Montjoy

I could have sworn it makes the action difficult. For shields it says it is difficult on pg 264 but I can't seem to find it mentioned elsewhere sorry. I hope someone else can chime in for ya.

if you want to pm me an email I can send you it

a ton of the spec problems that come from the Falcon data is that they switched models. Originally it was much more like the blockade runner we see the princess on at the beginning of the movie. For these reasons the inside of the ship quite literally doesn't fit inside the ship. Here is a link if you are interested. Go to the Behind the scenes section. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Millennium_Falcon (edited to add link)

blah accidental early reply.. And how can Perform, Etiquette and Command help in a heated discussion? Having to stretch my brain as this was done in a game over a year ago, but if recall correctly we allowed them to apply bonuses. Basically you'd make a skill check for Etiquette or Command etc, if it made sense, and if successful we applied it as a bonus to the primary skill. I honestly can't remember atm what the bonus amount was.

Usually we used what worked best by the BGB definition. Bargain was generally used to hash out an agreement over something when the facts were basically agreed upon, like the price of an item. Persuade is used to convince someone that a point is correct. As for fast talk we generally let it work the same way as persuade but the target sorta just shook it off later where as Persuade would leave them with an altered view.

As I've said, if the idea isn't liked then oh well I put it out there to try to help and it is easily ignored. Would it be possible for you to post a suggestion for how you would do it? I can see many of the things you'd change in your criticism but a clean post of your rule variant would likely be useful to the topic.

I can address a couple of these points but honestly much of it comes down to how you want to play it at your table, as it should. Point 1 Armor: Some people are able to use their reputations to deflect criticism or win conflicts even when the facts don't support their stance. This ability to lesson the opponents result seemed to best fit the same category as armor to our group. Point 2 and 3 Damage: We needed a base damage and a d6 seemed a good place to start. As for bonus damage, we added it to give the more mentally strong characters a bonus in the same way the more physical get one in combat. In our eyes it makes sense to model the advantages or disadvantages an individual has just as physical combat does. Point 4: Type of roll. Nothing to add here. Can easily be done with opposed rolls but does alter the dynamic. Perhaps in a way some prefer and if so good. Point 5: Mechanics: Actually using the same mechanics was exactly our point. We didn't want a different system we were actively attempting to mirror an existing system. Point 6: Initiative: Simply put we like initiative, and as we are attempting to mirror the existing system it has a place. Point 7: Resolve: We stuck with 2 attributes for this in order to again mirror combat. I think perhaps the point missed by the list is that we were, in fact, trying to mirror an existing system and not add another to the game. I hope this adds some clarity to why we did what we did. In the end it's just one groups table rules for handling a situation. If you can get some use out of them or it gives you an idea great, If not then they are easily ignored

Something like that table from Elric used with the margin of success instead of the skill value would probably work fairly well as a base for normal success level rolls. The problem I keep running into trying to come up with a good suggestion for the op is what to do with a special or crit result. If the margin of success was not important though and it was just a simpler skill level = damage amount then that would look to work perfectly. I was not really clear on which the op was after but looking it over perhaps it was more of a flat, "your this good you do this much damage" and not so much of a you won the challenge by this much.

I like that simple trick, nice. The only problem I would see with using it is it is counter to the higher skill generating the better effect as a special for instance of 14 would do 5 where a normal hit on 66 would do 12. BTW I do like that you have altered your weapons damage to allow more nimble characters to play on their accuracy over brute strength. I failed to mention that earlier. Edit below: I am of course assuming you are still using specials and critical effects.

That is pretty much what we do in our current game. It is not brp though so the actual crunch would not translate properly. Most attacks and defense rolls are between a d6 and a d12 if attacker wins he does damage equal to the margin of success + an additional bonus of +1 to +4 for weapon type, - the armors value (range is 1-4). We also have a location table and that die is rolled at the same time as the attack. Roll once (but two dice, location and attack) + defender rolls = complete result. It just scales way way badly going to % dice. I'm sure there is a sweet spot for the value to translate to a straight die type but it might just be more math than people want. Hard to say with every table of players being different.

Seems a tad bit clunky to me personally. It reads like you have a weapon skill twice for every weapon you are trained with yet they measure the same thing. Have you considered allowing the margin of success in the attack to determine the base damage? We have used an approach like this in other games and it has worked but I am unsure how to adjust it for brp specifically. Maybe use the % spread of a successful attack to determine if they roll a d4 d6 d8 etc then a bonus for the weapon type. This is all just off the top of my head: A hit d4 a hit by 10-35 a d6 a hit by 36-70 a d8 a hit by 71-100 a d10 Bump the die type by one for a special and two for a crit possibly It would keep the damage dealt primarily related to the skill used and by the margin of victory in the skill challenge. Not sure if this is helpful for you or not just ramblings off the top of my head. Good luck with it and please let us know how it turns out whatever you do. I always love to hear about the tweaks people have done. Edited part: Just realized with the lower rolled values generating a special or crit bumping damage in my example would likely just have to be fixed larger dice. So, maybe if the damage range was d4, d6, d8, allow specials the d10 and crits the d12

page 108

I completely understand what you mean here. In play this is where a player would choose to drop out of the argument to avoid such a situation. We always thought of it as kinda a "I dont agree with what they are saying but I'm done talking about it" moment. They might look a little silly to anyone around but they didn't get their mind changed. Of course now they did have to deal with the fact that they backed down. Even a loss tended to be more representative of a capitulation for the moment. A "Fine lets do it your way this time, but I still think you're wrong" sort of moment not really a force-able mind change. Ahh well I've edited this like 8 times and still don't think I'm gettin what is in my brain into text form lol.

The way it played out was sorta the give and take as you worked through a discussion. Some times you made a point (reducing the opponents hp) and sometimes they made their point (reducing your total). Arugement/Debate/etc winner determined when someone was at 0 or surrendered to save face. As to why we used this system rather than straight roleplaying? It was the ole, "Without a system to shore up the players abilities the character is never better than the player" plus the desire for more detail than a one roll solutions. We just wanted something as deep and engaging as combat for resolution is all. Something that mirrored more closely the give and take or point and counterpoint of a debate or argument. Allowing characters to change their approach if things weren't going their way or push hard for a slam dunk win if they were really pounding away point after point. One of the things we did really like was the mechanical way it showed when you made a good point, landed a zinger, etc even if you lost the overall exchange. It is far from perfect. We use it in some games and not in others. I just hope that sharing it helps others with their brainstorming. Heck one of the best things about this hobby and brp in particular is the fun of tweaking the flavor til it tastes just right .

Please use what you like, toss what you don't, get an idea from it if ya can or even just laugh at it whatever works.

I should add that roleplaying occurred between every set of rolls. The dialogue and intent of the player character determining which skill was used and if any modifiers were applied for good/bad play.

I don't know if anything like this would be useful but it is how we played out social conflicts in a past game we had. In general it was done as combat normally is but with these values as the replacements. Social Conflict Resolve/Hit Points: CHA+POW/2 Attack/Defend' skills: Orate, Debate, Intimidate, Bluff, etc Wits Rank/Initiative: CHA+INT/2 Determination Modifier/Damage Bonus: use the standard STR+SIZ chart, replacing the stats with POW+INT(pg 30) Damage:d6 Composure\Armour: Recognized Authority, frequently defaulting to 1/20th of Status Defeat: Resolve of 0, usually resulting in negative modifiers to social interactions for a period

If you are trying to keep it simple you could just allow specials to ignore 1/2 of the armor and crits fully ignore armor (as they do by brp default if I recall, we use rq6 style combat these days around here).

We allow characters to parry for adjacent targets as they would themselves.

Pretty much everyone I play with avoids published settings. We seek out systems we like and homebrew the setting. The only 2 exceptions for our group, in the last 20ish years, would be Star Wars D6 which was of course set in the Star Wars Universe and Buffy:TVS/Angel which was set in the tv series universe.

question: Do you use location hp or single pool?

Guess I got that wrong. Turns out only some episodes had silent space battle scenes...must be getting old.

I completely agree with you. The growth of G'kar is just amazing from the start to finish.

Also, Bab 5 had no sound in space.