vagabond

I know. But expressing it as just a modifier to the unimpeachably simple "STATx5" might make some people happier to use it.

Yes, but it loses a lot of the accuracy and flexibility.

Another option would be 5% X (10 + ACTIVE_STAT - OPPOSING_STAT)

Ian

If you prefer a formula to the Resistance Table, you could try this instead: STAT x 5% roll (modified +/-5% per point by which the opposed stat is under/over 10).

Or, use 50 + 5 X (ACTIVE_STAT - OPPOSING_STAT), which is what the Resistance Table actually is.

Ian

My own opinion then and now is that what Chaosium / BRP needs is an in house SF game:

• based on the BGB, and through its subsystenms laying the groundwork for future takes on different sub-genres
  
• with a setting specifically tailored to maximize its appeal, whilst leaving the door open for future supplements
  
• Self contained in a single book, so a single purchase will let people get started.
  

Fond as I am of Future*World neither it, nor even a "modern" reworking such as my own Outpost 19 fits the bill I suspect. Nor will a Ringworld with the serial numbers filed off I suspect. I think better approach is to think about what tabletop RPG's excel at; what their strengths are (teams; action on the scale of individuals; stories focused on characters) and build the initial setting from there and use that as the spring board for the game.

Cheers,

Nick

So, I suspect I need to get started on "Tramp Freighter RPG"

Ian

I very much doubt it. The normally available modern bows are designed for comparatively light

arrows, not the kind of armour piercing heavy war arrows used by the famous archers of the

past. However, a graphite compound bow designed for the right kind of arrows might well be

better than one of the historical bow types.

Edit.:

Just looked it up, the average modern compound bow has a draw weight of about 65 lbs, whi-

le the average longbow found in the wreck of the Mary Rose had a draw weight of more than

100 lbs (up to ca. 170 lbs), and Chinese sources give draw weights in the 120 - 140 lbs range

for Mongolian composite bows.

Two things you need to keep in mind, while a compound bow has a much lighter draw weight of around 65 lbs vs. a historical longbow having ~140 lbs, that is stored energy and how much is transferred to kinetic energy. The intricate pulley systems of modern compound bows allow for a much higher percentage of the draw to be stored as stored energy (or potential energy), as well as allow the bow to transfer more of the stored energy into kinetic energy when the arrow is released. Numbers I have seen state that a typical longbow is about 85% at 30", a recurve bow can have up to 98% at 30", and a compound is actually around 102% at 30" (using 60 lb draw). These numbers drop as the draw length decreases in a linear fashion, about 3.5% per inch of draw, until you hit 26", when the drop increases. As far as transferring PE to KE, typically 85% - 90% of the PE is transferred into KE with compound bows and some modern compound bows actually have a 99% transfer rate. Longbows, on the other hand, show bout 70% - 75%, and recurves 75% - 80% (the heavier the arrow, the more PE converts to KE).

Or, in other words, if you add it all up, the historical longbow with much heavier draw and heavier arrows, probably results in greater power transferred to the arrow. However, the compound bows are generally more accurate due to their efficiencies, and they can fire at a much higher rate of speed (lower draw weight as well as more efficient when drawn back less).

Ian

Of course, I ran across some of the Jorune articles from the old White Wolf magazine while doing this. Another "must run" campaign for me. Too bad I never liked any of the game systems Jorune was attached to. I think I have a BRP conversion someone did for Jorune, I need to find it and look it over. I digress....

Slowly working my way through a very thorough and complete RQ6 Jorune port.

Stay tuned ...

Ian

Did Andre Leker ever give you approval to post your conversion stuff online? Any recent updates to this project?

Just a lot of typing a dev work still. I have a couple of weeks off coming up, so I hope to polish/finish up core chargen for most races, professions, and really get Isho/dyshas to where I feel things set well. Combat will be direct from RQ6 with some new weapons and armor. Still playing with Sis-nuan martial arts. And, I hope to get the bestairy well under way. Also, I started framing an introductory type of adventure that can also be tied into a future campaign that I have loosely developed. Finally, I will work on wound level type combat as an option and reworking some setting material to fit things together in a way that seems to make sense to me (and will be noted as not canon).

Real life has really gotten a hold of me lately, but I hope to get some relief by February when some work projects settle in place.

As far as official blessings from Andrew, well, we had some tentative OK in place with an earlier attempt using a different system. We will revisit things when we have something to show.

Ian

The info I posted came after I pulled my Elric! book for reference. I was pretty sure shields were much better at parrying in Elric!, and wanted to ensure I was pulling the correct info. I do know that the asterisked and italicized info at the bottom of the matrix in Elric! was vague if not incorrect altogether, but the actual result entries in the matrix as well as in the text are very clear and I find no contradictions (other than the asterisked/italicized blurb).

I have not checked Stormbringer 5th yet to see if the Elric! rules passed through unscathed in this regard, or if some changes were made.

Ian

Just verified - Stormbringer 5th has identical text with respect to weapon and shield parrying. And, if you remove the asterisked and itlaicized blurb at the bottom of the matrix, I find no confusion in the rules. They are very explicit about when weapons lose HP, when weapons break, and when shields lose HP and break. Shields are significantly better at parrying (which really should be blocking) than weapons. The only advantage a weapon has is the ability to riposte with a much deadlier attack than a shield bash.

Ian

Hmmm.. I just wonder why make it so complicated. The players have no interest in choosing anything else than their best defencive skill for the whole round (except maybe for dramatic purposes), because this will always give the largest amount of defencive actions.

Because, depending on your opponent (and you can always be facing more than one), your best defense may change. For example, you may be best at parrying, but there are some cases where you cannot parry (your opponent it too large for example). Or, depending on which attacker is engaging you, you may want to parry and try to get a riposte due to that particular defender's poor armor or defensive ability, and attempt to knock that combatant out of action.

Ian

It depends not so much on reality, but the style of play desired. Real sword fighting is very different from fencing, and from cinematic sword fighting. But depending on what style of play desired a author might try to mimic one style over reality.

I really think you'd prefer RQ3 to BRP. It's more like what you are looking for.

Elric! allowed you to freely mix Dodge and Parry, and the 30% rule applied to both. The new Magic World clarifies the rule somewhat as it isn't worded very (and the examples do not help) in any edition I have seen. Basically, for you keep track of every parry and dodge used in a round in a generic sense, i.e the first parry or dodge is defensive action (DA) #1, the next parry or dodge is DA #2 and so on. You then multiple which (DA - 1) you are at by 30% and apply it to the skill attempted.

For example, assume Parry 70% and Dodge 65%.

First DA the player chooses to Parry at full 70%.

The second DA, the player chooses to parry at 70% - 30%, or 40%.

The third DA, the player chooses to dodge at 65% - 30%x2, or 05%.

The way the rule is worded (and, again, the example does not help), you use the previous value as your skill, and then subtract another 30%. What this means is, if you have a Parry skill of 50% and a Dodge of 90%, the RAW would go like this:

First DA the player chooses to Dodge at full 90%.

The second DA, the player chooses to Parry. Full skill at Parry is 50%, but by the rule, you use the previous attempt minus 30%, or in this case, the last Dodge of 90% minus 30%, or 60%. So, apparenly, by rule, if you chose to Dodge first, you are all of a sudden better at Parry

Common sense indicates it should not be this way, but that is the rule as written. Ben and I went back and forth with how best to deal with this, and we decided on (and Ben uses it in Magic World) to just track the number of attempts to figure out the cumulative penalty, and apply that cumulative to the starting value.

Now, as to why you cannot change plans during combat - well, since combat goes by DEX rank, and actions should be declared in reverse order, allowing slower characters to change their actions based upon what happened during the round givs them a distinct advantage. However, in my opinion, this should only be applied to characters who opt for "Full Defense" or "Fighting Defensively". I think parries and dodges as reactions to blows are "free actions" and can be used interchangeably. BUT, since Dodge is an attempt to not only avoid a strike, but also puts you out of position some, I would rule that either once you Dodge in a round, you must continue to Dodge and may no longer Parry, or, every time you Dodge, the your very next Attack or Parry has a penalty applied since you have taken yourself out of position.

Ian

I wish my book wasn't 1300 miles away. There is some contradictory stuff on parrying in thr Elric rules, and I think itis in BRP, too-so I'll check my gold book.

The info I posted came after I pulled my Elric! book for reference. I was pretty sure shields were much better at parrying in Elric!, and wanted to ensure I was pulling the correct info. I do know that the asterisked and italicized info at the bottom of the matrix in Elric! was vague if not incorrect altogether, but the actual result entries in the matrix as well as in the text are very clear and I find no contradictions (other than the asterisked/italicized blurb).

I have not checked Stormbringer 5th yet to see if the Elric! rules passed through unscathed in this regard, or if some changes were made.

Ian

Subleties? More like contradictions. The notes don;t work the same was as the rules, and depending on where you look, a parrying weapon is either damaged or not. I remember stopping an Elric session in mid-combat while we went over the contradictory parry matrix.

In Elric!, shields are much better than weapons when parrying. Only parrying weapons lose HP when parrying a critical attack and the parry is a success. Shields do not lose HP this way. Also, if a single blow's damage exceeds a weapon's HP by at least 1 HP, the weapon breaks. A shield only loses the excess HP, and will not break until a single blow's damage causes the shield's HP to reach 0.

Another point.

In addition to what I posted above regarding how AP/HP are lost, and what can happen when you lose all AP/HP with your parrying weapon/shield, as well as the fumble table, I highly recommend using the separate attack and parry skill option. That way, a player is forced to choose if they want to invest skill points in parrying with a weapon, and the risks associated with it, or invest in making your shield your prime blocking device. You can then play with the starting skill values for attack and parry/block with weapons and shields to represent weapons are better at attack (higher starting base) but harder to parry with (lower starting base) vs. shields being the reverse (lower starting base for attack, but higher starting base for block).

Also, using the riposte rules, and the above attack and parry skill separation, again, the player must choose between investing points in boosting attack and parry with weapon to get the best riposte option at the expense of greater chance of weapon breakage/loss, vs. spending points in shield block/riposte for less risk when blocking blows, but more ineffective riposte with a shield bash.

Sure?

By BGB, I mean the big golden book “Basic Roleplaying, the Chaosium Roleplaying system”, printed version, second edition (ISBN-10: 1-56882-347-9, ISBN-13: 978-1-56882-347-8), published in january 2011…

Ah, yes. Mine is first printing, May 2008.

ISBN-10: 1-56882-189-1

ISBN-13: 978-1-56882-189-4

which follows the playtest doc almost completely.

Ian

Coming back to the main topic of this thread – sorry for the digression…

I don’t know all Chaosium’s publications, so I can’t say what is the real authors’ intention.

All what I can tell is that the rule page 191 explicitly says: “A successful parry, with weapon or shied, deflects all damage from the incoming attack. A parry is an all-or-nothing affair. Shield AP/PH are used only when dealing with damage done directly to the shield itself, as in an attack to try and destroy a shield or parrying weapon (p206); or when resisting Damage vs Shield AP on the resistance table when parrying a Crushing blow (p196), or when 2 or 4 HP of damage are done to the “parrying weapon or shield” on the Attack and Defense Matrix (p193).”

Having said that, if you look at the AP stat of any shield, you will notice that it is huge: 15, just for a buckler. So, even a critical battle axe blow from a good warrior won’t go through (max of 1d8+2+1d4 = 14).

It remains an all-or-nothing affair.

We're talking the BGB, yes? My copy from the original run has no such rule on page 191. Neither does my playtest/proofread copy.

Another item people seem to be ignoring, when using the matrix, if your weapon or shield loses 2 or 4 HP, then the AP/HP drops. When your shield or parrying weapon is down to 2 AP/hp after one long or a few protracted battles (and the PC has not replaced/repaired the shield/parrying weapon), the be very careful the next time your opponent scores a critical hit. Based on the matrix and its note at the bottom, you're going to take damage even if you roll a success for parry.

Also note, two reasons why a shield is better than parrying with your weapon - shields typically have more AP/HP than one handed weapons, and, not only can your weapon lose AP/HP parrying blows, but also when it is parried against. In other words, your weapon stands to lose AP/HP faster than your shield, which means your weapon will break sooner, which means you will be weaponless until you can grab another. Another issue - a fumble while using a weapon to parry could lead to loss of the weapon as well - check out the Melee Weapon Parry Fumble Table. Notice there is no such fumble table for shields.

What about dropping the good folks at Darcsyde a note for an interview on their Corum book?

darcsyde at darcsyde.org

Marcus, if you would like to chat with Liam Routt, let me know. I can set up intros if necessary.

Ian

Hello dear BRP community.

I am about to start new BRP campaign with fantasy flavor and one question kind of bothers me right now.

As stated in BGB, magic spells are skills and treated as such. Advancement of these skills happens when character overcomes enemy's POW with a spell or similarly resists a magic attack. Ok with that.

Now, the shadow of D&D is looming again over me as I read about spell memorization and dismissal. Although it is quickly corrected with a passage on page 92:

"Your character can cast a magic spell directly from his or her grimoire, but this will take 1 combat round per level of spell effect desired. You can use another character’s grimoire if you can read it (with a successful relevant Language roll), and can make a successful roll of INT x 1 on D100% for every spell you attempt to use.".

So I have few questions.

1. Will the magic skill rating would be the same for readied spells as for spells cast directly from grimoire?

2. If spells are cast from grimoire, are they advanced in the same manner?

3. What are the base chances of new spells that are copied from found/bought scrolls or stolen/captured grimoires?

My take based upon the rules:

1) The magic skill rating for spells read from the caster's own grimoire is the same as the readied spell. The difference between a readied skill and one that must be read form a grimoire is that readied spells go off during the round they are cast in, and spells read from the grimoire go off 1 or more rounds later (i.e. it takes 1 combat round per level of spell to be read).

2) If it is your own grimoire, then yes. They advance just like a readied spell does.

3) INTx3 as stated in the book under Gaining New Spells (based upon my pre-release proof - my print copy is not in my hands at the moment).

Ian

I think so too, but the poster's comments make more sense if you put 'D&D' in many sentences.

e.g. "There are no spells" unlike D&D "that allow for much in direct magical assault."

"you need a selection of spells so that a player can feel more like a" D&D " spell caster."

"gave the feeling of a" D&D "Sorcerer, instead of a warrior that knew a few tricks."

"the ability to resurrect players" like in D&D "is a problem I've noted in BRP core books. "

"The ability to bring back those who have died is a staple of Fantasy RPG's" like D&D.

See what I mean. If he wants a game like D&D then BRP may not be for him despite what he's saying.

While that may be true to some degree, D&D was not the only game that had offensive/attack spells that directly affected single/groups of targets. And, while I understand (and actually know exactly) why Ben used the Elric! rules for the vast majority of Magic World, it is intended to be a bit more than Elric! with the Moorcockian flavor removed. Which is why Ben included some of the RQIII stuff as well. There is no need to capture the feel of RQI and RQII since there are systems that already do that, and there is no need to capture the exact feel of a D&D-esque RQ either since there is a BRP book that does that as well. However, there is also no need to limit Magic World to the core book that is being released, which is why Ben has assembled a team of people to assist in taking the core and enhancing it further. I have a few of writing assignments for the Companion (Mass Battle rules, Community Ties, Character Backgrounds and possibly Domain Management), as well as some Houserules to provide for the Houserules section should that also become a production item.

Ian

Vagabond: I apologize if this sounds rude, it is not intended to be. I appreciate feedback and thoughts, which is why I posted in the first place. In regards to Unknown East supplement, I glanced at it once briefly but do not own it. To be honest, I really don't want yet another, different magic system. It sounds like that's what the eastern magic would be. I'd have liked to see integration of RQ style Spirit Magic perhaps as a 'Sorcery' spell. I may well buy the Advanced Sorcery supplement, but I would prefer more 'Sorcery' spells not another system.

No offense taken.

Advanced Sorcery includes more Sorcery spells, the Unknown East sorcery system, rune magic, necromancy, and herbalism.

You can apply Charlie Seljos' house rules to any spell - and some in the Magic World core book would seem to apply very well to using them against multiple targets (as long as the caster has enough MP).

I also believe it doesn't take much to mke some of the spells that have a range of Touch, and make them Sight instead, perhaps at a larger MP cost. I may have some other houserules/optional rules laying around somewhere, or modifying the aforementioned Seljos rules to apply. Ben is working on a Companion and has asked the dev team about their houserules and options that can be included in a section of the Companion. I may massage Charlie's rules some, and add info about using Sight as a range of effect to spells for an additional cost, and hand them over to Ben and the team for review and possible inclusion.

Ian

Have you seen/used the Unknown East supplement for Elric! Did you ever see Charlie Seljos's houserules for Unknown East?

There is going to be an Advanced Sorcery book (amongst other supplements) for Magic World that uses rules from Unknown East, and coupled with Charlie's house rules, I think you will find quite a few spells that deal direct damage to opponents and can be used as an area attack.

Chaosium.com: News - BRP Advanced Sorcery

http://basicroleplaying.com/stormbringer/charlie-seljos-house-rules-unknown-east-magic-2858/

Ian

Can be found here: Stormbringer! » Interview with Ben Monroe

Thanks for the shout out in the interview

Ian

Whatever. As you prefer, but they're both just 'Clever Speaking' imho.

Not quite. Fast talk is off the cuff. Oratory usually involves quite a bit of pre-speech writing, knowledge, and research. Again, fast talk is more trying to convince someone of something in that specific moment so that once they realize you are full of BS, you are already long gone. Oratory is trying to persuade people to believe you for a long period of time if not forever.

Ian

I disagree. Oratory is public speaking; Fast Talk is gift-of-the-gab. I'm pretty good at the former and not so good at the latter. Oratory is a specific craft that I believe needs differentiation. You may have a wily con-artist who can sweet-talk his way through any improvised situation but stick him in front of a hostile audience at a politically important event and he may clam-up pretty darn quick. I've seen plenty of real-life instances of this happening.

This.

Fast talk is exactly that - fast talk. It is the ability to quickly talk one's way into or out of a situation. When facing a large audience for a lengthier amount of time, fast talk will fail because the longer it goes on, the better the chance the audience will see past it. Oratory allows the speaker to make a more protracted and convincing argument that will last longer.

Ian

Are there any BRP products with a more realistic/ simulationist approach to combat rounds and movement. While 12 second rounds seem ok (although still too long in my opinion) for fantasy, they just make little sense to me for modern/future games. I know I could just half or quarter each, I wonder if that would throw off other aspects of the game?

I am also interested in whether there are any ad/disad systems in place in any BRP products?

Thanks.

No ads/disad systems that I know of.

And, as far as any rules shortening the length of a combat round, I am not sure why 12 seconds is too long for modern/future games. Ringworld used the Impulse system, where a combat action typically took anywhere from 1 to 7 seconds depending on DEX (typical human ranges would be 3 to 6 seconds). But, it is a rather complex system. However, since it is possible for characters with a high DEX to act more than once in a combat round, 12 seconds is less of an issue. 12 seconds to aim at a target and fire, and then aim again and fire. Seems workable to me.

Ian

I agree that Aiki's method is precise, but time-consuming. It also loses some traction at the lower ROF values - what if you have a weapon with an ROF of 2 - you need to roll '00' to hit with both rounds? Maybe we need to be rounding up, so that values from 01 to whatever qualify to hit with one round without resorting to "no fewer than one" rulings?

Doing so gives us these sorts of scenarios:

I'm a strong marksman (100% with pistols) and my ROF is 2. I have a 50% chance of hitting you with both rounds (roll 51-00)

I'm an above average marksman (60% with pistols) and my ROF is 2. I have a 1 in 10 change of hitting you with both (roll 51-60) - one sixth of the time when I do manage to hit.

I'm a novice marksman (30% with pistols) and my ROF is 2. I have literally no chance to hit you with that second round - I'm a poor enough shot that I need an ROF of 4 to have a shot at hitting with a second bullet, and even that only happens on 26-30

Realistic? Anyone?

If so, we can solve the complexity issue with cheat sheets. Figure out the likely numbers of rounds that will be fired from the weapons in your game and create a cross-reference for the impacted player. Guy with an AF7 weapon would need to know where his breakpoints were (15 to hit with 2, 29 to hit with 3, 43 to hit with 4, 58 for 5, 72 for 6 and 86 to hit with all 7)

Or, instead of rounding up, you could simply rule that a successful roll has to generate at least one hit (which makes sense, since a successful roll "hits"), and the subsequent application of AikiGhost's houserule is the number of additional projectiles that hit (rounded normally).

So, with a ROF of two, a successful roll of 49 or less indicates a single strike (automatically one hits with a successful roll), and 50 and higher indicates both hit. This also allows critical hits and specials to not become overly devastating unless you have a high ROF and a very skilled shooters.

Ian

I just use the % rolled on the dice as the number of shots that hit. EG: If a burst is 5 rounds and you roll 45% then 2 rounds (45% of 5 rounded down) hit.

I think this is the most straightforward. Gives better gunners/riflemen a better chance at scoring more hits, as well as using various bonuses (such as computer targeting) to get better results, and applying a spray fire rule (usually a negative modifier) to reduce the number of hits but allow for more individual targets.

Ian