Jump to content

Magic World 7E: Anyone, anyone? Bueller?...


Recommended Posts

On 5/5/2021 at 12:55 AM, GothmogIV said:

So playing online for the past year, I can tell you that a great part of D&D online is how integrated their resources are. Want a monster? Click. Want to roll an attack? Click. Want to see how a spell works? Click. It's so easy, and it is an enormous time saver for the GM. I haven't looked at the BRP stuff on Foundry, but does it have that level of interactivity? Can you roll from the Golden Book?

If Chaosium's BRP system could be supported on Roll20 in the same way that D&D is, it would be a game changer. The BRP system is better than Wizards for sure, but Wizards is easier to run, and easier to design with, in my opinion. 

 

I noticed the same thing. The 'click to roll' thing is very useful when playing online. Fortunately it's not restricted to D&D, although D&D has the most sophisticated player and GM tools. I started a Coriolis game which has a similar feature built into the character sheets. I'm sure there would be BRP versions too. I've been using roll20.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am just speaking for myself but I think Magic World's rules, for what it's trying to accomplish are already superior to 7E CoC. I wouldn't do a thing.  

MW isn't held back by its mechanics, it was held back by its lackluster presentation and the scant product line support that followed it.  Bringing the rules inline with CoC 7 wouldn't be a selli

Wasn't Call of Cthulhu big in Japan before 7e came along? IMO a big chunk of why people go on about 7e is the improved graphics... people like pretty pictures and CoC 6e was particularly fugly. So o

On 4/30/2021 at 4:21 AM, Jaeger said:

CoC in general had a decent presence in Japan. I believe it was with 6th edition that it started to really take off and put fantasy games like Sword World firmly in the rear view.

I am no expert as I have never been to Japan or speak the language - but I found a few place that track things over there, and I Like to read up on it because I find it fascinating how some RPG's can sometimes beat out D&D in different countries.

FWIW - Evidently in Japan they play CoC a bit differently than is common in the US. A strong bombastic Anime-esqe vibe with black humor seem to be the norm. But that is natural as their frame of references for certain things is different than ours

Last time I visited Japan in 2018, I went to 2 stores that were selling RPG books (the "Yellow Submarine" shops), and in both half of the shelves were filled with CoC products. Just like if you entered a hobby store and the D&D books had been replaced by CoC books. Sword World was reported as #1 sales, but a new edition had just been released.

There were even scenarios that looked like national small press releases, which I think were to be used by 2 players (1 GM plus 1 PC). They seemed pretty dark, judging by their covers, and nothing like the "R'lyeh School" books, which seem to be very humoristic.

I my first trip to Japan in 2001, it seemed to me that GURPS was much more popular, with Japanese language sourcebooks dedicated to anime-inspired settings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2021 at 5:20 PM, Nick J. said:

"Choose location" special effect in Mythras is pretty neat-o. 

On 2/13/2021 at 5:24 PM, Zenith Comics Presents... said:

Can you elaborate? Pretty please? 🙂

Nash & Whitaker -- whose current iteration of the rules is Mythras (but they began that branch of the BRP/d100 Family Tree with MRQ2, so that game, and MongooseLegend, are also very-similar) -- looked at the varying results and "exception cases" of Specials/Criticals/Fumbles, and turned the whole thing into its own subsystem of "Special Effects."

They have you compare a "margin of success" ...

It's based around the same core RQ/BRP mechanic of   Critical > Special > Normal Hit > Normal Miss > Fumble

You get one Special Effect for every level of success BETTER than your opponent (yes, you can get Special Effects on "normal" hits, if the foe rolls badly)... so long as you HIT them (i.e. you get no SE's for Missing, even if they Fumble their parry/dodge).  You get to CHOOSE your Special Effect(s).

Many of these SE's -- Ignore Armor, Maximize Damage, etc -- will be essentially the same as the good ol' "Critical Hit" and/or ""Special Hit" from RQ & BRP games.

One of those SE's -- that you asked about -- is "Choose Hit Location."  The head is a popular target (because of the possibility of a KO or insta-kill, if you zero the Head location, or drive it very-negative).  But intentional disables (legs, weapon-arm, or any previously-hit Location) can also make for good tactical choices sometimes.

There are a GREAT MANY other SE's, such as "Covered" -- your blade at their throat or other vulnerable point, you auto-roll damage if they don't follow directions.  Some are linked to specific weapons (e.g. a "Trip" or "Entangle" SE, for whips/nets/etc).  Others might be linked to specific training (Mythras call this "Combat Styles").

The big downside of this system, IMHO, is that some players or groups report substantial "Analysis Paralysis" slowing combat-rounds.

Other players love the crunchy-tactical feel.

I'm in the appreciators' camp... but none of the rest of my gaming-group is, it was a hard-pass from them.  😞
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2021 at 3:39 AM, g33k said:

I always look at random-roll "Hit Locations" not as "throw a punch or kick or swing a weapon... but blindfolded ! " (which, I agree, would be garbage)  so much as it's "the place you intended to hit, because it's where you spotted  (or figured you could best make) an opening."

It's "random" (i.e. outside of your control) because it depends in large part on what the foe is doing.

 

Same for me. I had 12 years of fencing, and with foil, you are allowed to hit only the torso of your opponent, so you can have to wait a long time for an opening. In a real life combat, you don't have a problem hitting your opponent in the arm, because in the long time, it is an advantage, so you take every opportunity to hit, wherever it is (and in fencing, Epee is very much like this).

Edited by Kloster
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I'm not a huge fan of Magic World as a product - preferring its predecessors (Elric!, RQ3) to the lets throw all the BRP shit in a pot and stir it up, slap on some ugly art and layout, and then not support it approach. But I'd be even less likely to use MW if it leveraged CoC7e mechanics.

Most of the reason is that I found 7e to be an absolute missed opportunity, when it came to the evolution of BRP game mechanics. It didn't include anything that would "update" or improve my CoC gaming experience. And, rather than improve on prior editions, it felt like it threw the baby out with the bathwater, all in the interest of change for change's sake. 7e was wrapped up in a pretty package - who can complain about sturdy, full-color core books? - but many of the mechanics just seemed borrowed from more successful systems. Combine that with general rules bloat, and it would make it my least favorite edition of CoC, and BRP overall.

The other reason is that 7e hardly seems like an update to BRP, when it comes to Chaosium's publishing practices. I've seen many gamers cheer on the changes that came with 7e - and if you like them, and they improve your gaming experience, more power to you. And I can understand fans wanting to homebrew updates based on BRP variants that they enjoy. But, it doesn't seem that Chaosium has embraced 7e as the next evolutionary step in BRP, and given the indication that it would be used for an upcoming non-RQ fantasy Rpg (if they decided to do that).

RQ: AiG's development and release came years after the release of CoC 7e. And at the time, I expected it to follow on the coattails of 7e's mechanics. Instead, it went further back into the history of BRP development, and then tacked on setting-specific mechanical changes. Hell, it still appears to have the Resistance Table?! Have any of 7e's mechanical additions shown up in RQ:AiG? That's not clear from just looking at the Quickstart.

The BRP SRD was released, what, a year ago? I don't see any mention of 7e mechanics in it. The template for future 3rd party BRP releases looks like the BRP of 20-30 years ago! Can we also assume that it's the template for future Chaosium BRP releases? If/when a new version of Mythic Iceland is released, will it follow in the footsteps of CoC7e's mechanics? Or will it more resemble the SRD? I suspect the latter.

Anyway, I went down a tangent there. But, besides the point that I wouldn't use 7e mechanics for MW; it hardly seems likely that Chaosium would reboot MW, or produce a new, non-RQ fantasy Rpg using those mechanics.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2021 at 3:13 PM, Chaot said:

I've never liked Hit Locations. As I said, it may be an allergy.

I've been of two minds when it comes to Hit Locations, for years.

On the one hand, I like the tactical grittiness that I was first introduced to in RQ3. And I still liked it as it was re-introduced in MRQ2/Legend. I'm a big Legend fanboy, and love to use it as the core for sword & sorcery campaigns. The "narratives" that have resulted from the combats in these systems have been amazing. They've been exciting and dramatic, and also reflected the themes of the genre.

But, I've also been fond of the abstraction and speed provided by systems like Elric! for years, as well - with its variable armor protection, major wounds, and more primitive DEX ranks based initiative system. Sometimes speed and abstraction can be more key to the experience, even sacrificing more dramatic combats.

I learned a harsh lesson 4 months ago, running a Legend campaign over Roll20. Somehow I ended up with 6 characters in a campaign that was originally going to be targeted towards 4. As the sessions progressed the bookkeeping and the work required for detailed tactical combat became overbearing. I started flailing to keep up with the demands of combat, and started to tweak rules on the fly just to tread water. Working within Roll20 didn't make matters any easier.

As much as I love Legend, I don't think I can go through that complexity again. With 2 to 4 players, detailed tactical combat is manageable; any more players than that and the experience - and I - wilt as a side effect. 

I'm planning another fantasy campaign, and I'm seriously thinking about using Elric! instead because it'll be easier to GM. And there is the likelihood that I could have that number of players again. (Though hopefully we will be face-to-face instead of VTT).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, K Peterson said:

I'm not a huge fan of Magic World as a product - preferring its predecessors (Elric!, RQ3) to the lets throw all the BRP shit in a pot and stir it up, slap on some ugly art and layout, and then not support it approach.

Um, you are aware that Magic World is just Elric! with a couple of ideas and some creature stats from prior editions of Stormbringer and RQ3 and without the Moorcock IP, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NickMiddleton said:

Um, you are aware that Magic World is just Elric! with a couple of ideas and some creature stats from prior editions of Stormbringer and RQ3 and without the Moorcock IP, right?

I know exactly what Magic World is.

I was being a little hyperbolic when I said "all the BRP shit in a pot", true. I prefer those predecessors (Elric / RQ3) as they stand on their own rather than a cocktail of them blended together. To me, the parts don't hang together cohesively and felt too kitchen sink.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still prefer the Elric! layout and compactness, and -yes @K Peterson, 'hanging togetherness'. The two-page spread chart about how to make a character is a thing of beauty, for example. However for bright young things wanting to try BRP for fantasy gaming, Magic World is still around (just unsupported).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@K Peterson if I understand correctly, CoC 7e handles ties in skill opposition by giving victory to the highest skill, which is the default method in BRP SRD (page 12 : "If the rolls are successful and tied (same quality of result), the character with the highest skill rating is successful.").

And, honestly, it's perhaps the worst existing version of skill opposition, as even a 1% difference gives a huge advantage.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...