Sunwolfe

High-Fives, Newt! Ordered mine and d/l-ed the .pdf. Looking forward to fielding to displaying it at my next game. Cheers!

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!

Looking forward to hearing about it when you do!

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 "...it's kinda like this, but different..." descriptions or visuals. How wonderful to simply be able to say, "he swore by Crom" or "...an 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

Hear! Hear! Hear!

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!

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!

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.

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!

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 game...as 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!

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!

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!

Thanks Jason! Much appreciated :-)

I see where you're coming from on this and agree. It takes a round to ready a weapon. In my game, however, that only represents their combat action; they still get a Reactive Action (dodge or parry) in response to an incoming attack during the round they ready the weapon. That's what shields on the off hand are for ;-))) That's a good question. Presumably you could house-rule that archers with ranged skills of >100% could split their attacks and launch multiple arrows. It might have something to do with limitations on rate-of-fire and physically loading the weapon.

Heya, Karask! "You can cast Avoidance up to POWx3 meters as well, right?" Well, that's for you as the GM to call. In my game, Avoidance is a Touch range spell and cannot be cast at distance. There is no reference to it being "Ranged" in the description and it just felt right to me (no pun intended). Another question. When starting Sorcerers or Priests the rules say +40 to the appropriate skill but it doesn't say what to remove to "pay" for that extra 40 (which other PCs won't benefit from). How to you balance that? (Just asking... probably I won't allow sorcery/divine spells at the beginning) In a way you answered your own question :-) I assume you're talking about the "Start with a Religion (Chosen Cult) of INT+40" and "Start with a Sorcery Casting INT+40" on page 20. These are Advance Magic (Optional) rules for players who want to start out with more experienced casters who have gone beyond Battle Magic. That +40 points reflects a more experienced character. Nothing needs to be removed from the other points pools to balance things out. Usually players start out with Battle Magic, "...at the beginning..." and later advance to Divine or Sorcery based on game play and history. BTW, if you have a Close Combat oriented character who grouses a bit about the casters getting a +40% break, toss 'em an extra 40 points to divide up amongst their melee skills (close, ranged, unarmed, dodge). Cheers!

Greetings Karask: As I rule it in my games... I don't believe provision has been made in the RAW for splitting magical attacks--for a Divine magic user this would be problematic anyway considering they are "...automatically successful" when they cast as it's really the gods doing it for them. I believe the ruling was making the point that it only takes a short moment to "cast" (call down) a divine spell, emphasizing the point (130). I believe the case might be made for a 100%+ Religion (Own) priest or a 100%+ Mage to split their skill for the casting of multiple attack spells similarly to Close Combat masters who can split their skill and attack twice (63). That would fall into the realm of house-ruling. As far a the B.M. ranged thing goes, notice that the description says, "...allows the target..." (109). Presumably this means that a caster can cast Vomit or Extra Defense on someone up to "...POWx3 in meteres..." away (100). At the INT and DEX you describe, Alice is going to ace Bob and get to take her Combat Action before he gets to take his Combat Action, BUT that being said, Bob will attempt to resist her spell. If he tries to do so with a Dodge, that'll be his Defensive Reaction. If he needs to resist using Persistence or Resilience, a closer look at the Resist trait description suggests such are not counted as a Defensive Reaction--they seem to happen automatically on a metaphysical level. Thus, INT and DEX are for the sake of order only--who goes first, NOT necessarily for counting exactly when things occur in the round. Be careful not to get caught up in the, "Well, her Vomit spell occurred on INT 16 and his attack wouldn't even have started until DEX 12, so he's vomiting because he didn't get a chance to resist...blah-blah-blah." You will go down a rabbit hole so deep your game may not recover. Cheers! _____________ Two things that were helpful to me in wrapping my head round ti were: 1.) Think of it as Alice beginning her casting at the top of the round and then releasing (casts) her spell on her INT rank. What happens after that, well, we'll just have to see. 2.) Think of parries, dodges and resistances as happening whenever they are needed. They don't have to follow strict I-attack:You-attack protocol. Bob will try to resist Alice's Befuddle spell when the time is right, using Persistence. It'll happen without conscious thought.

Hmmm. That's interesting. They're MLA style page references for the OQ 2nd Edition Deluxe hard cover and accompanying .pdf (which though its pages are numbered the same, the .pdf is chronologically off by one because the numbering includes the cover). (16) is referring to the Damage Modifier table in the center of the left hand column. (30) is referring to the right-column box "Game Master's Advice" and specifically the "When to call for a skill test" advice concerning when to call for a skill test. (60) is referring to the "Ready Weapon" ruling at the bottom of the left hand column. Cheers!

Hi, Karask! Bloody Grappling! We wrestled with this so much (pun intended) and finally found a resolution (posted earlier) we felt was in keeping with OQ simplicity but filled in the holes we felt were there: And I'm glad to report that it has worked out so far and no one has been hurt but the bad guys, BUT, my grappler is justifiably wary of how badly things could go south if her opponent decides to parry her grappling attempt with a broadsword. Cheers!

Hey, Karask! Interesting questions. Sounds like you're hosting an active and lively table. Cheers! The following is how I would rule your scenarios at my table. A caveat is in order, however, to avoid repetition: I adopted OQ over other BRP iterations because I was looking for simplicity. Over the years "Rules-Creep" (a common BRP malady) had contributed to less and less roleplaying and more and more simulation at my table. The RPG fun we'd had when I was a teen was in short supply. As adults, we'd evolved into rule-oriented discussioneers as apposed to roleplaying engineers. Thus, though I have tinkered with OQs mechanics (another BRP disease and as mentioned in other posts), I am a hard-core advocate of keeping it simple, believing that less time in dice-rolling means more time for role-playing. With that in mind...off we go! :-) 1.a.) In the spirit of the rules (30) if the situation was not critical or performed under stressful conditions, I'd rule that there was no need for a skill roll and that the application was successful. Next, I'd ask the healer to: "...roll 1d6 and see how well you did." 1.b.) Because I don't use hit-locations to keep track of such things, I would only allow the Healer a single roll for the overall HP damage regardless of how many minor wounds the injured took. 2.) Each combat round is about 5 seconds. Considering all that goes on, or could go on, in a combat round, I feel that's a good middle ground for me without going full Youtube-and-a-stop-watch simulationist on my role-playing crew. While the Ready-Weapon rule does say it takes "...one combat round" to do so; later the paragraph also says it takes "A single Ready-Weapon action..."(60). Thus, I rule readying a weapon takes their Combat Action, but they still get their Defensive Reaction if they need it (60). BRP combat in any of it's iteration is deadly by nature. I try to avoid taking any advantages from my players. 3.) It's all about the Damage Modifier table, baby (16)! That troll has a SIZ and STR of 52 and thus gets a DM +2d6 to his 1d6 claw. The dragon on the other claw, has a SIZ and STR of 135 and thus gets his apocalyptic +7d6 DM adde to his 1d8 claw. Looks like your table has been written for you :-) 4.) I say no as well; indeed, it's the PC who's in trouble. A shield bash is an attack and therefore a Combat Action. What you've described is a Defensive Action. If it was my troll, I'd decide if the 1d6+2d6 claw was a medium, large, or huge weapon (I'm going with medium). Thus, after the PC's successful parry, I'd ask him if his shield was a small, medium, large or huge? If the PC's parrying shield/weapon was medium sized, our hero is good to go as it blocks all the troll's damage. If it was small, however, PC's going to take half of troll boy's damage because he's blocking a medium attacking weapon with a small parrying weapon. Could be Major Wound time. As for that dragon, I'll be conservative and call the claws (plural) large. PC better at least have a large shield (hoplon or sputum) and an amazing plan because in my game, a SIZ 135 dragon really doesn't need to engage a SIZ 14 creature with any seriousness. Enchanted armor or no, if the worm steps on the PC, concussion damage alone is going to break something that would probably have been better left whole. And if the surface beneath the PC is unyielding stone...well, yeah, there it is. Anyway, there's my perspective! YOCMV! Cheers, mate!

Me too! Me too!

Greetings, Cdr: Caveat before we begin: what follows is how I rule such things for my game. Whatever you feel is right and in keeping with the timbre of the game you want...is right. 1. I use the Fighting Retreat rule on page 60: A character may move their full Movement directly away from an enemy he is fighting. He may only defend at +25% (+50% with a Medium and Large shield). In such a case I give the bad-guy a free shot if the situation warrants it. If the PCs are trying to disengage completely, I ask them to Dodge at the above penalty. If they are successful, they've completely broken off and the foe, for whatever reason, did not pursue them. A lot depends on what they enemy's intentions are. If they want to kill the PCs, they'll attempt to pursue. If they are simply defending, they may not. Lots of role-play here; I just hang the rule on it. 2. Charge into a whole mass of melee-ing, squirming, milling, fighting dudes. The more foolish and heroic the better ;-). Regardless, the PC is going to have to choose and direct their attack (and the +1d6 bonus) against a particular target. 3. As long as the target of the charge is w/in the charger's distance envelop (5 - 10m), the charger gets the bonus: +1d6 AND the "attack from behind' +25% and the penalty: no reaction to return-attacks. 4. I do NOT allow the penalty (no reaction) to roll over (no more than I would the bonus). Even though your PC is waiting to the end of the round (which kinda makes sense with Great Attack's wind-up and all), the target he hits is going to react, and (unless the target receives a major wound from the attack or has already used up their attack on another target) then he's going to attack your PC in turn. I rule, however, that all that happens in the same round as the attack. When it's all finished, we move on to the next round. If your smart PC has had the luxury of waiting until the bottom of the round (DEX rank X) AND is attacking a target already engaged or has used up their combat action on that other target, so much the better for your PC :-). Cheers!

Greetings all, Just adding my two cents to this wonderful conversation! Good call Newt. Keep those refresh-cards close until you're ready to pull the trigger . IMHO leave the damn resistance table out. To me, it's a symbol of crunch and munch, and I want squish and swish. Other BRP iterations have plenty of rules-creep and granular bits for those who want depth and distraction; indeed, the chart's absence is one of the reasons I've picked OQ over those variations. Highest roll wins in my games. It's quick, easy and keeps the action moving. You roll; I roll. Mine's higher: I win. Done. No additional steps; no extra calculations; no chart consults; no inner maths...just more immersion and mood to enjoy. Regardless of skill disparities, there is always a chance to roll a critical or a fumble that can change the fate and fortune of the lowest or highest percentage. My players role-play very hard for their Improvement Points and deserve to have as big a chance to nail that skill as their percentage can offer. This is why I shy away from crunchy degrees of success, happily discarding "specials" in favor of Critical, Success, Fail, and Fumble. That's more than enough. Don't get me wrong, I've changed and modified a lot of OQ's rules, particularly where magic is concerned (developing Newt's single magic system idea mentioned in an earlier thread). I say change it until it feels right for your group and style (ah, the beauty of BRP) but for me and my players, storytelling and roleplaying trumps mechanical simulation and thus, OQ's simplicity and a swift problem solving mechanic are the way to go. As far as a refresh goes, IMHO, Newt couldn't go far wrong with a simple clean, correct, and clarify. Art work is wonderful, but I don't play art. Textual clarity is more important to me than illustration. If I need a picture of a lamia that more accurately represents them as they are in my game setting, I'll either verbally draw it myself or use Pinterest to help me out, but that's just me . Cheers, mates!

The section explaining the point distribution in more detail spans pages 19 and 22. The section of it you want says: "Finally, distribute 40 points to one skill and 20 points each to three skills not listed with your occupations. These represent personal interests, hobbies, and learning outside the scope of your Adventurer's occupation, and the points may not be added the previously selected skills" (22). Thus, you're free to add those points to skills of your choice as long as they aren't perviously chosen skills. Cheers!

Nope its a case of Protection offers 1d8, that's it. If you want more than 1d8 you learn different spell say "Bob's Amazing Shield" which gives you an increased amount of protection that overrides the Protection spell. Oh, I see. Interesting...hmmm (Sunwolfe muses). Thanks for the reply, Newt! Cheers!

Absolutely! The, "...PC must face parry damage..." mentioned above is a reference to just such parries. Rather than minimum damage, however, I go with the "...rolled damage of the parrying weapon, with no damage modifier" (58). Great description, by the way: "...8 unarmed but dangerous Adepts of the Yellow Mountain in the dining room of their ape-temple." Awesome. Cheers!