vagabond

The BGB has the following:

05% or less: Novice. A characters with a skill rating this low is a complete

amateur, and has little hope of succeeding even at Easy tasks. At this low level of

competency, your should roll each time you wish for your character to attempt

this skill, regardless of whether in a stress-filled situation or routine under ideal

circumstances.

05–25%: Neophyte: A character with ratings in this range is either a beginner or

has a small amount of knowledge of the subject at hand. The phrase ‘knows

enough to be dangerous’ applies well here, your character will get lucky enough

to succeed once in a while, and may become overconfident as a result. You

should have to roll whenever your character attempts this skill, even if the task is

Easy.

25–50%: Amateur. Ratings in this range indicate a little talent, some rudimentary

training, or hobby–level dabbling in a skill. Your character is barely qualified,

and is usually entrusted with Easy or unimportant tasks. A high school

education could impart ratings at the low end of this range. At this level of

competency, in non-stressful situations your character can perform routine

activities relating to the skill without needing to roll.

50–75%: Professional. A 50% rating in a skill allows your character to make a

living using that skill. At the professional skill rating, your character does not

need not worry about failing at Easy tasks, and is experienced or proficient

enough to serve as a leader or manager of others. A 50% rating is roughly equal

to a bachelor’s degree in a specific discipline. Most skills cannot be raised above

75% through education or training alone: your character must advance further

through practical use. At this skill rating, most of the time your character can

perform routine or even complex activities relating to the skill, and you are only

required to roll when there is an element of risk, or when the chance of failure is

dramatic.

75–90%: Expert. Skills in this range indicate advanced expertise in a given field:

your character has a reasonable chance to succeed even at Difficult tasks. Few

people ever attain such mastery of a given skill, and those that do are respected

and relied upon for their expertise. Skills in this rage correspond to an advanced

degree (Masters or PhD), or many years of experience. Most average characters

cannot begin play with any skill higher than 75%. With this skill rating, your

character should be able to perform complex and difficult actions relating to this

skill under routine circumstances.

90% or higher: Master. Only a handful of true geniuses attain this level of

mastery. Only the most difficult tasks are beyond their abilities, and their

expertise has likely made these masters famous or legendary, either within their

field or in the world at large. When your character has this rating in the skill, in

routine situations he or she is able to perform ‘miracles’, and you will rarely need

to roll the dice except at most difficult of tasks or in dire situations. If the optional

Sanity rules are being used in a campaign, attaining a 90% rating in a skill

restores 2D6 SAN points, representing the self–confidence and discipline

associated mastering a skill. If your character begins with this skill rating or

higher, there is no corresponding SAN gain.

Correct.

Cheers,

Nick

Ah - I still want to thank Ben for including this simplification (and clarification) of multiple defensive actions per round being decremented each time regardless of which action is used. The original rule was so confusing and led to interesting (and obviously) incorrect results.

Ian

Err, these are instructions from the author:

(Note the dictionary terms of "instructions from the author" and "the author explicitly told me to do this, so I tried to do this, but it didn't work, and another email to Chaosium didn't work, so I got curious whether anyone here knew the status of Chaosium")

I believe the preference is based on the order - first try "post them here", then try "email to magic-world@chaosium.com". Ben is pretty active here, which is why the preference is to post it here.

Ben also has things set up in Google which is where the Official Errata exists.

But, you would already know all of this

Ian

Thanks for that web site! (Though it doesn't seem to do HP correctly...made 2 "Out of this world" Dwarves and they end up with at most 13 HP no matter what...but will experiment more).

Also thanks to all for the comments so far- hopefully we'll get more.

It's doing the standard HP = (SIZ + CON) / 2, where CON is getting an 18, but SIZ is only 7 or 8 (due to the dwarf's shortness).

HP being the sum of SIZ and CON is a heroic option. For a Dwarf as set in this generator, SIZ is 1d4+4. Not a typical fantasy dwarf ...

Ian

Something I can't grasp at the moment (among many other things), is how a GM knows how strong/powerful to make an NPC or group of NPC's in order to challenge the players.

Obviously D&D has the concept of levels to do this. In BRP, if you had a group of players and had to whip up a random NPC on the fly....how would you do it? What benchmarks on the players sheets would you go off of?

Thanks for your time!

Well, you know the PCs - you can use their stats, powers and skills as your base point. Then adjust up or down. Remember, the way combat, armor, and active defense work in BRP, even weaker NPCs can present quite a challenge. And a mob of NPCs can be outright deadly. So, it isn't as difficult as you would think to present a challenge to your PCs.

Ian

Wow...I haven't thought about Skyrealms of Jorune since the '80s when there were ads in Dragon. Who owns the rights now? Is this a licensed version you're working on?

You really need to get the original artist to do any drawings!

The rights are still owned by the original crew. Andrew does not seem to interested in blocking fan stuff as long as it is not for profit. My partner in crime and I have had some contact with him on and off. And, while I do have permission from Miles to use his originals (again, as long as not for profit) as long as proper credit is given, my partner in crime is going to provide new, original artwork.

However, I need to work out putting some playtest material up, with or without art, and update the playtest material as things settle.

And I just noticed you are in Lemon Grove - excellent ... I live in La Mesa.

Ian

Currently typing this on my iPad mini and I have a work provided iPhone 4S. I have a mid 2007 iMac at home.

I was pleasantly surprised by this years WWDC actually - the new Mac Pro design looks fabulous and provided its configurable enough for the serious pro-users looks set to revive Apples slightly tarnished reputation in the pro-market.

Personally I like what I saw of iOS 7 and OSX 10.9 (except the name -it's ok, but I'd have preferred Sea Lion...) and I'm delighted to see iWorks coming to iClod properly (my work supplied laptop is Windows, so inter working with my home set up ATM is awkward) - now if they'd just make iWorks ODF friendly as well...

I'm strapped for cash at present but hoping I can stretch to a new iMac come the end of this year.

Cheers,

Nick

I actually liked most of the announcements. The updates to iOS7 and OSX 10.9 (even the name) look good. I also like the attention to gaming (even though I am not much of a computer game type). I also am very interested in the Mac Pro update - very interested to see what the final product is and how things test out. I think the concerns over internal expansion are overblown - as long as 3rd party companies get on board with Thunderbolt, PCIe expansion boxes, including video card expansion (though, being able to handle three 4K resolution displays is more than sufficient for just about anyone), even upgrading the internal video is not much of an issue. CPU upgrades/options might be the one area I would be concerned with, especially knowing what Intel has in the works - dual hexacore CPUs may be outmoded by the time the final product arrives, and newer chipsets loom.

Currently using an iPad Mini 32GB, an iPad Retina Display 16GB, and an oooooollld MacBook at home (running 10.6 - I was part of the beta test). I also have a newish Mini running Lion here at work. By Christmas, I expect to be purhcasing a new MacBook Pro Retina Display, probably the lower end 2.4GHz, but bump up RAM to 16GB (maybe more if available), and go with the 512GB SSD. May also look into a new Mini at home as well.

Ian

I should have an update on things some time next week. I have been fiddling with dyshas and Isho, and so far, I like the way things are working out ...

Ian

I am not really with you. My thoughts were that if you can say spot a person lying in ambush at 40 yds does searching using a pair of binoculars make it easier and conversely would spotting a person at 200 yds be impossible without optics of some sort. I know there are more variables such as conceal skill and object siz. I was just looking for a rough reference to start from.

I would lean on the range modifiers for missile weapons - a scope/binoculars divides the missile weapon range modifiers in half (or, if easier, double the ranges). Just pick a range that suits - say the longest bow range.

Ian

Correct - the rules state you are "dead" at any point your HP hits zero or less. However, in that round, if you receive First Aid or other healing, magical or not, that raises you to 1HP, you are no longer "dead", but have been stabilized.

Ian

I would liked to have seen a Traveller-style aging system in Basic Roleplaying. I've never seen a game that does character creation so well, and I really like that characters have to gamble that something bad will not happen in order to obtain more experience. Has anyone come across an optional rule setting for BRP that will allow this kind of character generation?

There is a Traveller to BRP conversion here that includes rules for Traveller style Life Path chargen. It just uses the Traveller "classes" as converted over. If you want to adapt it to a different setting , you will have to tweak it to fit.

http://www.soltakss.com/rq_scifi.doc

The thread is here:

Sci-Fi

Ian

Hello everyone! I come with a conundrum and I don't know where else to turn.

A quick background, I've only played a few games of Call of Cthulhu as the GM. But I have lately found myself wanting a good old fashion dungeon crawling sorta game - so I can make strange and terrible dungeons filled with terrible things. I thought it would be fun to get into 1st edition AD&D, so I bought the recent rereleases and have been looking them over. But I've gotten overwhelmed and confused and now I'm wondering if I should seek a more BRP related approach.

The rigid alignment system was a turn off, as is the rigid class system - but the rules for randomization of treasure and monsters are very appealing. I was thinking it would be much better for me and my gang if I could employ a more Elder Scrolls style class system. That is, classes are little more than a title and the player is free to choose their own skills. I also like the idea of a non-magic centric character being able to cast some degree of magic - like a fighter throwing a fireball now and again.

I know from CoC that you sort of have that kind of open class system, but I never dealt with magic so I don't know how that all works. So now I don't know if I should just play AD&D and remove the alignment and class restrictions, or if I should opt for BRP. But with AD&D, I have lists of default magical items and treasures and whatnot, but I don't know if I have that for BRP so I fear it may take more work. I'm not looking for an existing story - I just need a simple but comprehensive system that I can use to tell my own stories. But I'm not RPG savy so I don't know what to do.

I'm sorry for the long winded and perhaps confusing plight, but I ask for any degree of advice. I'm at a loss so any help would be appreciated. Thank you so much just for reading this nonsense!

I would give Magic World a try - it is BRP based, using the old Elric!/Stormbringer 5th as a basis, but stripping out the Moorcock stuff. It has a setting, but you can easily ignore it.

Magic World: Fantasy Roleplaying in Worlds of Epic Adventure (Basic Roleplaying system): Lynn Willis, Ben Monroe, and Friends, Andy P. Timm, Kenneth Solis: 9781568823652: Amazon.com: Books

It has a dedicated forum here as well.

Another possibility is Classic Fantasy, which is specifically for dungeon crawls.

Classic Fantasy Chaosium Inc.

Ian

I'd recommend "Sorcery". Not only does it work a lot like CoC magic (minus SAN loss), and the spells are a bit more balanced, there are spells for summoning demons. Change demons to minor Mythos entities, and make greater Mythos spells a matter for research, and I think you'll have what you want.

I would check out the Corum supplement to Stormbringer if you want a risk factor associated with sorcery as the spells/summonings create/contact more powerful spells/entities.

Ian

Thank you very much for that link!

The problem of this rule, though, is that it requires a very high level of skill.

I don't like very much these kinds of prerequisites. An expert with 75%, a Professional with 60% or even a good amateur with 40% should be able to try a riposte. To try, but not necessarily to succeed, of course. They would have lower chance of succeeding.

Every character should be able to try what is easy to understand. The difference must be in the chance of succeeding, not an all or nothing affair.

When there is a skill level prerequisite, like 90%, a question immediately occurs: why 90% and not 89%? Does the character suddenly (and magically) gain a new power when he reaches 90%?

Just want to chime in on a few things.

90% was chosen as the point at which one becomes a master at a skill - in this case, master at a weapon. In Stormbringer 1 - 4, to riposte, one had to be a master in both the separate attack and parry skills (specifically, over 90% in each) AND score a critical parry. While this cut down on the frequency at which ripostes occurred, you had no limit to the number of ripostes possible (though, your parry and riposte dropped 30% and 20% respectively each time per round, you always had at least a 1% chance).

Now, as to why one had/has to be a master (from a design perspective) - as mentioned elsewhere, combat rounds are more than just swing and wait affairs, they represent constant maneuvering, posturing, thrusts, parries, advances, retreats, etc. The actual roll represents an opportunity to strike based on all of the maneuvering - a "here is your opening, let's see what you can do with it". So, in essence, it represents the ability of a combatant, regardless of skill level, to be able to create an opening, sometimes by use of parrying away an opponent, and getting a riposte type opportunity. The actual riposte maneuver, however, is more than that - it is the ability of a master to parry such an attack, and turn the opponent's weapon in such a way as to create a new opportunity, one that is beyond the normal opportunity that occurs during a combat round. And, again, a master can do this multiple times per round, and when facing multiple opponents.

I do like Jason's change of adding a single DEX rank penalty in addition to the uniform 30% drop per attempt, to reflect that even a master can be brought down by a mob of attackers.

Ian

Most of my games are actually more in the modern Call of Cthulhu style, so I'm looking for rules light combat that largely stays out of the way of the narrative. I've been using Savage Worlds, but it feels a bit "gamier" for lack of a better word than I like. I really liked the Mongoose Traveller system, and I felt it was a perfect match, but I wanted a generic system that would allow me to tell those kinds of very narrative stories. I suspect BRP will be able to do everything I want. It's just a matter of learning the system and finding the optional rules that will suit the particular flavor I'm looking for.

I would still consider Magic World. I think the rules as implemented there are pretty solid (based firmly on Elric!). Random armor protection, general HP, skills over 100%, ripostes for HTH combat, etc. Ben and I also reworded/simplified the multiple Dodge/Parry per round some. Depending on how much HTH you use, I still like separate attack and parry skills as it lets you define characters as defensively minded, balanced, or aggressive attackers.

Ian

This actually explains it quite well and makes sense. I don't think the BRP book explains this anywhere. They should have included it.

Yeah, the BRP book has some things that were left out, either for space constraints, or we the proof-readers didn't catch (that's what happens when you have been playing with the system for so long - some things are "a given", or house rules/alt rules have become so prevalent, you forget where the core/original rules stop and the house/alt rules begin). There used to be a discussion of rules and text that were left out, but I have no idea where it is.

If you like BRP, and play mostly fantasy based games, I would consider getting Magic World and/or OpenQuest. If you like more tactical options and such, OpenQuest has some, and RQ6 has very detailed combat. I personally play a mish-mash of Stornbringer 1, Stormbringer 4, Elric!, Magic World, and RQ6 these days. I like separate attack/parry, ripostes, skills going over 100, and the Combat Actions/Combat Effects from RQ6. I also like variable armor values and total HP over fixed armor values and hit locations. I like demon summoning from SB1 and 4, as well as Mongoose Elric's sorcery, and the magic found in the Elric! supplement Unknown East and SB5 supplement Corum. Magic World's Advanced Sorcery has some good stuff too.

Ian

I somewhat wish my reading of the rules was wrong, however, because 12 seconds is a long time for a character to only take a single combat action. I think that is part of the reason I was confused. From any kind of simulationist perspective, this doesn't make much sense. It's as if the character swings his sword and then just stands there and stares at the enemy for a few moments before doing something else. Moreover, even if the gamemaster implements Attacks and Parries over 100%, it will be a long time before any of the PCs have attack skills over 100%, particularly if the GM caps new skills at 75% as the book suggests. I may have to give some of the optional rulesets a more careful going over before deciding which version I like best.

For starters, a single combat action in a round does not mean what you think it means. Basically, as in almost every other RPG, a combat round involves a lot of jockeying for position, probing for openings, defensive posturing, etc. The actual roll represents an opportunity/opening has been made, now let's see what you can do with it. It is not "swings his sword and then just stands there and stares at the enemy for a few moments before doing something else."

Having attack skills rise above 100% represents becoming masterful at the weapon, which allows the splitting of attacks. In Stormbringer 1st through 4th, skills were capped at 100% (unless sorcery was involved), and mastery was achieved when attack and parry were above 90% (this is where the separate attack/parry option comes from, older editions of Stormbringer and RuneQuest). In the old Stormbringer, you gave your left hand separate attack and parry skills, so you could have Broadsword (RH) attack 95% parry 95% and Broadsword (LH) attack 90% defense 90%. This allowed you to make two separate attacks in addition to the free ripostes (which you could only get as a master). In Elric! and Stormbringer 5th, where skills over 100% became the norm, I believe if you had two weapons, you could attack twice as long as you had a high enough DEX. I'll have to check to be sure.

Ian

I see. Thank you for explaining this everyone. So, if I understand correctly, you can perform an action for every 5 DEX you have? So, if you have 16 DEX, does that mean you can attack twice and move once?

Base rules with no options - you can perform one action for every 5 whole DEX ranks, so with a DEX 16, you get an action at DEX 16, DEX 11, DEX 6 and DEX 1. Again, with base rules, you can only attack once per combat round, or you may take your full MOV without any other actions. You may take a partial move and attack in the same round, as well as take any other non attack/non move action such as skill use.

With various optional rules, you may attack more than once.

Ian

Strictly speaking, Paul is correct (that is what it says on page 190) - however Paul, re-read that section, paying close attention to the example.

My character of DEX14 with hand axe 75% can attack ONCE in a round (weapon can only attack more than once if skill exceeds 100, which it doesn't), but can take THREE actions (at DEX 14, 9 and 4, subject to the affect of choosing a move as one of those) as they have sufficient DEX. On any of thos DEX ranks they can ONLY perform ONE action (they can either attack OR move on DEX14, not both).

Cheers,

Nick

Sorry - perhaps I should have been more clear. It doesn't contradict what is written on page 190. You may only perform one action on your DEX rank. However, you may have multiple DEX ranks.

Ian

Where is this rule? I'm asking because it seems to contradict what it says on p. 190 under Combat Actions, where it says the following:

No, it doesn't. You may do only one thing on your DEX rank. However, if you have a high enough DEX, you may have "multiple" DEX ranks (DEX -5, DEX -10, etc.) However, multiple actions in a round are penalized.

Ian

I'm working my way through the Basic Roleplaying rulebook, and I have some questions. I just finished reading the chapters on "System" and "Combat," and some things struck me as very odd.

First, if I understand the initiative system correctly, it seems that characters can only either move or attack, not both. Furthermore, if they choose to move, they act at a later time in the combat round due to their DEX rank being lowered. This seems like it could really take some effort to track such dynamic DEX ranks, especially if more than one character is taking DEX modified actions. Furthermore, it seems odd they couldn't move and take an action since the combat rounds actually represent a larger amount of time (12 seconds) than in most other RPGs.

No, you may move your full MOV in lieu of any other action such as attack, skill or spell use. This occurs on your DEX rank. You may choose to move a portion of your MOV and perform another action if you have a high enough DEX that allows you to act multiple times in a round, but the action suffers a penalty to the skill used as well as occuring DEX-5 ranks later.

Secondly, from what I've read, it seems that the only time a character can take multiple actions in a round is if the GM has either implemented the optional rule that allows skill points to rise above 100%, or if his character is using a firearm with a rate of fire. Moreover, in those special cases, the added action will occur at a later point in the round due to a lowered DEX rank. Again, isn't this kind of dynamic initiative difficult to track during play? I've always found initiative to be somewhat cumbersome even when it's static in games such as Pathfinder and Savage Worlds.

The number of actions are based on DEX. You can choose to make multiple actions at DEX -5, DEX -10, and so on. Each action gets the DEX rank penalty, and subsequent penalty to the roll. For combat, either you can have two weapons and attack twice (missile weapons and firearms have their own rates of fire/shots per round), or you can use the optional skills over 100 to attack multiple times with the same weapon. Note, parrying and dodging are free actions.

Lastly, I don't understand the function of the "Statement" phase in the combat round. I don't see what benefit this grants, and it seems to me that it would interrupt the flow of the encounter terribly.

The Statement phase is used for tactical decisions. You announce your "action" for the round in reverse DEX rank order, to reflect the characters with better reaction times (higher DEX) ability to read the slower characters and adjust. One can dispense with it and just announce as you go, but this penalizes the quicker characters somewhat, and hands an advantage to slower ones.

Ian

My opinion about this topic is about the same, despite of the fact that I played GURPS for a very long time (in GURPS, attributes have a huge impact on skills).

Attributes do influence skills. There is no doubt about that. Someone clever will learn to play chess much faster than someone stupid and absent minded, and someone strong and agile will learn boxing much faster than someone feeble and clumsy. It is impossible to become a champion in a skill for which once is handicapped and world class champions are not only trained, they are also outstandingly talented for what they do: in game terms, they have characteristics which make them unbeatable. Champion boxers are for instance always very strong strong and healthy while world class scientists are always amazingly bright...

Having said that, learning and training is still more important than innate abilities. You can be as bright as you want, if you barely know chess rules, someone less intelligent than you but with a lot of training will always win, and very easily.

So, in my humble opinion, attributes have a high influence at the beginning. Between two neophytes or amateur, they will make a lot of difference. But once both of them will become expert, it will be hard to know what makes them so good: talents or training? Mozart and Einstein were certainly incredibly talented, but they also spent an incredible amount of time practicing their skill.

Finally, learning a skill is not just learning how to practice it. When you learn boxing, for instance, you also make a lot of muscle training exercises which make you become more and strong and healthy. Likewise, learning a science doesn't only make you good for that one science, it also changes your point of view on the world and even your general manner of thinking... Brief, it changes your intelligence.

Then the true question would be: do attributes influence skills or do skills influence attributes? And my personal answer is: both.

That is why, in my humble opinion, the Basic Role Playing system do a very good job in this topic. With the optional rule, attributes have a little influence on skills. About -10% to +10%. This little influence is important at the beginning, when skills are low, but has much less influence when they become higher.

Furthermore, the responsibility to create characters with skill corresponding to their attributes is left to GM and players. If someone wants an Acrobatics 95% character with a Dexterity of 3, the GM can content himself with saying: “Sorry but your character can't do acrobatics at all.” Common sense is often the best rule.

I've always liked either having attributes set the starting/default skill level, representing raw innate ability, and then as the skills improve, this raw innate ability is superseded by training. So, with attributes typically in the 3 - 18 range, or a base modifier up to +15, the same can be accomplished. Another option would be to base skill improvement on current skill level, modified by the primary ability and INT to represent both capacity for learning as well as raw talent.

Ian

When I did the BRP 2300AD stuff, it was not a problem at all to get permission from Marc Miller to use his setting material and the artists to use their already published artwork. In fact, they offered me some more art to use it for free!

All I had to do is a) give credit to them and copy only necessary setting information out of the books. So, I was able to add some fluff, but not too much that would make their products obsolete. Over all it was a fun thing to do and everybody was very supportive.

Personally I would prefer to see the BGB used as the "main rule book" and new settings "overriding" some parts of it. A good example is Mythic Iceland and the Alephtar setting books. The tell you in a chapter which rules are modified and what skills are used different or were renamed. Then they tell you which optional rules to use (or recommend). Essentially this makes it very easy to just publish the setting without the need of having it approved by Chaosium (at least if you do it on a non-profit basis).

Maybe Nick can tell you more about how it would work when you publish it this way as a commercial company.

On the other hand: if you want to have all the rules & setting in one book, I guess you would need to use an OGL rule system or permission of the owner. But I like the idea of having the rule book and the setting book separate better.

I have the same arrangement with Miles Teves and Andrew Leker of Jorune fame - I can "release" free stuff with Miles' art and official Jorune IP, as long as I credit appropriately. Operative words being "free" and "credit".

Ian

I wonder if it would be better to take the 50% out of the equation and just write down the resistance table modifiers (RTMs)on the character sheet? THe active character would add his applicaible RTM to his chances and the opponent would subtract his RTM from the base 50% success chance.

For example, let's say a PC with 16 STR is in a tug-o-war with a STR 20 Troll.

16 STR would be STR RTM 30%, while the Troll with STR 20 would have a 50% STR TRM.

30-50 is -20, so the man would have a 30% (50-20) chance of winning.

Of course, all of this (mental arithmetic, formula derivation, modifiers to 50%) is avoided simply by using the table

Ian

If someone ever completes a BRP version of Jorune, I am SO THERE!

Slowly chipping away at it ...

Ian