Link6746

The rules for my cybernetics and resource points mechanics are both in the downloads section, last I checked. The resource points mechanic is meant to work alongside the wealth mechanic's defined terms (You get certain starting resource points and "income" of resource points based on those terms as defined in Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying). The Cybernetics mechanics are based on the idea of implants taking up "slots" depending on their cumbersomeness, but the cybernetics themselves are largely designed using a step by step process that determines their type (one of three boost types, combined with two or so types of implant, those being cybernetic and biological graft, combined with classification as a prosthetic or implant), their quality (Determines how likely they are to malfunction and their effectiveness), and what happens if they malfunction. The balancing methods included are meant to be selected by the GM, and include ideas based on Cyberpunk 2020's "Humanity", Shadowrun's "Essence", and a more directly Neuromancer inspired method where implants and prosthetics can conflict with each other sometimes, causing problems that make sense for the type of implant (and are listed with the malfunction results). I tried to design them primarily as cyberpunk optional rules, but I also tried to give them reasons to work with everything from steampunk automaton parts to manapunk golem grafts as well.

Gender differences are a hot-button topic, so I'll make this clear: Actually causing stats or skills to be better or worse based on Gender isn't actually realistic. The primary (and often only) difference between a man and a woman attempting something is not the efficiency of a tasks completion or how well it was done, but the method that makes that task easiest to them. There are even real world exceptions to this rule of thumb, and most of the females that could be considered exceptions are the type of woman you'd expect to be adventuring in the first place. Ultimately, this seems like the only proper way to add a guide to these differences: 1: The GM would be advised that forcing player characters to use the data provided would be both unrealistic and extremely prone to splitting the group at the seams. 2: Data provided would be non-mechanical, and focus on strengths of each gender rather than weaknesses, as well as pointing out the utility of each "Strength" in a manner that shows no preference for either. If Data on this would reinforce any negative stereotype, it is omitted for the sake of preventing problems. 3: Each strength pointed out should result in, at most, a "preferred" or "New" way to use the skill it effects. Example: A focus on Upper Body Strength (Men) or Lower Body Strength (Women), differences in how each gender solves the same problems logically with similar effectiveness, and Stunts that rely on the strengths common to that gender (Spot Details for women, Notice in Low Light for men). The utility of these should be equivalent to that of their counterpart of the opposite gender. 4: This should go without saying, but pointing out strengths that paint a negative picture of either gender isn't a good idea. For example, you shouldn't have a female character with the specialization in "Streetwise" of "Gossip", because it paints a very negative picture of women, just the same as a man shouldn't have a "Stealth" specialization for "Peeping Tom" for the same reason. Obviously, depending on background this could be waived, but the source of these should NEVER be just the gender of the character, and the group needs to be okay with a character with these flaws as focuses for skills. If the group's majority votes no (with the GM's vote counted a second time if a tie happens), this is a perfectly good reason for you being ejected from that group, especially if you've already been warned about it. 5: I shouldn't have to say this, but SHOW YOUR WORK. Any research that points to the advantages of either gender in a certain way should be mentioned with other research materials in a bibliography at the back of the book, that has an entry in the table of contents. It's a lot easier to justify adding gender differences even as an optional rule if you have research you can point to from credible sources that confirms the differences in the system. Likewise, emphasize that these rules are not "Hardwired" into the game, and can be ignored if they would cause arguments... And once again, that the GM shouldn't force players to use any of the suggestions offered, but depending on the group may have the right to forbid use of the suggestions given on the basis of gender alone. My Rationale is: 1: Men and women are largely capable of the same accomplishments given the proper training and opportunity; However, scientific data suggests that due to the differences between men and women (both body and mind) it is often easier easier to be good at a task using different methods of accomplishing it by each gender for the majority of either. I say "Majority" because there are exceptions in real life too, and while not extremely common, they are more common than you think (Also, the most likely to act contrary to traditional roles, which is why most female adventurers aren't normal according to the society which they came from). 2: By focusing on the strengths of each AND making including them all optional, suggested skill foci that affect the method (rather than the effectiveness) of skill uses in ways equivalent in utility and accessibility, You are avoiding painting any single gender as "superior" or "inferior" to it's counterpart. 3: By not mentioning perceived or believed strengths that violate religious or secular morality to either gender on sole basis of that gender, you avoid validating negative stereotypes about that gender. By not touching the stats or skills themselves beyond suggesting a single focus for them (Taken out of the number able to be chosen normally), you are reinforcing the idea of "Different Yet Equal" that is key to dismantling prejudice of any kind (though in this instance, it's sexism in particular) 4A: The above three principles allow for strong female characters that aren't evocative of tomboys specifically, but reinforce the ability of a properly written female protagonist of any profession in particular to be both strong AND feminine, without resorting to making them "Men at heart" (One of the few ways strong female characters are portrayed in Hollywood, the other being as a villain or with partial nudity). The fact they're optional allows players to make the kind of exceptions to societal roles and physiological traits that do exist in the real world among females. And the fact that EACH element is optional means you can pick exactly where on the spectrum of masculine/feminine nature a female character falls in method and behavior without forcing penalties on the character. 4B: Likewise, principles 1-3 allow the creation of sensitive male heroes without forcing them to mirror negative stereotypes about such things, while allowing the "masculine and tough" males common in fiction and present in real life to be properly represented as well. Again, this also allows you to pick where on the "Masculine/Feminine" spectrum of behavior and modus operendi any male character falls into without forcing penalties to be applied to the character. 5: By not tying stats to gender at all, quite a few other problems are avoided entirely, leaving it much easier to explain the differences without showing prejudice that may or may not exist within you. By not reducing skills, you likewise are avoiding "Go Back to the Kitchen" syndrome. 6: By not outright suggesting foci for specific skills, but instead giving the information to the player without tying it to any direct mechanical choice at character creation, the player will fill in the blanks themselves, creating a greater diversity of characters of both genders.

Will there be a decent built-in cybernetics system? Cybernetics in BRP itself are very lacking. Also, are you still using the core wealth system? I'm 100% on board with you using the Cybernetics and Resource Points rules I designed, as optional rules. I don't even care if you make a profit from it, because I just want to see it included in a D100 System Book that's actually being printed... And right now, while I am already planning on buying D100 Revolution, adding those two things in some form would make it a much more important (And pressing) purchase.

The following of my projects are fair game for this. If you wish to use them, send me an email. I'll private message you my email address... Or not. It doesn't look like you can currently accept private messages. I'll check back here later.

This puts so much into perspective. SO MUCH.

I have something in Simpler BRP that fixes this issue.

Does the Modern Equipment Catalog include statistics for the weapons it has in it? I was thinking of purchasing it. My PnP group has a gunsmith in it, and his main complaint about BRP is the "Generic" weapon stats such as damage and range (And that not every weapon of a given type has the same qualities for these things).

A long time I ago I made this:

I feel like turning THIS into said PDF.

Hey, I have a question myself. I need an extension to BRP Mecha that adds overheating for weapons and other components, similar to battletech and the mechwarrior series of PC games. Main reason is that using mechs without the ability to accidentally overheat your weapons (or deliberately do so) isn't gritty enough for me. Is there an easy way to calculate this in? If not, can someone provide a chart that I can turn into a PDF for private use?

(REMOVED)

I've phased in and out of angry and depressive states about this order's status every time I've thought about it. My emails to Chaosium are getting more erratic than their communication record.

I tried to contact chaosium today at 3:00 PM about an order I'd made (BRP Mecha, during Green Thursday) that had never arrived. I got a generic message machine. This is the 3rd time this has happened, and emailing them and using their contact form is of no use. (I've tried both, from Early december to now, about a total of 3 times each) I don't know what has happened. I've never had trouble with Chaosium before, at least not before moving to California. The warehouse it was supposed to ship from was WITHIN California, no less. I could have picked up the book I ordered in six hours if I'd driven down there myself. Instead it's been a month and a half, maybe two months, and I'm still waiting on my hard copy of BRP Mecha from Chaosium's webstore. Did Chaosium go out of business? Did the distributors and warehouses they used down here end up contributing to that? What happened?

Why does Superman get clobbered so much? Because Batman is Chuck Norris in the DC Universe. How else can you explain how he's the only "Normal" Member of the justice league, an organization of superhumans, yet Superman gave HIM the plans in case he were to threaten earth somehow? Because people in the DC Universe probably would make up "Facts" about batman the way we do about Chuck Norris, that's why.

My own custom setting, Tentatively titled Metaverse, used to have it's own backing as a system. It was basically a mixture of BRP in mechanics and Numinara in tone in it's original form. Since then I've revised into into a more complex vision of a planescape-esque world with major lovecraftian elements lurking in the shadows of profane and divine creatures warring over planes while simultaneously trying to keep the balance between their innately opposing forces to prevent the lovecraftian nasties from entering reality at large. A setting where damnation and salvation are on a knife's edge, from reality, mythology, and unreality at once, through manipulations of time, space, and dimensions. Through methods involving magic, machinery, sorcery and psionics. Converting this setting to BRP was one of the best moves I had made with it.

I've always thought that naming APPearence what it was, was one of the only problems with the BRP system. Actual beauty is subjective, based on personal preferences. The fact that many of these are common to entire cultures seems a piss poor excuse to not have any form of system for MAKING appearance subjective. Personally my method is that, if a character is seducing someone, their preference of bodystyle uses the SIZ stat as a reference on a chart (Real or Imagined), and any Reaction checks based on Appearence rely upon the idea that 10 SIZ is the average, 5 or less is Petite, and 15 or more is Large. Each character either has a preference for this, or it defaults to the same as their culture's "Normal" preference. If you're closer to 5 or 15 than 10 and the target of seduction is fond of average bodytypes, then your seduction check is moved 1 step towards difficult. If you're closer to ten than either of those, it's Normal. If you made special preparations based on other things the character being seduced likes, you move it one step towards easy. And yes, Seduction HAS come up in play before in PnP during games I've hosted. The fact I've made a Spot Rule out of it shows just how often players think it's an option depending on the crowd. But then, the fact I'm able to think of this probably reflects poorly on the cleanliness of my mind in the first place

The main reason the mechanics in BRP are so utterly, impossibly, and powerfully versatile is the fact that you can easily create or use rules to expand it into any type of game, while the game remains internally consistent. This is why it works.

Just implemented a cursory Restriction/Legality system specific to cybernetics.

If I create a campaign world to be utterly hopeless... I always make the game about surviving as long as possible against odds that are stacked against them, and trying to make the most of the last hours This could mean saving many people from the infection of parasites in your space station by setting the self destruct and defending the terminal as the hive minded creatures try to kill you and unset it. It could mean jetissoning every escape pod before you get the chance to escape so that none of the creatures get out, etc. It could even be about spending it with who you love, if you want to go a noncombat route.

I would say that the virus shouldn't be live for just 48 hours. If you look at the zombie survival guide, even antibodies can lead to developing the virus. As a result, once bitten I would make any cause of death save the head being blown off cause zombification even after the initial threat of dying from the disease is over.

My idea for the zombie bite is this: Make resist to zombie bites and scratches a CON check by levels of zombie bites recieved, first time easy, second normal, third hard, 4th and onwards is at base CON rather than at con*5. At a final level that requires great luck and many bites to get to, the bite is always something that results in zombification. Furthermore, if a zombie bite is active as a major wound, then dying by any means save your head blown off will cause reanimation. This may extend to being at any level of zombie bite.

My big suggestion... is to rely on isolation for solo horror games. Works really well.