Lofgeornost
Feeling Martian!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2020
- Messages
- 3,357
- Reaction score
- 10,060
Could you make up for the lack of mechanical improvement by substituting in-universe rise? The p.c.s become 'kings by their own hand' or something similar?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Thats another really strong option IMO.Could you make up for the lack of mechanical improvement by substituting in-universe rise? The p.c.s become 'kings by their own hand' or something similar?
This is the way I ran my Hyborian Age games using Savage Worlds and Mongoose's 3x system. They were episodic, with weeks or months of in-game time passing between sessions to emulate Howard's OG Conan yarns. Treasure is spent on carousing, sorcerous research, bling, gifts, etc with little to no direct mechanical benefit. I have found this style is an especially good fit for systems like Savage Worlds or BoL where characters start off competent from day 1 and financial bean counting is unnecessary.Given the original inspiration for BoL was the Thongor stories (which emulate Conan in some ways), it was designed more for disconnected stories and not a regular linear campaign (imho). That's one of the reasons (again, imho), each adventure starts with the players having spent all the treasure they had gained in the previous one.
Yes.Could you make up for the lack of mechanical improvement by substituting in-universe rise? The p.c.s become 'kings by their own hand' or something similar?
Logically they would, but why would you do that? As a mandatory XP sink?I really want to find time to get playing Honor + Intrigue, and wondered if mandatory additional careers/career levels would expand the advancement timeline rather than stat increases, and if anyone had done this?
All careers are non-combat ones (you can seldom add them to an attack or damage roll). But yes, there's quite a few reasons to grab Noble, Poet and the likes.It did occur to me that if intrigue and the like were a bigger part of the campaign that there might be more impetus to grab levels in non-combat careers like Noble. Whether this would significantly extend campaign life I'm not sure.
Yeah, I get that, I didn't word my post well - I was thinking in terms of the difference between specifically social-urban careers like Noble, and ones that more specifically synergize with the peripatetic S&S adventurer trope - so things that give you exploration or stealth skills, or magic skills. I think A lot of players would gravitate to those over something like Noble or something similar. There's no science here, just my overall impressions of players. Players might happily take a level in Noble, or Slave for that matter, during character creation because it makes narrative sense and it's one out of four, but when it comes to spending precious experience I think motivations and heuristics change as regards career choice and move toward the more practical.All careers are non-combat ones (you can seldom add them to an attack or damage roll). But yes, there's quite a few reasons to grab Noble, Poet and the likes.
OTOH, H+I adds social combat, which is a very good intro to a duel, and can even be used during one. Cutting remarks are cutting your abilities, too!
Of course, my character starting as a noble-poet-soldier with a fencing school which emphasized the use of graceful movements was no accident, too bad that campaign didn't last long!
Yeah, got that, but my point still stands: in H+I this distinction is much less meaningful, because there's social combat to account for as well, on top of fighting, sneaking, athletics, and magic.Yeah, I get that, I didn't word my post well - I was thinking in terms of the difference between specifically social-urban careers like Noble, and ones that more specifically synergize with the peripatetic S&S adventurer trope - so things that give you exploration or stealth skills, or magic skills. I think A lot of players would gravitate to those over something like Noble or something similar. There's no science here, just my overall impressions of players. Players might happily take a level in Noble, or Slave for that matter, during character creation because it makes narrative sense and it's one out of four, but when it comes to spending precious experience I think motivations and heuristics change as regards career choice and move toward the more practical.
I'm only familiar with straight BoL, so .. sure?Yeah, got that, but my point still stands: in H+I this distinction is much less meaningful, because there's social combat to account for as well, on top of fighting, sneaking, athletics, and magic.
Yeah, this was pretty much what I was thinking. Normally fantasy campaigns are conceived of as something closer to a novel in terms of arcs and continuity, but I thought that something more like a short story collection could be a lot of fun too.Players will always gravitate towards 'optimum' choices in my experience, it is trying to spread the optimum choices that's the trick.
It was more of an instant thought on something that may extend the life of the campaign while working within the numerical restrictions in BoL/H+I.
Personally I think the 'character stable' is a good idea for S&S, reminds me of the Ars Magica 'troupe' idea, and could be run as such.
Now that's got me thinking - one 'main' character per player who advances quickly, one sidekick style who may not advance at all (or more slowly) and the remaining as lowly mooks. Get the main characters together for the grand finale, hmm, needs more work but possible.
Oh, now that's an interesting thought. My thought was to always run that setting like the authors did in a GURPS mechanics setting or maybe a BRP/Mythras mechanics setting.Apropos of nothing in particular, I think BoL now tops my list of systems I'd use to run a Malazan Book of the Fallen game. I like the rules a lot, and the Warren magic of the books would translate pretty easily over to the open system presented in BoL. Additionally, for the mere mortals of the setting, magic is stupendous and terrifying thing, as are most of the elder creatures. Very S&S in many ways. Anyway, so there's that.
For me it depends on which parts of the books you want to run. BoL would be OK for the in-regiment Bridgeburners stuff, but I think it's perfect for, say, adventures in Darjuistan or any of the groups and individuals running about doing heroic/awful things bits (like the whole of Gardens of the Moon, for example).Oh, now that's an interesting thought. My thought was to always run that setting like the authors did in a GURPS mechanics setting or maybe a BRP/Mythras mechanics setting.
Meh, Fudge isn't my bag, good a game as it is.Fenris-77 IIRC there's a Fudge Drenai RPG. I wouldn't know if it's any good, though.
Don't sweat it man, I'm only on my second read-through. Read along at your leisure.Fenris-77 I'm just reading through BoL recently and haven't read it all so I can't offer any real comments. I'm more just interested and reading along.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I think BoL now tops my list of systems I'd use to run a Malazan Book of the Fallen game. I like the rules a lot, and the Warren magic of the books would translate pretty easily over to the open system presented in BoL. Additionally, for the mere mortals of the setting, magic is stupendous and terrifying thing, as are most of the elder creatures. Very S&S in many ways. Anyway, so there's that.
...and this now tops the list of "games I'd like to play in, but probably won't ever get to'".For me it depends on which parts of the books you want to run. BoL would be OK for the in-regiment Bridgeburners stuff, but I think it's perfect for, say, adventures in Darjuistan or any of the groups and individuals running about doing heroic/awful things bits (like the whole of Gardens of the Moon, for example).
I don't like GURPS nearly enough to even consider it, and as much as I appreciate Mythras, it's not quite what I want in this case, although I'm sure it would do a fine job.
The main thing in a Malazan game, for me, is making the Warren magic work. In the case of BoL I think you could just treat them like Sorcerous Careers and it's almost good to go without any other hacking. That's a hue plus IMO. I also think the mass battle rules in BoL are good, and that would also help a Malazan game quite a bit.
I think the Drenai cycle calls for a grittier approach...but you might make it work, indeed.The other book series that doesn't have an RPG (currently or that's any good) that Id be really tempted to use BoL for is the Drenai Cycle. Maybe my second favorite fantasy series and a perfect match for what BoL does.
The experience system can actually support longer campaign-style play, it helps if the GM takes a cue from Classic Traveller, emphasizing in-game rewards and prestige instead of mechanical benefits. In some of my games, I've actually jettisoned the BoL experience system and hand-wavy treasure in favor of tracking wealth and in-game advancement a la CT. Want to gain a Boon or get rid of a Flaw? Find a way that makes sense in the setting, but it'll cost you something (time, resources, dangerous quest, etc.) Want to improve your Melee skill? Take downtime and pay someone to train you. And so on...
I'm of two minds on that. OOH, I like the focused books. OTOH, I find generic game supplements extremely useful to people who have a strong campaign idea, but are intimidated by the thought of needing to translate the necessary elements in system terms.My biggest complaint about BoL is that when I've used it to run different genres one after another, they all start to feel kind of samey regardless of how different the setting is. I don't really care for Everywhen, the "official" generic version of BoL -- there are a few bits and pieces I've taken, but there are too many fiddly new rules (expanded Lifeblood tracking, Fatigue, etc.) that seem against the fast-and-easy spirit of BoL. It would have been better to continue putting out separate, focused games a la Dicey Tales, Dogs of W*A*R, Honor & Intrigue, and Barbarians of the Aftermath.
Well, if I run this PbP or online I'll give you first crack at a spot and we'll see if we can work out the time difference....and this now tops the list of "games I'd like to play in, but probably won't ever get to'".
The career system works great IME as an alternative to lengthy skill lists -- I've not had any trouble with it in play, but understand how the vagueness could be frustrating for some.
I'm currently part way through running a swashbuckling Three Musketeers-era campaign (a pre-written one originally designed to be used with Flashing Blades) that's going really well. My write-up so far is here: https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/everywhen-an-ambassadors-tales.873639/
Also, I use the damage rules from BoL in my EW games, as the system set out in EW – while essentially the same – is just a bit too fiddly in practice for me.
Hmm. I like the idea of sticking with d6's and just rolling more and multiplying or adding. That's pretty cool. I'll futz about with some damage ranges and figure something out to playtest. The real trick is the Cusser, which in-fiction is powerful enough to one-shot a dragon if you hit it right. I don't think I want to go quite that far, but it does need to be punchy. Thanks!Fenris-77, with regard to your Malazan hack of BoL and specifically Moranth Munitions, in the Everywhen rules there are 6 higher levels of damage above the top damage of BoL, which is d6H (roll 2 d6 and take the highest as damage). The game rates damage on a 'damage level track', and in fact they have two tracks - which both have the same sort of range, but use a different notation. I, like some others, use the alternative track as I find the notation for the original track is a bit too fiddly to remember. So for example, on the track I use the level above d6H is d6Lx2 (roll 2 d6, take the lowest as damage and then double it - giving a range of 2 to 12 damage). Also some weapons have Scale and so may roll more dice and deal higher damage.
Area Effect weapons (like explosives, grenades, mortars, etc.) have a blast radius determined by the GM for the weapon, and all damage within the area can be divided up among people within the area.
A look at the rules (if you can get a sight of them somewhere) makes the damage tracks clear, although I find the explanation of Scale (and Resolve for that matter) better in Pulse Pounding Pulp than in the core book.