Sunwolfe

Brilliant! I've already done my own highlighting, underlining and annotating disfigurement, but this is a great idea!

This is an excellent thread Chaot. Just want to cast my vote for "keep 'em comin'!". It is extremely informative. Maybe it can inspire me to something worth adding other than kudos. Until then, great idea.

Wow ! That is insane. It must have been seriously frustrating, as in I-need-a-drink-because-it-makes-more-sense-that-way frustrating. It's too bad a higher quality scan couldn't have been done and made available to you. Thanks for soldiering on despite the challenges, Ben! Cheers!

Miihkali, I would argue that MW Combat is absolutely not "...detailed/advanced/tactical/something like that...". I agree with tooley1chris, that the "spot rules in MW can add a lot..." of flavor options for a wily player or a colorful GM, but do not let my saying such led you to believe it's another layer of advancement. Nope. If you like Stormbinger combat, especially Stormbringer 5th ed, you're gonna love MW combat...LOL!...as it's nearly word for word. Cheers!

While I absolutely do admire their courage and with full heart offer them an enthusiastic round of applause as well as continued support from my wallet (as I have for over 30 years), I will not pretend, as many do, that the company is some sort of a sacred cow, that their business sense doesn't leave something to be desired or that their customer service couldn't improve. I'm sorry my words sadden you Rosen, I truly am, but on this we'll agree to disagree.

Hmmm...interesting question. I dunno of any "inside scoop", but if I were to speculate...and that's all it would be: pure unadulterated speculation...it seems to me that there's a steady forward movement over at Design Mechanism focused solely on the (BRP rooted) RQ6--remarkably steady for a company that is essentially two guys...two very dedicated, savvy and talented guys--that is lacking in another small-company-with-limited-resources that will remain nameless. If I were a published author (and I'm not, so I'm totally talking out of my ass at the moment--feel free to take pot-shots), I know which company I'd offer my goodies to. I'm just sayin' . Cheers!

You can go the Quick Start route, but honestly, MW RAW is a pretty easy to understand, so if it was me, I'd go with the full rules set rather than the QR. Cheers, mate! And good luck :-)

Dude, high-five

Hear! Hear! I do something very similar: single skill. I raised the minimum statistics, however, as a limiting factor and my MW magic-users need at least a 17 in both POW and INT. The "ruling" was meant to convey how rare it was for someone to have magical skills potential though, not necessarily to limit the PCs. I'm preping a campaign for a bevy of six magic users--it's gonna be interesting :-) Cheers

As an after school extra-curricular activity, this high school teacher is all thumbs up. Not only may such games teach some practical math skills in light of game mechanics but also interpersonal skills such as planning ahead, thinking a problem through, cooperation and positive social interaction. As a tool in the classroom itself? I think, save in the most rare and abbreviated of circumstances, the price in time is just too high. A lack of interest on the part of the majority is another factor. That, and it would be a seriously hard-sell to administration. I may use a short role-playing as a method to illustrate, say, the behavior a literary knight was expected to have toward a Lady of his class or how Beowulfian boasting may have sounded around Heorot's fire, but the only dice rolling I do in my classroom is to see which in-class essay test prompt my students have to address on their unit finals afterwards :-). Cheers,

Dude, I just ghawphed on my computer screen!

Chronicler's Companion Chronicler's Screen (with a booklet of forms and play aids) All the Worlds' Monsters Vol. 1 (big book of monsters for MW) Horsechester (details on a small town in the Southern Reaches, and some adventures) Shillingshead (details on a larger town in the Southern Reaches, plus adventures) ...After that, there's another few books in various stages of development... Awwwwww, yeeeeeaaaaaah! Thanks for sharin' Ben! Next time Dave heads your way; I'll see if I can have him bring you an even bigger beer!

Hear-hear, Nakana! I second that opinion. Sigh. It's such a lousy situation. Because Chaosium is a small company, and hardly run along traditional lines, they throw the majority of their limited energy at their biggest bread winner CoC, then BRP and finally MW in that order. Considering financial circumstances that's understandable, but as a result MW seems to be getting short-shrift in basic areas. I mean really, a Chronicler's Companion? Not a scenario supplement or a sandbox or a setting (Lord, Can you imagine what it would be like to get one of those published!?), but a basic GM help takes how long to publish? I'll bet Ben and crew had that bad boy written and laid out last year. Can you imagine being the editor/authors...waiting...and waiting...and waiting...and waiting? "Oh, yes! I want to write and submit material for MW and wait years before its published" said no game designer ever! But I guess that's the nature of the beast...shrug. Realistically, as Chaosium's November Newsletter hardly mentions MW, I cannot imagine seeing the ChCom before next year; I wonder if by that time there will be any enthusiasm left for the game :-T. "We had to discontinue MW line due to a lack of interest." Such a Catch-22 :-( . Sorry guys, I didn't mean to beat a dead horse or be a Daisy-downer, but we had such a good MW game last night, and it's still rather fresh. I wish, I wish, I wish...aw, nuts. Just disregard the raving lunatic in the corner.

Nice, Stoat! Addin' it to the collection.

Huzzah!

Greetings, tooley1chris! A couple of things came to me as I read the background rationale to your dungeon. What is the interface between the ark's thawing out and the outside world? Besides local rumor and legend, how and in what way do explorer's hear about the place? I could imagine it might be the folk who live at the mountain's foot and are possibly being stalked by the decanted and "...hungry..." creatures. I'd also like to hear your thoughts on why an adventuring party would enter such a place. What's the motivation: the love of adventure; an altruistic motivation to help the locals deal with a horde of newly-woken-hungry-creature; rumors of wealth or artifacts? Though I am not a dungeon fan per se, coming at MW as I do from the RQ end of things, I appreciate all your efforts to keep MW vibrant and active. Keep up the good work . Cheers!

I agree with Vile. I prefer to role play social conflict where possible; indeed, my games are nearly 75-80% role play and investigations/research/travel and 20-25% combat. Admittedly we run discussion-conversation (and bull-shit ) heavy games. That being said, when I need a mechanic, and sometimes I do, I use the RQ6 "Social Conflict" mechanism. You mentioned Passions, nclarke, but have your read the Social Conflict mechanic suggested on pages 427 and 28 of the RQ6 rule book? In brief, for those who don't know, it goes something like this: identify/frame the social conflict (bargaining is a good one where I might want to go a little crunchy); decide how long the bargaining might go--seconds, minutes, rounds, etc.; choose the appropriate social skill for each side (Commerce or oratory for example); roll by turns...again, how many depends on how long the conflict goes; the first character to reach 100% or more over the course of the social conflict "wins". It can go rather fast. At the end of the time period decided on by the GM, the difference in rolls between the opponents describes the degree of success. Say for example party A scores 130% and party B scores a 90%, not only did A win the conflict, but the 40% difference described A's degree of success: a good bargain, or a great bargain, or an outstanding bargain--as per GM's judgement. In a religious argument, if I didn't want to use Passions, I could decided that the characters must pit their Oratory skills against the NPCs. I have done this btw, especially when players hadn't got into their characters religion enough to argue its theological underpinnings in role play (our games can get very heavy into character-culture), but once...for a glorious half an hour...a couple of my players did argue, loudly and passionately, their particular sectarian views as members of the same religious community with differing views on the nature of spiritual reality. The role play was singular. The other players watched open mouthed as these two guys went at it. No mechanism or rolling required. I gave out serious experience rolls for that one! That's the way I really like social conflict to go :-) Cheers!

IMHO...leave it alone. As mentioned above the BRP forum is subtitled "...and general d100 discussions". That should cover concerns. There are six subforum for presently active BRP/d100 related RPGs on the market. Questions about those specific games make sense posted there. All else goes to the BRP. Regardless of origin, it is the presently the defacto treasure trove from which to glean mechanics material and the base line most of the above refer or nod to. In addition, splitting it up might set a precedent with unintended consequences: What about a Corum forum? a Stormbringer! forum, an Elric forum, a Dragon Lords of Melnibone (LOL!) forum, an Elf-quest forum, a Ringworld forum, a Hawkmoon forum, a Runequest 2, a Runquest 3, a BRP Glorantha...etc., etc. Just my two cents.

I think you're on to something MatteoN. I read that rule and thought along similar lines. While it has yet to be tried or even contemplated adequately, I've come up with the following. I haven't kicked the tires yet, but I want to add this or something similar to the Attack Defense Matrix. Attack - Parry Failure - Critical: Defender ripostes with non-parrying weapon; parrying weapon lowers attacking weapon's HP by 2; dodger may disengage without penalty Failure - Special: Defender’s parrying weapon lowers attacking weapons HP by 1 Failure - Success: Defender rolls normal parrying weapon damage against attacking weapon’s HP Failure - Failure: No damage; no effect on either side: swish Failure - Fumble: No damage; no effect. Defender rolls on appropriate fumble table. Edited for format and minor errors

I'm curious how you all handle this situation--it tends to be a squishy one in our group. Whether at the top of the round or the bottom, the aggressor attacks, but fails (no fumble--just failure) and the defender then...what? How do you handle it when the attacker fails and the defender, who would normally parry, is left with 'nothing' to parry? Do you rule that your defenders must still parry? What happens if they succeed? What happens if they crit? Can your defenders turn the tables and take advantage of the situation to attack instead of parry? Does the GM use exposition to describe what happens? Do both parties simply blink and politely go on or finish the round as if the situation never occurred? How does it go in your games? Cheers! Edited for minor punctuation errors

Hey, Darkholme: In my humble opinion I was missing nothing by not having the precursors to MW. MW and AS stand strong and well on their own. If, however, you want to add to or modify some of the mechanics, it's nice to have them as a reference. For example, I wanted to add the "Ki" mechanic from RQ III's "Land of Ninja" (which, again in my opinion, has a different feel than AS's Arete) and it was convenient to have the tome on my shelf, as well as RQIII for which the ruling was written. I also wanted to offer a choice to my warrior-types during the Statements phase of the MW combat round wherein they could choose to go for an impale, bleed, crush, entangle or knock-back special success rather than the special success result as written in MW. I was grateful to have had my RQ III, SBV, BRP BGB and RQVI on hand to reference as I tinkered with the mechanics. In the final analysis, however, I could have simply played MW as is happily and most satisfactorily without said references having a rip-roaring time. I'm sure I'm not alone in this experience. Cheers,

It sounds as if few employ the POW gain mechanic (Durnall 92), and I was wondering why this was or what trouble they have experienced with the ruling? I realize much of how we conduct our games has to do with personal taste and vision and with that in mind I offer that magic users in my games have never shied away from burning permanent POW to create such things as artifacts and undead, or to summon, [i use a lightly modified RQ3 Ritual Magic for such actions] because they were actively gaining POW through the rule mentioned above. It always seemed that my PCs had more than enough POW to attempt such magics and did not feel the bite save only for the very short term...shrug. If a Magic User wanted to create such an "army" of zombies, it would be possible with planning, banking and a clever application of their POW points; indeed, that would be an adventure in and of itself. I had a duo of such spell casters build nearly 60 POW between them in only a couple of sessions following a plan they'd devised to accomplish just such. I also like using the BRP mechanic as it gives rule and limitation for how a Necromancer conducts their fell art that the PCs can understand and either take advantage of, or in the case of a PC Magic User, employ themselves. Cheers!

I must say up front that I admire your industriousness, Chris. You've either got some serious powers of concentration and discipline or a lot of free time :-) While they are a bit more classic fantasy than my RPG palate prefers, they are nonetheless creative and, on first read through, look quite playable depending on party size and make up. The situations are open-ended enough that a Chronicler could run with them as far as creativity and player character interests take the game, but they also have the feel of a one-shot short that could simply add flavor to a larger story line. Well done. I agree with Chaot, however, tightening up and standardizing the lay-out would not only save a lot of space but would also give your document a positive and professional polish. Don't get me wrong, it's functional and the work you put toward it may be all the effort you have time for, but it could give your Treks a look that would only serve to enhance their appeal. I might also gently suggest that if you can, find a proof reader who would be willing to give you some sound feedback concerning tightening up the copy. While for the most part your grammar is sound, things like the proper use of possessives and such can really add to readability. I'm not a big fan of computer mapping and imagery. In my opinion such maps take up a lot of space and the figures are a bit too static, and while I understand that many people find such things helpful and I assume the maps are for those who enjoy the use of miniatures, wouldn't your time be better spent creatively on the scenarios while leaving the road-scapes to the Chronicler to describe? Just a thought. Regardless, hats off to you, mate! Thanks for all your work, time and effort. Keep it up!

For what it's worth, I say just do what you're inspired to do...Chronicler Companion or no CC. You can always adjust later. The creativity must flow! Long live the fighters!

After decades, we finally grasped the idea...and threw it out the window . We now use simple DEX ranks "You're faster. You'll go first. You'll go second. The sarcosuchus goes third and the barbarian goes last. Now, make your Statements (or wills) and let's make crocodile skin wallets!" The concept gets through our thick skulls and is easier on our simple brain matter. Slainte!