Atgxtg

Say, is there a sample armor rating in the rules anywhere for a tank? I can't find any, and currently am reverse engineering things from the cannon table. For example, if a tank was "proof" against a 20mm round then it should have at least 2 points of armor, one that was "proof" against a 30mm round should have at least 3 points of armor, and so on. But is there something in the rules someplace that I missed?

I'm not sure what you gain by this approach. I don't see all that much difference between d20 BESM's powers and the powers section from Superwork/BGB. What advatages do you see to the approach that I'm missing? I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I just don't see your point, yet.

That's a mixed blessing. On the one hand it allows for more customization, but on the other it can get somewhat tedious with the math. I'd suggest keeping the trait bonus in increments of 10% to keep the math easy.

That's because it's a dying hobby. So you have people who've been playing for years continuing to play, and not as many younger people picking up "paper & pencil" RPGs, or sticking with them as opposed to computer games.. It's odd because, on the other hand, RPGs are probably more well known and ore people familiar with them than ever before, yet fewer people are playing them. I know the feeling. I don't even get in 3 hours a week these days. I work 3rd shift, and so usually can't coordinate my schedule with anyone else do do much of anything. Getting a chuck of several hours at the same time as several of my friends is difficult to pull off, especially at the frequency required to game.

Hopefully, RQ

And lazy ones. Don't get me wrong, I like pregen adventures. i just think that to run a good campaign a GM needs to do more than just run somebody elses pregen stuff and write up some advenutres of his own, customized to the characters and campaign in question. Sure. There is nothing wrong with using pre-established settings. Some of my favorite RPGs do so. I just don't think it's such a great idea for nearly all new RPGs to be based on some existing setting. if for no other reason than such RPGs tend to have a fairly short lifespan. Virtually every RPG for a licensed setting seems to be doomed from the start, and get pulled in a few years when the license runs out.

Yeah. It seems the vast majority of GMs want to run pre-generated adventures in some licensed or otherwise official setting. Writing up your own adventures and setting have become more the exception than the rule.

Yes, and it can backfire. People start to wonder if it is worth buying the 3rd edition if it is 99% the same as the second edition, and so forth.

Yeah, that's why BRP has been on such iffy ground for decades. I think the "strategy" is actually not to sell a setting and supplements for that setting, but instead to get people to buy a new rulebook every so many years, since most players will tend to pick up a rulebook.

What you might want to look at is Greg Porter's family of RPGs (Timelords. CORPS, EABA). They seem to do pretty much the same thing you are shooting for: there are main skills, sub-skills and specialties. Basically the latter two add to the main skill, but only when applicable. The secondary skills and specialties are limited in how far they can be raised based on the main skill (either equal to or half of, depending on the RPG). The specialty is really narrow, and usually just applies to one make or model of something, or one very limited application of the skill.. For example something like Driving/Automotbiles/Maserati GT or Firearms/Handguns/Walther PPK In game terms the main advantage of the subskills are that they are improved separately from the main skill, and so are easier to increase (i.e. having 1H Sword at 40%, and Shortsword at 20% makes it much easier to raise Shortsword than if you just had it at 60%), and allow for multiple increases (the main and the subskills could both get check).. I've used something like these rules in a BRP varaint and they do work. The will let your player get to higher skill scores fairly quickly, and also make things a little slower, since everybody has to add in the secondary skills. IMO what might work better would be to just add the skills together, and only separate them when rolling for improvement. So rather than 1H Sword 40%/Shortsword 20% it would be 1H Sword 40%/Shortsword 60%.

I believer later version of Elric!/SB simply gave shield a set % to block missle attacks. I wouldn't mind allowing a parry but at half ability (a hard task in BRP). Possibly. Plus there are several versions of the rules, each with slight variations.

Yes, but SB pre-dated RQ3. What I think happened was that with SB they tried to update the technology from Glorantha's Bronze Age to a more medieval technology. In some ways SB was a testbed for RQ3. Later versions of SB (Elric! onwards) added the hit point and damage system used now in BRP. Personally I think the RQ3 method was the best one presented. Actually it's not so much the "deal more damage" thing. That's more game thinking. It was that they needed the bigger heavier weapons to get through the plate. Except SB doesn't have hit locations for shields to cover. Maybe, but I don't think it let you switch the attack to the main weapon. I think you just got to shield bash. I'm thinking more along the lines of a block and counter, where you stop the attack with the sheild, move the attacking weapon out of line with the block, and then counter-attack with your own weapon. And not a bad advantage against one highly skilled opponent who can riposte.

It's more a case of Stormbringer being a variation of RuneQuest 2. In RQ2, weapons had hit points, and got damaged on a parry, while shields didn't get damaged. That part of the RQ rules got dropped in Stormbringer, and so shields became rather redundant, especially with the riposte. That's debatable. it depends a lot on the situation and armaments involved. Once you got to the like of gothic plate 2 handed weapons became very useful for getting through the armor, and shields became redundant (if an attack could get through two layers of plate and a ;ayer of thick cloth padding, it would get past the shield too). All that said, it wouldn't be a bad idea to bump up shields a bit in SB. Some things I could see are: Can parry missile weapons (supposed to work that way now, but just want to clarify it) Block & Counter: If you make a shield parry you can riposte with your weapon, as if you had parried with it instead. Can switch off between shield and weapon for parries, which can reduce the penalty for multiple parries (i.e. shield at full %, then weapon at full%, then shield at -30%, the weapon and -30% and so forth).

And at $5, it's not going to break anyone's wallet. Ya know, I think that if they could actully go with 1980s pricing, RQ would make a killer comeback just because it wouldn't cost all that much in today's market. But then, I suppose the days of $12 rulebooks, with minimal setting, scattered line art, and mediocre typeface are long gone.

Ka-ching! 5L off to the Chasoium. You Issaires types really know how to sell a deal. Haven't seen or heard anything about "Mr. Character Sheet" since HEROES magazine.

I think I prefer the D2s and D3s-at least when handling smaller animals. I much rather see a housecat do 1D2 than 1D4-2 or some such. Yeah. The problem really isn't that big weapons are doing too much damage, but that with the way hit points work, smaller weapons become less of a threat than they are in real life. Getting stabbed by a pocket knife or shot by a .25 Pistol is no joke in real life, but is practically so in the game. No, not much, and it might create other problems. No, but I could certainly see doing so. But if could be tricky to do so with the way RQ does things. And the rules do give such weapons a higher base chance, but that get offset pretty quickly with experience. What might be the solution would be to do what Greg Porter did in his Timelords RPG. In that game there is a "Wounding" skill that character can take that ups weapon damage. it's deigned for small weapons, Bigger weapons don't need in, and it's not worth the bother for such weapons.

I've gone with (STR+SIZ)/4-5. Then converted that value to a die roll (the number is the average). It gives a slower, smoother progression that RQ, but is still fairly close.

Well for one it's faster. For two, it seems to be something that they did in RQ a lot for small animals. So a bird might do 1D3 or 1D2 damage with it's claws instead of 1D6-1D4. No, becuase of the way RQ treats db vs weapon damage. But I've seen in in other RPGs and like it quite a bit. For one thing it helps to avoid the hobbit with a greatsword problem. Namely that in game terms it makes sense for a small weak character to wield the biggest weapon it can handle in order to offset the damage modifier. Realistically, weapons act a levers and the small character would ususally be better off weapon a smaller weapon at full speed and effciency that a heavier weapon at a slower rate. Well, there is a better chance of rolling low, and I suppose for normal characters the actual damage value become academic past a certain point. 20 points or 200, dead is still dead.

I'd suggest dropping negative damage modifiers and instead bump weapon damage. So instead of 1D8-1D4 you just downgrade to 1d6 or even 1d4 damage. That might even be a good way to handle damage bonuses too, if you like. . I'd also suggest having the db progresses with one formula/rate rather than the three different rates you have now. It will make it easier to remember and get rid of the big jumps when you hit the break points. For example, as written something with STR 90 would get a 9D6 db (average damage of 31.5) while something with a STR 100 would get a 1D100 db (average damage 50.5). That's a big jump! 1D100 is more like 14D6 than 10D6 so you end up with about a 40% difference! If you used (STR/140 or STR/150)D100, you'd get a better matchup and a smoother progression. You might want to look at (STR/33 or STR/30) D20s instead of D100s. Or, if you wanted to do something radical you could just use a multiplier. So instead of STR 100 being 10D6 it could be 1D6x10.

If somebody wanted to, they could do something similar to get rid of the tables. A Special success would be any success that ends in a "0" or "5". That could also be used to add a "special failure" if desired. So if someone rolled a 75, ot would be a special success if their skill were 75% or higher, and a special failure if their skill was lower.

You could use low roll wins when success levels are tied. Years back there was a big stink over this as being unfair to the higher skilled character, but I did the math and the results aren't that much different than high wins on ties. It's mainly because if there is a large difference in skill ratings, the chances of both characters getting the same success level becomes less likely. Yeah. Back when RQ was created anything involving opposed rolls was settled with the resistance table. So an opposed skill roll mechanic is foreign to the game system. I don't think we'll get a consensus unless such a system got introduced or at least endorsed by someone like Steve Perrin. And even then it is doubtful.

Exactly. That's why I think opposed rolls don't really work with the existing success level game mechanics. I think to get opposed rolls to work, you need to toss out the existing method of working up success levels and do something else. .

Yuk! Personally I don't like mixing a high roll wins mechanic with a low roll equal better success level. Me too. Maybe even more than one SL. But then if they use a high roll win mechanic I'd like to see the success level be determined by the difference between the rolls. That's what we are doing anyway.

That sound a lot like how I'd want it to work! I am a big fan of the old James Bond RPG, and that's pretty much how Hero Points worked. I might have to pick up the Revolution D100 PDF. When ever you describe the rules they seem a lot more interesting that the SRD was.

I usually think about characters and chargen, it helps. So when I see some talent or ability I get an idea of how to work in into a character and it keeps me interested.