Atgxtg

It's mostly a bunch of notes for rules and guidelines done up over a decade. A lot of the early stuff is obsolete now, as I have a better understanding of how the physics behind it all works that I did when I started. If I could finalize a few of the formulas and design rules it might make a nice wiki. I still got a few bugs with some of the math, and also some compatibility issues with the existing BRP writeups. Trying to keep the results compatible with the existing BRP stats is problematic. As the firearms damages stuff you've done can illustrate. It would make more sense to email bits and pieces to you, if you wanted to see something that to post any of it. it would really need to all be updated to using the same conversion guidelines before it could be put online. You're welcome. I hope to one day to complete the projects. But I suspect that at some point I'm going to have to make it a BRP variant and sacrifce soem compatiblity for internal consistency.

I could (and at times havve done so), but I don't think that many people are interested. I could send you some of my notes. Most of my notes are a bit rough. Some things weren't locked down and I charged a few formulas on the way. The mass of the animals. The way it worked was that you'd start off with an animal you wanted to get stats for For example, a Kodiak Bear. The you'd look for stats for a similar creature - that is another bear. Let's say a Brown Bear. Then you'd would check the differences in mass between the two, and convert both of those into SIZ stats using the SIZ table. For dinosaurs it was a little tricker, since we didn't always have a mass for a given dino, and would have to extrapolate the mass from a similar creature using the cube-square law. If an animal is a bigger version of a similar animal, then you can cube the difference in length (or height) and multiply that by the mass of the similar animal to get the mass for the second one. Anyway, once you had the SIZ you could use the cube square law to get a STR score. You see strength changes at the rate of the mass^(2/3). Now since the SIZ table in BRP is a logarithmic doubling progression (x2 mass= +8 SIZ) it means that STR changes at 2/3rd the rate that SIZ does (that is if you are being realistic. For fantasy creatures, and even for a lot of real animals the STR die roll is often the same as the SIZ die roll). And CON seems to change at the same rate as STR. DEX usually decreases slightly as animals get bigger (more mass to move, and usually less muscle per kg of mass to do it with), armor rating is tied to damage bonus, natural weapon damage is tied to SIZ (bigger critters tend to have larger claws and teeth), and most other game stats can be worked out along those lines. So, if the Brown Bear had an average mass of around 200-218kg (SIZ 24-25 per RQ3) and the Kodiak Bear had an average mass of 380-400 kg (SIZ 31-32 ) and a max SIZ a bit more than 680 kg (SIZ 38). We can work of a SIZ die roll of of 3D6+21 (24-39, ave 31-32). Now since most creates have STR scores comparable to their SIZ you might want to give it the same die roll for STR, instead of the 2/3rds rate. And go on down the line from there. The final set of stats you'll get would probably be fairly close to those of the RQ3 Polar Bear. Which would be too far off the mark. The cool bit, from out standpoint was that we set everything up in spreadsheets and a database, so you could take some animal for which you had very little data, and extrapolate decent usable game stats based on what you did have, plus the game stats of similar creatures. The final stats might need some adjustment, but they were close enough to work.

Sorry, my assumption based on the word MAX and your old formula elsewhere. Well, typical energy range for a punch is 100-450J, which would put in better than a .41 derringer, and in the light-medium pistol range. But, my post was based onmy eroor in assuming that the table had a .41 doing 1 point max damage. I see what I can put together. Like I said, I don't think there is one formula that will fit all. But I try to to get a closer fit-at least for the low end. No link per say. Although there might still be an older copy of some quick conversion rules in the download section. Way back, I started working on some rules for statting up vehicles in BRP Game terms based on real world data and physics, and some extrapolation using the SIZ table. I got a lot of data, and some guidelines to work with. Some of the stuff worked out fine, some other things still present problems, such as damage and armor, rated speed, and determining just where to set the "baseline" values for stats such as POW (as in terms of watts or joules). I did up a progression for armor value based on thickness and material (actually several), but its' very difficult to get everything to match up exactly with the BRP stats. And more difficult to simply some of the math the way I want to. Mostly because the SIZ table "zeros out" at -37. I also was working on a bestiary with someone else that also used a formulaic approach to stat up various animals (we started with dinosaurs and then realized the approach would work with other animals) based on species, the stats for similar animals, and the cube-square law. But basically, I used a very similar approach to what you are doing with weapon stats.

Except people shoot each other with the lighter weapons, not the tank guns. 1 point MAX damage for a .41 derringer is too much the other way. Even the big guns max damage is now where the old average values were. I think the thing is that by going from average to max damage, the formula will cut down the damage severely. d4 (ave 2.5, max 4); d6 (ave 3.5, max 6); d8 (ave 4.5, max 8); d10 (ave 5.5, max 10); 2d6(ave 7, max 12), 2d8 (ave 9, max 16) So if you want to go with max damage you need a somewhat faster progression than 1.225, probably something like 1.1 for the low end stuff to work. I'll try a bit of curve fitting. The trick is finding something that works for handguns, rifles, and heavy guns. IMO, I don't think it can be done with one progression. It probably requires a decreasing exponent to get a good fit for all three. But I think if we had something that worked for hand held weapons, we'd be fine. One thing that's worth considering is that the damage bonus progresses as a certain rate, as does the armor values. So whatever values we wind up with, we have to be sure that the weapons are still able to penetrate the stuff they should be able to and not penetrate the stuff they shouldn't be able to. In fact, I think I have something lying around I used for tank guns. basically, linking their damage to their armor penetration. It from my infamous vehicle design notes. I got tables with lots of tank stats and used them to reverse engineer tank gun damages based on armor penetration.

I think I'll print this. It might be the first post I've agreed with 100% - and that's including my own!

Yeah, that's true today. As is the habit of breaking stuff up into groups, clans, houses, whatever, so companies can expanding the product line with supplements expanidng parts of the rules with more detailed versions. But back when Chaosium was creative and innovative, it wasn't gimmicky it was "Wow!" stuff. For instance, in RQ all priests didn't use the exact same spell tables, rules. As far as BRP Esseintals go. If I had a choice, I prefer they brought back the old 16 page book, and then a series of supplements along the lines of Worlds of Wonder. Maybe the Supplements could be a bit bigger than the WoW books, but something along those lines. Any settings that catch on could have additional material added in future supplements.

The damage dice for most weapons don't seem to match up with the new formula.

And is very silly. I had a friend who wondered/wanted to play an Old West campaign, and kina hoped that they could do in in D&D. I brought up the thought of two bullet-ridden guys having to stop in the middle of a shootout in order to reload.

But anything other than a critical becomes a scratch. Especially if the target has any sort of armor at all. And I don't think a dagger should be doing that much more damage. But ,to be fair to you, 1D3 with triple on an impale isn't all that different. Better, IMO, but only by a point or so. . Yes, very few instant-kills. But people can bleed out in under a round or two, or go into premature shock. The immediate reaction to to being shot is mostly psychological.

Yes. mv is actually momentum. My bad. I'll blame in on the fact that someone in another thread is basing damage on the Taylor Knock-Out formula, and that is based on momentum. Ideally, since the goal is for the bullet to stop in the body of the target mv will be equal to ma. Ideally. Over penetration can be a problem with some rounds. In the end they won't really be all that equivalent. Basically, a lighter, faster round can end up with more energy that a heavier, slower round, but the slower round could have more force, make a bigger wound, and do more damage. Yeah, but what you really want is to use average or typical rounds to get the baseline damages for the weapons. That's why I linked to the Wikipedia page. That's pretty much true for all light handguns. Basically, these days, most gun "experts" don't recommend anything less powerful than, say a 38 Special for self defense. And most would only do that for a backup weapon. Hold Out weapons are really intended to be used as a last resort at extremely close range (like pressed up against the target). It's probably more useful for it's the threat value. That it was a two shot pistol probably helped. But that sorta hold true for other bullets. Police are taught that someone wielding a knife, shot at 20 feet distance, can still close the distance and stab the officer.

Some of the systems that I really liked, in terms of firearm damage were the James Bond RPG, Timelords, and CORPS (Greg Porter usually does a good job with firearm rules ). What I liked about them was that guns (and most other weapons) could do minor damage on a marginal hit, but became much more deadly with a well placed shot. But those systems also had a would shock mechanic of some sort where somebody who just got injured could be temporarily stunned for a few game turns. It was nice because getting shot (or stabbed, sliced or bludgeoned) can often take the fight out of someone without actually killing them or rendering them unconscious. In real life most gunshot wounds are not fatal, but most will probably "stop" somebody for a bit.

Considering just how easy it is to do CGI today, It's quite possible that most people might not believe any Invasion videos put on the net. Especially if they include things like magic and dragons. Trying to get help from the authorities could get the PCs threatened for pulling some sort of hoax. This could give the invaders more than enough time to gather good intel, and establish a "beach head" of sorts. I's amazing just how much information the invaders could these days, if they managed to capture just one person with a smartphone and internet access. If they were smart and patient, they could get quite a bit of the intel they needed just by surfing the net. They maybe gate into some third world country with a ton of gold and buy firearms and ammo from some arms dealer.

I agree. I think the problem is due to the way damage works in BRP. One the one hand every round should have to potential to kill someone, so you can't really go below 1D6 or so. On the other hand, damage that doesn't disable a hit location or cause a major wound doesn't have any stopping power in game terms. So the damage gets pumped up to keep a single shot from a firearm a legitimate threat. I also thing the big adds that some weapons get (i.e. 2D6+4) are bad, since they make it impossible for someone to ever just get "grazed" by those rounds. 2D6+4 is a minimum of 6 points, which will probably take out a location or cause a major wound. So Rifles become much more effective than in real life. Frankly, had the gone with 3D6+1 or 2D10 instead of 2D6+4, the results would probably have been better as far as people damage went. But that would have caused some problems with the way armor works. Maybe a better approach would have been to lower the firearm damages but give them better specials (like the rapiers triple damage). That way most weapons could inflict less damage on a minor hit, but be much more lethal with a well placed shot.

I don't mean to be a pain, just want to make sure what we got works. I've gone down the same round that you have. I've even tried to see if I could find a correction between BGB/CoC damage and BRTC's 3G3 or EABA. If I recall correctly using force (mv) rather than energy (1/2mv^2) gave a somewhat better fit. When they did the modern tech supplement (I forgot the name) a few years back they folks who did so did use a lograrthic energy progression, but they also differentiated between damage and penetration. And it was more of an all or nothing thing, as anything that did penetrate body armor usually had enough energy left over to still inflict a serious wound. Here are some common energy values for handgun rounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy

Actually they can. Pretty much all of the weapons in the BGB table came from other Chaosium RPGs,, Pretty much all of the firearm stats came from Call of Cthulhu. Jason "filed off" the names, gave them generic names such as "medium pistol". but it's easy enough to backtrack it. In a few instances he adjusted a weapon a little for some reason or another, but they are still the weapons from CoC. Some examples: BGB Light Pistol is a CoC .22 Short Automatic BGB Heavy Pistol is a CoC .45 Automatic BGB Assault rifle is a CoC AK-47 (with an extra point of damage) BGB Bolt Action Rifle is a CoC .30-06 Bolt Action Rifle You can go through the weapon tables in both RPGs and see which weapon is which.

What weapons did you use for the light and medium revolvers? 100) J of energy is better than a 9mm or .45 ACP. And most .44 Magnums come in at around 1500J rather than 2000J

I think you should have tested it out with more weapons. Just because it matches up well for a handful of weapons doesn't mean that it will hold up well for most of them, and certainly doesn't prove that the formula works. For one thing firearms with less that 400J of energy will do negative damage by the formula.

No, but there is in Call of Cthulhu, which was the source for the BGB firearm stats Compare: COC: .58 Springfield Rifle Musket Base Chance: 25% Damage: 1D10+4 Base Range: 60 yards Rate of Fire: ¼ Ammo: 1 Hit Points: 12 Malfunction: 95-00 BRP Rifle, Musket Skill: Rifle Base: 25% Damage: 1D10+4 Attk: ¼ Special: Impaling Range: 60 Hands: 2H Hit Points: 12 Parry: No STR/DEX: 9/5 Mal: 95-00 it's the same weapon.

Yes, because they didn't use your the formula to assign damages scores. I believe Sandy Peterson based his values more on the force of the weapons rather than the energy. Then those values were tweaked a bit, by eye for the BGB. So I don't believe your formula is going to hold up over a wide range. I do agree that I prefer to go with some sort of formulatic approach over a gut feeling, but I don't think just going by total energy is going to match up with the existing weapon stats. If you want to do up a new table of weapon stats that is close to what exists you can (and some people did just that for a BRB supplment a few years back), but that's something else.

Doesn't work fine for me, or for the existing weapon damages. That musket ball is going to to be stopped by armor that the 5.56 NATO round will penetrate. Also, your source uses energy in foot-pounds, not Joules, so that Musket rated at 1943ft-lbs would be rated at 2643 Joules for an average damage of about 10.30 points by your formula . For comparison a .58 Springield rifle has a damage rating of 1D10+4 (average of 9.5) and a muzzle energy of around 1355J (for an average damage of 7 by your formula).

But that's the point. Back in the 80s when the weapons were first written up, .45 ACP rounds weren't that powerful, nor could most .45 ACP firearms actually be able to for those rounds safely. And the 1D10+2 damage given to the .45 ACP in CoC (which is where BGB got them from) would have an average damage of 7.5, which would require about 1500J of energy (which would be great if the 1D10+2 was for a .44 Mag).

Sure, but those details can be very important in terms of gameplay. For instance, a musket ball from an old muzzle loader should do more "damage" to a person than a modern 9mm pistol round, yet the 9mm round is probably going to end up doing more damage if the target is wearing body armor, since the smaller bullet concentrates all than energy over a smaller area. Another thing to consider is what the hit point and armor rating progressions are. For example, a 5 ton giant (or elephant ) might have 65 times the mass of an average man, but he wouldn't have 65 times the hit points. Probably closer to around 5 times as many. So if you want a elephant gun to be about as effective against an elephant as a rifle would be against an average man, it should do about 5 times the damage is game terms...but that would probably make the elephant gun too effective against men.

Thot, Do you have a spreadsheet with the firearms statted up? I have some doubts about your formula. Back when the firearms stats were done up (in Call of Cthulhu, I believe), most 9mm Parabellum rounds had more energy than most .45 ACP rounds. So, if firearm damage was determined strictly by energy, then 9mm weapons would have damage ratings as good or better than .45 ACP weapons - but they don't.

The thing about "damage" is that is isn't the same thing as energy. A weapon can have a lot of energy than another but end up doing less damage to a human body fr several reasons. First off, how that energy is spread over a body makes a big difference. Case in point, if you poke someone with a finger or stick them with a pin, you are apply the same amount of energy (and force for that matter), but the pin will do more damage. The poke spreads the energy out over an area the size of your fingertip, whereas using the pin concentrates the energy over an area the size of a pin, and can pierce the skin and do more "damage". Conversely, concentrating the damage too much can reduce the damage! This is often the case with bullets. A larger, heavier bullet will usually inflect more damage than a smaller, lighter one, even if both have the same amounts of energy, as the lighter bullet can go right though the body and expend most of it's energy on something (or someone) behind the target. Another big factor, in fact probably the most important one, is just where on the body that the energy is applied to. The human body is not just a block of stuff. It is filled with various organs, and some are far more resistant to damage than others. A powerful attack that hits bone or an extremity might do more "damage" in terms of the amount of tissue, nerve, and bone damage, but. for a "quality" standpoint, that damage might be less than a lower energy attack to a more vital location. For example, a .600 Nitro-Express round is superior to a .25 ACP round, as far as "damage" goes, in just about every conceivable way, yet a .25 bullet though someones eye is probably go to end up doing more "damage" in game terms than a .600 round that takes off a pinky. So if's more complicated than just the amount of energy or force. Then there are things like armor, range, inertia (heavier bullets tend to keep their energy longer in flight), shape, and energy over time to consider (basically spreading out the energy over time actually can reduce the amount of "damage" inflicted. It's also why old style armors aren't as effective against firearms)

I guess your never too young to lose SAN! Hmm, I wonder what the game stats would be for this book?