Rurik

I have a few things for the shared world on the back burner, but have more pressing things on the front burners right now. Much more on Portal, an orc like people (not sure if they are just savage humans or another race - I came up with them when there was talk of a human only world and how humans could represent the typical fantasy races), and a tribe of intelligent horses - the myth goes humans tricked the once intelligent horses into being their unintelligent beasts of burden, but this one horse tribe outsmarted the humans, and uses humans as subservient beasts.

Not at all.

What you describe is how I have always dealt with first aid.

I have always played that an unsuccessful first aid still stops bleeding, cleans the wound, etc, but does not restore any actual HP. So it covers trying until you get it right - it just does 'heal' damage if you miss your roll.

Bad things only happen on a fumble.

Someone was recently trying to parry a charging mutated giant boar with a dagger - the entire concept was just too ridiculous to even contemplate!

Do you mean the giant mutated boar or parrying it with a dagger?

I must admit that I tend to take precisely the opposite tack because giving negative modifiers to parries veers into micro-management. That said, this is using RQ rather than BRP as I haven't properly read the parrying rules in BRP. Basically, someone trying to parry a giant, mutated charging pig with a dagger with just 4APs might as well be wearing a "tusk me, baby! tusk me!" shirt for all the good the dagger does.

Though AP's weren't a perfect system, moving to all or nothing parries certainly seems to create more problems than it solves. Using them sure you can parry that dragon with that dagger if you want to - it just won't do you very much good. The rules dictate that dodging is better in this case, where the all or nothing parry seems silly.

This was argued at length on the MRQ boards when the latest and current combat revisions were released, which pretty much was a switch to the all or nothing parry, making AP's all but obsolete.

On dungeons, it always bothered me that they always had nice tall ceilings. Think how nasty goblins or kobolds would be if they're homes only had a 4 foot tall ceiling. Fighting while crawling ... ouch.

PLAYERS: This sucks!

GM: Well you said you guys said you wanted me to run a dungeon crawl!

>:->

I have heard from someone who has used a halberd that they are actually very good for fighting in close quarters. They are not primarily used as very long axes swung about in huge arcs as many people seem to think.

They were commonly used in tight formations, and are excellent for fighting against shield walls (a tight formation). They can be used as a thrusting weapon, so even a low ceiling shouldn't be a problem. Weapons whose primary attack involves swinging the weapon (axe, mace, flail) would be harder to use than a halberd in a narrow corridor I would think.

Yeah, I know a couple of people like that too...

The problem is that unless you're hitting a very narrow area--much narrower than an arm--its not appreciably more realistic than doing without, honestly, because it tells you just as many lies about combat as that does, just different ones.

The point was that you can model aiming for a specific location and working on a wounded location with BRP locations. Whether the arm is broken down into one location or 30 different locations doesn't really matter to me - you can't do this without using some kind of location system.

And if you come up with thirty locations to the arm, I'm sure some surgeon will come along and tell you your location system is lying to you because it totally overlooks some tendon in location 14 that if severed can incapacitate locations 16 through 24 and location 26.

That's really been my point; I've always preferred hit locations myself, I just don't kid myself that they're really any more realistic in any meaningful way any more.

That's why I keep stressing the points that the damage system is abstract - it is not an exacting simulation of reality nor does it try to be, and my belief thet rules that try to be overly realistic create more reality problems than general ones.

That the end results of being hit the feel realistic is more important to me than the actual mechanics that give you that result.

One thing I've been mulling about is creating a new set of tables that instead of just rolling a ramdon die to see were you "hit", would focus more if it was a "primarty" location or a "secondary" location. A skilled fighter like Muhammad Ali or Bruce Lee is going to be able to hit those primary locations much more frequent then a less experienced one. Ofcourse, it t should also work the same way for the defender as well. Jacky Chan is going to be able to fend of an attack a lot more sucessfully and in MANY different ways then a guy who's only training has been in pillow fights with his older brother.

I think a neat system would involve somehow using the attack roll to determine if the attacker can pick the location hit or has to roll randomly, representing both the fact that the attacker will try to hit a specific loaction, but may take whatever opening is left by the defender as well.

A simple mechanic would be "On an odd attack roll, the attacker chooses location, on an even attack roll, the attacker rolls location". Though this does not take the comparative skill of the combatants into account as you mention, and ideally such a rule should.

Hmm. I see an easy way of doing this in MRQ, but I'm not so sure about in BRP. Need to think about this.

Well, with small enough hit locations, you'll get some effects like increased blood loss (because of successive abrasion and the like), reaction to the pain from repeated hits on sore spots and so on; but the fairly coarse locations used in RQ and its kin aren't detailed enough to show that for the most part; you'd need to break it down at least three times finer I'd think, and even then it acts more like a modifier on progressive effects than a simple accumulation.

As in all cases it is a balance between realism and playability, and peoples sweet spots will be different.

The locations in RQ may be pretty general, but it does allow for that tactic of aiming for a specific location, and targeting on an already wounded location. Not using hit locations does not model these aspects of combat, while using locations does. The fact that the hit location chart used in BRP is a simple one is not necessarily a bad thing IMHO.

HP work for me as an abstract of all the things I have mentioned in my earlier post. In my experience the more detailed you get, and the more narrowly you define things like "what exactly is a HP" and "What exactly does damage represent?" the more you invite endless arguments on the minutae of what exactly damage is.

I have played systems with (supposedly) more realistic ballistics, location charts, damage models, etc, yet find myself frequently coming back to RQ/BRP based games, because they provide enough detail (and lethality) to allow seem realistic enough while remaining playable.

I find that in this argument (as in most) there is some truth to both sides of the argument. Two wounds to one arm may not be related at all in effect, but there certainly is at the same time a cumulative effect from damage - that is why boxers will work a weakened location. Perhaps kickboxing is a better example (as almost the whole body may be targeted) - a fighter typically targets a specific location on his opponent and works it, striking the same leg repeatedly to hinder his opponents mobility, going for body blows to wear him down, etc.

HP are an abstraction of many things, as is damage, including blood loss, tissue damage, shock, critcial body parts being damaged. A small knife can cut tendons rendering an limb useless as well as a poleaxe - that is why I have always liked the lethality of BRP where anyone with a dagger can pretty much kill or maim a tough dude with a critical.

As a side note, MRQ uses HP very much as a threshold rather than an absolute. In MRQ you never die from a loss of HP, instead when a Location takes enough damage it triggers Resilience rolls every round with failure meaning unconciousness or death depending on the location and severity of the wounds. This can make combats take longer as combatants may fight on for a few rounds after taking more damage than would incapacitate them in BRP, it probably does model damage a little better. And it encourages aimed shots - particularly against tough foes - even at penalties to hit. When fighting a large bear for example it is better to hot the same location 2-3 times using aimed blows than 5-6 times to different locations using normal strikes.

The hot thread on hit locations really deserves a poll.

Here goes.

[*]When two shield walls are pushing against each other to achieve dominance, total the SIZ of all troops in each 'regiment' and apply a suitable divider to allow a roll on the resistance table. Three failed rolls in a row (accounting for attrition, obviously) means the shield wall is broken and normal melee ensues.

The suitable divider could be the number of individuals in the larger unit.

Example, 1000 average (SIZ 13) men versus 900 average men.

The unit of 1000 would work out to 13 on the resistance table - (1000*13)/1000 = 13

The Unit of 900 would be 12 on the resistance table - (900*13)/1000 = 11.7 or 12.

If the average size of a member in the unit of 900 was 16, they would have the upper hand even though outnumbered. (900*16)/1000 = 14.4

Good Luck and take care of yourself.

So is your nick sladethesniper because you really are a sniper?

My fear is that it seems as if Chaosium is relying almost entirely on outside submissions for settings book. Part of me thinks this great, as there is a lot of exciting stuff on the horizon. Unfortunately I doubt I will be able to buy it all, and knowing myself I will undoubtedly read less of it than I actually buy.

I have always held that despite the fantastic system, RQ 1/2 became so popular because of the excellent supplements that were released for it.

I'm afraid there will be kind of shotgun effect, many different 1-2 sourcebook supplements and no one flagship setting.

Playing D&D in Ebberon (which I have never opened a book for btw) it is a safe bet that you can find a game group in a setting you are familiar with just about anywhere you go. Already it is hard enough to find a BRP group, but if you do, what is the likelihood they play the same setting you do?

What is needed to grow the brp fanbase is one good setting (or at least one per major genre) that will be produced by Chaosium that receives continuing support and will sit next to the BRP rulebook on store shelves across the country.

I emphasised the word grow because we here are all pretty much diehards and in tune with every minor release coming out and excited about all of them. What would really help the game grow with new users is if for example Paul in Boston could tell Derek in LA: "I just played this new (sic) game, BRP, and it rocks. 'The Green' is awesome." and the next time Derek is in a game store in LA he sees BRP on the shelf, and sitting right next to it is The Green.

Much like the conversations that happened so many years ago: "I just played this new game, RuneQuest, and it it Rocks. Griffin Mountain is awesome!"

It is quite possible to do naughty, sexy things with a copy of BRP0.

I'm not so sure any of those things are cool though...

Well, on the subject of criticals and d20's, there is a game out there that represents a 5% critical with a d20. It is a roll high system, so on a roll of 20 you roll against your skill again to see if it is a critical. The name of the system escapes me...

In a roll low system you could roll against your skill again on a 1 for a 5% critical. A 20% special could be represented by rolling against your skill again on a 2-4 to check for a special.

I am not in favor of converting BRP to use a d20, but if one wanted to you can still represent criticals at thresholds such as 5%, 10%, and 20%.

Just don't tell the velocity freaks that you are using the diameter of the round to base damage on...

I've never used the table myself, but have always been interested in it. When I run BRP, I tend to be low powered compared to most, though high fantasy. Go figure. To me, having 100% in a skill is to be taken almost literally (actually I usually use 100% + Skill Modifier). Opposed traits are rarely higher than 40.

With the formula below, 1A vs. 40P has no chance while 40A vs. 1P does not result in an automatic success. Not sure if that is reasonable, or that having to look up probability is worth it, but it has always intrigued me.

How exactly does MRQ's opposed rolls play out? [maybe I'll go look it up now . . .]

MRQ Dropped the resistance table alltogether - everything is resolved as an opposed skill roll. In short the mechanic is: highest roll under skill wins, criticals trump normal successes (there is only a critical at 10% of skill, no specials).

If your skill is over 100, you can add the amount over 100 to your roll for purpose of determining the winner. All in all it sounds pretty similiar to how BRP resolves opposed skills from what I've heard - I don't have Edition Zero.

I think we would all be happier if that remained in the realm of hypothetical, instead of the actual.

Not all.

I'd love to see threedeesix put together just such an image.

In the interest of accuracy, is your belly button an in-y or an out-y?

Nope. It looks hard to work out on the fly. And what problem is it supposed to "repair"?

It 'repairs' the fact that in the traditional table, POW 5 vs POW 15 is exactly the same as POW 205 vs. POW 215. It does not scale as the numbers grow larger and therefore proportionately more similiar.

This is exactly the same problem MRQ tried to solve with the infamous and since abandoned (rightfully so) Halving rule for opposed tests.

Who knows, maybe the alternate table would be worth the effort with Superhero games or whatnot. I personally do not feel BRP scales as well as some other systems to handle super high characteristics.

The problem with that (IMHO) is that the formula is not simple.

The Resistance table is so easy to calculate that I have not needed to reference the table in over 20 years now.

One of my favorite criticisms is of the Resistance Table is the old "Have to look it up on a chart and charts is evil" argument. I was able to do it in my head since I was 12 or 13 (when I first picked up Stormbringer 1ed).

A bell curve, while it may be more satisfying in a pure mathematical sort of way, to me adds complexity (and makes the table required) without making enough of a difference at the table to justify the added work.

Of course, if you expect to regularly oppose characteristics in the range of 240 vs. 250 the formula you mention would make a difference and work better than the 'normal' table - but you had better have your wall size resistance chart or calculator handy.

Another quick and dirty rule thought is that the Damage Bonus Die cannot be greater than the weapon damage die.

So a troll with a 2d6 Damage Bonus would have have his Damage Bonus limited to 2d3 when using a D3+1 knife. When using a dagger it would be limited to 2d4, etc.

That is just a quick random thought - I do not know the Damage Bonus Progression used by BRP as I have not bought the Zero Edition, so my mindset is coming from the RQ3 DB progression.

That would be a dagger:D

Wow, small giants out in your neck of the woods.

I was thinking long spear at least - maybe pike.

I don't know, a giant's toothpick sounds like it could be pretty dangerous to me.

I use flat damage bonuses and they work just fine.

I think they work ok for normal humans with a +1 or maybe +2 fixed bonus, it is when you get into higher bonuses the fixed system starts to bug me. A fixed +5 bonus is just brutal, I much prefer a variable d8 or d10 bonus to a fixed +5.

No-one has objected to Bladesharp's flat damage bonus. So I think it's just that most people around here are accustomed to variable DB's, and the grainy progression they give.

Funny you mention that - I almost did mention bladesharp in my last post as an example of how lethal fixed bonuses are. Bladesharp 3 or 4 are very lethal spells, turning a d8+1 weapon into a d8+5 weapon is brutal in most games. Though that is a magical effect, and can be justified as such.

I just prefer a more variable range for damage - and have argued the same in the weapon damage threads of days past. The 2d6+4 rifle damage in CoC makes it impossible to do a minor wound in a hit location system, yet in real life people a grazed only moderately wounded by large caliber rifles frequently. I would prefer 2d10 to 2d6+4 any day. The average damage is the same, the round is potentially more lethal, but it is still possible to do a 2 point wound (though really there is only a 1% chance of that happening). Let a .50 cal do 2d20. The average shot is still going to kill any human, hit locations or not, but at least there is a chance of surviving, however slim.

Long story short (I know, too late for that...): More variable damage allows for a more realistic (in my opinion anyhow) range of results.