Enpeze

-Warhammer. (which I dont like at all, but do play because I like the people) -BRP In fomer times, I played Midgard (a german fantasy roleplaying game) It was ok, till I detected RQ Other games I played and where I like the setting (but not the rules) -Traveller -Transhuman Space -Cyberspace (ICE) -Fading Suns

sorry, I will end my rant now.

No prob. IMO exchanging opinions is one of the good things of this forum. Its not adding any "detail" per se. My rant is just about roleplaying the physical, psychical and social implications of very high skills and that most GM and players tend to ignore these. Well, again I want to say that I would not like to have game rules for decay. I dont want to have many rules in my games at all. BRP has enough rules. More are not necessary. I am not even sure if I like the skill decay some people here see as solution. Because there are other more important implications than decay. Like the fact that most PCs with such a high skill have surely absolute preferences in their lifes. Namely THIS skill and nothing more else. Eg. do you think that an athlete with lets say 100%+ has many more interests outside of his special sport? 80% of his wake time he is busy to learn more about his athletic passion, train, meeting with other equal sportsmen, taking enhancement nutrition and drugs, scientists which make specific tests with him, giving interviews in sports magazines etc. Probably nearly EVERYTHING in his life is under the tyranny of his passion. Otherwise he would never reach 115% (insert skill). That is what I meant. He dont have to say literally every day: "I train for my 110% gun". He should just roleplay that what he and his GM thinks a high skill means. If this is too uncomfortable for him and/or his GM they could still ignore it of course, like always. But they should realize that then plausibility of the game suffers, especially if they want to play a gritty and "realistic" game and not just a cinematic powergame (where everyone and his dog can play a Bruce Willis)

Well, I did meant that specific rules should be necessary in order to maintain extreme high skills. I ranted because it seems that many GMs dont seem to waste a second of time thinking about the implications such a high skill probably poses to the player and the game itself. I would even be satisfied with a "light" (a symbolic and not so realistic) solution, like the player describing (or maybe playing out) some training sessions every few days, just to say "Hey people look, I dont forget that I have to pay a price for my super skill".

Really? Which games do you know? I guess you meant Harn, Riddle of Steel...?

Space 1889 would be great setting. But one thing I didnt like has been the adventures which I considered a little bit premature and childish. (at least those I read) I would rather preferred to have adventures which involved the spirit and complex moral implications of the victorian society than another "kill a mad scientist and his giant steam machines" ala "wild wild west". (the cheesy movie with w. smith)

Of course they should. And everybody has a different view what he enjoys. For me the joy comes fromt the immersion and plausiblity of the setting. BRP is the operating system which provides the link between this setting and us. In short if we cut the lethality and random madness and horror from combat, its not fun for us anymore, because it lowers the setting realism and plausibility. The result is that we dont have that much respect and fear for combat anymore and maybe we do silly fights in situations where in reality it would be plausible to look for a different solution. Enough? Maybe in comparision with other rule systems you are right. But in absolute factors, I would not say. I would rather say BRP is reasonable deadly to portray the reality to some extent while staying flexible and simple. I would not want play and dont enjoy anymore a rule system which is not as deadly as BRP. I can understand your position. You are more into the classical literatic "hero" and cinematic thing than me I assume.

You are right. It prevents certain tactics in order to be simpler. Why? Dont you think that combat is rather chaotic in real life too? Only in cinema and books its usual that the hero controls the situation and wins every time. Only if you take the table literally. I understand the wound table as guide and not as law. The effects should be similar and if a certain wound rolled dont correspond with the weapon you have, just modify the effect. Eg. in your example the bullet goes in the enemies face and removes his nose. But its realistic to loose your life due to bad luck. If you are unsatisfied because your PC died, then you should overthink your risk management before you begin to combat. Run away, hide in the shadows or hire specialist who are able to win this combat.

The skill system works very good, if you use either the simple one (without modifiers) or the complex version. Of course its not an absolute law per se. You have to do some houseruling from time to time, just to adapt the system to specific situations. Regarding Einstein, I would say that he had a very high INT and EDU and a math skill of maybe 110% or so. Normally I regard 45%-65% as standard. Only a few extraordinary people ever reach skills above 100%. One of the factors I am always wondering is, that many GMs dont care what the fact means that a PC or NPC has a very high skill. I think this means that this skill dominates his life and he has probably not much time to do anything else than practice and train this skill. Eg. consider a modern athlet who is able to jump 7m or more. He has to train his jump skill the whole day and would never be able to participate in longer adventures. So high skills may be ok for cinematic games but for realistic ones specialists with over 100% should have a time/motivation problem.

I have a soft spot for this old 30er series. Each time I make a video evening with friends, watching one or two episodes of Flash between the real movies is mandatory. Buster Crabbe in his short panties rulez.

I was always wondering why Flash preferred this blond cheerleader girl and not the sex godess Ornella.

Sounds a little bit like "....FLASH! ahaaaa..."

Are you sure that this justifies a seperate skill? I mean why not having "heavy weapons" for it? Ah...now I understand. I was not sure what you mean with it. In german the word "Grenadier" is a special sort of soldier. (like "Panzergrenadier") Then they are members of a special unit? (AFAIR the dirty dozen have been a behind enemy line force)

Well I played some traveller and 2300 games in the past with BRP rules. Generally it was absolutely no problem not to use the original rules and we all had a good time. So I would like to add some comments to the chargen you posted: 1. character creation - seems very reasonable. For some flair I would also suggest to add some modifiers, depending on the homeworld of the character. (maybe +5 STR and +5 SIZ for Heavy-G worlds etc.) I would at least double or even triple the racial modifiers to enable real differences between the races. (eg. giving Aslan maybe a +10% or more to close combat basic skill chance) I am not sure if Liaison is a typical Solomani skill. (and rather the contrary, if they are members of the solomani party) 2. Upbringing and former career. Hm..sound a little bit complex, but it should work. I would instead use the normal BRP/CoC profession chargen, and the PCs a part of the generation points (say 100 or so) which they have to allocate to typical former career skills. Of course I would supervise if the skills the PCs take are reasonable for the social environment and the planet they come from and their background story. 3. Life change: sounds nice. I am sure this is a good addition and help the player to roleplay his character. 4. The Legion. the differenciation into primary, secondary etc. skill types sound a little bit complex to me. I would just give the rest of the skill generation points (coming from EDU and INT) to the players and allow them to allocate these points by using a profession template for a modified existent template. (like "future soldier - foreign legion") 5. Primary skills - most skills sound reasonable, but whats anti-tank? Do you really think that this should be really a seperate skill of the same importance like sidearms or medic? And IMO Grenadier is more a modified soldier template than a skill. Maybe you can tell what you mean with these skills and how you want to use them in your game. One important thing is IMO, that you should create soldiers which can operate in a single unit without beeing unlogical. So IMO the question arise if the unit you want to create should be infantry, jump troopers, engineers, lift infantry, grav tankers etc. Different troop types require different skills. Eg. a infantry squad has probably not a single soldier with a high demolition skill, while a engineer team does surely have several such members. Or PCs with "interrogation" skill are not really logical , if you intend to play a game with grav tankers. Of course there could be tankers with such a skill, but IMO it would be more logical if guys with such knowledge are dispatched in a military secret service team.

I practice the same. This is a good system to reward players.

Yep, thats exactly the house rule we use. armor piercing attacks/rounds (including warhammers, warpicks etc.) half armor values. Modern guns quarter medieval armor.

Well I think this difference in gaming philosophy is the main reason why you like hero points and I dont.

Amazing idea. BRP Rome! (Rome is one of my fav TV series too)

I think there is no conflict as long as you dont define "hero" as someone who has more chances to resolve a game situation than an ordinary person just because his figure is a PC and not a NPC. In my rather gritty and grim games heroes are not predetermined. Of course there is heroism sometimes too, but it comes from a decision a player makes during the game and not because he has the privlege to use a dice manipulating "hero tool". I would not have a problem to use hero points in games like James Bond (for some stunts he really needs every hero point) or LoTR setting. But normally I find such settings with predetermined heroes rather cheesy and bland and dont want to play it.

For the most games in the last time flat chance like SB or CoC. A decade ago we liked it more complex and we used flat chance modified by stats.

Sadly I experience the opposite once a month (where I play in a WFRP2 game)

Not everybody likes to play heroic fantasy games. At least I dont. (maybe Simlasa and some others too) The motto in my games is: What you roll, you get. No bargain with destiny. No revision. BRP/RQ was a genius rule system without using fate points the last 20 years and I have no reason to believe that this has changed recently. BTW: Hero Points in WFRP2 are maybe fun for some players, but they are working against the original intention of the grim and unforgiving setting. I hate their use in our WFRP2 games. They steal much flair because they give life in situations where Khorne wants blood. I fear the 2nd edition of the game favors the carebear fraction now.

Elves from Finnland? Really? Never heard this. Do you have a source for this idea? I always thought that Tolkien created a own Middle-Earth variant of the folkloristic nordic light elves and swart alfas. (mentioned in the edda)

They dont fit into S&S. They have their place in tolkin style settings or D&D worlds and should stay IMO there.

IMO alone the word "blast" (if you mean the same than me with it) and magic in one sentence is not what I would want to experience acutally in a game. Many ago I used to play such games where it was usual and important that you magically "blast" enemies away and where poeple rolled with the eyes if you didnt use the magic properly. Magic was considered more as a tool to have fun and to solve adventure plots and not as a (sometimes dangerous) mystical path. But this style of play has changed considerably the last 10 years and for me (and my players) its now a slower but and more satisfying experience. Maybe its one the reasons why I prefer to play in a alternative historical setting with rare (but sometimes powerful) magic and dont care for Glorantha where everybody and his dog has his low magic. As I said before, if you like to play with more number crunching and use magic as a tool then I have no problem and its fine for me if you and your group like it this way. I wanted just point out that there are other playing styles out there which consider magic as something different. Could be, but treating magic like any mundane skill is making it even more mechanical. Demon arms race to stay in the game? Does this mean that people without demons lack the motivation to play their role after one player has his first demon? A strange view which, if true, I dont understand. It seems that you are very concerned about maintaning a somewhat mystical balance between the personal might of the individual players. I guess you would never like to play a servant of a noble or a beggar with SB1 rules. For me roleplaying is playing a role in an open story and not comparing the correct balance of stats between the players. Yes you are right, but only if you play in the YK setting which I dont. So the SB5 NPCs are just a nice read for me but nothing more. I think I once read through the 2nd ed. rules which where not good. If you consider only the things a sorcerer can DO in a game and the final result of his magic then maybe you are right if you say that a sorcerer in SB is overpowered. But I see also the path he has to walk to get this considerable might. His personal risks are high and he has to put more energy and thoughts to gain his power than maybe a warrior. So in my POV it evens out. Requirements (min POW 16) initial investment and maintaining the personal power level is higher for a sorcerer, but reward is (sometimes) sweeter. BTW: there is not a mandatory "sorcerer-slot" in my games. They are not classical "party" games where one has to be "the thief" and another "the fighter". Before I begin to play (mostly mini-campaigns) I try to filter out which type of professions could be involved in the setting environment. Eg. I once played a landsknecht-campaign where the players where members of a larger mercenary unit in a kind of thirty years war. Another mini-campaign was about assassins in a medieval urban environment and so on. Sorcerers PCs do sometimes happen but are rather rare. I guess of the part the reason why my players sometimes want to play it, is that they think it could be a roleplaying challenge and interesting alternative to other professions. i am sure none of them wants to play a sorcerer only because he can theoretically have more power than the other players. I try to avoid this and arrange a solo with just one player on a seperate day. Well as mentioned above I dont play SB, I use just the wonderful rules for a homebrewn setting which resembles an alternative historical world. Other games I play are the old ICE Cyberpunk, Gurps traveller (with BRP rules of course) and CoC. And what do you play beside RQ and D&D?