Al.

The classic British 80s rpg Dragon Warriors* was written by Dave Morris and Oliver Johnson who wrote a lot of RQII stuff in White Dwarf back in the day. The mechanism used there was derived from a quicker way of playing RQII combat Attack% minus (half Parry%) is statistically similat to Attack% vs. Parry% So this has certainly been done before Al *which has just been re-released but I'm not getting any money to push it and it is published by Mongoose so do not necessarily take this as an encouragement to buy it

I refer my learned friend to the answer I gave some moments ago Al

I do not agree with this (which certainly does not mean that you are wrong! ) To my mind the basics of: timing, aggression, spacing, feinting, reading one's foe (and I am sure many more) are the same whatever one is holding (or not holding) The differences are: mass, mass distribution, strength, stress concentrations and where the dangerous bit is. Houserule: I often use a single 'Combat' skill to cover Armed and Unarmed. If I'm being more granular (which depends very much on setting) I allow for specialisation BRP as playtested <Melee>* weapons Default score is half of the highest skill a character has in that cluster BRP as published includes this as a watered down optional rule (and bizarrely has Parry as a tightly defined but not very clear additional skill) In My Monkey Overlord's Opinion this is still the best published/written rule for different weapon skills Al *and several other clusters of skills

Houserule rather than RAW I prefer characteristics rolled on 3d6 BUT any roll of a '1' is treated as a '2' So minimum for humans is 6 in any score Whilst nominal average is 11 which is more in line with what I want than the nominal average of 13 for 2d6+6 Al

Again in the realms of houserules rather than RAW: An Extra Action Joe Average gets 2 actions (1 Attack and 1 Parry, 1 Attack and 1 Dodge, 1 Parry and 1 Dodge) Having an extra weapon OR SHIELD gives another ATTACK or PARRY with that weapon (or if unarmed) Ripostes A Critical Parry allows for a Riposte if carrying an off hand weapon (or if unarmed but not mix-match i.e. Riposte with a punch) (nicked from Elric!) A successful Parry with a Shield allows a Riposte with other weapon (nicked from translation of French Conan BASIC rules possibly this makes Shields too useful so depending on setting this could be reigned in to a Special Shield Parry allows a Riposte) A successful Parry allows for a Riposte for a Master (nicked from SBIII although in new BRP Master should probably be 101%+ not 90%+ partly for consistency and partly as a Master Swordsman now only needs to raise 1 'Sword' skill rather than 2 'Sword Attack' and 'Sword Parry') Al

I'd have thought that it could work just as easily with the Sorcery system. Also could one have a similar (in game rules) skill called 'Mystic Insight' or similar for those who work magic by instinct rather than poring over dusty tomes? Al

Why not? Cthulhu is still THE place to go for horror. Success breeds success and Cthulhu had some really well written flavour pieces and genuinely interesting scenarios from day one so people expected to buy Cthulhu horror (even if (shock horror) they hated the mythos) That seems to my (entirely ignorant of the economics of rpgs) eye a much more likely route to success than over-thinking and not-doing for lots of areas. Al

Just a note of (slightly weaselly) caution the Elric! stats are for comparison with humans rolling 2d6+6 for stats. So if you are using 3d6 for human stats then Melniboneans might be more like: STR 2d10 CON 2d10 DEX 2d10 SIZ 2d10 (or remain 2d8 + 4 if human SIZ 2d6+6 a la RQIII) INT 4d8 (or remain 3d8 + 8 if human INT 2d6+6 a la RQIII) POW 4d8 APP 3d8 Al

A successful (or Special or Critical) Parry against a failed attack gives a chance to damage the weapon. So (my reading) failed Attack = didn't find an oppening failed Parry = didn't manage to take advantage and damage/bind/disarm the attacking weapon Al

Noooooooooo. PenDragon could still have measley modifiers and BRP/d100 could still have manszied, reflexive ones. The die size does not come into that. Possibly (probably) I mixed my original argument up here. And I have heard people grizzling about multipliers! Some gamers always complain about 'realism' and some of those gripes are even valid. Halving a d20 scale skill or characteristic allows for a harder test. (equivalent to characteristic x2.5) Albeit that's not in the PenDragon rules which prefer straight adds or subtracts for bonuses and penalties. Simpler is not always better and claiming that somethings simpler doesn't make it so. And having a simple rule with lots of exceptions may be more fiddly and annoying than a more robust and initially complex rule. In that I absolutely agree with you. I have also played and run some cracking games with no or very few die rolls. Whether I'd be happy with a system which didn't have a fairly robust random mechanic in is another thing. I like the intuitiveness of d100 and percentage scales but I don't dismiss a simpler idea out of hand. In fact as you can probably tell the more I play/run d20 PenDragon styley the more I like it. Al

Absolutely correct any skill of 1 to 20 only criticals 5% of the time. It is even worse in that each point of skill over 20 adds 5% to your chance for a critical HOWEVER: The situational bonuses in PenDragon are a) mansize (big) usually +5 (+25%) or +10 (+50%) reflexive (they effect both advantaged and disadvantaged So it is possible to affect your chance of success and critical much more than in d100 I attack from the flank on horseback with my mate against a lone infantryman and I am adding +15 (+75%) and he is subtracting -15(-75%) So tactics CAN have a much bigger effect. Also PenDragon Pass has rules for Feats (my anti 'D20tm' bias leads to me renaming these Stunts) which allow even greater control (with a risk) All absolutely correct but also (possibly) missing the point that no multipliers is inherently easier and quicker than (even very simple) multipliers Al

I moved Awareness from Skill to Characteristic* in my PenDragon games so I sort of agree with you but not in a 'this is a bad thing' way. The big advantage of d100 is that (for example) a 75% chance of success is so blindingly obvious and intuitive whilst '15' is just a number. It is not hard to think 'a ha 15 on a d20 scale = 75%' but it is NOT as intuitive. That being said......... Despite my emotional attachment I would now choose GenDragon (do you see what I did there?) over BRP. And players at my club clamour to play PenDragon in way which they do not for BRP. Al * and unified base chances coz I'm too lazy to keep track of different base chances so Skill start at (Dex/2); Missile Weapons (Awa/2) and so on

Quite possibly I wasn't clear enough when I said 'and BRP' I meant 'and the new BRP compendium which just uses the old RQIII Elf stats and which I assumed we were discussing' not 'and all the variant BRP rules ever published' I agree, and mine above were 'inspired' by the Elric! versions. Al

Which I agreed with for a long time (+3 Siz for Melniboneans in old Stormbringer) until no lesser person than Mr Perrin himself told me (quite politely) that I was talking utter toss and that SIZ = non-linear scale mass, end of discussion. One of RQIIs appendices talked about having mass SIZ and height SIZ and using them for different calculations. Later versions do not bother presumably on the grounds of playability. So I now do Dwarves Siz = 3d6 and Elves Siz = 2d6 Al

I agree with much that has gone before. RQ (and BRP) stats for Elves do a grand job of putting numbers to sentient, motile plants but not Melniboneans/Menastrai/Vadhagh/Eldren/Eldar/Sidhe/Fae/Eldarin The author of MRQ's Elric games is on these boards so I'll leave it to him to post (or not) his rules for them. As with Chaosium's version they use d8s not d6s (for quite cool mechanic/background linky reasons) which may nor may not suit. For myself I use the following for the grandeur type Elves Human Eldren APP 3d6 10 3d6+3 13 CON 3d6 10 3d6 10 DEX 3d6 10 3d6+3 13 INT 3d6 10 3d6+6 16 POW 3d6 10 3d6+6 16 SIZ 3d6 10 2d6 7 STR 3d6 10 3d6 10 (Humans left in coz cut and paste from a doc and too lazy to delete them) In an ME setting genuine Light Elves would have higher Int and Pow (and possibly App) scores Went and came back add +6 each Went and coming back on a mission +12 each Went and stayed +18 each Al

This next is a bit tangental but hopefully of some use. Whenever I do pre-gens (and the format of my club is such that this is most of the time) I allow players to choose either: 1 Fighty or 2 non-Fighty skills and these start at 100% (or '20' in Pendragon but you get the idea I am sure) I have found that it works brilliantly to give ownership of the sheet of paper and makes a very simple hook for the character.'a ha Sir Amic has Falconry 20 and Hunt 20 whilst Sir Vix has Flirt 20 and Courtesy 20, its like having character classes but without the you cannot do X because you are Y bit' (It also makes life easier if I have left character gen to the last minute and can basically generate two sets of game stats to reuse amongst the PCs and let the players differentiate the gamey-rulesy bits) Maybe that could work as the 'Genre rules'? (i.e. and off the top of my head Dr Who - choose 1 Fighty or 3 non-fighty, Torchwood - 1 Fighty or 2 non-fighty, Conan - 2 Fighty or 1 non-Fighty) Leaving the core point buy stuff a little cleaner and more generic. Just to muddle the waters, the 'take 100% in ...' could vary with campaign power level. Although I wouldn't. Al

Fair one. Your point is addressing the actual question posed. I would have to agree in general with the marketing point but specifically 'why no BRP love' you're damn right that some of the rules just do not fit what people want. Al

I'd love to argue against that point. But I just cannot. Witness Laserburn cheap as chips and interesting still bumbling along only just in print vs WH40K completely opposite on all counts. It takes effort to unearth poorly marketted gems and not everyone has the time, energy or inclination to do so. Especially if something similarish is easy to know about, find and buy. Al

Fantastic

Except of course that you wouldn't coz that would be illegal and the Jokeshop do like their litigation. Regardless of the fact that its not possible to but the articles or magazines in a way which provides any money to the authors or IP holders scanning in is illegal in its own right ('No part of this publication may be copied or reporduced........ without the prior permission of the publisher') and owning digital copies of something to which you do not own the original DTF more so (since if you own the DTF you might get away with the defence that you bought and own it anyway and the electronic version is not commercially available) You might of course think that thought very hard but I'm sure that you would not post the advice in a public forum and put yourself at risk. Of course selling said magazines on eBay is technically illegal anyway ('shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out ...etc etc') Al

Not sure who that was directed at. if me let me know and I shall try and be a bit more clear. (Or like as not just refer you to the pages in BRP as I am lazy) Ah ha! That is a different matter altogether. If retooling BRIFTSP is actually another hobby to fill in the empty hours then by all means ignore my advice and meddle away. Al

I'm going to agree on two fronts. One with the substance of what Wolverine writes and two with the rider. I do not agree with your approach and I hope that mine is simpler and cleaner but I'm not trying to hammer you for it. Unless you already have houserules which have really worked flawlessly for years then I'd be inclined to use the RAW as much as possible rather than keep reinventing wheels HtH My suggestion Basic = Brawl as written Expert = Martial Art (Expert) which allows for special damage on a successful roll under Brawl and MA (Expert) just as written and would apply when using any unarmed attack Martial Artist = Martial Art (named Martial Art) and the special damage on a successful roll would apply to some weapons and to some unarmed attacks depending on the actual art. You could re-name the Martial Arts skills as HandtoHand skills if that retains flavour Likewise MDC BRP has rules for halving the AP of more primitive armours. Maybe MDC weapons halve all non-MDC armour? Or just use it 'as is' from Palladium MDC in Palladium is quite a neat idea but whether it suits your game or not only you know. Looking back its a bit of a rambly post, so I guess the gist is my advice (which is worth an absolute fortune and is never wrong:)) would be to use the tools already in the BRP toolkit rather than re-write. And that way have more time for prepping and running games. Al

Pretty trivial bit of bad news! Well done Newt. Al

Any news for us yet?

That's a good idea And that's an even better one Al