Baconjurer

I'd say melee only. The negative consequence of decreased parry rating point to this. Also being a "Fanatic" doesn't seem to me like it'd make you a more accurate shot, but it would certainly make you swing your melee weapon more vigorously.

My current house rule is to eliminate checks altogether, and only allow skillups via training or self-study/research. I also added difficulty modifiers to skills, and vary the amount of time (and thus money) needed in training mode by difficulty of skill, skill of teacher, and intelligence/physical aptitude of the player. Rarity of finding teachers/research materials for higher levels in skills provides a further balance. Seems to be working so far.

Lots of great ideas here. Anyone familiar with Scarlet Heroes? It's a system that's designed to let one player run through old dungeons and dragons modules. It accomplishes this by tweaking how damage works and setting monster HD = HP. I might look into doing something along those lines. With regards to using raw POW as fate, I was thinking that here was an individual, for which the gods had bigger plans for. In essence POW reflects the characters standing with the gods. So if the the character died, the gods would bring them back, but their favor would deteriorate (-1 permanent POW). If you accomplished some feat that the gods foresaw for you, you'd gain a POW. Does that make sense?

What do you think about using POW as hero points? I know there's an optional rule in bgb for using MP as fate points, but I think I may make it permanent and slightly more powerful, like escaping death.

I want to run a single player through a BRP system for the first time but I'm unsure of how lethal it will be. The setting is a standard high fantasy affair, magic, swords, mythic beasts, and I want them to go explore the lands and quest for gold and glory. My concern is if I should buff the character at the outset, and if so, how much? I lean a bit more to the simulationist side of things when I game, so I don't like to pull punches or design unrealistic encounters, like caves with a single guard. I like to see how things would work out, as opposed to letting things work out as I foresee. Of course I also want for the player to be a hero. Advice?

On the contrary, your views really helped me focus my thoughts, I'm exactly asking for people to tell me what's bad about it, so I can think through it, play testing isn't super easy at this stage, so I'm relying on the wisdom other veterans to challenge my crazy ideas. So thank you

Yes, but you also have to track all separate skills in the BGB. In the BGB you have to track both Firearm (Pistol) and Firearm (Shotgun); they are totally separate skills. Even if you have a skill of 91 in Firearm (Pistol) you still begin your study of Firearm (Shotgun) skill at rank 0. I'm suggesting that Firearm (Pistol) and Firearm (Shotgun) ought to be linked by a parent skill, Firearm. If you take up Shotgun and already have a skill of 45 in Firearms, Shotgun ought to start at skill rank 45. Because skills are interconnected, rather than being isolated, once you max out your Firearm skill, you don't need to worry about that again. Thus, you end up keeping track of less skills, not more. I think eliminating specializations wouldn't work well. You're saying don't break the skills down? Perhaps only have a Firearm skill and ignore the Firearm (Pistol) the book prescribes? The reason I think this wouldn't work, is because it's too arbitrary. Where do you stop the break down into specialization? Why even have a Firearm skill? Why not just have a Combat skill? Why even have a Combat skill, why not just have a Body skill...etc. Eventually you just wind up back at the core characteristics. I want a system that automatically sorts skills and gives them a proper weight based on how general they are, no matter what skills I end up with in my campaign. That's why I think the tree works well. Every new growth must be a subcategory of the previous branch. The general skills then naturally sink to the bottom near the root, while the specialized skills float out to the outer branches. Thus, they organically are given proper importance/weight.

Yeah I foresaw that right away. Four reasons why I think in play it wouldn't be a problem. 1.) It's perfectly reasonable for that to happen anyway, especially if you have randomly generated stats. For example, if I was born scrawny but intelligent and somehow found myself in an wrestling match, I would lean on my intelligence and understanding of simple machines to give myself the best chance of success. That's how judo and most martial arts work. People lean on the stats the gods gave them, without even thinking about it. A weak person won't use his strength to solve most problems, an unintelligent person won't rely on his brain much. 2.) The system is always in check by the ref. There's no possibility of rules lawyering your way to an unreasonable advantage because the rule is the ref needs to see that it is reasonable. If the ref doesn't believe that underwater basket weaving is a subcategory of sniper rifle, end of discussion. If you try to use your dexterity to do something that wouldn't normally be done that way you had better clearly explain. In this way the story being told is actually enhanced. Players are forced to really think and imagine what their characters are doing. 3.) The tiered skill caps limit how skillful you can become in more vague skills. If I used my intelligence to give me my best chance in a wrestling match, explaining that I will approach the challenge by trying to find high ground and use my body as a lever to attempt to trip and outmanuever the opponent, I still would be limited to just 18. And if I grew my tree enough to be a judo master, then what's wrong with that? It's not power gaming if a scrawny yet intelligent character can still be a threat in combat. It's just good character development. My character still has to put the work in to actually get those skills up. 4.) In the standard skill system, you can increase skills indefinitely even if it doesn't make much sense. Theres no rule saying you can't be a master of astrophysics without even rudimentary knowledge in math or general physics. The skill caps are an extra limit on power gamers that by the book doesn't even have, so in a way it is actually a lot harder to be a munchkin than it would be using the standard skill system.

Hey that's cool, I wouldn't bother sharing if I wasn't looking for feedback! But could you explain why it's 100x more complicated? Climb is actually still on the example tree I posted in fact. It's a bring your own skill list setup so you're not locked down to any particular interpretation of what a skill can do or what skills you can have. It also helps eliminate what I consider the serious problem of specialize not being tied to general skill, like being a master in Walther ppk, but being unable to fire a shotgun is very possible with by the book rules.

Not only can they go one way or the other, that is they could be developed from different parent abilities, but skills can vary in it's depth in the tree based on how it was developed. It might be a first tier skill or it might be a fifth tier skill. As long as the ref agrees that it is a subcategory of your proposed parent skill. I think this can lead to some really exciting variations in characters (bring your own skill list), avoid the inconsistencies that pop up with static skills (why are you good at perception but can't spot anything?), automatically separates more general from more specialized skills, and creates realistic limits to character development, thus creating meaningful choices.

Nope, not a typo. I was imagining for this incarnation of James Bond he got training in stealth when he was studying with ninjas in Japan. Of course this is just for this character and with me as ref. Other characters might not choose to derive their stealth capabilities in that way (might be argued to be a subcategory of DEX, Athletics, Combat, Perception, etc), or other refs may not agree that stealth is a subcategory of Martial Arts. It's very flexible, and up to player and ref interpretation. I'm actually pretty happy with the way the numbers worked out. Taking 90+ skill rank to be absolute top of the field, peak of human capabilities, and limiting the number of skills to INT x 2, you wind up with a character that's a master of a few things, good at lots of things, and just so-so for the rest. This is what I'd aim for in most campaign settings, because that reflects reality well. James Bond's skill set is very diverse, so he has a lot more quite good skills, and less absolute master skills. If you wanted more of a superhuman campaign setting you could start the multiplier by x3 or x4 rather than x2.

I've abandoned the grammar (verb noun) approach. English just isn't a good language for that. So I've decided to rely on player and ref judgement. The skill tree starts with your base stats. Then you add specialization based on what actions you want to attempt. You can further specialize as long as the player and ref both agree that it really is a subcategory (eg. most refs would agree that "Jump" is a subcategory of "Athletics"). You can also grow the tree in the reverse direction. Say you took STR-->JUMP. You could add STR-->ATHLETICS-->JUMP. You just would need to shift things. Then each level is capped at previous level + base stat. The minimum skill of a further specialization is equal to the previous step. The number of total skills on your tree is capped at 2x INT score. Attached is a rough draft I drew up for a James Bond character. Skills presented in this way tell a character background story, more so than the line by line approach. For example, you can see that James Bond tends to draw on his DEX and Martial Arts training for his combat skills.

Big Damn Book of monsters has one.... Nightmare STR - 4d6+18; CON - 3d6; SIZ - 4d6 + 20; INT - 3d6 + 6; POW - 3d6; DEX - 2d6 + 6; MOVE 12/14fly; HP - 21; DB - +3d6; Attacks: Bite 40% 1d6; Kick 35% 1d6+db; Trample 75% 2d6+db Skills: Dodge 50%; Fly 50% Treasure: None; Armour: 1d6-1 Also known as "demon horses" and "hell horses," nightmares are creatures from the lower planes. They are ridden primarily by the more powerful demons and devils as well as by night hags. On occasion the serve as steeds for undead such as spectres, vampires and liches. Nightmares can fly, become ethereal, and roam the astral plane. They hate material life and attack viciously, even without a rider to command them. The hell horse is gaunt and skeletal with huge red eyes, flaming orange nostrils, and hooves which burn like embers. The coat is a dead black, and the creatures mane and tail are wild and rugged. Creatures of 100+ alliance with Shadow may be granted a Nightmare as a mount as reward for Apotheosis.

Softcover with a spiral binding is the best for me

At the end of the day, you can't ever really delete something that was on the internet.