MatteoN

That little symbol on the character sheets, %, really should be removed, as it puzzles many players. The number that is on your character sheet is not your chance of success full stop; it is "your chance of getting a normal success when attempting a task of average difficulty without additional circumstantial modifiers", or something like that. And this is only true as long as the rating is lower than 100, since the highest chance of success you can have at any task is 99%. So it is not really a percentage, but rather your character's "subjective contribution" to an actual percent chance of success in which also "objective external" circumstances are factored. If modifying the skill rating troubles you, modify the die roll result: double it for hard tasks, halve it for easy tasks, add and subtract specific modifiers to it. The first RPG I bought was D&D, but the first one I played was the German The Dark Eye; TDE's is a roll-under system, so to me rolling under felt "natural"... until I played a RPG with a different system. There are no "intuitive" and "counterintuitive" rules set, only good and bad ones. I habitually say that there's nothing intuitive in the way the knight moves on a chessboard, and still in at least five centuries nobody has had trouble playing chess because of it. All you have to do to is play a game, for its rules to become "second nature".

Allegiance* might be key to making a Nausicaa (and in general Miyazakian) rpg: the allegiance to Life/Nature/Harmony of characters like Nausicaa would increase when they heal other beings, soothe their pain, and save or spare their lives. The allegiance would in turn make them able to commune with powerful and untamed beings like the insects of the toxic jungle. * Or else, a single "Harmony" stat, analogous to Sanity, that determines what are the beings you can communicate/commune with. With Harmony 0 you're completely isolated.

By the way, I think the stats of Call of Cthulhu critters could be easily and appropriately used for the insects of the toxic jungle (for example those of dholes for the unstatted ohmu). As someone wrote in a thread at rpg.net, the insects really are on the same level of dangerousness of cthulhoid entities. However, there is a difference that imho can make roleplaying in Nausicaa's (and in general in Miyazaki) world very interesting: that is, that is possible (to characters with exceptional social skills, psychic abilities and possibly a high enough allegiance to Nature/Harmony) to establish a contact and to communicate with them. Also, the toxic jungle would make a wonderfully exotic and extremely deadly environment for adventures.

Just discovered this French site.

Hi! Have you playtested your system?

Hi. The system seems fun . However I don't get whether and how you account for weapon and armor; is the damage per round additional damage? Maybe it would be possible to combine this idea of yours with my idea of using the pitting the attacker's fixed damage rating the defender's fixed protection rating on the Resistance Table:

My favorite implementation of locational damage is Hero's. In Hero the part of the body that's hit determines a multiplier to the damage that's inflicted to the general HP pool(s). You might want to further develop this very cool idea of yours in that direction: assign to each location three tresholds, one for Bandages, one for Stitches and one for Splints; if the damage dealt (in the standard way) by an attack matches or exceeds a threshold (for example, the one for Stitches) but is under the next higher threshold (for example, the one for Splints), the former threshold determines the condition of the part and the multiplier that's applied to the amount of damage before subtracting it from the general HP pool*. As in Hero, multipliers should vary from location to location**. However, since in CoC there are hordes of creatures of all sizes and shapes, you should either locate only the damage dealt to the investigators or make a list of abstract locations (appendage, body, vitals) applicable to most creatures - not to all, of course! Then again, this system would not be able to account for all the details of your idea (e.g. the gradual bleeding / HP loss), unless for example you state that a character that needs Stitches loses say 1 HP per turn until treated, and 2 HPs per turn if they need Splints - with the possible effect of making the system deadlier than it already is. * Instead of using thresholds, you might have the condition of the part hit be directly determined by the level of success of the attack: success -> bandages, special succ. (=1/5 of skill) -> stitches, critical succ. (=1/20 of skill) -> splints, using only the multipliers corrisponding to the conditions as modifiers of the damage rolled on the dice (discarding impaling damage). This solution might be more compatible with the introduction of bleeding damage. ** For example: APPENDAGE: Bandages=x0.25 / Stitches=x0.5 / Splints=x1 BODY: Bandages=x0.5 / Stitches=x1 / Splints=x2 VITALS: Bandages=x1 / Stitches=x2 / Splints=x4

Right, you're only distinguishing here between success and critical success, I'd forgot it. I still prefer my alternative because it allows me to resolve a whole combat with just the d100, and because I find the (quite common in BRP) method of rolling dice to determine a number to use in another roll of the dice often unnecessarily time-consuming. I will pay some more thought to your interesting idea, tough (and maybe will try to hybridize it with mine).

My idea was to pit the attacker's [(STR+SIZ)/2 + fixed weapon bonus] against the defender's [(CON+SIZ)/2 + fixed armor bonus] on the resistance table in order to determine if the defender is scratched, lightly wounded, severely wounded or fatally wounded (depending on the difference between the attacker's and the defender's levels of success). Questbird's idea is different in that, since the resilience roll has only two possible outcomes (OK and KO) and the medical condition of a character that has been taken out of the fight is determined after the fight has ended (an interesting idea, imo) indipendently from the amount of damage inflicted by the attack(s), it uses random damage to express the difference between a normally, a specially and a critically successful attack. As an alternative, one might perhaps use three fixed ratings: (maximum damage)*0.5 for a success, maximum damage for a special success, and (maximum damage)*1.5 for a special success. From one of these ratings one would subtract the armor's maximum protection and pit double the difference against the defender's resilience on the resistance table.

I considered something similar here: http://basicroleplaying.com/showthread.php/3592-Has-anyone-tried-something-like-this-houserule?p=52236#post52236

At rpg.net nobody is selling this guy on OQ2: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?707543-Sell-me-OpenQuest-2

Thanks a lot, soltakss!

I've just ordered MR from Lulu. Have you seen somewhere any guidelines to use it with BRP/RQ/etc.? Does its magic system correspond to one of those used in these games?

Much food for thought! I'm not sure 1) would be a semplification. Let's see: my idea was to compare the attacker's level of success and the defender's level of success in oder to determine the two possible outcomes of a third roll, made by the attacker against the number shown on the resistance table at the intersection of the attacker's Damage Rating (=(STR+SIZ)/2+Weapon Bonus) with the defender's Protection Rating (=(CON+SIZ)/2+Armor Bonus). If I am not mistaken, your idea is to subtract the defender's Protection Rating from the attacker's Damage Rating in order to determine a "default" injury level. Then the defender's Luck roll would modify the injury level. A problem I see with this is that the success levels of the attack and defense roll don't affect the level of the injury produced by the attack. You should perhaps use the difference between those rolls to modify the "default" injury level instead of the Luck roll? (Perhaps as the Usagi Yojimbo RPG you mentioned does; is it the one by Greg Stolze?) In 2) you mention the soak roll, but that was a previous idea unrelated to the one we're discussing now. It's certainly my fault not to have started a new thread when the second idea (doing without hit points and damage - and soak - dice and using the Resistance table to pit two fixed rating against each other) cropped up; sorry for the confusion. 3) I will have to look on the BGB how Luck points work. 4) Those are some of the options I'm contemplating, together with the character's immediately next roll being Hard. If you have some more suggestions, especially on this last point, please share!

Yes, probably. I should simulate fights with the same opponents and the same (attack and defense) die rolls in the two systems. Do you see any glaring errors or undesirable side-effects?

I was wrong, the actual chance is 1%*35%=0.35% There are 3 or 4 rolls: an attack roll, a defense roll, a roll on the Resistance Table (made by the attacker) and possibly a Luck roll (made by the defender). They're all percentile rolls. Both the Weapon Bonus and the Armor Bonus are fixed numbers (the starting idea of a protection roll "mirroring" the damage roll is totally unrelated to this here idea of pitting the attacker's Damage Rating to the defender's Protection Rating on the Resistance Table - sorry for the confusion). This idea of pitting the attacker's fixed DR against the defender's fixed PR on the Resistance Table stemmed from Atgxtg's suggestion that I do without Hit Points, so I prefer to treat each Minor Wound as a one-time penalty that affect the wounded character's chance to attack or defend (and so might increase their enemies chance to kill/incapacitate them), without the need to have an expendable resource like Hit Points/Minor Wounds. EDIT: in short, the resource management aspect of a fight changes from being centered around hit points, to being centered around skills: wounding an adversary you lower their chance to defend effectively against a further attack, or to attack you effectively. However, if you are fighting alone against a stronger and better armed adversary, you'd better take advantage of the penalty inflicted to your enemy to grab a better weapon or flee from the fight!

I agree. Yeah, they're like Night Gaunts, and Night Gaunts are cool. Perhaps you might decrease their STR; maybe they fly because they're light and have a huge wingspan, not because they're strong.

Neither do I! This is very much idle speculation at the moment. The types of wound a successful attack deals depend on the difference between the attacker's and the defender's (attack and parry/dodge) rolls. For example, if the attacker scores a Special Success and the defender a Failure, the difference is such that the attack will deal either a Major Wound or a Minor Wound, regardless of the difference between the attacker's Damage Rating ((STR+SIZ)/2+Weapon Bonus) and the defender's Protection Rating ((CON+SIZ)/2+Armor Bonus). This difference comes into play just in order to determine the likelihood that the attack will deal the more harmful of the two types of Wound. In your example, the halfling, pitting his (active) DR=6 against the troll's (passive) PR=23 on the Resistance Table, will have a 1% chance (ruling out automatic successes and failures in the case of damage rolls) of inflicting a Major Wound to the troll with bare hands. Let's assume that the troll has an average (for a troll) POW 7 and that therefore his Luck roll is 35%: 1%*35%=0.35% is the chance that the halfling's barehanded attack will kill or otherwise incapacitate (player's call) the troll*. In the overwhelmingly more likely occurrence that the halfling's attack only deals a Minor Wound, this will still affect negatively the troll; I still haven't decided what exactly the penalty might be; perhaps the troll's next roll will be hard, so he will be less likely to hit effectively the halfling or, if the hye... the halfling has an ally, the troll will be less likely to defend himself effectively from the ally's attack. Now, even if there are 10 halfings attacking the troll, if all of them are barehanded, the troll is very likely to waste some of them before a) a halfling rolls a critical and the troll rolls a fumble, resulting in an automatic Major Wound, with a 65% chance to kill/incapacitate the troll. * If the troll had worn armor, and the halfling had chosen an armored location for the Major Wound, 0,35% would have been the chance that the attack damaged or displaced the piece or armor worn by the troll in that location, subtracting its value from the troll's PR (I think the character's PR might be the sum of the PRs of all the pieces of armor worn by the character, with each piece probably having either 1 or 2 PR).

Depending on what locations are targeted by attacks, this system looks like it might be quite deadly (even if you don't need to kill your opponent to take them out of the fight). I was thinking that perhaps a way to tone down the potential deadliness might be to equate a piece of armor to an automatically successful Luck roll. So, the Armor Bonus you add to your character (CON+SIZ)/2 is a single fixed number (perhaps the maximum random AP that can be generated by the armor die used in Stormbringer/Elric!/Magic World), but you also take note of what part(s) of your character's body each piece of armor protects. The first time in a fight that you receive a Major or Fatal Wound to a part that is protected by a piece of armor, the part doesn't get disabled/destroyed by the attack - but maybe the piece of armor has a chance to get shattered/displaced? (Luck roll? Or, roll under POW x the piece of armor's quality rating, rannging from 1 to 5... Remember, the idea is to get rid of Hit Points.)

Just an idea: maybe in case of successful attack the attacker's (STR+SIZ)/2+WEAPON BONUS (or fixed WEAPON RATING in case of firearms etc.) might be compared to the defender's (CON+SIZ)/2+ARMOR BONUS on the resistance table.* Depending on the difference between the success levels previously scored by the attacker and the defender, a roll against the percentage shown on the table would determine: [same success level] a MINOR WOUND if the roll is successful, or else a (harmless) SCRATCH; [difference = 1] a MAJOR WOUND if the roll is successful, or else a (harmless) SCRATCH; [difference = 2] a MAJOR WOUND if the roll is successful, or else a MINOR WOUND; [difference = 3] a FATAL WOUND if the roll is successful, or else a MINOR WOUND; [difference = 4] a FATAL WOUND if the roll is successful, or else a MAJOR WOUND. When the defender is dealt a MINOR WOUND, ... (any suggestions for an appropriate, temporary penalty to the defender's combat efficiency?). When the defender is dealt a MAJOR WOUND, the attacker targets a part of the body of the defender; if the defender fails a Luck roll, the body part is incapacitatated or destroyed, and the defender, if still alive, is unable to go on fighting; otherwise, the defender suffers a temporary penalty to their combat efficiency (see MINOR WOUND). When the defender is dealt a FATAL WOUND, the attacker targets a part of the body of the defender, that is automatically incapacitated or destroyed, and the defender, if still alive, is unable to go on fighting. * Over-the-top characters from comic books etc. might use a full base rating of STR+SIZ and CON+SIZ.

I thought much of the BRP fanbase was in continental European countries... Having values expressed according to both systems would be appreciated, perhaps.

I agree! However I think there might be a problem with spells that affect HPs and other such subsystems, that would prevent this alternative mechanics from being "plug and play" in BRP. Actually my starting idea was, similarly to what you wrote, about STR+SIZ and CON+SIZ being percentile stats/skills (modified by flat weapon and armor bonuses) that are rolled under when an attack is successful, and whose results are compared to determine the condition of the defender.

I am very curious about the forthcoming book dedicated to the nomads of the steppes. I know there already is (or used to be) a free digital document by Gianni Vacca on the subject, but my French being terrible I haven't bothered trying to read it. I have been attracted to Mongolia since when, as a child, I read by Fritz Mühlenweg, * http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/111289/childrens-literature/51266/War-and-beyond#ref505774

Why is damage soak a third stat and HPs are not? Not sure. At least faster adjudication of major wounds (if the attack inflicts 5+ HPs, the wound is a major one) without additional die rolls (attack vs. parry, weapon+damage bonus vs. armor+damage soak, luck roll, instead of attack vs. parry, weapon+damage bonus vs. armor, roll on major wound table) and with damage location freely chosen by the attacker (being used to - and a little fed up with - Rolemaster's charts, I'm not particularly fond of MW's major wound table, but I'm not fond either of hit location tables, either in BRP or in GURPS). However, what I'd like to know is how do you think this houserule would affect gameplay (especially as regards the level of deadliness of the combat system). So I guess your answer is "negatively"?

Go ahead! I'd be honored if you did! But... ... I don't understand what you mean. My idea was to use Strength+Size in order to determine the damage bonus/penalty (as usual), and Constitution+Size in order to determine the damage soak bonus/penalty (HPs being a fixed amount).