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.

 

Composure/Authority I can see as quite useful in many ways. Arguing with a king or his guard will be rather different. An argument will be harder to strike home with the king, if only because the character has to be more careful with his/her wording. Armor is one way of modeling that, or perhaps a fraction of the opponent's Status as a negative skill modifier.

 

Some other thoughts: Are all skills equal in social combat? Fast Talk, Bargain and Persuade (in BGB) are three different approaches to social interaction. Can any of them be pitted against any other with equal success? Will Fast Talk yield only temporary damage, unless followed up by a Persuade roll? And how can Perform, Etiquette and Command help in a heated discussion?

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.

I got the point very well, and it is exactly what I identified as the system's pitfall. The problem is that mirroring a submarine is not the best way to design a plane, although the two may share some very basic characteristics. "Let's copy this solution, it works!" is a bad idea unless and until you have checked that the requirements for which you are providing a solution are the same or quite similar. This happens all the time in most disciplines, not just game design.

Your desire to make it "similar to combat" changes what is a very good initial intuition ("let us use the attrition system that BRP uses for Hit Points, Sanity and Fatigue in another, creative way") into a game artefact that fails its primary purpose: mirroring social interactions. Most if not all of your considerations (re-read them) come from gamey observations about how combat works in BRP, not on how debates work in real life.

I stress the point: the base idea is rather good and can provide a lot of fun if you follow this general direction in play. It is the implementation as written here that is as clumsy as a submarine shaped as an airliner. I suppose you can have such a thing sail and dive, but I doubt it will ever be fast or silent....

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.

Said by someone who has been working on something similar for 5 years or so... Montjoy's rules are overcomplicated and miss the spot in many areas. Frex:

• Armor points in combat are there not just to decrease deadliness but to reflect something that IS THERE (physically). An exact parallel of armor in social combat is based on... what? I can see an attempt at reproducing rules in a different context here, not an attempt at simulating something you do in a social contest. Using Status (if applicable) as a supporting skill is easier, more streamlined and equally effective. 
• The split between weapon damage and damage bonus has a reason behind it, representing both the damage you as a character do and the effect of a stronger weapon. What is the reason for the different dice here, apart for emulating an out-of-context ruleset? Using a table like the one for spirit damage present in both RuneQuest and Wind on the Steppes is easier and more appropriate.
• Please note that a simple d6 of damage whatever the INT, POW, CHA etc. will work just fine: the guy with a higher CHA already has an edge because he can take more damage. In combat you want to deal more damage to finish your opponent faster because then you have to cure the wound you take, and finshing him off when you are still at 10 HP is not like finishing him off with 1 HP left. Unless the rules model this difference in social combat, different damages for different characteristics is a totally unnecessary feature : the ability to take more punishment is enough.
• The roll should be opposed, not contested as it happens for combat. As you need to take your opponent down to 0 RP because there is no Major Wound rule, it may easily take 10 exchanges or so to finish off a debate, for each of which you have to invent a plausible in-character line. If it drags, after a while it becomes boring. WIth an opposed roll, each exchange has an effect, which is also more realistic as a "good parry" against a malicious argument will influence the audience favorably, unlike melee.
• In general, and beyond the above points, using the exact same mechanics as melee is not the most appropriate solution unless there is a specific reason to use them. I see almost none for all the elements above, all of which could be simplified and streamlined to a simpler model.
• Initiative: is it necessary? Using opposed rolls not only is more realistic, but completely eliminates the need to know "who goes first". Both roll, whoever wins does "reputation damage". Easier, faster, more realistic.
• Resolve points with POW: being offered a decent opportunity to rescue CHA from its status of "dump stat", why on Earth miss it this way? This way the CHA 15 POW 10 minstrel is basically as effective as the CHA 10 POW 15 magician in social conflict. CHA (or APP) and only CHA should be used.

 

Apart from the above, alternating roleplaying with rounds of "verbal exchanges" like in combat, as a basic idea, is quite good, and could be applied to a wider array of situation. Social conflict being the most interesting of all.

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

In "Diezlados", a system I made, weapons have a base damage with very little variation between them. The game works with a single d10 roll under. Additional damage is not rolled but substracted voluntarily from skill and added point by point (this is called Effort). So a brawl skill of 12 with 4 points of effort makes +4 damage in the attack at the expense of skill (now roll 8 or less to succeed). You could do something similar in BRP but it will change success levels.

Elric! had a skill to damage chart for demons. Perhaps a similar table with the die as base damage, and a weapon type modifier could work.

 

0-19%         1d2

20-39%       1d4

40-59%       1d6

60-79%       1d8

80-99%       1d10

100-119%   1d12

Brawl: +0

Short weapons: +1d2

Medium weapons: +1d4

Large weapons: +1d6

 

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 think that would work great for an automated system or even a group that are a bit more mathematically mentally quick than I am.  Applying various bonuses and then multiplying them is out of my league.

 

An easy dice trick, if you want to get rid of the damage roll, is to add up the tens and ones for the attack roll to determine damage.

 

If I hit with a roll of 73 that's ten points of damage.  If I hit with a 23 that's 5 points of damage.

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.

I've actually been thinking of reworking weapons myself.

 

My thought was that weapon damage would be a flat "1" and a flat bonus damage calculated from the margin of success, with more dangerous weapons multiplying the result of the flat bonus damage or multiplying the formula before the result. (though I haven't crunched any of the numbers to determine where I would put the damage thresholds or anything like that, it was just an idea I've been mulling around in my head.)

 

The idea was that you would make your attack roll, and that would be the only roll, the quality of the hit and the dangerousness of the weapon would determine the damage. Someone skilled enough could attain good damage with a dagger, whereas someone less skilled could attain equally good damage using something like a halberd.

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

Does this volume contain Hopping Vampires?

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.

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.

One of the best TV series I've ever seen!

For its story, first: each episode is really linked to the whole and it becomes a very coherent and consistent mega story. But also for its characters: they are not always the same; they change during each event. They acquire experience and improve their skills as well as their personality!

I completely agree with you.

The growth of G'kar is just amazing from the start to finish.

There was no sound in space in Firefly - at least in the TV series. Background music only.

Also, Bab 5 had no sound in space.