Atgxtg

King Ghidorah, possibly mind controlled by aliens planning to take over the word. Maybe even with Gigan to back him up. Or, you can use a giant robot, possibly backed up by Gigan, King Ghidorah, or some new monster. Or the Japanese military and their latest ultra tech vehicle. You can even bring out King Kong, Gamera, or Daimagin if you want to. All in all it wouldn't be too bad. Kinda like D&D but not quite as silly, without the muckinism and treasure hunting, but with the possibility of actual role play and character development.

Monster Island? One player gets Godzillia, another Rodan, a third Mothra, a foruth Angurius, and so on?

I don't necessarily agree with your three guidelines. Reasons why: 1) Just because a player wants to recreate Superman, doesn't mean the GM has to allow Superman into his campaign. Especially if the GM is not running a superhero campaign. 2) Heroes in fiction (and real life) often have to go up against a villain who is more powerful than they are. It's very good for the story and also good for an RPG. If the PCs always have more power than the NPCs they will not feel challenged, get cocky and start doing (more) stupid things (than usual). Just look at D20 will it's "balanced" encounters. PCs typical throw their weight around based on the belief that they are heroes and thus the most powerful beings in the game. This gets especially silly when running inexperienced characters, as it makes the rest of the world inhabitants appear entirely incompetent, as if they belong in a nursing home somewhere. For instance, a world where the highest skilled archer has a bow skill of 15%. So none of the the profession archers, hunters and other bowmen can shoot straight? 3) Depends on what the relativevalue for characteristics are. Just because STR is more important than INT in one game system doesn't mean that is is so in another RPG. Sometimes a characteristic that is a "dump stat" in one RPG can be very important in another. If characteristics have equal value in a given RPG then they should have a equal cost.

Sorry to let you down. I don't believe that RQ combats are tremendously harder to balance. At least not if a GM is familiar with the system. The thing to keep in mind is that most "balanced" fights in D&D are anything but "balanced". They are set up in such a way that heavily favors the PCs. Opponents will be roughly 1/4th the strength of the party. That isn't all that hard to do in RQ. But, where RQ gets tricky is with it's critical and special hits. IN D&D the combat is handed by hit point attrition. A high level fighter will have lots of hit points and cannot be taken out of the fight by a novice who scores a lucky critical. In RQ, a unskilled character who rolls crit might just take down a highly experienced warrior. The odds are against the novice, but the chance is there. In a big fight, the chances that somebody gets lucky by the end, and takes down a skilled foe get pretty good. This is why those "PCs vs. hoards of baddies" fights so common to D&D get so deadly in RQ. Go up against 20 opponents and odds are somebody is going to roll a critical on a PC before the fight is over.

Depends somewhat on the setting. In some settings (Middle Earth for example) species such as Orcs and Trolls are inherently evil, with no way around it. Plus in most "pre-enlightened" eras, anyone from a different race or culture is suspect as the very least.

Yeah, and it's one of the things that is hard for D&Ders to get used to. In D20 and many other level-based RPGs, character ability is rigidly defined by level. This makes it easier for the GM to set up and run encounters, but also has some drawbacks-not all of which are obvious. Most D&Ders tend to have very little regard for ability, since it is mostly a function of level., which in turn is a function of gaining experience, which is turn is automatic provided you keep playing. Character death is somewhat rare, thanks to "balanced" (nerfed) encounters, and dead characters can be brought back. So play long enough and you will eventually get to be Xth level, too. So there is little respect for the abilities that go with the level. There is respect for choices made and fighting style (i.e. what feats and seplls you pick, what gear you use and so forth), but not much for the level based stuff. RQ is fundamentally different, since a high rating in a skill or other ability does not come automatically just by playing. The player has to work at it. So, to someone who is familiar with the game, getting a weapon skill to 90% is more impressive that getting a character to 8th, 12th or 16th level.

Yeah, there is some struth in that. And it is a viewpoint that fits the setting, in most cases. People from "less enlightened" eras tended to view anyone and anything strange as evil/bad/inferoio and thus subject to attack/destruction/subjugation without any moral repercussions. In deed, do so what usually considered a good thing. Sadly we still see it today with members of certain countries/cultures/religion/whatever tend to view themselves and superior to one of more other cultures due to their technology/history/faith/etc. It become much easier to fight someone if you can vilify them. Monsters tended to take that approach to the ultimate extreme, being creatures specially sent to plague mankind. But I think, changing the morality of the monsters is easy. Changing the morality and outlook of the human culture less so. But I think all that is something that the GM and players can work out fairly easily. Some of the more troublesome bits are with game mechanics and how to handle some of the extreme attribute scores and powers, and "survival requirements". For instance, Vampires in RQ need to drain POW to survive. So just how they get that POW is going to need to be addressed as it will impact how easily that can be intergrated with other characters. Nobody is comfortable with someone who has them on their food chain.

Well three out of four ain't bad. Pity about the old Hit Point formula. It will definitely hurt the game.

In RQ3 the category modifier was added to improvement rolls. So someone with a high natural ability also tended to improve faster. I hope they don't completely throw out RQ3. While some of the changes introduced to make RQ a "generic" RPG hurt the game, RQ3 also fixed a lot of "bugs" that existed in RQ2. Things like "break points" defense, the old hit point formula, and 3D6 SIZ and INT all caused their share of problems.

In BRP/RQ most "monsters" don't need much alteration. RQ statted monsters out the same way player characters were statted out (this back when most RPGs didn't bother with tracking things like STR and CON for monsters), so the transition wouldn't be too difficult. The biggest problems would be: 1) INT. Most monsters aren't all that bright, and would need to have their INT score increased so that they would be smart enough to interact with other characters. They wouldn't need to be as intelligent as humans, but they should be off of the fixed INT scale, and smart enough to communicate in some fashion. 2) "Game balance", in the traditional sense, would be non-existent - at least for some of the more powerful monsters. A 10m tall giant with STR 35, SIZE 35 is going to end up with something like a +3d6 damage bonus. That is going to be a game changer as far as combat goes. Now some aspects of "game balance" could be achieved by role playing the social and logistical problems that might go with being a huge monster. Many people might shun such a creature, and just finding a pair of shoes could prove problematic. Also, such a monster would tend to draw more "fire" from the enemy in combat. So the giant would probably draw the lion's share of the attention from enemy archers and magicians - as nobody with any sense wants to get within reach of the thing that is swinging around a tree. Now most game balance issues are really about the relative power level amongst players, so a campaign where everbody was a 10m tall giant could work. But doing so could give the PCs a sense of community that might eliminate the whole feel of being "monsters". For instance, you could take something like Hobbiton, and replace all the Hobbits with Giants and adjust things for the relative differences in size. In fact the giants might consider themselves to be the normal humans, and consider the 2m tall SIZ 2d6+6 humans to be some sort of midget race. 3) Some of the more evil, predatory monsters (vampires) might need to find an alternate means of sustenance if they are going to be transformed into less evil creatures. It doesn't really matter how nice a guy the vampire or werewolf if you happen to be on their menu.

I'd consider the Mutation, Psionics and Superpowers rules, primarily because they can most easily be done up as high tech, as opposed to magic. Oh, and the Chaotic Features tables from old RQ. If you don't have those I'm sure I can scan the tables. You might want to dig up something like Cyberpunk and adapt/port things over to BRP. At least as far as a framework/ideas go. Ditto Cybergeneation for some neat nanite type powers. One thing to be worried about is the mutation and caotic feature rules are mostly random rolls, which can and will tend to give you random results. That can make it much tougher for the players and the GM that you might like. How comfortable are you with the idea of a PC going around with a 40 STR? Or 20 points of natural armor? If you have problems with that, you might want to go with superpowwers, since you get to reign in the powers as they are bought for with points.

Yeah, RQ3 is based on and similar enough to RQ2 that most things port over fairly easily. There are some differences: Hit Points are calculated differently; as are Skill Category Modifiers; armor values are a little different, encumbrance works different; SIZ and INT are on a 2D6+6 scale; skill scores are no longer in 5% increments; battle magic doesn't have the point cap anymore. And that's off the top of my head. But... for the most part if you look at a RQ3 writeup, you can figure it all out on the fly. I probably wouldn't even bother with Gods of Glorantha and instead hunt for some version (hardcopy or PDF) of Cults of Prax and Cults of Terror. IMO the big thing about RQ was the nice cult writeups, and GoG ditched the "long form" cult descriptions.

OH, on a marginally related note, if we were using my EFFECT SYSTEM variant, we could just take the 10s digits as the results and shift CPs and winnings that way.

Yup, you're missing something. Specifically: You're lucky I didn't have Dan trump in with a Joker! I'll go back and change the example.

Oh, and if you wanted to simulate things like a draw, you could allow character to make a second roll to try and improve their hand. If the second roll is better they improve their hand. If not it stays the same, But, if the second roll is of a lower success level they have to downgrade their hand to the new roll. Naturally you could add in another round of betting before the draw (since you are playing "open handed").

I'm sleep deprived, but sure, I'll give it a shot. Let's say you got a Poker game going on with one PC (Bret, Skill 90%, and a bankroll of $1500), two casual player's,(Dan, 30% skill a bankroll of $400, and Fred, Skill 30% but a bankroll of $2000), a, plus a Professional gambler (Dandy Jim, skill 70%, bankroll of $1000). The GM decides to use $100 per point for the conflict pool, So the conflict pools will look like this: Bret (90%) 15 points Dan (30%), 4 points Fred (30%), 20 points Dandy Jim (70%), 10 points Now when the gambling begins, each player antes up and the damage die is 1D6. This represents the outcome of several hands. But before rolling for the outcome, each character gets a chance to raise the stakes ,upping the damage die a step (1D8, 1D10, 2D6, 2D8, 2D10). If someone ups the stakes the other characters can either opt to stay in and risk the increased damage or drop out of the round and take 1D4 damage. Otherwise it plays out as you had it before. An other thing you might do is reduce the damage taken by 1 per Success Level rolled. That way someone who is is playing good will lose less money over time that someone who plays poorly. Still another thing you can do, now that the conflict points are tired to the bankroll is move the points around to the winner of each round. That way a character who is winning big will end up with more conflict points, repenting how much harder is is to take someone out of the game who has a lot of cash. Oh, and since you tie the conflict points to the cash, you can have one or more people drop out of the game early and cut their looses before they loose everything. Or someone who is winning might decide to quit while he is ahead. Now putting all those options into practice... When the game begins everyone gets cards and antes up. Since no one is all that familiar with each other, none decides to bet big, and each makes a skill roll. First Round, Bret 24 (Special), Dan 93 (fail), Fred 26 (success), and Dandy Jim 41 (success) Results; Bret wins and and rolls a 1D6 damage to see his winnings, he rolls a 4, so Dan looses 4 points (and gets cleaned out) while the other two only loose 3 points due to their successful rolls. Bret wins 10 points total ($1000!) and raises his conflict points to 25. Fred is down to 17 points, and Dandy Jim is down to 7. Second Round, Bret, having won so far, decides to up the stakes. Fred and Dandy Jim both stay in the game, but neither wants to raise the stakes. The die results are, Bret 54 (success), Fred 38 (a failure), and Dandy Jim 64 (Success). Results: Dandy Jim wins, and rolls 1D8 damage. He gets lucky and rolls a 7. Fred looses 7 conflict points, dropping his bankroll down to 10 points (or $1000). Bret only looses 6 CPs since he rolled a success, leaving him with 19 CPS ($1900). Jim wins 13 CPs and now has 20 (or $2000). Ferd, realizing that he is up against a pair of card sharks, decides to drop out of the game and walk away while he still has some money left. Since he has 10 Cps, he leaves with $1000. Dandy Jim, being a professional, noted that Bret rolled a success with an 8$, and therefore is a better gambler than he is (with a 70%), so he decides to quit the game while he is ahead, and pockets his $100 worth of winnings. Bret shrugs and walks away still $400 ahead.

For gambling: 1)Wouldn't it be better if the Conflict Pool was tied to the bankroll the character's had? For instance, 1 point per L100 or some such? 2) Likewise, wouldn't it be better if the the damage die rolled was based on the bet size? For example, you could do a round of betting, and a character could choose to keep things the same or raise the stakes, which ups the damage die a step.

Yeah, unless there is some form of risk and consequences, the game gets boring.

I've run some Star Trek campaigns where the ship gets destroyed. In those cases I've killed off characters of absent players, since it hard to justify why they survive when the ship goes up in a massive fireball all around them. I don't use "plot armor" per say. I do use various die roll modification rules, such as hero points. I have, on occasion, ran situation or adventure that react to things that happened in the game. For example, in one game the group messed up and got captured. The next game session had the players who were absent the previous session lead a group on a rescue mission to free the other characters. The players whose characters had been captured got to play members of the rescue team, either by taking over a NPC or bring out a backup character. Once in awhile, I've even had NPCs show up and rescue the PCs, but I usually try to come up with good "in game " reasons for that to happen, so the players won't come to expect a rescue. In one campaign one of the PCs owed a lot of money to an NPC, so he rescued him to make sure he got his money! In a Star Wars campaign I was running, the PCs got captured, and got thrown into the brig, where they found Asoka Tano chained to the wall. When Skywalker and Kenobi showed up to rescue Asoka, the PCs got rescued as well, being fellow Republic troops in the same cell. That was probably a close to "plot armor" as I get, since I set the situation up in advance specifically in case the PCs got captured and couldn't mange to escape.

Or what we want it to be? Depends on what we are trying to accomplish. I was trying to come up with a way to stat up vehicles and extinct dinosaurs. In the case of the former I tried a few different methods, but was constantly disappointed when my methods gave ridiculous results. In the end I looked up the way engineers do it in real life and it turned out to be much simpler than most of my alternatives. In the case of the latter, I went with what I thought to be the easiest approach, and along the way discovered that it happened to be the same approach paleontologists used. And, even if we are trying to simulate things as we believe or want them to be the approach has merits. Some of the other things I was trying to do was come up with good game stats for fictional items and beings based on the limited information we might get from sources such as Series Technical Manuals. If you know things like the drag equations you can reverse engineer a lot of things that you don't know about a object from the things that you do know. For instance, if you know the relationship between power and speed, you can work out how much faster a vehicle will be if you put in a more powerful engine.

One thing that might help would be if you let someone go for an every harder shot for an ever bigger bonus. Basically "stacking" aimed shots. That's closer to what hunters and snipers do. They will aim for the heart or the eye or behind the ear (and into the brain) and do their best to place their shot where it will do the most good. 5 points of damage to the heart of a critter will probably kill it, no matter how big it is. It just might not do it quite fast enough for the player's comfort. It is of somewhat questionable merit to fatally would a Terax if the thing drops dead ten minutes after wolfing down the PCS!

LOL! I know. Way back, I was working on a Bestiary for BRP with someone else, and one of the things we did was to make everything use the same +8 doubling scale. Originally, it helped to solve playability problems presented by Kaiju, but eventually it helped us to scale all sorts of creatures so that we could extrapolate game stats for creatures that lacked writeups by scaling up the stats for existing stats using the square-cube law. Then we used it to determine the POT rating of various toxins. The idea was that you could plug in some basic real world data for a creature, such as mass, and type (i.e. dog, cat, whale) into a spreadsheet, and it would spit out reasonably accurate and consistent game stats. That way we could come up with stats for hundreds or even thousands of creatures. And we would all get the same stats if we started with the same data. I was hoping to use the same approach for working up stats for vehicles,weapons, and other equipment. I've got a partially working framework alone those lines, using a bit of real world physics "behind the scenes". By that I mean the methods use to calculate the stats are all based on real world formulas, but simplified into game terms that are easier to use. For instance the afore mentioned "square-cube" law basically translates into a change of +/-2 points of STR and CON per +/-3 point change in SIZ. And vice versa.

Okay, so you are using the standard resistance table. What threw me is that you "reversed" the numbers. ususally it's the active value that gets a success chance. Nut, with that in mind, what I said before applies. SIZ and CON keep increasing for creatures, but weapon damage is capped out. So any time you end up with a 10 point difference the target becomes immune. Now in normal RQ/BRP game play, three 22 point hits would drop the elephant on total damage. In your system, that can't happen. Now one way to address this is to use the same progression that the SIZ table uses for damage, That is each doubling of damage is worth +8. That way eight guys using 9 damage rifles would get bumped up by +24 for 3 doubling, bring the total damage up to 33 (29 after armor). Which would have a good chance of dropping the Terax.

There is something I'm not following here. You have 18 Damage vs. 31 Resilience as a 115% success chance. How are you determining that?

Might still be a little "nicer" to the monster than it should be. What are the numbers for something like an elephant? (STR 45, CON 27, SIZ 53, POW 13, Armor 8 in RQ3) The thing I'm thinking of is that in real lie an elephant might be big and tough, but someone armed with a decent "elephant" gun (3D6+4 damage in BRP) has a pretty good chance of dropping a elephant with one shot. In RQ/BRP it's not as easy, and pretty much requires a critical or impale to drop an elephant wit one shot. The Resilience method makes it even harder. In fact, since it takes 16 STR+SIZ to get an extra D6 damage, it gets tough for big creatures to hurt each other. Characteristics are increasing at about four times the rate that damage increases, so the damage vs. Resilience thing is going to break down. For example an RQ 3 Dragon (STR 70, CON 35, SIZ 70, POW 20, with bite doing 3D6+8D6 (ave 38.5 damage), and claw doing 1D6+8D6 (ave. 31.5 damage)) is going to be hard pressed to beat a 53 Resilience (ave of CON and SIZ), or even a 42 Resilience (CON, SIZ and POW) and that's without counting in for any armor (24 points in RQ3, 8 in BRP). But the same dragons would be hirting each other nearly all the time in RQ3, and ripping each other to shread in BRP. I think what you need, mathematically, is to increase Resistance at the same rate damage increases (4 for 1). So rather than something like the average of CON and SIZ, I think you need to use something like: Resilience = Armor + (SIZ+CON)/4 or Resilience = Armor + (SIZ+POW+CON)/6