Another Swedish classic is getting English translation - pretty neat hah?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1256540796/trudvang-chronicles/description
Quote from: jux;917216Another Swedish classic is getting English translation - pretty neat hah?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1256540796/trudvang-chronicles/description
Trudvang is a nice campaign setting. Lots of depth and lore and gorgeous artwork. And that's about it. I still have great affection for Trudvang, but I gave up on the company behind it 2009 after buying all the products published in print, and played in Trudvang more than any other campaign settting. The swedish product line was pretty extreme in its inconsistency, constant rewrites of new rules sets and a very disheartening lack of interest from the creators.
I am still waiting for the updated bestiary annonced for the 2006 version, and yet again for the 2012 version of the rules.
I am looking forward to it. It is great to see so many excited Swedish fans that have talked about this game. Hope I will like it as well. I do like Nordic and Celtic myths - it is quite similar to old Estonia culture as well. Many traditional fantasy RPGs are quite far from it.
In this reddit post, there is quite a lot of information about this game.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/50ty8m/kickstarter_riotminds_attempting_a_proper_release/
One thing I am a bit worried, is the record-keeping in combat. Hope it all makes sense and is not too troublesome.
Combat is very high on record-keeping, especially for the GM, but gives not any more interesting results or outcome than standard BRP combat. Just a lot more calculating and resource management to get there. Might as well play Runequest, Mythras or something similar which would be very fitting for the tone of the setting, but still having something more mechanically intresting, and far more striaght forward.
Easiest way I could describe Riotminds rules sets(post2006) would be: Take some basic assumptions form the BRP formula but use a d20 instead of d100. Change ability scores to modifiers ( that does not modify skills), trim down the skill list to 10 skills. Then put into it hundreds of feats in D20/3.5 style instead were everything about your character revolves around this long list of feats primarily. Not skills since they are capped at 10. You build your character through feat-chains of modifiers. Some are exception-based and some may not. So sometimes you also need to keep track on specific rules on feats you dont have. And NPC work by the same rules as PC's.
That may be appealing, or may not. But that is the essence of it.
It looks pretty. :)
How different, or at least thorough, is its setting material? I mean, Celtic & Norse mythology is not exactly wanting for RPG analogs or pastiches.
Thanks for your post Teodrik. Its always great to hear first hand accounts.
Quote from: Teodrik;917566Combat is very high on record-keeping, especially for the GM, but gives not any more interesting results or outcome than standard BRP combat. Just a lot more calculating and resource management to get there. Might as well play Runequest, Mythras or something similar which would be very fitting for the tone of the setting, but still having something more mechanically interesting, and far more striaght forward.
I actually am quite interested in this particular combat system. As I understand, every weapon is doing d10 damage - knife or sword. But they vary on combat points. Now this is very interesting aspect and would like to know more how it has been modelled out.
For example 2 equal fighters, what are their advantages/disadvantages when fighting:
- knife vs sword
- sword vs axe
- sword vs rapier
.. etc
Is there weapon size considered? And combat points is about the speed of wielding that weapon? Does initiative depend on the weapon you are using?
Apparently the reddit explains that each weapon has different critical thresholds, a la nat 20 vs. 18-20 and so on, except attached to the d10 damage die. Also, from their example, larger the weapon, higher the crit threshold. e.g. dagger is d10 crit 10, greataxe is d10 crit 8-10.
Each weapon further seems to have an "action point max," so that sword swings could be purchased up to the weapon's limit. e.g. longsword has 3 pts max, so only 3x 1 pt. swings can be purchased per round, regardless whether you have a surplus of action points to spend. So with 3000 round action points with longsword (3), and shield (2), you could still only spend three on longsword and two on shield.
That part is a bit fiddly for questionable returns, in my view. I suspect there's at least one broken action economy outlier for each equipment type, or at least so in the splats, therefore it's only a matter of time before this novelty implodes on itself. Sounds like it's trying to be too clever by half with more busy work and eventual collapse from design mistakes slipping through.
A pity, because I really dig some of the other ideas, such as skill>discipline>specialization, roll under BRPs in 5% increments, etc. But these are just secondhand system impressions so far.
Quote from: jux;917619I actually am quite interested in this particular combat system. As I understand, every weapon is doing d10 damage - knife or sword. But they vary on combat points. Now this is very interesting aspect and would like to know more how it has been modelled out.
For example 2 equal fighters, what are their advantages/disadvantages when fighting:
- knife vs sword
- sword vs axe
- sword vs rapier
.. etc
Is there weapon size considered? And combat points is about the speed of wielding that weapon? Does initiative depend on the weapon you are using?
I'll try to answer to the best of my recollection:
Weapons do not have much mechanical attachments by themselves: All weapons do 1d10 wjth exlopding dice on 10 for light weapons, 9-10 on medium and 8-10 for heavy ( which of course can be modified by feats). The only thing I can recall about weapon size other than that is that if you fight with, say a spear(but not other twohanded weapons like swords and axes), against someone using a shorter weapon, you win initiative the first round, then lose initiative all the following rounds after your enemy has been able to take a swing at you, because you are now close quarter. And that weapons had initiative modifiers.
This can be modified by feats by buying yourself an Attack of Opportunity(in D&D terms) with spear against an advancing opponent with shorter weapon for example. Or a feat that says you dont have to loose initiative anymore after the first round aftet entering close combat.
One other big thing that is that the game system really demands battlemap and markers or minis to sort things out if played by the book. Your "combat point pool" decreases for every meter of movement (did'nt MERP/Rolemaster also do something this?). Which affects how much you will have left to take a swing with a weapon or parry.
Very big thing to take note regarding points from your combat point-pool: Points you spend on a attack roll, you spend it to set how big chance you have to hit. If you spend 10 points on a attack, that only means you now will hit with a roll of 1-10 on a d20 roll. There is no comparison of numbers here. If you hit, and your opponent blocks, it does not matter in any way how many points you spent.
But you could buy a feat that gave you a certain combat manouver (as in you must already have it on your character sheet before attempting it). Like the "Throw shield"-feat, spend 10 points and toss your shield at opponent as a ranged attack. Note that you pay those points to attempt the manouver, so you sti have to pay combat points for it as an regular ranged attack to actually hit. Which works the same as for melee attacks.
How many attacks/parry's you can potentially do are determined by which weapon or weapon-shield you use.
Weapons and shield's, regardsless of type, dont have any inherent combat points advantages. Those comes from your feats. If you got a Battle skill of 10 and a two-handed sword feat that gives you plus 5 combat points, and a general "Skilled in battle"-feat of +10 points, you have 25 points to divide in your round between attacks, parry and movement. So maybe you have to spend 5 points to move over to an enemy, you then spend 10 points to attack (50% chance of hitting), then save 10 poins to parry later in the round.
Some rules bits are probably different now. But the last printing, the 2012 version, were the same as their online rules back then.
Thanks! Very interesting, but scary book-keeping as well. I wonder if fans of the game really like the system. I am afraid I will house-rule the combat system is it is in OpenQuest.
Quote from: jux;917895Thanks! Very interesting, but scary book-keeping as well. I wonder if fans of the game really like the system. I am afraid I will house-rule the combat system is it is in OpenQuest.
Well lets just say rules design is something all Riotminds games would have benefitted by outsourcing. In that regard they are jolly amateurs happily wanting to sell you their "uniqe" heartbreaker, totally blissfull of the rpg industry and rpg develolment at large the last 15 years. But they had the cash for some stunning artwork. So they then would develop the world to match those nice pictures. Which were not completely unsuccessful, even though it took a very long time and lore revison countless times.
Don't count on any more support for the game than what comes out of the kickstarter if you what to own it in dead-tree format or pdf.
Quote from: Teodrik;917733I'll try to answer to the best of my recollection:
Long explication..
Thanks for the summery.
This is everything I no longer want in an rpg.
Well, I'm a sucker for settings based on northern European mythology. Regardless of the system (which sounds interesting, and perhaps adaptable, if not particularly functional RAW), I'd like to hear more about the setting.
I have a home brew. It's opposed rolls with dice manipulation. Add and subtract pips kind of stuff.
If I ever type it up I will included all the pip manipulation stuff just cuasue the system will take it well. But it will be an apendex. It's not necessary and if find I don't want all that shit.
Course I prefer to play now with out even a table. If we had a full battle map and counters and everything I might be into it. That just not what I want now.
Quote from: jux;917495One thing I am a bit worried, is the record-keeping in combat. Hope it all makes sense and is not too troublesome.
You are not alone in this.
Quote from: jux;917895Thanks! Very interesting, but scary book-keeping as well. I wonder if fans of the game really like the system. I am afraid I will house-rule the combat system is it is in OpenQuest.
How easy do you think it would be to convert this setting to OpenQuest?
Quote from: 3rik;917964You are not alone in this.
How easy do you think it would be to convert this setting to OpenQuest?
Could be done. At least I think stuff like spells and such could be converted without much hazzle. Regarding stats : Can be done, but a bit wonky. The original bestiary from 2001 were much easier to convert to BRP since it used the same ability scores. The newer monster stats don't. Body Points/Hit Points would probably have to be split in half the get in line with the more regular BRP scale. Other abilities will probably more of a reimagening or use creatures from Open Quest as templates and refluff them.
I am planning myself to use the (not yet released) rerelease of the Drakar och Demoner 1987 edition with Trudvang. That edition were very close to vanilla BRP and probably not very far from Open Quest regarding stats.