Atgxtg

Except that in real life people can empty a weapon that fast. Faster even. Emptying a revolver in 6 seconds is nothing special - just about anyone can do it. Now hitting something while doing so is the trick. I can see the point about getting off twice as many attacks as someone with 1 DEX lower, its precisely why I don't like MRQ2's actions per round thing. Realistically something like shooting on DEX SR and then firing another shot on each additional SR is about right for most firearms. It will give someone with a gun a huge advantage against someone wielding a melee weapon, though that's not too far from reality.

What's wrong with the wolf getting blown away? If a wolf had to move 15m to get to a pair of armed human's I'd expect the humans to get a few shots off before the wolf would be able to bite.

There was the Action Rank system used in RingWorld, but it was a mixed bag. All in all BRP and related systems don't really handle missile weapons that can attack three or more times a round all that well.

I think it depends on which system you like better: Strike Ranks or DEX Ranks. As Rosen points out, there are trade offs. Strike Ranks give you a more precise sequence of actions, while DEX Ranks are simpler. Personally, I prefer the Strike Rank system, but that is just my personal preference. If I were trying to run a Western themed campaign using BRP I'd probably modify the Strike Rank system a little. Most likely I'd reduce or drop the 3 SRs between actions and probably add in a fast draw skill that could be used to act faster than the normal SR system. But I've been playing RQ since the 80s, and am familiar with it. Since you are new to the game, I'd say go with whichever of the two initiative systems you prefer. The good news is that whatever method you use, it will affect everybody equally.

The RAW simply doesn't work the way you claim. The combining actions outside of melee was never intended to sallow someone to combine movement with an attack to reduce his SR. There is no example of doing that in the RAW. Nowhere in the RAW does it say that someone with a melee weapon gets to act faster in the combat because hew as moving. In fact, it states the opposite. The example you quoted allowed someone to combine reading a weapon (specifically an arrow) with movement, but it still took the full 5 Strike Ranks to do so.

No problem. One thing about BRP that is both good and bad is that is cobbles together a bunch of rules from various similar but not identical game systems that Chaosium has published in the past. Those rules are not entirely compatible with each other, too. In the end it makes BRP a good toolkit for someone who is already familiar with the various game systems and wants to mix and match sections to fit a particular setting, but it also makes it a bit harder so someone unfamiliar with the game to run. Expect a lot of minor inconsistencies and contradictions between the various sections of the game.

Not according to the RAW. The RAW states that someone could combine movement with reading a weapon (i.e. the 5 Strike Ranks required to draw an arrow or ready a melee weapon)- not that it could be combined with the actual attack, or that it would allow them to ignore their SIZ SR. In the rule book under strike ranks it specifically states that: 2. MOVEMENT - Any time 2 fighters meet in melee, no matter how long they’ve traveled to get to that meeting, strike rank should be figured out normally for them. However, time taken to get from point A to point B should be taken into account when: a. A character joins an already ongoing melee. b. A character charges across the room at a foe using a spell against him. c. A character charges across the room at a foe using a missile against him. and that: “PREPARING” A WEAPON Changing a weapon or other tool for another takes 5 strike ranks. This is an abstract convention which saves looking at a chart for the number of strike ranks needed to pull out a sword as opposed to drawing another arrow. Referees wishing to complicate their lives may draw up their own chart of comparative preparation times. Two things must be kept in mind: and that: Of course, at the referee’s option, the 5 points it took to ready the bow and arrow could have been combined with the 3 points of movement. So there is no way someone can move 10m and strike the bowman before he can hoot, since even someone with a SR of 0 (requiring a 19+ DEX, 22+ SIZ, and a 2m+ weapon) would still take 4 SR to reach the target. Even the 9m example you want to use requires a attacker character with a 19+ DEX, 22+ SIZ, and a 2m+ weapon, which pretty much limits the possibility to NPCs or Troll PCs with a few points or Coordination.

Yes and no. In the rules there is an option for combining movement with an action. Check the sections on Movement and Combining Actions on Page 201. But it is up to the GM to allow it or not. Generally speaking, it wasn't intended for most characters to be able to move 15m and then attack. The reason for the different results is that the Strike Rank system and the DEX Rank system came from different, related, game systems, both of which predated BRP. The Strike Rank system used in BRP originated in RuneQuest 3. RQ had a rule for attacking on the run that might be just what you wanted for a "charge" attack. A moving character can "attack on the run". He gives up his chance to parry or dodge, and loses 1m per SR from his move rate. But he replaces his normal SIZ SR modifier with the time it takes to reach the target. For example, if you had an average person (DEX SR3, SIZ SR 2, Move 3m/SR) armed with a broadsword (Weapon SR 2), he would attack on SR 5 (DEX plus Weapon SR) plus 8 (for 15m at 2m/SR) and so still wouldn't be able to attack in the same round.

It states that he will fire it on his DEX SR, which might be SR3. No he wouldn't strike first. You are forgetting that you add the SIZ SR and weapon SR modfier to melee weapons. That puts the typical character's sword at around SR7- not DEX SR . It doesn't say that just because somebody moves they get to attack faster, just that they can , at the referees option, combine moment with another action- specifically preparing a bow. There is nothing in the rules that say's the character gets to lower the SR of his melee attack by moving. Anda DEX SR 0 guy is not the typical swordman that I used as an example. He'd need a 19 or better DEX for DEX SR 0, which would limit the action to certain non-humans and humans who have magically augmented their DEX up to 19+. Neither being all that common.

That's in your view. I disagree with your assumptions and your conclusions. No he couldn't. The archer would get the arrow off at SR 2 long before the melee attack. That is a significant difference.

Because every melee weapon should be able to inflict a 1 point wound. And it gets worse if you use hit locations. A minimum damage dagger hit from an average man will disable an arm for any unarmored person with 15 hit points or less.

They are different types of sequential orders. For example,in D&D, if it is someone's turn, they could run up to someone else,who was holding a loaded crossbow, 30 feet away and attack them with a sword before they could react. In RQ, thanks to SR's the guy with the crossbow is going to be able to get a shot off before that happens. In most cases he can even change his action and "react" to the swordsman during combat and still get the shot off before being attacked. In RQ what you are doing, and how quick is is to do actually makes a difference on the order or events. Whereas in D&D you could do virtually anything as long as it was considered to take less than a round to do, and it would happen on your turn, without any chance of interruption.

Somewhat, but then again we have to consider firearms compared to other weapons. I don't think that a typical hit from a sword is going to do much more damage than a bullet from a .45. It just inflicts the damage differently.

It's not all that unrealistic either. In some cases, a person could bleed to death slowly, over days, or even not bleed to death at all. Then there would be the problems of the wound going septic and something like gangrene setting in.

One of the methods used in a BRP firearms supplement ( I forgot which one-maybe the modern equipment supplement?)was that instead of armor soaking points, as s done now- it is treated as more of a allor nothing prospect. It makes sense, in game terms, since weapon damage is not on a linear scale. Basically, an attack that does 10 damage vs. 8 armor is probably getting more energy/damage through than a 6 point hit vs. 4 armor. But, that would mean a rather radical rethinking of things. Basically it would become a variant game system instead of just modifying what's already there. As far as the CON roll goes, I'm not considering it to be someone treating them self, but rather the effects of clotting and the fact that in real life bleeding rate can be a bit more variable than 1 point per round.hour.etc. Maybe another approach could be to have the success level CON roll determine the rate of the blood loss? Another, simpler approach might be to assume that half of firearm damage comes from blood loss and could be prevented if given first aid before some sort of time limit runs out. Much the way you get so long to reattach a limb with magic. So, for example, a successfully treated 8 point gunshot would would only do 4 points if treated successfully in the first time interval (minutes, hours etc. based on the Success level of the attack).

The problem I have with that is that any special hit that does minor damage through armor ends up being a faster bleed out than any high damage but low success level wound.I think it ends up making firearms too powerful compared to other weapons. I mean, if someone skewers you with a spear but only gets 1 point through the armor, it's not all that bad an injury, but if someone gets just 1 point through with a critical hit from a firearm the character is at serious risk of death from bloodloss. I think if we did that, we'd have to seriously revise all the other weapon damages to maintain some sort of parity. I was thinking the CON roll would be required each time interval for damage. On a special success or better the character stops bleeding and doesn't have to roll anymore. On a normal success the character doesn't take damage that interval, but still has to keep rolling. Fumbles make it worse. I don't really see this being all that much of a problem, since people who are injured are going to try and treat the injury as soon as they can. I think that might be too harsh. It gives someone with First Aid a 90% about a 45% chance of stopping someone from bleeding to death from a a 1 point critical hit! That makes firearms way to lethal. Doctors can usually stabilize an injury if they can get to the patient quickly. I think I be more inclined to have the success level of the attack adjust the difficulty of the first aid roll (i.e. easy/normal/hard). That way the players have a reasonable chance of stopping someone from bleeding to death from a critical.

Not necessarily. What we are getting into is the territory on non-instant damage. That can work just fine with hit points

I'd rather tie the bleeding rate to the damage taken rather than just the success level. Reason being that a lot of the time armor soaks up most of the damage and a special success only ends up doing a point or two. I'd figure that a 10 point "normal" hit is probably going to bleed out faster than a 2 point special. it ight even be worth considering allowing a CON roll to avoid the hit point loss.Maybe on a special success the character stops bleeding, and on a fumble things get worse.

Except that that isn't necessarily the case. The bigger rounds usually have worse armor penetration. One of the major factors in armor penetration on how concentrated the attack is. A smaller round focuses the energy of the attack over a smaller area and tends to penetrate better. It's not the whole story, but all else being equal the smaller round will penetrate better than the larger one.

The chance for bleeding for any bullet wound should probably be at around 100%. The chance of significant bleeding depends on where you get hit- or to be more clear about it, what parts of the targets anatomy are hit, how it was hit (i.e. does the shot go clean through or come in at an angle and tear something open) and to a lesser extent, what they are hit with (i.e bigger caliber bullets tend to make bigger holes). Depending on those variables, a person could bleed to death in a matter of seconds (less than a melee round) or in hours of days. There are also things like the wound going septic, and the effects of pain and shock to consider. It would probably make sense to tie the rate of blood loss to the damage taken, sucess level, and a random die roll. So a 5 point wound should usually bleed out faster than a 1 point wound.

SD Leary covered most of it. Basically it has to do with how hit points work in the game. In real life a bullet can go through someone and not necessarily kill or even incapacitate them, even if it strikes them in the chest or abdomen. But with fixed hit points, hit locations and a high minimum damage it becomes automatic. I'd much rather see 3D6 or even 2D10 than 2D6+4. for damage. But then, I prefer the old RQ dagger damage of 1D6 to the revised 1D4+2. It's kinda funny that 2 point leather might stop any sword (even a 2D8 greatsword), but won't completely stop a dagger, ever. Not necessarily. It depends on how you design the bullet. For instance, some rounds (Glaser Safety Slugs, Black Talons), are pre-fragmented (like a mini shotgun shell) If you design a bullet to be barely spin stabilized, then it will be more likely to tumble when it starts to loose spin, such as when it hits something. There are claims that the 5.56 NATO round was designed to do just that, in order to inflict more serious wounds. There are also claims that this caused problems with the original AR-15s/M-16s as firing through the jungle flora could cause rounds to loose stabilization and veer off target.

But overkill for a 7.62.

Yeah, I blab a lot! I've mentioned various bits of this stuff on several threads over the past decade. If somebody is (still) interested in it, I can dig up my notes. I've even got some stuff simplified into game terms.

It's not too bad, although I'm not all that found of the big adds some rifles get. It ends up making them far more deadly than they are in real life. The more I look at existing stats the more I'm tempted to try and find some formulaic approach.

Depends on what intel, tactics and equipment they use. Porting behind the lines to get at gun emplacements, headquarters, and field hospitals could make quite a difference. As could porting onto aircraft in flight. Teleporting a dragon onot the deck of an aircraft carrier would pretty much take it out of the fight. It really depends on how much the Empire people know, and how clever they are. If they do a head on, brute force approach, they should get slaughtered, but it they play it cagey, do hit & run stuff, stay hidden and, gather intel on our world and tech, and try to infiltrate our ranks, and steal our weaponry. Well, then they would probably be unstoppable. I think from a campaign standpoint, is that it's hard to find a point between the two extremes that makes the Empire a serious threat, but still beatable by conventional means. It would seem to me that for things to stabilize enough to last, it would either mean containing some sort of interdimesional beachhead, where the enemy keeps sending in troops - or something where out forces start to gain access to magic and use it to go to other worlds and fine allies. Perhaps even causing some sort of multiworld uprising within the Empire.