one you look forward to working on--the one that's going to make you feel the most happy and creative while doing it--the one you'll feel fulfilled about when you're done. That one will be the absolute best! Damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead. Create like your hair's on fire, and you can't stop laughing! Cheers mate!
  5. My heart froze for moment when I heard the news this afternoon. Deepest sympathies and condolences to his family and kin. Words fail--I owe him such a debt of gratitude for his imagination, inspiration and the games he shared with us. Thanks for your creativity and your heart's magic, Greg; I wish I'd gotten the chance to tell you so in person. Farewell and Godspeed!
  6. This is a fantastic idea I've used to great effect in both gaming sessions and in my creative writing. It is also an easy way to add background depth to a PC for little or no outlay, and it's fun to tease them with the Who, When, Why, etc. of the piece. It's like insta-backstory...just add player. Imagine a naive pre-play PC who has "borrowed" a family"lucky" necklace heir loom for an adventure without a clear understanding that each pendant contains the spirit of a spell casting and protective grandmother. Each of whom, being good "moms" and in an effort to look out for their grand baby, perform simple yet random acts of magic on their behalf: charming a: "...local good girl/guy for you..."; improving hearing: "...you need to listen more..."; enhancing appetite: "...eat more porridge; it's good for you"; inducing vomiting "...purge those drinking demons, young man!" LOL...too much fun. Cheers,
  7. Though I don't believe this is the response you're looking for, you did say "Any thoughts?" One: I have found that the BRP family of mechanics can't cover every eventuality or theoretical extremity. The mechanics--from my point of view and experience--just can't support such granularity comfortably, and I find it's not fun for me when I try to force them to. I dunno...just me, I guess. Two: From a role-playing perspective, If you attacked "...a trained martial artist who is aware but...decide[d] not to parry or dodge..." in my game, I'd rule that not only did you have a 100% shot, I wouldn't even make you roll for it. In fact, if you did roll for it, I'd give you the full chance for a 100% skill based critical (or fumble--to be fair)--I wouldn't care if your skill was 20%...no 10%. No...no, I'd even go so far as to give you bonuses for a bigger than 100%chance at a critical hit if you took your time and carefully staged your shot. Screw that...I'd just give you the critical hit! See above. Cheers and may all your martial enemies decide not to parry or dodge 🙂
  8. Fascinating. Thanks for sharing Daniel.
  9. Heya Chris! It's been a bit, for sure. Glad you dropped a word! Did you ever imagine you'd become something of a torch bearer? It's wild how the world turns. I remember back in '07 when the BGB was just a crazy idea, and I joined BRP Central...LOL! 🤯. I suspect I'm like many of the old crew: I lurk a couple of forums pretty consistently but rarely contribute, finding I no longer have a lot in common. A bit ironic considering, but...shrug...that's the way of things. For example, even though I'm not a Gloranthaphile, I still checked out the RQ game forum until recently, but it's focus has gradually turned from the game itself to how it interfaces with the world it was designed for. I was reminded of that by a well-meaning poster who pointed out that the game and the world are too intertwined to keep the topics separate. I get it, and the Glorantha folk have waited a long time. I GMed MW for a couple of small campaigns. I turned to tinkering with OQ like Sean_RDP and am now prepping to run my own mix of MW/OQ/Sunwolfe. LOL. I still refer to MW/SB resources a lot. Your work has ever been appreciated by those of us who still enjoy MW. It's always nice to see something interesting and easily adaptable, be it "new" 😉 supplements or adventures, NPC generators or fillable CS (thank you Nick_J!). But for our own sanity remember: this ain't yer daddy's Chaosium anymore...there will be no Renaissance--though the possible alternate/mythical earth version of RQ Jason hinted at does sound interesting-- with that in mind, follow your creative heart, bro. If it sounds fun for you, and you're itching to do it, go for it! Again, nice to hear from you 🙂 Cheers!
  10. Is this thread a RuneQuest question/topic or a Gloranthan question/topic?
  11. This was the subject of a wonderful painting by Sir Laurence Alma Tadema: The Pyrrihic Dance. Many Pre-Raphealite and similar styled paintings have inspired more than one of my games. Thanks for the Anabasis quotation M Helsdon!
  12. Hello Thule120, This is not necessarily a direct answer to your query, but it might be helpful. Check out Newt Newport's development of OpenQuest and use of the OGL . I eventually developed my own gaming-group-&-setting-centric version of our beloved game (for my own enjoyment and most decidedly NOT for sale, profit, or posting) using Newt's use of the OGL 1.0a as a guide. Cheers,
  13. I'm not Newt with the developer's eye and inside knowledge, but I'll take a crack at your query as a OQ-based GM. In my game, "By default...at their base values" means that the Divine and Sorcery magic systems, which require more involved background, are not available to players rolling up beginning characters. BM is more common place, less formal and therefore more available (considering the spirit of OQ wherein such magic is available to nearly everyone with the stats to support it). "...with access to it..." "It" here refers to the heretofore non-default magic systems, i.e. Divine Magic and Sorcery. "...Games Master first..." As the rule is optional, It's best to check with the GM first. If they are permitting beginning PCs to start as priests or sorcerers, huzzah! consult the "Starting with Divine Magic" OR "Starting with Sorcery" sections below. During chargen, if a player wants to be a sorcerer or a priest without going through the 0-to-Hero route, or if my campaign-plan needs such characters, I allow them access to the optional rules. I only allow characters to become "...specialists..." in one area: divine or sorcery. All characters may have a general lay member religious background, as inferred on page 19 in the table note describing "Religion (Own)," but a sorcerer's all-consuming studies and commitment to their master/order/school provides little time to become priests too. Conversely a priest devoted to a cult's inner mysteries and their insessent duty to the gods includes no time for sorcery's intense master/apprentice relationship and research. That said, priest and the sorcerer will both have had simple Battle Magic exposure.
  14. When I first saw it, they jumped off the rack crying out, "This is the game for you!" Awesome. Though I love the female hoplite/slargr combat of RQ editions, for me, this illo struck right at the heart of what I wanted out of an RPG. Thanks for posting this!
  15. Hey, Nacho! Welcome to the OQ Simplicity Club! I hope your game with the RQ3 crew works out! Good Luck! Cheers!
  16. Thanks for stopping by with the errata, Newt, and thanks for the email heads-up link. Cheers!
  17. What nDervish said (practically took the thought right out from under my finger tips :-). A lot depends on your Hero Point mechanism and how you want to play. I know you're trying to insure things are survivable for your young padawan, and that's cool, but I think by giving him so many hero points, you're setting a precedent that could come around and bite you in future if your charge decides they like the game, want to play more, and you readjust Hero Points to more judicious levels. IMHO, too many HP allow the player to avoid playing the game as it was intended, especially in combat, with a healthy dose of caution and an understanding that it's not DnD--you do not just go waltzing into a tomb figuring, "I can pick on anybody in this here bar and take their stuff." Due-diligence and role-playing are the rule of the day...not slaughter and "I've got 12 more Hero POW Points to get my ass out of trouble." Now, I'm not necessarily saying your game will go that way; I'm just saying human nature is human nature. My players (I play a house ruled BPR variant) are only given 2...at most 3...HP per session. They do not accrue they renew and there are only a few--LOL that could be the verse to a song. On the other hand, it's your game. You and you player decided what the principal of Maximum Fun means. Enjoy yourselves.
  18. A couple of fair-to-middlin' NPC companions might help soften the "...pull no punches..." standard. They can model in a couple of 'close calls' that 1.) negotiation, 2.) a planned ambush, 3.) bribery, or 4.) running the hell away are sometimes better options than death-before-dishonor. Oh, and my personal GM favorite: the principle of Maximum Game Fun (MGF) trumps rules and simulation. Good luck on making a convert!
  19. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...