Celhan

Pendragon is one of my favorite games-- only I still haven't picked up the DBRP rules and hence can't answer the OP in the affirmative. I know, I know. Shame, shame. Anyway, the most obvious way to use Pendragon with BRP is to add the rules for glory, personality traits, passions, or mass combat into BRP. The personality traits in BRP discussion got aired at least once around here. Personally, I love the mechanics, but it's definitely a Marmite sort of thing-- you love it or you hate it. Likewise, the mass combat system is brilliant and having used it I wonder how I ever got along without one.

We get most of this kind of knowledge from schooling (and literacy and TV) but that's not the only way this kind of thing gets passed on. A non-literate person probably knows his culture's teaching about the world's shape (whether round, flat, or turtle-back-shaped) and may know the name of the mountain range that the sun is supposed to rise from, even if neither he nor anyone he knows have ever been there. You learn this stuff from stories, from recited poetry, from participatory religion. It's not the sort of thing that is easily tracked by skills (unless you want zillions of them cluttering up the character sheet). It's a good thing to have EDU to handle it. A medieval peasant might be able to identify a camel because he saw one in a mystery play; a modern person might know that wolves regurgitate food for their young because they saw it on a wildlife program. You could give them a low level of skill in dozens of such areas, but it's easier to just track their EDU and give them a Know roll when it comes up in play. It's true that someone without access to the written word isn't going to be as up on current events because the "speed of knowledge" is slower. The name of the guy running the country isn't going to be passed along as quickly when a change happens (and if you're a peasant in a remote village, you probably don't care anyway, and might forget it a few days after you hear about it). So exactly what EDU covers may vary from time period to time period.

I'm not sure about a table, but there's lots of horse personality stuff in the GURPS horse rules here: The Noble Steed: Character Design Rules for Horses Especially under "Odious Personal Habits" (including fence chewing).

Extremely. It just evokes the wrong impression for a spoof of D&D. My daughters (avid RPers) would play a game called "Horses & Ponies", provided it delivered on the promise of the title. Semi-seriously, I found Pendragon's lists of wild and domestic animals to be extremely useful and (mostly) BRP compatible. After playing Pendragon for the first time in the mid 1980's, "horse" just never seemed specific enough. I wonder if this is starting to be ... :deadhorse:?

I really like this table. I did a little ad-hoc 'Net fact checking with medieval and renaissance armor, and this table appears to hold up extremely well. The average thickness of breastplates is indeed just under two mm-- 8 points of armor, about what the BRP games I've read suggest it should be. I'm sure you've done the same research yourself, but the fact that this fact-checks well with historical as well as modern armor hasn't been mentioned on the thread yet, and I wanted to give praise where it's due!

It only had one PC, who was a Jedi Knight. However, I did include personality traits for NPCs (mostly non-Jedi), and they were occasionally very helpful as a guide to NPC behavior. For one thing, it gave some credible basis for considering someone "weak minded" (and susceptible to the Mind Trick) with respect to particular sorts of behavior, rather than just in general. However, personality traits for NPCs aren't an incentive the way they are for PCs, and I admit the limitations of my testing. That said, personality traits don't enforce honorable behavior (or indeed any sort of behavior) and work pretty well for modeling less honorable characters, you just need to define how different groups interact with the traits. Had I a scoundrel in the party, I might have created a list of traits that shady underworld types tend to admire (selfish, arbitrary, deceitful and valorous probably making the grade) and given a bonus to any scoundrel able to play that part with panache. Better still, I'd populate the Galactic underworld with organizations that value different things, and let the player choose what standards he wants to live up to. My untested rules were essentially for an all-Jedi game, though they would've worked well equally well for an all-Sith game; they were largely about how the personality traits interacted with the Force.

Yeah, the names... Robin Crossby, creator of the Harnworld as well as Harnmaster, is a fantasy cartographer (of the first water, mind you-- I'm not sure I've ever seen someone else that good) and not a fantasy linguist, like M. A. R. Barker (of Tekumel fame). You may want to look into kelestia.com if you haven't done so already. It's got more Robin Crossby Harn stuff. Harnmaster Gold is reputedly very good (the one Robin's selling directly through Kelestia). I'm scared off by the price tag and the fact that I already own two editions of the game. I've only seen the first and second editions, and between the two I prefer the first (it's the only edition where the magic rules aren't a separately-sold book-- grrr). Sure. I used them in three games run under the RuneQuest III rules, all set in the same homebrew fantasy setting. I've used them on an ad hoc basis in my Star Wars d20 game, and subsequently started to write up (but didn't use) a Pendragon-based game in the Star Wars setting. I've used a similar ad hoc arrangement in my ElfQuest game, come to think of it. I've really wanted to use them in the Middle Earth setting, and have a partial set of Pendragon-based rules for playing there, but I've shelved that for the moment because one of the two players I've got is a little put off by my Tolkien fan tendencies. I'm probably going to use them in my upcoming Victorian-fantasy game, if that ever gets off the ground.

This varies a lot by the game, really. Battletech is, as you say, very equipment and combat oriented. Most of the Mechwarrior campaigns I've taken part in are brief out-of-mech scenes spliced between episodes of the board wargame; this is because most people got into the RPG through the boardgame (and because of the sternly militaristic background they invented). Battletech is probably the least typical mecha game, though. I've also played the Robotech RPG, which was a great deal more balanced between mecha combat and other stuff. In large part this was because the group I was playing with had seen the (Harmony Gold English dub) Robotech series, and were prepped for the sort of storylines we'd be seeing in the game. It was very Mospeada-like; rag-tag warriors fighting giant alien mechas (and dealing with their personal angst) in a post-apocalyptic setting. I understand that the Mekton ruleset is geared toward creating a more authentically anime-esque mecha experience, more balanced between the character and giant robot sides of the equation. I've never managed to get a copy-- most of the people I game with aren't into the giant robot thing.

Well, the team that produced Les MeCHas pour BaSIC (that's "Mecha for BRP", unsurprisingly) have the germ of a system going there-- it's available (in French) in the downloads section here at BRP Central. Under these rules, Mecha are designed something like characters-- they have a STR-equivalent characteristic, a SIZ-equivalent, a DEX-equivalent, and a couple of mecha-specific traits. These are on a different and only vaguely-defined scale-- deliberately vague, in order to make the rules work for as broad a range of backgrounds as possible. For some Mecha with a "synchro"-style interface, you use the character's agility skills with a mecha-specific penalty. Other mecha have a specific mecha piloting skill. I had most of an English translation of this thing done. The problem is that it's still in the design phase, and the design is being done (if it's still an active project) in French. So there are only vague guidelines on how to do things like allocate armor or run combats. There are no fully-designed mecha there. No fully statted weapons-- or fully statted anything. It's very much a work in progress, hard-hat-required area. I think the idea of modeling Mecha as characters, but on a different (mecha-specific) scale works rather well in the other games that have gone this route. I'd probably stress the analogy more than was done in Les MeCHas, giving them equivalents for CON, and maybe POW, INT, and APP too. I wouldn't mind some kind of RQ-like table for figuring out the structure and armor points, something along the lines of the table Battletech used. Gosh, now I want to go and design a system. See what you did?

Harnmaster Morality is a better fit. It measures the degree to which principle motivates the character... low morality characters have more vague and subjective ideas of right and wrong (shading toward psychopathy at the low end) and high morality characters have more demanding universal codes. Frankly, speaking as someone who loves the Harnmaster ruleset, I find this characteristic poorly defined (codes of conduct vary in more than just strictness) and slighted in the rules (it doesn't affect anything except choice of god-- and a great deal of latitude is afforded even there). Harnmaster Piety isn't a characteristic of the character's personality. It's a measure of the character's favor with his god, which gets accumulated through participation in cult rituals and spent in order to power Invocations (religious magic) and calls for divine intervention-- something like the way POW gets accumulated and spent on divine magic in RuneQuest. There really isn't a stat in Harnmaster that measures what the word piety connotes in plain English. Personally, I really like the way Pendragon's personality traits work, and try to use them in all sorts of games, to an admittedly mixed reception. It's a concept that either clicks with a player or it doesn't; it really does with me.

I voted for "fantasy or historical" because it's the most inclusive category. The game I'm working on now takes place in an alternate-history Victorian setting with some "retro-advanced" technology I cribbed from various Scientific Romances, plus sorcery. I am toying with the idea of adding in some exploration of other planets to throw in a dash of Sword-and-Planet, but I'm wondering if I'd better save that for an in-game plot twist.

I'm going to chime in here, largely agreeing with Rurik. Opposed resolution is hard for people to grasp who already know how skill rolls work in (say) Runequest. Opposed rolls come from Pendragon; with the exception of the fact that it's based on a 1d20 rather than 1d100 roll, Pendragon opposed resolution works the same way it does in BRP (1). Pendragon was one of the first RPGs my wife played, and still her absolute favorite. While an enthusisastic roleplayer, she doesn't read rulebooks (ever) and makes little effort to memorize rules. Pendragon with its "highest successful roll wins" was a snap for her. When I ran a Pendragon-based game for a group including a long-time Runequest player, he had difficulty grasping the mechanics... but this was someone who really understood the rules of Runequest and had to discard some preconceived notions about how BRP-based games work. The other new players didn't have any trouble with it. (1) Okay, there is the fact that Pendragon doesn't have special success, and criticals happen when you roll your skill or characteristic exactly (e.g., if you have Sword skill 12, you get a critical hit on a roll of 12). This might make it marginally easier to remember that "higher is better", although a critical success still beats a higher successful roll by your opponent, so it isn't best all the time.

I started with the D&D basic set in 1982. I was 9. I started playing AD&D later the same year. Eventually my group branched out into other RPGs... I remember playing Star Frontiers and a bit of Traveller and Gamma World. By high school, my player group were all fans of Rolemaster. I played a lot of that. Occasionally we branched out into other games: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was popular for a while, as was the Robotech RPG. I tried to get my group interested in GURPS once, but that didn't go over so well. (Slightly off topic) Around that time, a friend of mine bought the Runequest 3 boxed set and showed it off to the group; I instantly coveted it, but it was a year or two before I could save up enough money for a copy of my own. He never ran a game-- he found the magic rules too hard to comprehend. I ran it once, but it was a very bad experience that put me off running a straight Runequest game to the present day (the fault being the players', not the system). In college I played homebrewed games and Vampire. I was quite fond of the Dangerous Journeys system, but couldn't find any players (unsurprisingly). Since then, I've basically played what's on my shelf. Most often I run solo campaigns for my wife, since I don't have a regular gaming group. Pendragon's her favorite game. Good heavens-- someone else watched that too?

Oh... okay. So I made the wrong assumption; but ironically the rules I was playing by were correct in general outline. Thanks! I feel better about that now.

I assume this means that the difference between dodges and parries has been scrapped? For example, in RQ3, there are a couple of reasons you'd want to parry instead of dodge: 1) If your opponent gets a Critical or Special Hit, your parry weapon or shield still subtracts damage on a successful roll. A successful dodge lets all that damage get through, unless you also got a special or critical success. This is a fairly serious objection to dodging... the very attacks you really, really want to avoid are the ones you are unlikely to be able to, even at a very high dodge skill. Special hits happen often enough to make this a scary prospect. On that subject, does the new BRP allow Dodges to work against Special or Critical successes, say by reducing the level of success (e.g. successful dodge against special success attack = regular successful attack)? 2) If you're a starting character, your parry skill is goins to be around twenty percentiles higher than your dodge because of skill bases. Not an advantage to sneer at. 3) Dodge is affected by ENC on a 1 for 1 basis, but parries aren't (er... come to think of it, that's the way I've always played, I'm not sure if that's canonical in RQ). Any of that stuff still work in BRP Zero?

I'm not sure what the anwer is in BRP zero, but a similar question dogged me in RQ3. I expect the answer is "yes, you're slower if you use the SR rules, but then everyone else is proportionally slowed, and the result is a wash (except that higher DEX characters will be faster than lower DEX, because of the strike rank)." But read on. In the Combat chapter of RQ3, it says you commence movement on your DEX SR. Does this apply every round, or only when you commence a new movement? In subsequent rounds, if you have not reached or changed your objective, do you continue to move on SR 1, 2, and so on, since you're not commencing movement that round? I know this sounds like a spurious argument. The general rule was that didn't carry over action from one round to the next-- you start moving on your DEX SR every round, and never do anything before that (except sometimes spells, but that was the only named exception). However, in my most recent campaign game (Elfquest-- but it used the same SR rules as RQIII) I allowed movement on all SR as long as it was movement commenced in some previous round. For example, a PC sights a deer at just outside his thrown spear range; the deer hasn't noticed him. The PC's wolf starts to move at its DEX SR. The deer starts to move at its DEX SR +3 (because it's surprised-- failed its Listen and Scent rolls, I guess). The wolf gains some ground on the deer, showing the intended effect of the SR rules: giving an advantage in speed to the character with the quicker reaction time. In the following round, assuming the deer's still on its feet, both animals move in all 10 SR (10 x their basic move)... or faster if they push it. The deer doesn't need to leap into a run from a standing start-- it's already going. The wolf's surprise advantage evaporates, and it becomes a pure contest of running speed and endurance. To continue the example, let's say the following round the PC hears a distress cry from one of his tribe mates behind him. He gives his wolf the signal to break off the chase and turn around... but he can't give that signal to the wolf until his own DEX SR. He ends up 2 full SR of movement further away before the wolf can turn around. If I were feeling particularly mean, I might have the signal given on the PC's DEX SR (say SR3), and have the wolf react on its own DEX SR after that (say SR5). Anyway, sorry for the digression. I thought this might be of use in the case that BRP Zero uses the RQ3 SR rules verbatim.

Hello, fellow BRP enthusiasts. I'm in the USA, near Boston. I'm thirty-four and a player of BRP games since the mid 1980's (and other RPGs from a few years before that). The Chaosium/ BRP-derived game I have most experience with are Pendragon and Elfquest, though I've played some Runequest and a good deal of Call of Cthulhu. I'm not running a game at the moment, but I hope that will change in a few months' time. I came chiefly to learn about the new version of the BRP rules, and I am pleased to note how much discussion (and in such detail) has been had on this topic, as I'm looking forward to getting a copy of the new BRP rules when they're released to stores; getting an advance copy (or any non-essential spending) being beyond my means in the immediate present tense.