Zane

My two primary projects: 1. Expanding the Call of Cthulhu 5.6 weapons tables to include the extra columns in Basic Roleplaying. 2. My Call of Cthulhu Campaign set in Boston in 1919. Additional projects when I can find the time: 3. An Article for Empire of the Petal Throne (it is not specific to any game system). This is almost done. 4. A Secret Agent genre Pulp setting. The basic setting is in place, still needs some work. 5. A cold war inspired West vs. Neo-Soviet Sci-Fi setting. The basic setting is in place, but needs a lot of work to flesh it out. 6. A Doctor Who BRP conversion. Needs a lot of work, largely based on the FASA RPG, with some inspiration from the "Time Lord" RPG (I actually own a print copy). Only in the most basic of planning stages: 7. Aircraft oriented Pulp setting 8. A Sci-Fi setting, this is actually going to get bumped up to a primary project, as it looks like it will be run occasionally when the one player isn't available for my main campaign (currently the Boston 1919 CoC campaign). I'm looking for ideas, the ruleset will be BRP. Current ideas include Stargate SG1, Serenity, or some kind of Space Opera setting. It needs to be something that interests both me and the two people playing. Of course if it is Stargate, we're likely to have my 4 year old wanting to play. :eek: It won't be #5 though. 9. Heroic Pulp setting

CODA version of Star Trek? You've lost me on that one. I have the FASA version, and the Star Fleet Battles RPG. Is the CODA one, the one that Decipher did a few years back? As for the Universe RPG, I'm afraid that's a definite hole in my library.

If doing up my own campaign, for world Generation, I'd be tempted to look at the old World Builders handbook from DGP. Of course anyone not having a copy, will have "fun" finding one should they want to. The CORPS VDS (Vehicle Design System) claims to be capable of designing vehicles for just about any system. I just picked up a used copy cheap, even though it looks more complicated than I want to deal with. Personally for starship design, I would like to take a page from the old FASA wargames, specifically Battletech and the Star Trek Starship Tactical Combat Simulator design systems. Have lists, buy a hull from a list, buy a powerplant to put in it from a list, add engines from a list, etc., etc. One guess as to what I played a lot of in the 80's! Of course as much as I like this system, I'm thinking of going more towards a modular approach (think lego's) for a Sci-Fi game I might do. No real hulls, just clip the various components together. For example, take an engine module, add fuel tanks around it, then a cargo module in front of the engine, followed by a crew module, and finally control module. Each module has its own environmental control systems, each is self contained. I think someone mentioned writing up starships like you would characters. I believe this is how it is done in the D20 modern system. I also think it makes a lot of sense, just use the same basic combat rules. However, I think that you need a way for crew members to effect how the ship performs. For example, a skilled gunner will increase the likely hood of hitting enemy ships, a skilled pilot will decrease the likely hood you'll get hit. Using such a system needs a way to differentiate between scales. A laser carried by a person might kill another person, but not scratch a starship. A starship laser on the other hand is likely to vaporize a person, and damage another starship. Zane

Except for #1, I like the suggestions. For #1, it really should remain 1D10. The standard submachine gun is 9mm, right? According to existing source material that is 1D10. On #6 pump would definitely make better sense in this description. For #7 Semi-Automatic makes sense. Just how many shotguns are automatic? I've heard of the Atchison Assault Shotgun, I've also read that it wouldn't work with standard shotgun shells when using the 20-round drum and automatic fire. You instead would have to use special metal shells, to prevent the heat of automatic fire from melting the plastic casing.

And seeing the new thread, rereading what you'd written here, and realizing I'd missed this, "A" and "C" make a bit more sense. I hadn't realized you were this close to wrapping things up. While I think a Caliber table is needed, just get this sucker in print. I'm sorry to hear about your problems, and hope things are getting better. Zane

FreddyBoomBoom is supposed to be going over the tables I've been working on, so far it only has the CoC tables updated to include the info in the "Basic Roleplaying" book. Realistically, the more I've thought about this, the more I like the solution used in Delta Green, they keep the caliber tables separate from the gun tables. I'd just as soon see the stats kept the same as they are in the various materials. I am wondering if generic STR/DEX ratings for individual calibers make sense. The reason I like the caliber table is that there are some great weapons books already out there. Just use one of those and the caliber table. Or if one of your players has a real world source, you can quickly throw something together. Zane

The first change I'd make would be to throw out the "A" & "C" requirements, I have no problem with "B", "C", and "E". Now let me explain why. Actually let me first ask, do you have access to the "1990's Handbook: Modern Background for Call of Cthulhu"? This is a legitimate source of material for you. The book comes close to doing it right, though I personally think Delta Green does a better job. There is a lot to be said for a table giving stats for individual calibers, with that, you can get away with a far less complete weapons table. If someone has a player that wants to use "Weapon A", the GM looks at real info on the weapon and sees that it uses 9mm ammo, looks at the ammo table and determines that it does 1D10 damage. I still think that the book should have a less generic list of guns, more in line with what is found in the Call of Cthulhu rulebook. I really don't understand the desire to be so generic that wildly different guns are covered by the same exact entry. While I think the weapons table is seriously flawed, others don't. Maybe it makes sense to basically leave the weapons table the way it is. However, if you do that, you really need tables giving damage stats for those of us that want a bit more realism. I hope this is coherent, I need sleep. Zane

:focus: Amazingly, our group is looking at its another session tomorrow (two Saturday's in a row :eek:)! So I'd like to let them know what people think. Does everyone agree that the following pretty much sums up the basic thread. ~60% Think the weapons table is fine, and don't care about more detail. ~40% Think more detail is needed. (Just giving a damage table for ammo types like in Cthulhu Now or Delta Green seems to be a well received idea, and should probably include a few real weapons with such a table.) ~5-10% think the existing gun tables need totally thrown out, and new, more realistic ones take their place.

Seconded. On both points!

I received the spam as well.

My experience with Superhero games is with using the HERO system, mostly Champions 3rd Ed. (this example is form that). You can have a good ruleset, but if the players conspire against the GM, they can play off of each others advantages and disadvantages to the extent that they really hurt game play. I've seen this destroy a game. I'm currently looking at the possibility of either pre-generated characters, or characters built by the players and myself working closely to craft them. This isn't a game balance issue, this is a story-telling issue. I have a couple ideas I'm working on that would work best with pre-generated characters.

I have a 360, but only have a Silver subscription, plus I don't remember the last time I sat down and played a game (probably before our youngest was born).

I was in a bit to much of a hurry on that last post, not only are they still largely clueless about what's going on in the campaign after over four and a half years, but they're still largely clueless about the mechanics of the game as well. I'm the only one with the CoC5.6 book, but plan on trying to convince them to buy their own copy of "Basic Roleplaying" once the final is available. I really think they should have their own copies. I'll most likely even pick up a 2nd copy of the final for myself so I have a copy to mark up (if not cut up).

The campaign I'm running has been going for over four and a half years now. Most of that time they've been on the wrong track, as they keep ignoring the same key clue I periodically try to hit them over the head with. I think they're finally on the right track and about to wrap things up. While they've been off track, they've had some interesting adventures.

I was in a hurry when I read through the rule this morning so I might be wrong, but I took it to be on a per skill basis, and that it isn't a calculation.... Oh.... Geez.... Let me guess, you figure out the modifier for each skill group, then you simply add or subtract that number from each base chance for the skills that are part of that group. Okay, at that point this makes sense, becomes far more usable, and only adds a couple minutes. Well if what I wrote above is right, consider my statement this morning to be the result of someone that is a bit frazzled today. A group like you describe above would drive me crazy. But then as I'm the only one with the rules, and the others have at best read a small portion of the rules I'm free to largely do as I wish. Sometimes I do ignore the rules, as I don't want them getting in the way of the story that is being crafted. The main thing my players know is that I tell them how many dice to roll, and if they're lucky I might tell them what it means. More often than not I either look at a copy of their character sheet, or ask to see theirs, and tell them what happens after they roll, they typically have no idea what they're rolling against on their character sheet or why they're rolling! An obvious exception to this is combat.

It isn't simple math, it is more like determining what type skill each one you have is, and then looking at the chart as to how many points to increase, or decrease it. From a quick read of the optional rule this morning it personally strikes me as cumbersome, and something most people won't want to bother with in character generation. I might be wrong, but at face value, it looks to significantly increase the amount of time needed to create your character, while offering minimal incentive to go to the trouble. Of course if your character is tweaked to be high in all the right stats, then it will be worth the effort. Of course if you are low in the wrong stats, then your character will take penalties, yet another reason I don't expect this to be a popular optional rule.

You've got me there, I'd forgotten about those. On the other hand, this does bring up another point, an that is that there is a need for some sort of character generator (I do not have time to write one). How many players will want to take the time to figure out how their skills are adjusted if this optional rule is used? I know I wouldn't.

Curse you!!! I still need to pick up the TV series (and cartoon series), and I've only managed to watch the first movie. If only I'd had the book on time, I'd have had a lot more time to read through it.

If it is anything like the Navy's, I can only imagine. BTW, what does "MOS Specific Skill" mean? I'm guessing that's Army specific. Tradition. Seriously, that's the main reason I can think of. Also, making it DEX based might have some interesting results on character creation. People would want to sock extra points into DEX, so they start out as better shots. On one hand, you tell someone the basics of a gun, hand it to them, and then tell them to shoot a target. What is going to happen, how much does it really matter how good their DEX is, they've never fired a gun. On the other hand, take two people, you give them the both the same talk as the previous guy, and hand them each the gun, telling them to shoot the target. One has a high DEX, the other a very low DEX. Logically the one with the higher DEX will be the better shot. Am I making any sense? I don't know, I'm simply trying to show both sides of the argument for each method. There are a lot of other factors in play, is the person strong enough to hold the weapon steady, do they have the shakes, how good is their eyesight. A person with horrible DEX could very easily be a better shot than someone with great DEX. In spite of everything I've just written, I think you have a valid point, and that it might make sense to say that a low enough DEX lowers your base chance, a midrange DEX has no effect, and a high DEX raises your base chance. At the same time one of the goals is to keep this simple. Still this would effect character generation and not slow down game play.

I've been using some of the rules in the Call of Cthulhu game that I'm running ever since the playtest started. As a result I selected Fantasy/Historical in the poll. I'd like to run either Pulp 30's, Post Holocaust, or Sci-Fi next. What I use it for next will depend in part on what my players want to do.

I here you on the "I don't have time for it"! If our group got together and played every week, then I might be willing to consider using HERO, but even Champions 3rd Ed. is way to complicated for me at this point in my life. Systems such as HERO and GURPS are for people that are single, young and/or have no life. BRP is a system for those of us that are busy with jobs, families, and who knows what else! I absolutely love how my group can get so busy with real life that we can't get together for a year, and then go right back to playing without having to spend any time studying the rules. Granted situations like that require that you keep good notes as to what is going on in your campaign, but good lean rules really help. I wonder if Chaosium could be convinced to sell BRP as the system for people that have a real life!

I envision something with all of the rules being in a database back-end, and a web front end. I realize it is technically quite possible, however, I don't think that it is economically feasible, at least not for a company as small as Chaosium. I do know I'd gladly pay for such a thing. I remember the 2nd Ed. Monster Manuals for AD&D being in a binder, and I remember seeing people setup that way for Rolemaster. Those are the only RPG books I can think of. Star Fleet Battles is designed to go into a binder as well, but it's a wargame. My one thought is actually to take a copy of the final book and get the binding cut off of it, and punch it. I'm totally opposed to destroying books so this a very strange thing for me to even consider. I suspect that it would be difficult to run a campaign using all of the rules. It's designed for you to pick the choices that will work best for you, not to use all of them.

I don't know about everyone else, but I for one don't want to see BRP turn into something like HERO or GURPS. I played quite a bit of Champions 2nd and 3rd Ed. in the late 80's and early 90's. I purchased a ton of GURPS in the 90's, but have never played it. My personal view of HERO is that it's a great system, but it's best used for Superhero games. GURPS on the other hand has way to many rules. Personally I think both systems get in the way of Role Playing, to much of a session of champions was always spent dealing with the rules. With BRP, you do a quick dice roll occasionally and move on. I like a lightweight rule set, which is what BRP has been. I'd like to keep the rules to the bare minimum where you simply use the rules that makes sense for the game you are running. I personally intend to run with the basic CoC 5.6 rules, but the things from "Basic Roleplaying" that make sense. The new book fills a lot of the holes in the CoC rules, not all, but most I've run up against. What I think the ideal "Basic Roleplaying" book would be is something where you pop in a CD, or go to the Chaosium website, select the rules you want included, and it spits out a PDF that you can get printed and bound, or it sends a file to a "Print On Demand" place and you get your book from them a few days later. Even better if you can add your own material in. I've mentioned this before I know, and I've also stated that I don't think it is realistic idea. Who knows, I might just buy a copy of the finished book and cut it up to make the book I want. While I do think that the D20 and MRQ systems stink, I do like that the SRD's are available, and you can do exactly what I'm talking about here, make your own custom book.

Having read through everything in the thread, this solution seems to make the most sense to me.

Mainly getting the CoC 5.6 Weapons Tables to include the new fields that are in the new book. I had to get ready last week to GM a game on Saturday, and this week I'll be doing the same. It is nice to finally get a couple sessions in. The group only carries something like 4 different weapons max, so realistically I'm doing quite well by having as much done as I do. Our Gun-fondler carries a M1911A1 .45 Caliber Automatic, which if I remember right under the new rules requires a STR of 11, and he's STR 9. Could be, though right now it is still a work in progress.