KPhan2121

The only D100 RPG that I know of that only uses the D100 is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying 4e. When you make a roll, you determine the degree of success by how low you roll compared to your skill value. In combat, you don't roll die for damage but you add in your degree of success on top of a weapon's normal damage value to determine the damage dealt. It might be what you're looking for, but I wouldn't call it a simple RPG.

8 hours ago, Raleel said:

Would it make a difference to just subtract the amount over 100 the highest skill is from both skills and then just compare rolls? 110 vs 90 would be the same as 100 vs 80, say. 

You could do it that way, there just needs to be some benefit for a character having over 100% in a skill over one that doesn't.

7 hours ago, Mugen said:

I'd only add the tens above 100 of the skill to the roll.

If your skill is 113, it means you have to add 13 to each of your combat skill checks, which can be tedious.

I suppose, but you wouldn't have to add the 13 on each of the skill checks, only when you roll the same level of success and the die rolls are close enough for the bonus to matter.

3 hours ago, Kränted Powers said:

Since 2006 we've been using opposed rolls like this: the one who succeeds better wins. 
Attk skill 80 > "60" (D100) = 20
Def skill 50 > "29" (D100) = 21, defender  wins.
Or even when failing:
Attk skill 80 > "90" (D100) = -10
Def skill 50 > "59" (D100) = -9, defender  wins.

And of course special wins success and critical wins special. If it is a tie, the higher skill wins.

So in every round something will happen.
If I remember right, there might have been some mathematical problem with thism, but I've been too lazy to check it out.

I thought about having something like that, but decided not to since I didn't like the idea of both characters failing but the one that fails the least will win by default. I would use it on a contest where there has to be a winner at the end of it for some reason, but not for combat. However, if you do use it for combat, it would help fix BRP's low skill flailing combat issue.

4 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

It looks like it would greatly help manage what is going on behind the screen. Would the hero dispose of the mooks by the usual means (attack, roll damage to HP)? If so it becomes even transparent to the player. It should work well.

I wanted to leave it open, but you can do it the traditional way where the mooks have individual HP and can parry or make it so that any successful hit just kills a mook. It just depends on how heroic you want the game to be. Obviously the traditional method is a bit grittier and more difficult to deal it.

51 minutes ago, Runeblogger said:

In a case where combatant A (110% skill) and combatant B (92% skill): What if B rolls a 91 and A rolls a 90? When A adds 10 to his roll, does he get a fumble?

In the BRP 4e rulebook, the opposed skill rolls favor characters with higher skill ratings since they can roll higher die results while still getting successes. Once a character attains a skill rating over 100%, they now have a further benefit where their die rolls count as being higher but only for the purpose of comparing the die rolls. It doesn't modify the level of success that they originally rolled. So in your example, combatant A would counted as rolling a normal success at 100 and comparing it to combatant B with his 91. He would only count as rolling a fumble if his unmodified die roll was 100. I hope that answers your question.

One of my biggest gripes about combat in BRP is that high skill combat (when opponents have a 100+ rating to their respective weapon/parry/dodge skills) can become incredibly tedious where only special or critical successes matter. I found that using the Opposed Skill Rolls found in page 173 of the Big Gold Book fixed that problem while adding minimal complexity.

Like in BRP's vanilla combat the character that achieves the highest degree of success wins the roll, but in situations in which both characters roll the same degree of success, the one with the higher die roll wins the contest, still giving advantage to the character with the higher skill rating. This would still allow for combat to remain mostly unchanged, we would still be using Attack and Defense Matrix and only comparing the die roll if the level of success was the same. Characters with a skill rating over 100 would modify their die roll, counting it as a higher result result equal to their skill rating - 100.

For example, if your character's weapon skill is 110% while your opponent has 90%. You roll a 50 while your opponent rolls a 55, both are normal successes so you would have to look at the die roll to see who won the roll. Normally the opponent would've won due to his higher die roll, but since your character's skill is 110 his die roll counts as being 10 higher than what it actually rolled. So it becomes a 60 vs 55 and your character wins the contest.

Now for the Mook Rules

I tend to run heroic campaigns where the players mow down large numbers of disposable minions (or Mooks). Instead of rolling each individual mook's attacks, I find that it is better to form small groups of Mooks and have them act together. Basically one Mook will make the attack roll and the other Mooks supports him. Each supporting Mook gives the attacking Mook a +10% to hit and a +1 to damage. This can serve to make a groups of disposable enemies dangerous to otherwise heroic and powerful player characters, especially when it is combined with the Opposed Skill Rolls house rule.

For example, two player characters are facing off a group of 7 mooks. Instead of treating them as individuals the mooks will divide into two groups to fight the player characters, one with 3 and one with 4. Each group will have only one mook who makes the roll while the others help out. The group of 3 will make the attack roll with a +20% bonus to hit and a +2 to damage while the group of 4 will get a +30% to hit and a +3 to damage.

Reddit is a good source of battle maps.

https://www.reddit.com/r/battlemaps/

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmaps/

It looks like you're more interested in Historical Settings, but there should be a lot maps that'll be to your liking.

18 hours ago, Mugen said:

The default method for breaking ties in skill oppositions, where the highest skill wins, is also problematic.

Yeah, I'd rather use the Opposed Skills Using Highest Successful Result option from the BGB.

11 hours ago, colinabrett said:

Ooops!

 

Critical results are listed on the Success or Failure Results table of the SRD but they aren't described in the text. I withdraw my previous comment. Sorry.

The Quick Start guide doesn't include Crits at all.

Both PDFs have the Resistance Table.

I just took a look and it doesn't contain critical successes, I think you mean special successes which are a different thing. Critical Successes in BRP occur when you roll 1/20 of a skill rating or lower.

Yeah... it looks like the neither the SRD and Quickstarter look like good entry points for BRP. I guess I'll just have to whip out my own version of the essential rules.

I was looking into the SRD and the Quick-Start Rules to give as a basic rules handout to a few of my players who haven't ever played a BRP game and I noticed that both of them don't have the defense penalty nor critical successes among other differences. It looks likes it'll be easier for newbies, but feels a bit barebones compared to the Big Gold Book. Has anyone tried running a game with just the SRD/Quickstart rules? How did it go?

Made a very minor update to Waning Stars

• Changed Vibrating Blades to make them work for other bladed weapons as well as making them more useful since they now make it easier to "Slip Past Shields" instead of merely reducing the Armor Value of the Energy Shields.

Also, its been a few months since I released Waning Stars with the new Rules for Rulers. What do you guys think of the Rules for Rulers? Do you think they need adjusting?

On 10/21/2021 at 3:20 AM, Raleel said:

Yea, I read the rules. I’m sort of having a hard time grokking it. I’m envisioning a situation at my table where

• player wants to buy item requiring a standard roll
• player fails roll, character stays in store
• player tries to buy different item requiring a difficult roll and wonders why he can’t just reroll on the first item

or

• player wants an item requiring a roll, gets it, stays in store
• player wants a different item at the same item value, gets it
• player wonders why he can buy two different items of the same item value and not two of the same item

I would make it all one roll. So a player goes into a store and wants to buy a set of items. An item that is that is one value level above their wealth level and an item two value levels above. Depending on the roll, the player character might get everything they want, only some of it or none at all. To get both items, the player will need to roll against their status and roll low enough to under 1/2 of their rating. If the player succeeds on their status roll, but is over 1/2 of their rating they will only get the item that is one value level above.

On 10/21/2021 at 3:20 AM, Raleel said:

I’m having a hard time with the item level (implying transactions you roll against) and multiple interactions in a short time frame.

I think the thing that is causing this is that you're interpreting Status wrong, Status is not a money skill. Its a measure of your reputation in society. It enables you to use your personal clout to gain access to items above your wealth level. So if you fail a status roll, its not so much that you don't have the money to buy an expensive item. Its more that the seller doesn't know you or trust you enough to accept an IOU from you.

The purpose of the wealth rules is to move the game away form counting coins and keep the focus on the more exciting stuff. If a player wants to buy something within their means, they can just have it and we can avoid the inevitable 30 minute haggling session trying to take a gold coin off the cost of a longsword.

On 10/17/2021 at 7:48 AM, Raleel said:

So, I’m reading through the abstract wealth rules, and I like them. But it’s driving a few questions  

• So, if you fail at a status roll to buy something of (for example) Average cost, does this mean that you don't even get to try to buy something that is Expensive? I assume the situation when you get to make another roll is pretty abstract (different area of setting, bargaining, etc), but do you even get to try on other Average things?
• How do you handle multiple single items at item values just below their wealth level? 
• I am considering making an "item" called "lifestyle" which has a monthly upkeep. Essentially, a second (or third or whatever) Status skill that is a separate identity and money pool. Anyone done anything like this?

I think I’m just having a hard time wrapping my head around the abstraction. 

Its all outlined in pg 239 in the BGB

For your first question, I would probably keep a "narrative first" way of doing things and keep it all in one roll. If you fail a Status Roll at a seller, then you don't buy anything in that store until something changes narratively. Either you haggle or promise to do something for the items.

For your second question, if the item is only one value level below then you get a single item or a small set. I would say that the multiple item should be enough for one person. Like say if you want to buy bullets for a gun, then you just enough to fill up your chest rig or bandolier and no one else's. If the item is two value levels below, then its basically as much as you need for what you're going to do with them.

As for lifestyle, I think its already implied into the wealth system. Its in the wealth level box in pg 238. Like if you're destitute, its an adventure on its own to find rent money for that month, but you wouldn't need to give a shit about that it you're poor or above.

For WFRP, I would go BRP Classic Fantasy and make a table for spell fumbles and steal the firearms from Renaissance D100.

https://www.chaosium.com/classic-fantasy-pdf/

As for the creatures, WFRP shares a lot of similarity with D&D so I would use 3.5e stats and convert them to BRP.

2 hours ago, rsanford said:

I don’t know how many more D&D races are written up for BRP but there might be a few more in Toxandria and also Age of Shadows. Also The Big Damn Book of Monsters (if you already have a copy) will definitely have Drow written up. There was also 3 volumes of All the World’s Monsters and 2 Volumes of Monsters from Legend (Mongoose) that might be helpful.

Ah yeah, I forgot that I had the Big Damn Book of Monsters. I'll have to look into the Legend books for more PC races then. Thanks!

Where can I find stats for races that are found in D&D settings for the PCs to use. The Big Gold Book and Classic Fantasy Revised have a good selection of the more common ones, but what about some of the less common races like Drow or Dragonborn? I'm looking to collate all of them into one place for my players. Thanks!

My Fading Suns to BRP Document is dead, long live Waning Stars! I removed the offending copyrighted images, the BRP Logo, tweaked all of the alien race's names as well as adding Chaosium's Fan Material Notice at the end of the document.

I added two new sections to the document that I've been meaning to do:

- Rules for Rulers, a 3 page section that contains rules to facilitate the actions of larger organizations that the PCs may or may not control

- Foes and Fiends, a 6 page section that contains an assortment of premade stats for use in games.
 

5 hours ago, Michael Stockin said:

Follow up question, I have ready made Warhammer races now.

But gunpowder weapons are a thing in warhammer, I recall a stormbringer supplement had rules for 6 shooter pistols, but where can I find rules for blackpowder weapons?


TIA

BRP has rules for muzzle loaded firearms. You'll have to homebrew some of the fancier weapons.

16 hours ago, Mugen said:

As I never read CoC7e, I have no idea how those options work, could you explain these?

Anyway, I agree using another method for breaking ties is a good idea. Giving victory to the highest skill gives a huge advantage to the highest skill even if the difference is only 1 point.

Ah, I was working under the assumption that most people knew about the changes in CoC7e.  So I'll try to explain the mechanics in more detail.

The Fighting Back rules gives characters parrying the opportunity to strike back if they rolled a better success then their opponent's attack. In CoC7e, the levels are success are a bit different. Fumbles, Failures, Successes and Extreme Successes(aka Special Successes) are the same as BRP. CoC7e has a new result called a Hard Success, which is rolling equal to or below 1/2 your skill rating. Critical Successes are when you roll a 1 on the die, instead of 1/20 of the skill rating.

When Character A attacks Character B, Character B can either parry or dodge. In BRP, there is no distinction in the results except that parrying doesn't suffer from physical penalties (due to armor and encumbrance) and that parrying weapons can get damaged. However, in CoC7e parrying with a weapon has the distinct benefit in allowing the defender to attack back. So in this situation Character A rolls a Normal Success in his attack roll. If Character B rolls a Hard Success or better, then Character A will take the hit instead. Normally in BRP, a successful parry just negates the attack and may end up damaging one of the weapons. In CoC7e, if Character A and Character B roll the same level of success, then it counts as a tie. In CoC7e, the tiebreaker will be the characters skill ratings with the one with the higher skill getting his attack in. So in the situation where both characters roll the same level of success, and Character A has a skill rating of 60% and Character B has a skill rating of 50%, Character A's attack will bypass Character B's defenses.

This doesn't work for BRP because we don't have Hard Successes, the Lower Skilled Character has to roll at least a special success to even have a chance of blocking an attack from a Higher Skilled Character. There are other rules in the BRP system that CoC7e doesn't have that will require some work to adapt, like being able to parry multiple times (CoC7e only allows you to parry once a turn), weapon lengths are an important part of BRP's melee combat and would have to be factored in somehow, etc.

I hope that explains the Fighting Back rules, I'll be explaining how Automatic Fire works for Lloyd.

13 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I had to read it many times.. not entirely sur I understand it right! 😮 Oopsie...
So, it seems, for automatic fire, instead of a skill bonus of +5% per bullet / projectile  (must be tired) and the roll the number of hit randomly afterward, just roll normally and if the attack is a success the number of hit is skill roll divided 20 (they use different word, but that's the net result, I think)

 

In CoC7e, Automatic Fire the rules are vastly different from the Autofire rules in BRP. In BRP, you choose the number of shots fired, add +5% for every shot fired and roll a die to determine how many bullets hit the target.

In CoC7e, you would choose the number of shots fired, consolidate the number of shots fired into volleys that would be resolved as separate attacks(with an increasing penalty for every attack after the first one) and that would determine how many shots would hit the target. 

So imagine that a PC has an automatic gun with a skill rating of 60%. He chooses to fire 20 shots at some enemy that he really wants dead. The number of shots that can be put into a volley will be 1/10 of his firearms skill rounded down. So in this example, he can fire 6 shots per volley. Now that we know how many shots he can fire per volley, we can determine how many attacks he will be making, which is 4. The first 3 attacks will each will fire 6 shots, while the 4th one fires only 2 shots. Each subsequent attack will incur an increasing penalty. In CoC7e, this use something called the Penalty Die, its kinda hard to explain how it works but basically it makes you roll with a bunch of dice and you have to take the worse result. Back to the example, the first attack is done at the normal skill rating(after you modify it for other things like range and concealment). The second attack is done with one penalty die, the third attack is done with two penalty dice, and the fourth attack is done with three penalty dice. And so on and so forth. If any of the attacks succeed, half of the shots on the attack would hit (rounding down, to a minimum of 1). So if the PC succeeded on the 1st and 4th attacks, the 1st attack would have 3 bullets hitting their target and the 4th attack would only have 1 bullet hitting the target.

Obviously, adapting the new Automatic Fire rule is going to be a bit more complicated. The main thing I need to figure out is what kind of penalty should each attack incur (my thoughts right now are a cumulative -30% penalty to hit, but that seems too harsh).

Having finally read the Call of Cthulhu 7e rulebook, I really like some of the innovations it made to the combat rules. Small stuff like Fighting Back to some of the bigger changes like Automatic Fire. And so I did a little brainstorm of how some of these new rules would fit into the old BRP system.

The Fighting Back rules can be easily mapped out to the levels of success that BRP already uses. The main thing I'd probably change would be how ties in that system work, since CoC's levels of success work are calculated differently from BRP. So ties wouldn't lead to the automatic hits for the attacker(if they have the higher skill), it would just be an indecisive engagement and no one gets hit from it.

As for Automatic Fire, I really like how it moves away from making it so powerful in BRP. Maybe the mechanic can be similar, with some adaptations for BRP. The PC starts by sayin how many rounds they want to fire, we then figure out how many rounds the PC can fire in a volley (determined by the skill rating) , then make each volley a separate attack with an increasing penalty(Perhaps in increments of -30%). Each success will mean that half of the shots in the volley hit the target.

What do you guys think? Might be an interesting idea for a document.

On 4/1/2021 at 3:21 PM, kafka47ca said:

May I have permission to see this document?

Sure, I'll give you a PM.

Head's up guys, I just received a notification from Chaosium that my Fading Suns to BRP document has been taken off the site for having copyright material in it. I'm currently asking the mods if its possible to re-upload that document if I removed all of the copyright materials from it.

I think we should slow down a bit, this is still tooley1chris's work. You need his permission in order to do anything first.

16 hours ago, NickMiddleton said:

And let’s be honest peeps, excellent though tooley1chris’s work was and is, the flagrant, blatant mis-use of copyright material throughout was a sword of Damocles that was inevitably going to cause a problem. Frankly, I am surprised that it’s taken this long, especially since these forums have been the “official” Chaosium forums for 5+ years.

Well damn, I guess I'll have to go figure out where I put them in my computer. I downloaded the MoM 1 and 2 like a few years ago.

7 hours ago, tooley1chris said:

Nick ain't wrong ☝️

I even put on the forward (of all my books) that I yanked all the images from other artists around the internet. 

Of course I didn't really think anyone would care since no $ changed hands and those images can be viewed ANY time with a simple Google search.

Have you considered putting out a no art version of the document? Having all of the stats put into one place is still very useful.

I remember way back when, tooley1chris had uploaded two manual of monsters that he created. What happened to them? I tried searching for it on google, but came up with a page that stated that the files were missing. Did something happen to them?

On 3/9/2021 at 11:41 PM, Kloster said:

I would say it is a closing action. I would play it that way.

Alrighty. Thanks for your input.

On 3/9/2021 at 6:35 PM, Baron Wulfraed said:

Just a wild opinion here, but I'd likely interpret it that IF the wielder of longer weapon has used it to attack some third party, then that weapon is "out of position" to be an effect on the wielder of the shorter weapon. IE; as if WLW has no weapon or is turned to the side.

Well the scenario that I had in mind was two short weapon users engaging one long weapon user so it's not like the LWU is attacking some rando, but I get your point. Barring the Keeping at Bay action, which can keep any number of shorter weapon users from attacking at the expense of making your own attack. The long weapon would be "out of position" to keep a 2nd SWU from charging into close combat and shanking him with his dagger.

On 3/8/2021 at 12:47 PM, Kloster said:

The longest weapon is able to attack first, but the target does not matter. If it's owner used his attack against another opponent, too bad for him, the shortest weapon can attack.

Thanks for the answer, I still have some follow up questions I'd like to ask.

Would you still need to make a dodge check to attack him? On page 235 of the BGB, it states that the character with the shorter weapon "cannot attack until Dodging successfully".

And this goes into the 2nd part of the question, does it count as a Closing action? On page 219 it states that a character that wants to close on a target needs to make a successful Dodge roll if being "kept at bay".

And there's two interpretations of the rule with this. With the Close Combat and Closing Spot Rules, it sounds like that a shorter weapon user can make an attack after the longer weapon user makes his first strike. This is because keeping shorter weapon users at bay is an active action that replaces a normal attack and that it must be opposed by a Dodge Check.

Now, with the Weapon Length Spot Rule, it states that the shorter weapon user cannot attack the longer weapon user without Dodging successfully first, which sounds like a Closing action since the following paragraph states that the longer weapon user cannot attack once that happens.

Which of these interpretations is the correct one?