Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Atgxtg

  1. Can we get a spoiler warning? I think this goes into he category of "things man was not meant to see before coffee." BTW, nice natural eyelashes!
  2. Yeah, I think you're onto something here. In many cases if somebody is impressed by, attracted to, etc. with someone else, and that someone else starts showing them some attention and is friendly, they will still be quite malleable, even though they are partially to fully aware of what is going on. The old trope of the cute girl talking the smart nerdy guy into doing her homework for her comes to mind. The guy knows he is being played by still goes along with it because he likes getting her attention. With a Charm spell, I think the problems might cropup later on, after the effect has worn off.
  3. Yes, but chance of success isn't the same thing as ratio between tho stats. While people intuitively think of things as being proportional, that's not how everything works. For instance, lets say you had tug-o-war between someone who was STR 8 vs. someone who had STR 16. While the stats are in a 2:1 ratio, and the amount that each can lift is also in a 2:1 ratio, the reality is that outcomes aren't going to be in a 2:1 proportion, and the stronger character is going to win the tug-o-war pretty much every time, and the 10% vs 90% chances of success are much closer to the actual outcomes.
  4. Yes, at least initially, when Superworld was done up. Later the progression was altered a bit at the low end to prevent SIZ from going negative, and at the high end to try and make it more linear. Mostof these changes didn't matter all that much though, as the game rarely uses SIZ scores below 8 or above 88. Yes, by applying the square-cube law we can determine that if you somehow magically doubled the height, width, and depth of a creature (or object) would would cube it's mass for +24 SIZ. Glad to be so illuminating (). The nice thing about there being some sort of defined formula is that there are a lot of tricks we can do with it. Scaling creatures being one example. It can also help with vehicle design and performance, if you know something about the relationship between velocity, force and power, you can almost reduce vehicle speed down to a (STR-SIZ)/2 sort of formula. . Weapon damage better yet another. If you look at the damage bonus table you can see that each +16 is worth +1D6. That means that each quadrupling of the force is worth +1D6. With a little work, that could be used to determine a weapon's average damage based upon it's kinetic energy.
  5. The formula used in Superworld and latter adapted to RQ3, CoC, and BRP is kg=2^(SIZ/8)*25. The key point is that the mass (and weight) double for every +8 to SIZ. In RQ3, CoC and others this progression is flatted out a bit at the low end (SIZ below 8 ) and at the high end (SIZ above 88). Also, someone goofed when copying this into CoC and misaligned the kilogram and pounds tables. Either they made a cut and paste error, or got confused that 1000 kg equal a metric ton, while it takes 2000 pounds to make up a short ton. Way back, when the BGB came out I pointed this out and asked Jason which coulmn was correct, and we told me to use one or the other, which I did in the table I posted. I beleive that Chasoium updated the table sometime latter on. Well, that actually doesn't exist in most version of BRP as the game uses the SIZ table. But any SIZ that is ten points below STR is automatic. To be honest this isn't all that great, as, technically, most characters would have to roll to see if they can pick up a bowling ball. THe orginal intent of the table was for things like characters heroically lifting large rocks to throw at enemies, or a portcullis or some such. It wasn't designed for determine what a character could relaible bench press or carry around in a backpack. Still, if we use the old Superworld table and STR-10 as the automatic success point, we get around 25kg/55 pounds as a carrying capacity for an character with STR 10). Uh, yeah,. 😳 I think I posted the revised chart on the forums somewhere the one that went with the goofed up table in the BGB, I know I still have it on a hard drive, somewhere (I did it up over a dozen years ago, and have a couple of dozen terabytes to search through). I also have the old RQ3 SIZ tables and the Superworld SIZ tables as well as a few alternates and additions (using the SIZ table to rate eletrica POWer, or to denote Speed).If anyone want's I have spreadsheets with the tables as well as a method to covert a given mass or weight into a SIZ score. I kinda use that sort of thing a lot when stating up animals and vehicles. I find it a lot easier and consistent to be able to look at the mass of a real world animal and use the cube-square law to scale a similar creature up or down than to work entirely from scratch. IMO the original Superworld SIZ table is the best one, as it sticks with the doubling progression, which makes a lot of things easier in terms of design and play-ability. For instance a Showa-era Godzilla that is SIZ 156 or so is much easier to use in game than one that is SIZ 2000
  6. The BOA is something of a mixed bag. Several of us have chattend a bit about it in the past. Some units and insanely overpowered, and others are so pathetic as to not be worth starting up. There also seems to be a lot of errors in stats-at least as far as matching things up with the values from the core rulebook. I think BOA could certinaly benefit from some edting and correction. IMO, the book does have three "hurdles" in design that probably led to some of it's shortcomings. 1) BoA tries to make the various units distinctive and interesting in some way. This is what lead to a lot of the places where armor and damage values don't mesh with the core rules. This can lead to problems when payer characters realize that some enemy unit has rare/special armor that they want., and capture enemy troops to try an incorpate that armor into their own outfit. 2) BoA also attempts to cover all eras, and this lead to several units who were either over or under armored. 3) The BoA also has to try a challenge player knights of all skill levels. This latter one is a real problem. In Pendragon, especially KAP5, it's quite possible for a group of PKs to get the weapon skills over 20 and be able to mop of the floor with most of the on the tables. To offset this, there are a handful of super units on various tables, but those units become overkill vs. any lesser knights. They are supposed to be. Pendragon isn't a "nice & safe" sort of RPG. PKs are at risk, and players who don't want to lose characters should play some other RPG. But, I think you might be overlooking something about how long two handed weapons work, that could make a huge difference, see below. The weapon should only partially negate the mounted bonus, specifically the -5 to footmen. It shouldn't negate the +5 to being mounted for the horseman. That might be why your having such tough fights. Typically, PKs can go through most foot units, execpt for the special units, or when they get double or triple teamed. Frankly, if you are using the core rules book, most opponents in the BoA should be a cakewalk for the PKs, with only other knights and the occasional overpowered unit being any real threat. Well, keep in mind that the whole feudal system was geared around providing knights for battle. The whole "squire" thing was really a 7 year basica training program. So, to some extent, the PKs should be upping their weapons skills to have a decent shot at survival- it's what real knights did. Most of my players try to get Sword, Lance and Horse up to 20, ASAP, both to eliminate the chance of fumbling (barring penalties), and to greatly increase the chances of getting a critical hit when the +5 mounted bonus kicks in. Yes, I do use the BOA, but I also go through and adjust some of the stats. Not so much to reduce skills, but usually to correct damage stats that don't seem to match with the rules (for instance when someone does 5D6 with a sword, but 4D6 with a javelin), correct typos (when someone does more damage with one great weapon vs. another), or to adjust the armor values to fit the time period. I could post one or more of my customized army sheets if you like. If I could somehow magically alter the BOA, I think I'd like to make it a bit more standardized in terms of skill and gear. For instance raw, green, regular, veteran and elite troops would each have certain skill ranges assigned to them. Something like 7+1d3, 10+1d3, 13+1d3, 16+1d3 for skills. Then I'd like to rate armor based on what is available during a given period. So a unit with poor armor, typical armor, or best armor would wear different armors at different time periods.
  7. Atgxtg


    While napalm itself didn't exist until 1942, there were previous flammable substances of a similar nature, so it wouldn't be impossible for somebody to make a flammable substance that could take out a zeppelin- gasoline and soap chips, for instance. But, as you pointed out previously, it's not something a fishmonger is likely to know- unless he was a pyromaniac. Hey, maybe you solved the Hindenburg disaster.? A crazed fishmonger.
  8. Atgxtg


    Yeah, as dynamite is essentially nitroglycerin stabilized by soaking it in sand, sawdust or clay, the nitro can "sweat out" of the dynamite over time. Nitro is pretty unstable. In fact, just making it and/or dynamite is a risky endeavor.
  9. Feel free to tweak it. Depends on how you want to go. You could just give them a flat +1 or +2. Alternatively, you could just give them a better die roll with the same average. For instance 2d4+3 instead of 2d6+1 to reflect the fact that their head isn't exposed. Hmmm, you know, with a little tweaking we could add up the point values of armor on various parts of the body and covert that to a random die roll. That could handle stuff like mail byrnies, a coat of plates, and half plate armor, If anybody wants to go that route. Or just give a base value/die for the torso armor, and add ones for the helmet and limb protection.
  10. Sorry, the streak tips were done and I had everyone on ignore for a few minutes. Can I retroactively give you full credit? Oh, and I had intended to mention the Fear Check mechanic used in Chill as well, but, well, the steak tips were done.
  11. Indeed. Yes it is, and it's could be argued that it is justified, as full plate armor actually means several layers of armor, overlapped to limit the vulnerable areas. It's actually kinda tough to hit someone in a spot that isn't protected by something. But, we could go with 2d6+1, 2d8-1 or whatever value we think a more appropriate for the armor. I'm just saying that the 1D10 used currently isn't on par with the fixed protection, where 2d4+3 or 2d6+1 would be.
  12. I agree. Part of the trouble I have with the SAN rules is that everyone in a battle or who works in a hopital trauma center would pretty much go insane automatically due to the sheer number of horrific things they see every day. I think there should be some point where you get desensitized to some things and they don't bother you as much. It's what used to happen when I worked in a hospital. After a certain point you learn how to turn your emotions off so that you can still function. Our big fear wasn't that things worth bother us too much, but that we might reach a point where it didn't bother us at all, anymore.
  13. Atgxtg


    Napalm's like Garum, only unfiltered. More seriously, a GM that lets a player "always" do anything is the problem. I didn't even let a spy character obtain a silencer for their pistol last session! Not that the character couldn't get one, only that they couldn't do so in the time allotted while out in the field. Not unless they wanted to go find the local black market.
  14. I prefer Strike Ranks. One of the things I like about SRs is that they incorporate movement and the speed of the action into the sequence, so someone with a readies missile weapon, or quick spell can act before an opponent can cross a 10 m to get to them. Most of the other methods don't do that.
  15. Yup. If we keep the average values close to the fixed armor values used in other BRP games we should get somewhat similar results to the fixed armor. So if Plate armor is 8 points in the fixed system, it should arage around 8 points in a variable system. So 2d6 (7), 2d8 (9), 3d4 (7.5) would be the sort of die roll we want. Maybe 2d6+1 (8) or 2d4+3 (8)? The important thing is to have it average about 8 points, and to be better than "lesser" armors". The thing is in that fixed armor value version old BRP 8 point armor will usually (87.5%) stop a sword that does 1D8+1 damage, and even when it doesn't only a point gets through, barring a special success or critical. With variable armor as written, armor rated at 1d10 will only stop that same sword about half the time, but could let as much as 8 points through. That's a huge difference. With 2d8, or 2d6, or one of the other variants noted above, the results are much close to the fixed hit point system, while still keeping armor variable. As long as the variable ratings average out close to the old fixed ratings, we will get results more in line with the fixed ratings. Since I've been getting a lot of likes to this post, I threw together a tentative table of variable armor values. TO keep things simple and consistient, I just rated the armor by fixed AP score rather than by type. I put samples of the BRP variable ratings too, so we can see just how much things varied in the past, as well as how of an increase in protection we'd get compared to the old values. Fixed AP Random AP New Random AP 1 1D6-1 or 1D2-1 1D3-1 2 1D6 1D3 3 2D3 2D2 4 1D4 2D3 5 1D6 2D4 6 1D8-1 or 1D6+2 or 2D4-1 1D6+1D4 7 1D8 2D6 8 2D6 or 1D10 2D6+1 or 1D8+1D6 9 2D8 10 2D4+2 or 1D10+2 2D8+1 or 2D6+3 11 2D10 12 2D10+1 13 2D10+2 14 2D6+2 4D6 15 4D6+1 16 4D4 4D6+2 17 4D8-1 18 4D8 Note that these are just what I consider to be good possible values, we could alter things around if we want to play with the bell curve. For instance we could use 4d4 instead of 2D8+1 or some such. It all depends on just how much we want the armor to vary. We could even factor in for coverage this way, with better coverage resulting in less variable armor, with half plate (7) being 2D6, while full plate (8) might be 3D4 or 2D4+3
  16. Ah, yeah. I think the real problem with the variable armor rule is two fold: 1)The armor die was completely random, instead of a bell curve, making it totally unreliable. 2) The armors average protection was usually lower than it's fixed counterpart, making it even less effective. Now both of the above were partially offset by using generally hit points, but not enough. I think variable armor could work out better if the armor used a bell curve with a higher average value. For instance, if Plate protected for 2D6 instead of 1D10.
  17. BTRC's CORPS might be worth a look. It's a Conspiracy based RPG about large organizations pulling the strings behind the scenes, and is skill based, so it wouldn't be all that hard to adapt it to BRP. It's hard to get much more conspiracy based too. I think that it has a half dozen secret societies assassinating Kennedy at the same time.
  18. Or do the opposite. Pick a game, and accept (and explain) the campaign, mood and style that comes with it.
  19. Oh, you quote the post, go to the spot where you want to replay and then hit the space bar a couple of times. Usually, it breaks up the message. Usually. That's certainly a valid approach, and one that I favor as well, but it doesn't fit every genre or style of play, nor every gaming group. Except when it happens at just the wrong time, or too often. As I said before, I once has a weekend where I lost five characters to crtical hits from minor NPCs. It actually derailed things when one player character can't survive to the second round of combat. Yes, if the game your playing has them. In fact Hero Points are one of my favorite ways to handling that, as it gives the players some protection against "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" without nerfing things to the point where they don't have to take things seriously. That all well and good, but you aren't everybody. Different people play different sorts of games, with different styles of play and different expectations. It's why there is standard Call of Cthlhu, Pulp Cthulhu as well as several other Cthulhu based RPGs out there. If it were "one size fits all" everyone would be playing D&D. So to capture the feel of a Star Wars adventure you have to run things in a Star Wars style. Luke has to be able to make that "one in a million" shot that blows up the Death Star or the film doesn't work. Which is precisely why all the Star Wars RPGs out there have some sort of hero/character/force point game mechanic Me too. It also why, for the most part I don't like to fudge stuff, or play with a GM who does. But a GM also has to set things up so that the players have a good chance of succeeding. Or perhaps you just don't succeed. Again it depends a lot of what sort of adventure you are running. If the adventure is such that the consequences for failure aren't world changing, then failure is fine. If, of the other hand, failure results in WWIII or Cthulhu getting his 6AM wake up call.. then consequences can be campaign ending. You as well. I think our styles are fairly similar. I just wanted to point out that not everyone nor every game plays the same. For instance both Pendragon, and Prince Valiant are written by Greg Stafford and are set in Arthurian Britain, but they both play very differently. It not just my style of play as the GM, but each particular game's style of play.
  20. I understand you point, but it's not so much a failing of Strombringer per say. It can happen in most RPGs. To some extent, it's a necessary evil. If you take away that element of risk then the players get complacent and things get boring.
  21. It doesn't have to be any more complicated. If you look back at some of the earliest RQ adventures, they were essentially D&D style dungeon crawls. Ideally, you can start small, with simple adventures, and then add more details, NPCs and such as you go along. One thing that helps me a lot is to use the events and character interactions that take place during a game session as a springboard for future adventures. If the PCs fight some one, maybe they, their friends, or their family come looking for revenge? Maybe that healer who helped them out needs help now? The idea is to build upon existing relationships to add depth to the world. Once you get into the habit of it, it actually makes it easier to pull the players into new adventures. Players tend to be much more willing to go out and rescue an NPC they've met before who has helped them in the past, than to rescue someone they've never even heard of.
  22. I can verify that. I'd also agree that Magic World is a good choice for a GM who want's a good generic FRPG based on BRP. Magic World is essentially Stormbringer with all the Michael Moorcock/Eternal Champion specific stuff removed. But...as I mentioned earlier a lot of thing comes down to personal preferences. I love Strombringer, RQ3 and Pendragon. All are BRP based RPGs, but each has features the other lack. When I'm thinking about starting up a campaign, I go over the features I think I will need or want for that campaign, and then pick the game that I think is the best fit. Or vice versa.
  23. Because if reality we don't want the player characters to get killed off. It is counter productive to maintaining any sort of game. If you are familiar with the Paranoia RPG, imagine trying to rule a campaign in a setting where characters die off like they do in Paranoid but without clones to step in and take their place. BTW, all RPGs protect the players characters from the world in which they exist to some extent. That's why you never see adventures where begining player characters go up against expert villains. Logically, it sahould happen, and logically the PCs, especially starting ones, should run into NPCS who have them out skilled, but that rarely happens, as we all want the player characters to continue on. It's part of the whole heroic character idea. We all want to see the heroes overcome the bad guys, yet if we ran it entirely fairly, the heroes would ususally get killed by better skilled, more numerous opponents. I agree. You need a threat to keep the game exiciting. Not necessarily. Look, let's say your are running an adventure where the players are on their toes, doing everything right, and then get killed off because some inept NPC with Firearms at 20% happens to roll a couple of 01s at extreme range. Yes it can happen, but the end result isn't all that satisfying. Imagine how Star Wars would have worked out if Luke had been shot and killed by a Stormtrooper while trying to escape from Tatooine. It's pretty much movie over. The main hero is dead, and the secondary heroes are either captured (Leia) or reluctant to help (Han). Also, imagine what happens in a typicval RPG if a player character gets killed off five seconds into the first fight and has to stop and write up another character. Especially in a game where characters have special talents. If the group had someone who could fly an airplane and that character goes down in the firefight on the cargo jet, at 20,000 feet, it could easily be game over. Now this ins't to say that player characters should always be protected, just that for certain types of games it might be necessary to give them some partial script immunity, especially in more cinematic campaigns, in order to keep the right feel for that setting. It's much the same with Super hero RPGS. In real life big strong buys who fall out of skyscrapers tend to die when they hiut the ground. In comics, they shatter the concrete, make a hole, and get up a bit dazed.
  24. Pretty much. It was a very simple system. The core rules only took about two pages in the actual rules. Most everything else was either advice about how to run the game, or about the Prince Valiant setting. Sort of. One of the interesting things about PV is that it boiled everything down to one number that worked not only as the number of coins to be tossed, but also as "hit points" to be lost afterwards. It also had some interesting mook rules (probably an early game to do so) where groups of opponents could be handled as a single entity. Yup. Pretty much everything he created was ground breaking in some way. Greg noted in the book that PV came about because people who stopped over would want to play one of Greg's games, but really couldn't, due to the time it takes to learn the rules, and create a character. PV allowed people who didn't know anything about RPGs to be able to create a character and start playing within a few minutes. It really does a good job of filling the same sort of niche that "basic", "lite" or similar introductory rules do today, and could work for introducing children to RPGs. It's probably about as complicated as, say Hero Kids, and predates it by 25 years or so. And another interesting thing about PV is that it is another Arthurian RPG, from the same man who created Pendragon, yet it is very different. Whereas Pendragon is based off on Malory, and has a sort of medieval literary feel to it, Prince Valiant captures the look and fell of Hal Foster's strip, a sort of "Golden Age of Hollywood" look and feel. Greg could have made PV a streamlined Pendragon, but instead remained true to the source material.
  • Create New...