Al.

An interesting couple of points there old thing. 1. What is core BRP? What makes BRP? I know what I think but I'm blinkin sure that others would disagree. I suspect (and 'tis only suspiscion) that we are formed/doomed according to which flavour was our first. For example it was Stormbringer III for me so Criticals as 1/10th skill, no specials, bows get a damage bonus is my go to default; such things are anathema to some (probably on these very boards) who started with RQII (as opposed to TRPGFKARQ2NWUMCIM) 2. Dominion (I think) has an interesting damage mechanic where you start at 0 wounds and as you (well one's character) takes damage the wound score increases. This score acts as a penalty to (all/most) skill rolls and once a character has such a high penalty that all of their skills are effectively zero then they are incapacitated. As to the AFF idea I think that could be BRPd pretty simply Stamina is the name for the BRP Con x5 roll Luck Pow x5 Skill could be Dex x5 Then what? Idea for knowing and perceiving? Charisma or subsume that into Luck? Roll on 1-20 scale or jump straight in at percentiles? Give Special Skill points to each characteristic roll or just a pool or even the Fudge skill ladder or not bother?

Simple = good I can't fault your philosophy in creating these rules. I don't agree with all of the actual decisons, but I suspect that my alternatives would muddy rather than clarify so I'll keep them to myself.

How 'original' is original? I gots me a copy of 2nd edition CoC which lists 9mm/.38 as 1d10

The equipment chapter wasn't part of the playtest (way back when) I'm assuming because with so many different official and houseruled sets of numbers for each bit of kit that Jason and Sam were expecting a very low signal to noise ratio in any discussions; and so decided that life was too short. The random values don't really map to the RQIII fixed values but do almost fit the RQII fixed values (which makes sense since the random numbers first came about in StormBringer which was written just after RQII but before RQIII). So which set to choose? And which group gets narked off that their favoured implementation is orphaned? On which note () My take on helmet/not helmet is to change the spread of the points a little rather than having a bonus or penalty. i.e. Plate no helmet 1d10-1 helmet 1d8+2 eric71 and pansophy seem to be on the right track looking at RAW

I think that the OP's idea is rather neat. I even think that it would work rather well with skills over 100% if using the old RQ rule about excess points being subtracted from the opponent's skill and making the assumption that we then test against what is left.

"Oh no it won't" ('tis panto season after all) One cannot split attacks against the same target (without a houserule)

Why treat Fumble as Failure? I like the idea of the clumsy oaf's flailings making it easier for the dashing swordswoman to bury her blade where she wants, avoiding armour and something else. Using combat maneuveres in RQIII works rather well. A similar idea a) appeared in SPQR was mentioned in MRQI playtests c) was posted on a fansite many moons ago (by Alexandre Lanciani hosted by Tal Meta is where I saw it); the best implementation IMMOO is to include Alexandre's Tactical Advantages rules alongside.

It could tell us many things. I suspect that few are cut and dried and even fewer incotrovertable facts. There's truth in them there hills. And you and others of a similar disposition may wish to look away now. I started RQing wwith RQIII and was blown away when I finally got hold of the semi-mythical RQII by how much better I liked BITS of it. I don't quite subscribe to the common(ish)ly held old farts line that where the two games differ choosing the RQII rule is always better. But not far off. Of the changes from RQII to RQIII I'm split between the ones which i think are a step in the right direction but don't go far enough and the ones which I don't like and go too far (almost by definition I suppose. A lot of blathering now follows, presumably you are able to take as read that its all IMMOO rather than unholy writ? RQII CHArisma was clearly defined as Leadership. Presumably this was felt to be too limited and the label a bit unclear so it then gets broadened in RQIII to be interpersonal communication in general and gets renamed Appearance just to confuse everyone even more. SIZ and INT move to a 2d+6 roll (tbf RQII.5 in Trollpak did this before) and gives the majority of PCs a damage bonus and Knowledge bonus to boot. So an 'average' human character does not have average scores. Brilliant. Skills move from blocks of 5% to a much more granular 1%. Which is lovely but the rules for Specials and Criticals work on dividing by 5 (or multiple thereof) which is easy peasy with skills in blocks of 5. Arguments about the state of maths education or numeracy 'in my day' and 'bloody discalcic kids of today' to one side. Why make a rule ANY harder to apply on the spur? Its not just a factor of brains numbed by hours of play its adding something which can intefere with suspension of disbelief when its not needed. Skills lose some of the very silly specific names (Find Healing Plants, Find Cattle Fodder and Find Plants with 5 leaves, woody stems and first discovered by a bloke called Geoff, etc) and are rolled into more useful meta skills (For example Plant Lore for the above Devise for Know Locks, Pick Locks and Set/Repair/Design/Oil Lightly Traps) which is more fun game wise and makes a bit of sense to boot, and this could have gone further a la Elric!'s Natural World and Magic World's (Cultural) Lore skills, maybe with Physical World to cover RQIII Mineral Lore and World Lore (or RQII Know Rock, identify Rock, Understand Rock, Like Rock skills) Even worse some very specific skills remain such as Kuschille Horse Archery. Why would I spend time/money training this when I could put the points into Ride and/or Bow Attack and get the same result and have those skills at a higher level for other tests? Then the 'all Melee weapons in same class default to half the highest' rule doesn't get expanded logically to 'all Melee weapons default to half the highest' (and by extension 'all Missile weapons default to half the highest') it just gets dropped. Defense gets dropped (which is nice as the 's' offends mine eye, even if some would argue that its grammatically correct even in UK English). Dodge is a nice replacement rule and with the (seemingly) univeral houserule that a successful dodge downgrades an attack by one step, a special by two and so on. But 'Block' is still misnamed 'Parry' so the Dodge rules which could just have been a maneuvere called Parry require an entirely seperate skill. Which is reduced by Enc. Different types of Special are reduced purely to Impale for um impaling weapons. Which now do (about) the same as old edged ('slashing' which is a name they wisely dropped it being UK slang at least for urinating). The Armour chart does away with the 'When is Scalemaille not Scalemaille' question but boosts AP levels significantly (presumably to offset the 'everyone has +d4 db' problem) and doesn't differentiate between Half Plate as worn in the ancient world and Full Plate as worn by Englisgh Kunigits. Which seems daft considering some of the market generic RQ seemed to be aiming for The Bestiary gives us Halflings. Fair enough know your potential market. But the rules are a worse fit for them than just porting over the splat/crunch for Ducks (which fit brilliantly btw) and just writing a new bit of fluff(feathers). Bizarrely though the very Glorantha-specific mini-Ents/Ent-wife Elf is the only one. Which means that a generic set of rules has nothing which comes remotely close to letting players/GMs run Sidhe/Tolkien Elfs/Melnibonean Eldren/D&D Elves. Then Dwarves keep reduced SIZ roll despite the fact that RQIII now purely defines SIZ as mass. The RQIII quick experience system is rather better than the old RQII appendices but the detailed one is an exercise in micro-management. And rest. You'll notice that I didn't even mention Fatigue or why on (flat)earth doesn't everyone start with their Int worth of spells (or spell points) after all no one gets to have a randome number of hit points or damage bonus up to a limit imposed by their stats.

Personal observations only but Savage Worlds a) seems to arouse very strong feelings considering just how dull the ruleset is has some very clever little bits to it c) gets everything right except the core mechanic (a bit like D6 Star Wars)

Early Stormbringer explicitly suggested transposing fantasy creatures in (I think one of the included adventures had a portal to Glorantha in it) and MM certainly took classic fantasy elements (albeit with his own twist) allied to a million worlds and travel between them I'd have thought that one could transpose in whatever one wanted.

Likewise my UK softback RQII came with errata printed inside the covers. Possibly something to do with it being a standalone softback rather than for example a box . Mine has got about a thousand different character sheets in the appendices.

My favourite is bare minimum with optional specialisations So Daley Thompson Duck would only worry about the Athletics skill whilst Dan Osman Duck would concentrate on Athletics/Climb Al

Dominion is a mixed bag of rules, included are many clever or idiosyncratic little bits. One I like is that 'Witches' (magic users and magicians of most sorts) only lose 'spell points' (power points) when they FAIL to cast a spell. BASIC likewise has lots of clever bits, I like the VIRulence rules for diseases being exactly analogous to POT for poisons

I thought that Shields were a bit poo in RQ, and when (trying to) run straight RQII couldn't see why anyone would choose a Shield for Parrying, so gave the user extra APs in Shield Arm plus some other locations (dependent on Shield size) and it worked tres smoothly, so I reckon the bonus APs a la Headgear would work very well. I'm sure I've seen the Base Chance as Chance to Parry* Missiles rule before, but cannot for the life of me remember whether 'tis canon or houserule Other option (or not if you hate houserules) is give a chap holding a Shield an extra, free, full skill Attack or Parry with that Shield. Not sure that I'd do that as well as extra APs rule * grrrr BLOCK, Block not Parry, grrr

Absolutely workable in my view There are a couple of mechanical/numerical things which might or might not worry you, but you could find useful to know aforehand a Major Wound in Elric!/SB5 is half hit points, the equivalent in RQIII is taking out a hit location which is (roughly) one-third hit points Random Armour Values in SB5 are a sort of dice roll equivalent of RQII armour values (which is why SB5 and RQIII values don't quite tally and also why the numbers in the Big Gold Tome (BGT) don't quite fit together (but work pretty in their own rights as seperate systems) movement scores in RQIII and SB5 are quite different but both are consistent so handwaving is pretty easy Criticals, Specials and Impales have different meanings Simplest, easiest and best IMMOO would be just to transplant SB5 combat right into RQIII and ignore any wibbles or contradictions, trying to resolve each alternative rule one-by-one would probably lead to madness

More in the spirit of the request than the word is the following http://basicroleplaying.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=333 It is rather dull and workmanlike rather than a thing of beauty And like all of my stuff has been houseruled to death But it may be of some use Al

There is much truth in what you write Perchance I was on a less wrong track by having different calc for birds vs. other fliers et voila So an example (still subject to tweaking no doubt) Biped Mov = (Dex+Str)/5 Quadraped Mov = (Dex+Str)/4 Sprinter Quadraped = (Dex+Str)/3 Flying Mov = (Dex+Str)/2 Birds Mov = (Dex+Str) Or perhaps Biped Mov = (Dex+Str)/5 Quadraped Mov = (Dex+Str)/3 Sprinter Quadraped = (Dex+Str+21)/3 Flying Mov = (Dex+Str)/2 Birds Mov = (Dex+Str+21)/2

If you are going the formular route then i would suggest basing on Dex and Str rather than Dex and Siz As bigger beasties with longer legs will tend to have bigger Str as well Also makes stronger more athletic types faster than fatties Its the way PenDragon did it I would also suggest that denominator should be different for quadrapeds and flying animals and probably birds as even faster than other less efficient fliers So an example (subject to tweaking no doubt) Biped Mov = (Dex+Str)/5 Quadraped Mov = (Dex+Str)/3 Flying Mov = (Dex+Str)/2 Birds Mov = (Dex+Str) Using the Athletics or Running skill was done in one of the RQIII adventures The route (or individual stages maybe) took a set number of strike ranks to run and success, special or critical all reduced this

When I left a Japanese engineering firm I was called in by the (Japanese) Engineering Manager and was expecting a big old guilt trip as pretty much everyone joined and stayed until retirement. I quite liked the old chap and wasn't looking forward to the disappointment, so imagine my surprise when he congratulated me for leaving and "avoiding the error of the old craftsman who claims 30 years experience when he has in fact had 1 year 30 times" Or maybe i'm just jealous coz I started playing in 1987 and haven't even heard of a lot of the games peeps are listing!

Oh, this is futile!:thumb:

F-35 doesn't have TVC in that way. The STOVL version (to be ordered by RN, RAF, USMC and possibly Italian and Spanish airarms) is able to rotate its aft nozzle through 90 degrees to give it a vertical take off capability (coupled with a lift fan ahead of amidships which is kind of like an enclosed and internal set of helicopter rotarblades to balance thrust moments). This is not to increase pitch or yaw in flight (or roll which it couldn't anyway as the F35 has only one jet exhaust and so could not divert thrust on one side only to generate roll). F22 (and X31 and several Russian jets) have thrust which can be vectored in flight to provide additional maneuverability. Harrier (in different flavours) CAN redirect thrust in flight. Although its only really the USMC who have explored this or documented it as a standard tactic. Why has F35 not got VIFFing capability? Why haven't current versions of Eurofighter? Or Rafaele or Gripen? Especially as airshow performers look so bloody impressive when using TVC? Partly the cost and mass overheads of installing and partly as the clever thrust-vectoring manouveres also bring their own problems (like running out of airspeed and energy at exactly the wrong time). Having said that Eurojet are making noises about retrofitting Eurofighters engines with TVC so they must think that they have a) solved the mass issues lost sales to Russian jets due to a lack of TVC on Eurofighter Now that that can of worms is opened. How are you getting on with BRP rules for EW? Current rules for Guided munitions and ECM are not only brief to the point of missing upon blinking but also don't make sense taken together. Of course if you manage to model ECM, ECCM, ESM, AESAs et al then you'll probably have a knock of the door late one night from your local national intelligence agency.............. Al

Is he hells gonna die. You see that shadow? That's the only shadow. Mr Value Trickster Trollkin is about to let go of his mace and that Troll (or is it a Dragonewt?) is gonna be off balance and fly backwards into the Hallucination of a 9 point Sunspear right behind him.

Does it? That'll teach me to assume things. (Based mainly it must be said upon a poor secondhand knowledge of XD&D and the dashing swordsman from the order of the stick, who I believe used CHA for his to hit roll). Specials and Criticals kind of do that already. But your idea sounds pretty workable to me

Siz is mass and a lot of mass is muscle mass. STR is strongly related to muscle mass. Monsieur Perrin himself he say that making Dwarves Siz 2d6 was a mistake and in retrospect he'd have kept them as Siz 3d6. This to my mind is one of the positives to binning SIZ as a characteristic. It removes the potential to equate SIZ with height/length (which it measures only tangentially) rather than mass (which it measures exactly)

Get thee to Chivalry and Sorcery which has an exhausting/exhaustive list of attribute pairs and weapons. XD&D allows on to finesse with a smaller weapon (missus) than character. So IIRC (which is unlikely) anyone can finesse with a dagger but halflings cannot finesse with shortswords. I'd do this without a skill roll but have a concept of minimum size for each weapon to be finessed.