Harshax

Harshax,

Thanks. I have heard of The Complete Alchemist but never seen a copy.

You can get them cheap if you search Amazon for 'Compleat Alchemist'. Might be advertised as being printed by 'Bard's Game'. My copy (in storage) was one sent to me by the nice folks (pre-acquisition of TSR) at WotC who responded to my inquiry regarding the purchase of that license. Wow - That was like 12 years ago!

This is good stuff. Reminds of the old (pre-purchase of TSR) WotC Product, The Complete Alchemist.

During the height of our RQ3/Griffin Island campaign, we had 6 PCs, 3 or 4 NPCs (including a talking baboon), and a gaggle of mooks for muscle.

Vanilla BRP combat is dullsville

Some of the spot rules make it much more fun. The Savage Worlds fan community have created a combat survival guide suggesting different strategies and cool rules to make use of if slugging it out is not working. If you have time hunt it down and reformat the combat spot rules in a similar manner.

I've been wanting to give some time to translating these options to spot rules for BRP. Care to start another thread?

I'd add that the GM should carefully weigh when a skill deserves a Skill Check. It is too easy to give in to players who want an improvement roll every time they use a skill. The pitfall is that characters gain power to quickly, or worse yet, have high percentiles in skills that are secondary to how the character is actually played.

A good example is the spot/listen checks. Just because a character succeeds, they don't necessarily deserve a check. Especially when there wasn't anything to find.

There definitely is a trend, but I wouldn't say it was strictly percentile driven. Games have evolved quite a bit from the days where rules could be referenced as 1.2.1.3 - Character Routine, but that is not to say that games have gotten less complex.

In my opinion, it is the gamer that has evolved. There is a part of me that remembers the queer little straight-jackets I would don to play a game. Mostly it was an unyielding drive to understand game systems. I would accept just about anything to be part of a game, whether it was D&D, GURPS, or Palladium. But I think those rules evolved in a very small ecosystem where being different was far more important than being playable.

Currently, maybe 10 years, we see a shift in game design, where rules are defined more by genre. The early days of RPG's were forever compared to their ability to reflect perceived realities in wargaming. Now it is more important that rules reflect the reality of the setting. Robin D Laws, for example, made a tremendous game out of Vance's Dying Earth using nothing more than a d6. A percentile system wouldn't add much more if such a game was converted and might actually weaken the mechanics which make DE such a unique experience.

The universal language of discussing probability is a very powerful tool, but it isn't the be all and end all of gaming mechanics. This is evident even in d20 games. It seems to me that a percentile system adds a greater amount of transparency to gaming than most abstract systems, but transparency is not necessarily the goal of every game.

Warhammer is an excellent example of a pervy baroque style of game. It has percentages, yes, but also contains a magic system that doesn't follow the core mechanics exactly.

One argument I made in the BRP playtest forum is that magic, by its very nature, should be pervy to the core mechanics of the game. This was a difficult argument to make, as it is counterintuitive to the strengths of a percentile based mechanic. Nevertheless, it is an argument I am still willing to make, as the definition of magic, IMO, should not be so mundanely described using the same context to describe common action.

Please pardon my drunk posting. My excuse is that I am more reflective in these moments. While d100 systems consume most of my time, I remember with great affection the time I spent creating a game world/system based on Ultima II. A transparent, percentile based, mechanic was out of the question for me. It would still be, if I were to pick up that project again.

For me; again I apologize for the long rambling post; percentile based mechanics are best suited for game where the setting is more important than the rules which govern a characters interaction. Thoughtful games - that's what occurs to me, first and foremost. Games where the acquisition of power and the driving need of character development (powers, feats, abilities) is secondary to the interaction of players with the settings are more conducive to a simpler; and inclusive; percentile based mechanic.

Ok, I'm done. Did I even post to the right thread?

Yours in gaming,

Arthur

Tal Meta has some excellent expansions of Psionics, and a very large collection of Divine Magic for his GreyQuest game. (RQ for World of Greyhawk)

I've always interpreted combat thusly:

An aware defender is always dodging, parrying, or blocking. The roll only becomes significant if the attacker 'hit'.

A 'missed' attack can mean several things: did not find an exploit; did not deliver a blow with suitable power to cause damage; a total failure to strike the opponent; failure to act because of distraction.

RANDOM COMMENTS

RQ3 seems very close to the D&D 1E style of magic vs. arms. Sorcerers could grow incredibly powerful. They could make their own PP matrix, use MP crystals, or invest in Familiars. But like dedicated magic users in other game systems, had many DEX based skills (eg. weapons) limited to a maximum of DEX x3%, and had their spellcasting skills reduced by encumbrance (eg. armor worn).

RQ3 lacked most flash-Bang! spells. The flashiest being shapechange <species> to <species>. So even with the above limitations, many sorcerers; at least in my game; became combat monsters - with boosts to DEX, SIZ, CON, Damage Resistance, and Damage Boosting. Which led me to add flash-Bang! spells so sorcerers would have something else to do with their MP besides stepping on the melee-type's toes. I drew several of these from Sandy Peterson's Sorcery Rules, although I did not implement his alternate rules completely.

The biggest equalizer in RQ3 was permanent POW expenditure, and time to cast spells. POW acquisition is usually the primary motivation of spellcasters, both for overcoming an opponents POW, and for permanently expending for the creation of various enchantments or familiars. Powerful spells took time to cast; 1SR per MP; or in the case of vanilla BRP -1 DEX per Level of the spell. BRP also limits spell Levels to 1/2 INT, which can be both more and less restrictive than the rules found in RQ3.

Drawing from Savage Worlds, one could implement the concept of 'Trappings'. By altering the flavor text of spells, you can allow martial type characters the ability to invoke magic-like abilities. This is one way to expand the abilities of non-magical characters without having to bolt on a new rules subsystem, or add exhaustive lists of new kewl powerz. Incidentally, this concept was partially appropriated by the authors of 4E.

In Savage Worlds, for example, there is the spell, 'Blast'. This is your typical fireball. The martial-arts mystics of Deadlands also have access to the Blast power, but instead of being a ranged attack that creates a ball of flame, it is described as a vicious flurry of blows to all opponents in a 20' radius, centered on the mystic.

In this way the magical spell 'Healing', can become the non-magical ability 'Second-Wind'. Both use the same mechanics, but 'Second-Wind' can only affect yourself.

If anything, BRP does a better conan style of magic. Magic is powerful and deadly, but a well placed ax can still take down the high priest of a snake cult, or the avatar of dark arachnid gods.

I've read that powered characters often are too powerful when compared to non-powered characters.

So if this is the case, can it be said that in a fantasy campaign, wizards won't work well with fighters?

Can D&D 1E do fantasy? Wizards were immensely powerful at high levels compared to fighters. The balance was that they were incredibly fragile and needed the support of all characters to make it to those high levels.

RQ implemented such things as subtracting enc from spellcasting rolls, which is where we get the phrase 'Lets get naked and make magic.' [ahem, at least from an RPG perspective]

Interesting is that he likes the same 3 roleplaying rulesystems as I do. He is definately a man of taste.

-BRP

-Unisystem

-Savage worlds

Makes me want to try Unisystem. BRP and SW are my top two.

I think it's because hes trying to point out that what many new gamers see as a bug is actually a feature.

That's how I read it too. He's a critic, and had he not been critical of one element of BRP, he wouldn't have been doing his job. In truth, BRP is dated for lacking an advantage/disadvantage system, because such things are in most new RPG's.

If you saw a new release of classic OD&D (of which there is one), it would be considered dated for lacking a skill system, but it would still be a great thing to see in professional print.

Kurt is right too, in that such a system would detract from the elegant mechanics of BRP.

Bottom line. He absolutely raved about BRP. Good job Jason!

[EDIT: Ok, I read Vampire the Masquerade in the thread above, but just realized that I was thinking of Mage the Ascension when writing the following.]

I think a Vampire conversion would be fairly easy. Substitute the use of SAN as a method for measuring a mage's drift toward Paradox.

One spell casting skill for each type of magic. Sacrifice POW to learn levels of magic for each tradition. Where 1 POW in BRP equals 1 PIP in Mage.

eg:

1 POW Life Magic = 1 Pip of Life Magic

3 POW Life Magic = 3 Pip of Life Magic

5 POW Life Magic = 5 Pip of Life Magic

The magic cost for spell casting is equal to the number of pip's in the spell's effect, as determined by the DM. Every MP (pip) of magic reduces your spellcasting skill by 5 or 10. A failed spell casting roll results in xD6 'SAN' loss for each MP spent. The Mage can sacrifice permanent POW to reduce the number of dice rolled.

Kurt is always so excited to review games, but he actually managed to still be gushing about his love for BRP. :cool:

This is a very impressive document. More complete than any project I've attempted. How long did it take you?

Stormbringer 5th edition (or Elric!, which is essentially the same game) has detailed rules for demon summoning. The Elric! sourcebook The Bronze Grimoire, likewise, has a comprehensive section on necromancy, with statistics for the animated dead. I'd recommend giving both of those a look.

I am a HUGE fan of the Bronze Grimoire. It has an outstanding list of necromantic magic.

I would try to get ahold of of AD&D's 'Complete Necromancer Handbook' for additional ideas for necromancer spells, another fantastic sourcebook.

I found that characters who did not bother to learn attack spells (pow vs. pow), were much maligned by the POW gain routine. My house rule was that you could also qualify for a POW gain by successfully resisting magic.

I don't see what would happen if you changed the rule to what you're more familiar with, but then again, the best recommendation is to 'play as is' until you're sure you want to change it.

I was recently reading BRP's new take on the old RQ SR system.

I noticed on page 201, in the section on multiple actions, it says that you gain multiple actions based on having a SR of 5 or less. It then goes on to say that this system isn't compatible with splitting attacks with 100% skill or greater.

So, as I read it, if you get multiple attacks thanks to speed in the SR system, you get to make them at your full value every time. Is that correct?

What method of parry/dodge works with it? I assume the progressive -30% method, but I'm not sure.

Assuming the SR system is quoted from RQ, then no, you don't attack at full value. You split your attack skill in half for both the first and second attack. Additionally, this can only be accomplished if you have a skill over 100%. The limit in RQ was two attacks. As for parries, I believe you could parry once, and dodge once if you did not attack.

The Stormbringer variant did not have a SR prerequisite. You could make as many attacks as you wanted if a) your skill was above 100% and you could place at least 50% of your effort into the attack. These attacks happened in increments of 5 DEX ranks after your first attack.

Powers are also treated like skills BUT they use Power. 1/2 the Level of the Power is the cost in Power and it comes built in with limitations, thus a certain 7th level power can only be used once a day...well in BRP it is a skill than can be used once a day AND it cost 3 Power (I round down...) to use it.

I don't think you really need to do this. From what I know of 4E, powers can be used at-will, per encounter, or per day.

I loved the barrow-wight entry. I think it well written, evocative, and enjoyably academic (tolkien-lore 50%). I especially like the hooks presented for GM's to play ME in time periods other than those focused on in LotR.

My only criticism is the art. There are six pieces for the barrow-wight, and seven for the fell beast. It's just too much, and it overwhelms an otherwise elegantly muted layout. Not to mention that it jacks up the page count quite a bit. I also am not a fan of most CGI from video games. What makes for good game art, rarely translate to good print art for static viewing.

Looking forward to seeing more.

I hope I don't sound too aggressive here, as I'm trying to lend a helping hand, but it feels to me you're making a mountain out of a mole hill with your conversion. You should be keeping the basic structure of the BRP system, whilst adding only a few things here and there. But you're trying to hammer in RIFTS rules into BRP, and a lot of them just don't fit.

This is how I would do it:

No offense to the original poster, but this methodology is brilliant. Great posts by sladethesniper too! Methinks the OP is more interested in converting RIFTS mechanics to BRP, and not necessarily the RIFTS world.

As someone that had always enjoyed listening to my brother blather on about the setting for hours, I expected a little more from this thread, but clearly this should be RIFTS [RULES] BRP.

Let me add my voice to Wolverine andsladethesniper. If you're going to convert a setting then do it, and hit the ground running.

Now if only my brother still played. I'd send him a copy of BRP and this thread. . .

I would be very interested in such a thing, especially if it contained a couple of short scenarios that helped new comers grok the setting's mood.

I would be willing to take a look.

Notes: After a successful bite, a hyenadont will hang on and continue biting each melee round. Roll to determine whether the creature obtains a Critical hit, but it does damage on any roll except 96-00. It will only release its grip if it fumbles or is wounded.

MurfinMS,

Your stats always seem right on the spot, but I do think this is a little too powerful. Maybe this ability should only kick in on a Special or Critical?