Al.

Yeah and we wouldn't need characteristic rolls (and my SBIII characters wouldn't have ruptured themselves lifting rocks using the bastard 'roll under characteristic on d100' rule) and we could get rid of those pesky, fiddly different base chances for every skill. Why didn't you raise this when Jason was writing BRP?! Al

I am sure that one COULD have fantastic roleplaying experience with any system (I keep hearing that the Hero system which frankly gives me nightmares is the basis for an immersive and story-led campaign by its designers). However certain rule sets CAN enforce certain play styles or at least make them easier (I've played in games at my club with players who are fantastic fun to be at the table with using ALMOST any system but revert to miniature chess playing munchkins when D&D3.x is brought out. In fact I won't play XD&D with them now at all). So why is 4th Ed (which I've not played) leading you down a route of rubbishness? Could you play a session without miniatures and battle map? Would it be worth seeing if that had a positive impact? My thoughts on any kind of conversion are that quick and dirty is best (low boredom threshold on my part I would guess) by doing that and seeing what the reactions are to the new versions of old PCs you might see whether in fact any of your players are a bit too wedded to detail and numbers? Al

Sweet lord jeebus That reminds of every mac vs. pc* argument I've stumbled across on t'net and not been quick enough to navigate away from. Al * grrrr a mac is a pc you numbskull, you mean 'wintel' or some other lame descriptor grrr

Agreed. WHFRP versions 1 and 2 certainly have their foibles/vices but ........ Unless one has a light touch converting game worlds can lead to an enormous amount of work which ought (in MMOO) to be spent writing scenarios and running/playing. Al

1. Yes agreed, that's what I tried to summarise in my intro. Obviously I failed! 2. Thief certainly had lots of skills and I think that they were pretty random so that may be the one 3. Agreed again Al

Sounds like something from the mighty FGU stable to me. Also sounds a good way of modelling it if one is interested in that much detail, ta. Al

Its more than that, modesty to one side if BRP gains more converts its because they downloaded this little beauty and it hooked them. If they'd been peed off with wotc and downloaded 'Al's ill-thought out book of unnecessary BRP houserules' or 'The big book of BRP adventures which I've run a million times so forgot to put in bits of information which would be vital to the reader' then peed off at wotc would not translate to convert to BRP Al

Firstly I should probably have spelledified 'school' with a k so that I could be mistaken for a young person. So, inspired by a meandering conversation about the pros and cons of random characteristics vs allocated I thought just how random are random systems? I'm not referring to bell curves here neither. The oldest old school game I own is Stormbringer III Roll characteristics - random (range 3-18 or in fact 1-30 depending on nationality) Roll Nationality - random Roll Class/Profession/Whatever its called in SBIII - random BUT Age is flat 25 unless one CHOOSES to alter it* The most important game aspect** in SBII are skills; are these are very much not random. They are allocated from Class and predicated on the 'low chance of success is good for you' model and the not being allowed to know things makes you a better person' model Fortunately the advice on statting up beasties suggests that when in doubt just roll 1d100 for their skills IF SBIII was truly random then we'd be rolling 1d100 for each and every skill (MAYBE adding Skill Category modifier and/or the +10 bonus for easy skills). And rolling age on 1d100/2 I've just done that very thing (and yes that did mean rolling*** separately for each and every Craft, Language (spoken and r/w), weapon attack, weapon parry, summoning) So what have I learned? Bugger all really But whether its fond memories of the system or this truly bizarre set of skills which I'm now trying to fit a believable background to I find myself itching to play said character Oh that's another thing I need a random name generator (Gender was easy, all of my dice have an even number of sides and the actual outnumbering of males by females can be blown off by old school gaming sexism) (Likewise handedness: 1 in 10 are lefties**** - doddle) Al * to think when I first read the book I couldn't imagine being that old and thought how do I relate to these characters? Well I suspect that I didn't use the word relate even in teh confines my own head ** one could argue that Int and Pow, Nationality and Class are most important as it determines whether or not you start as a Sorcerer or a Target but even in Chaosium's grossest adventures this wasn't the whole story *** using a multiple dice rolling app. obviously I AM that sad but also easily bored **** not quite right and I haven't included Ambidexters, Mixed-handers, Ambilevous but then I'm not trying to re-write Bushido or Chivalry & Sorcery

Grunt* Missile Fire Combining Charles' superb rules for grunts and the CoC/BRP rules for automatic fire I have the following suggestion Treat any shooting by Grunts as a single burst Chance to hit = 30%** +5% per extra grunt shooting Capped at 60%*** (so if 7 or more grunts are opening up then total chance is still not more than twice their normal skill) Success: one shot hits Special: half of the burst hits*** Critical: (if you are allowing criticals for grunts): all of the burst hits Damage = 1d6 +1 per additional arrow, bullet, laserbeam, etc hitting So damage from 20 Grunts firing would be Sucess: 1d6 Special: 1d6+9 Critical: 1d6+19 Al * or mooks or spogs or Southampton fans ** or 50% if they are superior grunts *** or 100% if they are superior grunts **** my take on the roll 1d10 for a 10 shot burst to remove a die roll

Double congratulations then. And well done to Pete and Rosen/Alephtar for having the balls to see this project through Al

Are you suggesting that I'm deluding myself In this case yes the subtraction is indeed a subset of the mathematics. The point I was trying (and failing) to make was if mathematics are involved some people are scared and run away for others mathematics fine but not subtraction (i.e. quite happy to add 2 two digit numbers but not subtract) Al

Advantages: its as good as any other proposed it has an internal logical consistency (which the blackjack method does not) Disadvantages: you lose criticals and specials it requires subtraction, some people don't like subtraction* it requires mathematics, some people don't like mathematics* it is yet another possible houserule coming not so long after the great white hope that is the BRP tome which some (me included) had hoped would give us a soild foundation and remove need (or 'need') for yet more houserules Al * now we could have a debate on 'youth of today', suffering for our art, its not that hard and a dozen other valid points but IMMOO RPGs are fun not exercises in self improvement and author has asked for possible disadvantages

You're attributing a rather more outward looking attitude to me than I deserve. I was refering directly to MY FLGS. But your general point is well made. Al

Chicken egg egg chicken I won't buy Chaosium deadtree coz of shipping costs from US Chaosium won't get deadtree into my FLGS as they can't afford to ship over here on sale or return and FLGS has stopped buying one of everything ever printed 'just in case' Its an absolutely reasonable statement for Chaosium to make. And likewise reasonable for peeps to say 'no chance pal' in response Al

Firstly This ain't a flame war. Its rather less civilised than we're used to on these boards but honestly nowt compared to what I've seen elsewhere. In fact RPG forums in general seem to be punching below their weight when it comes to geeks being arseholes to each other. Secondly It is a truth noted by wiser heads than mine that e-communication is potentially shite. We just have not evolved a language for all of the non-verbal communication we use in face-to-face communication (and even telephonic). Its very easy to be unintentionally abrasive and likewise to offended with/by comments which would not have that effect if made in another media. Thirdly I agree that the 2d6+6 for Int and Siz (and since Jason mentions it 3d6+3 for Edu*) and 3d6 for the rest is a bit silly. Fourthly FWIW I prefer rolling 3d6 for all stats and treating any roll of a '1' as being a '2' if doing random stuff; as it removes the crippling low poor roll whilst allowing for one very low score if it fits player's/gm's character concept by swapping upto 3 points if desired AND it does not skew the bell curve TOO badly (although it does skew it) Fifthly I still wish that I was a Jedi Al * although backtracking slightly 2nd CoC made some sense of this. 3d6+3 was for Lovecraftian heroes** who tended to be educated types. Even suggesting 3d6 for most peeps and 2d6 or 1d6 for more primitive or 'backwoods' types who wouldn't have access to formal education. I'm not sure why that info seems to have disappeared from subsequent editions. ** trivial fact, I typed herpes there first time, bizzare typo eh?

Or roll 2d8 seven times allocate those then add the fiddly constants Al

Slightly out of left field I am far too lazy to do the book keeping which the other (far better simulations) suggested here already. I always prefer giving player choice and like them to choose skills which aren't immediately useful for flavour (inspired by a throwaway line in Cults of Prax along the lines of skills such as Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing which aren't useful to an adventurer) And so when I ran RQIII I gave 30 percentiles per year over 10 (15 as written) and an additional 30 percentiles per year over 10 to be allocated on non-active skills So for D&BRP could one have Edu x30 for Professional skills and Edu x30 for any old skills ? Al

Depends which flavour of BRP RQII offers lots of freedom in the appendices RQIII roll in order is the way Elric! roll and allocate is the way (for humans at least)

Corum is STILL my all time favourite RPG book. Physically its a thing of beauty The new rules work And it just inspires wanting to PLAY and to RUN (Some of the humour falls a bit flat for me but hey ho) Al

Consider that idea stolen Al

I tried porting the HeroQuest masteries rule across to d100 and gave up because of the loss of special/critical. However with Pete's actual nmerical analysis I might try When a skill reaches 121% then it becomes 21m1 Al

Deja-Vu all over again? T$R - dominant markeet position, rabid fan base (and some good books) then lose it all with bizarre (seemingly) anti-fan strategies. Taken over by a newboy which made its first fortune through a new rpgish hobby So who's gonna buy WoTC from Hasbro then? And how will they make the stake money? Al

Well if the author agrees with you then it appears that you are probably right...... I'd go for bonus extra skill points as well, partly for ease and also because I have a real cob on about low skill chances in rpgs so any chance to improve things is cool by me. (So I'd just give them the full 'profession skill pool' again but if you don't have the same hangups as me you'd probably go for less) Al

You say problem I say aspect I did warn first time out that it does affect things (combat especially) significantly Al

Fundamentally I suppose that it doesn't matter which method one uses as long as one is consistent The 'Price is Right/Blackjack/Roll High but under' method works really well in PenDragon but PenDragon - uses a D20 - is set up for opposed tests as part of the core mechanic - 'only' has Success and Critical (no Specials) When I have seen (and used) 'Price is Right/Blackjack/Roll High but under' with a d100 it has not been as satisfactory I seem to find myself preferring 'legacy' d100 solutions more as I get older and lazier. Critical beats Special beats Success beats Failure beats Fumble and Perception beats Stealth on a tie [as an aside I read this as a Failed Listen also beats a Failed Sneak since Failure is the same level of (un)success] are both tried and tested and unambiguous approaches The remaining question being what to do in other situations? Deciding which categories of skills trump which other ones is more effort than I want to do pre-game Subtracting roll from skill is more faff than I want (yes for the numerate it is tres simple but not all of my players are numerate or sober) Highest under adds some strange artifacts Lowest outright roll likewise 'PC wins' has legs but not all of the games which I run are pulpy Active beats passive is neat and had I seen/heard this solution first I would probably have given it a shot For ME highest skill wins on remaining ties is the conceptual simplest solution. Of course not everyone seeks out (false) simplicity as such an important goal. Al