Atgxtg

I like the concept, but OI don;t like anything that works for the rest of the scene like that. Basically it "shuts down" and opponent's skill. How about if the opposing character beats the indomitable character with his dice roll, it gets stopped, but knocks down the "indomitable" effect. Another possiblity, might be to come up with a genric bonus that could be applied to all skills- so you would;t need to list an effect for every skill. For instance, if a character could earn a "bump" that would upgrade his next roll of that skill, it could be a effect that could be applied to any skill. .

Yeah, once we can finish it. THe problem has been finding the time. I relocated, which took up most of my time, and now work 3rd shift and still have very little time. My partner got a new job that has kept expanding and has kept him to busy to work on the project. It's a shame it got stalled, as the majority of methods we used, and "insight" we picked up while working on it actually hold up well in the stats and game play. For instance, I did up a SIZ class idea for animals that scaled up their natural weapon damage with their SIZ. Bigger animals tend to have more/bigger teeth. I did it up and then we started applying it to existing creature stats (mostly from RQ3, since that was the biggest source of RQ/BRP creature stats, and much to my surprise, it matched up fairly well with the existing creature stats. Thanks to SIZ class, diet, and ecological niche modifiers, great white sharks actually got the 3D6 bite, just like in RQ3. We had some problems, low SIZ critters were a pain, and I was working on a way to extend the SIZ stat down so as to differentiate between cat, rat, and mouse, and I still have to come up with a good MOV formula, but most of the stats were pretty close.

That is a pretty wild assumption, and I think history would disprove it. Although plate is very effective, the sword still remained a main weapon of knights (although it was a hand& a half sword). I think the special success and crtical hit rules (especially the RQ versions) help to keep the weapons dangerous enough. One thing worth keeping in mind though was that for the most part people didn't want to kill opponents who were in plate, since they were of high status and worth taking prisoner for ransom. That was really where knights could make their money.

Better. i believe MRQ1 had an option where you could bypass armor completely for a -75% penalty. 5% might be a bit cheap, though. Ultimately I think what will happen is that people will just stop wearing armor as the cons will outweigh the pros. Oh, and I would think that someone probably could bypass magical AP, such as a Protection spell, since it would provide full body coverage (no weakspots). Realistically, nobody actually penetrates plate armor with a dagger, they aim at the neck. elbows, armpits, back of the legs, and other gaps.

Perverting pre-existing alterate rules is the safest way to tweak. For instance the way spells like Truesword used to work is that they let you roll extra damage dice, but you were still capped at the weapon's normal max. Now something like that would be much less disruptive. Somthing like sacrficing 35% to get a +7 and max out sword damage at 9 points would seem a bit better.

What might help is to tie the time take to the success level, roughly like so: Critical: 1/4 time Special Success: 1/2 time Success: Normal time -------------------------------- You could make this a matrix by shifting the results up or down based on the opposing side's SL. For example Critical: 1/4 time Special Success: 1/2 time Success: Normal (1x) time Failure: 1.5 time Fumble: 2 time For example, lets say two characters are playing a game of chess. The first character rolls a critical success, while the second rolls a special success. The first character wins easily, in only half the normal time (1/4 for a crit, bumped down to 1/2 for the resisting character's special success). .

Are you familiar with BRP? +5 or +10 to damage is pretty much an autokill., disabled location or major wound. You're the first person I've ever heard complain that BRP wasn't lethal enough. Usually I hear the opposite -especially from D20 players. Maybe you should just use the old impale rules (max damage plus rolled)? That would bring a dagger impale up to 1D4+8 damage (plus db), which would certainly get past plate. And a 12 point critical would be nothing to sneeze at.

There were also the Ki skills in Land of the Ninja. Basically they let player up their critical chance. Another possibility would be to do what Flashing Blades did. In FB most weapons did only a couple of points of damage (usually 2) on a hit (plus db). But if the attack roll was half the chance of hit or less you added 1D6. This was nice because it allowed for minor nicks and such which armor could prevent, while still allowing for crippling or lethal hit. Importing any new mechanics runs the risk of tripping over other game mechanics. The BGB is a showroom of various alternate game mechanics that Chaosium came up with over the years - mechanics that are semi-compatible with each other, at best.

Eek! No, that would cause far more problems than it would solve. First off BRP already suffers from weapon "over-penetration" - that is, some weapons can damage APCs and tanks that really shouldn't be able to. Just trading off skill for damage would just make that even worse. People with high skill rating could trade off skill for damage and carve up a tank with a butter knife. Secondly, trading off skill for damage would completely alter play at high skill levels. Especially if magic is factored in. Someone at over 100% skill boosted with something like Bladesharp and Fanaticism who trades off skill for damage could be doing 20-30 points of damage on a "average" roll! I think the "Pathfinder Options" should be restricted to D20 games, where characters can end up with dozens of hit points.

The benefits are that it would be easier to design a creature, and the creature could be more realistic and scientifically accurate. You could get a number of creature points for each creature, based on STR plus a random roll (to give some more variation between other creature of the same SIZ) and assign costs to various abilities that a designer could pick from. It would also make it easier to add more abilities into latter, since the would already be established. The bestiary projuect was something that grew out of another form members desire to stat out more animals in BRP. I tossed off a few ideas such as correlating SIZ to actual body mass, and using the sqaure-cube law to extrapolate stat scores for similar animals. For instance, being able to work up stats for a Megalossaurus, T-Rexor Gigantosaurs by scaling up the Allosaurus stats in RQ3 using the square-cube law and applying it to the mass. The gave us very good stats, and a method that anybody could use to generate creature stats that were consistent, reproducible and fit relative to the SIZ of other creatures. Oh, and something that could be automated to the point where anybody could name a creature, it mass, and body type (canine, large theropod, etc.) and it would spit out decent stats. I did most of the crunchy math, and simplified it into BRP terms (such as for every change of 3 points to SIZ, STR gets adjusted by 2 points) and put in into a spreadsheet. My partner then collected data on some 1200 animals, and assembled it all into a database that spit out game stats. Later on, while doing more research for the project, I discovered that the method I used to extrapolate dinosaur stats is just what scientists use, only they don't do in in game stats. Unfortunately, the project is currently stalled due to work schedules, but most of the data we have is decent enough to use in play. Much of the underlying thinking, being based on real world physics, would apply to any realistic creature, and make it easier to design new creatures, too. For instance, if you know of the square-cube law, and that it is the relationships between strength and mass, and that the SIZ table in BR is logarithmic, you can work out out that making a creature twice as big would translate into STR+16, CON +16 and SIZ +24. Something that anybody can use to make realtic giant creatures without needing to do the power equation.

I think it will probably kill off your campaign- or at least your PCs! One fundamental difference between BRP and D&D/Pathfinder is with the way hit points and armor work. In D20 systems, hit points increase as the characters gain experience and go up in levels. In BRP, hit points are basically fixe. In D20 systems characters take damage from every hit, with the reduction of hit points representing parries, fatigue and minor scratches-while in BRP , parries and armor are used to prevent damage, and any hit point loss represents a serious injury.In D20 5 or 10 points of damage isn't that much of a threat to a character of moderate level. In BRP 5 or 10 points through the armor will kill, incapacitate and/or maim most characters. Dead characters tend to stay that way in BPR, too. If you let players trade of 5% of skill for +1 damage, I think you will end up with a lot of dead PCs. It won't take much of a penalty to get the damage up to the autokill level.

I went down a similar road with the stalled Bestiary project, and just a couple of things that might help with alien creation. Feel free to use or discard. If you like any of this I can probably help to break it down into point costs if you would like to do some sort of alien life form design method where you could buy things with "creature Points" or some such. In real world physics muscle mass (STR) is 2/3SIZ + a modifier( Based on the creatures body type- i.e man-like, canine, feline, bovine, etc.) This is the "square-cube" law that gets mentioned a lot, and is why creatures of a given type can only get so big. After a certain point the STR of the muscles (or structural STR of the bones for that matter) won't be able to support the weight of the creature, and it won't be able to walk. Note that since this is based on weight, the SIZ of creature would be reduced as gravity increases. So if you had the same sort of creature living on different worlds the one in the lower gravity would tend to grow larger, assuming all the other factors were the same. Basically every time you double the gravity you would reduce the average SIZ by about 8 points. Every time you halved the gravity the average SIZ would go up 8 points. So if colonist brought some cattle with them to live in a dome on the Moon (say SIZ 42 steers), over time they would evolve into something about SIZ 62. . ... INT and STR are have something of a relationship to each other. A smarter species will tend to have a lower STR that a less intelligent species of the same SIZ. The reason for that is because since both creatures are the same SIZ the both have the same amount of mass. If one of the species is smarter it would probably have a larger brain, so it has to get rid of some mass elsewhere to balance things out, and muscle mass (STR) is most likely going to be reduced. This is why a 200 pound chimpanzee would be stronger than a 200 pound human. It also points out that other things that "take up space" in a creature's body would come at the expense of something else. So things like thick fur, claws and teeth probably come at the expense of STR. So you could probably get away with using STR as the "currency" to buy other abilities. DEX tends to be reduced as SIZ increases. The more mass to move the greater the inertia, and since STR doesn't increase as rapidly as SIZ, bigger creatures will tend to be slower and less agile.

Yeah, the BOND RPG was one of the few where that held true. Probably because in the books, Bond prefers a .25 caliber Beretta, -which is just about the weakest firearm available. So in the RPG the Beretta in Bond's hands is usually deadlier that a .44 magnum is in the hands of a novice. Not only will Bond hit more often, but he is going to have much better shot placement. It would be pretty neat to port over the idea to BRP.

i think offensive and unopposed maneuvers would be the same, only unopposed maneuvers would tend to be more successful since they are unopposed. I could see some defensive skill rolls trying to make something happen. For instance, in fencing, an actual parry is supposed to not only deflect the attack, but to knock the attacker's blade out of line.

Crticals would get some sort of bonus to the damage, or if you are using RQ6 style specials, you could add a damage modifier to certain specials. Sorry I didn't mention it before. The variant system I use this with doesn't have crtics and specials per say, but instead uses the EFFECT (difference between attack and defense "tens" digits) to determine the result. Higher totals can be achieved by raising the difficulty (difficulty 2 means half skill, difficulty 3 one-third skill, and so on) of the task. Each raise adds a flat +5 to the EFFECT if the roll is successful.

Instead of multiple tables,how about ONE table, with a description of results/perks gained from the level of success? For instance, things like the time taken up by the skill attempt, amount of information gleaned, complementary bonuses (things like a intimate bonus, or morale bonus), value/HP/AP/damage of produced items, could all beperks that are affected by the success level. Basically you are just reusing the attack-parry matrix, and just changing the results. So if you made the table generic, and listed generic results you could keep it easy to use and GM off the cuff. Then, if you wanted too, you could provide some sample activities and appropriate perks for them. That would also make it easier to expand this latter on in order to cover some other field of activity.

One thing I has considered was adding more levels of success! The James Bond RPG was %-based, and did just that. The numbers were easy to do in your head, too. The best results were 1/10th os skill, the next best 1/5th, then 1/2, then full skill. Pretty much every thing in the game used the Quality Ratings (success levels) to determine the result. One of the things I liked about it, in comparison to BR, is that the damage inflicted by a weapon was tied heavily to the Quality Rating (success level) of the attack roll. That allowed for small weapons to be consistently lethal in the hands of an expert, and big weapons could inflict minor damage on a marginal result. That made damage a little less random, and tied better to the success level. Critical hits and specials couldn't wimp out with a low damage roll. I've considered trying something similar in BRP. Say halve the damage die for weapons and just add another die per success level -either as the defualt or as one of the specials for RQ6 type system..

I prefer multiple levels of success both as a player and as a designer. Pros & Cons? Well more degrees of success allow for more variation in the outcome. It's also handed if you use any sort of "extended" tasks that would require multiple rolls- such as a race. More degrees of success may or may not slow down combat, depending on the mathematical acumen of the players, and if they write down the crtical/special/fumble ranges on their sheets. I can do crtit, special and fumble chances in my head pretty quickly so it's not an issue. But some people have problems doing the math. So I supposed it would depend on your players.

1.1? Shouldn't that be 2.1?

Yeah, but it really ins't Basic Roleplaying. Even Jason said that he wished they would have let him change the name. It's probably the least "Basic" RPG that Chaosium has ever printed. More like Comprehensive Roleplaying. And let's not forget that modern RPGs use larger font's. Nobody's used 8 point font (or smaller) in a rulebook in years. I really think a 30-50 page streamlined version is possible. Especially it if has no setting, or tried to just one setting.

I locwed RQ2, and there are some aspects of it that I prefer over RQ3, but I think Rosen raised some good points. Much of RQ2's popularity was due to Glorantha, (Cults of Prax was a big part of RQ2), and removing Glorantha from the game takes away much of it's appeal. And I'd say RQ3's rules were mostly better than RQ2. I do think a streamlined version of RQ2, RQ3, or a hybrid could work as a alterantive to or as a introduction to BRP. Yes, I know there is a streamlined introductory set of BRP rules, but, frankly, I think that as BRP is closer to CoC/Stormbringer/Worlds of Wonder that RQ, it will strike out with some players. I know I'd be much more likely to run or play RQ2/3 than BRP.

SIZ to ENC conversions have been somewhat contradictory through the variations of D100. Probably becuase they had different ENC rules. To be honest, I don't think either 1:1 or 6:1 works very well. The problem is that SIZ, as a stat, is not linear, nor can you add it directly. That is eight SIZ 10 things don't weight the same as .one SIZ 80 thing. So any conversion of SIZ to ENC won't really hold up.

I think just roleplaying social interaction is unfair to the players- it's limits their character's abilities to that of the players. So a player has to be as smooth, charming and charismatic as James Bond in order to be able to play James Bond. Yet a player doesn't have to be as good a marksman of gambler as Bond to succeed in those types of tasks. Unfair. I think any sort of ability should be assisted by the game mechanics in some way. And since I used James Bond as an example. the old James Bond RPG axctually had some rules to help with social interaction. First off, the GM would make a reaction roll to see how an NPC reated to a player character. This was based on the PCs Chasima skill (similar to APPx5% in BRP) but as it was a raisable skill, we might want to let a PC average the stat roll with a social skill. In Bond the difficulty of the roll varied based on how the PCs were interacting with the NPC -the roleplay aspect (polite PCs tend to get better reactions that jerks), situation (meeting someone at the bar is more likely to give a favorable reaction that meeting someone over a corpse), appearance for those who are of the NPCs sexual preference (hotties tend to get better reactions than uggos, sorry), and what the NPC knows about the PC (that is, if you know the PC is an enemy agent out to get you, it puts a damper on your relationship). The final reaction would determine how helpful or hostil an NPC would be, although this could be shifted in play based on how events play out. In my last campaign, we had one character who had very high Charisma and Appearance ratings, who used to get extremly good customer service from female clerks at hotels, rental agencies, casinos, restaurants, etc. They'd often fawn over him. Even when he wasn't really trying to impress them. That never would have happened with "just roleplay it." The Bond RPG also had rules for persuading NPCs, and for seducing them. Seduction was a 5 stage process that started off easy, but got progressively more difficult. If successful though it tended to improve the NPCs reaction for that particular PC.

Charot, I don't think balancing off stat points with skills actually works. For one thing, you end up with all the giants being inept and all the hobbits being masterful. Secondly, I think a very high skill discrepancy causes more balance problems for the campaign. It becomes a lot more difficult to work out the stats for opponents when one PC has 25% skill, another 50%, and another 75%. Instead of the skill scores offsetting a difference is stats, it just adds another set of discrepancies to worry about. Actually multiple sets, since there are a lot more skills than attributes. I ran (the old) Superworld RPG, which a mostly a point built system, and even though the PCs were "balanced" on paper, they were no where near balanced in play, and I had to be very careful about which opponents to use against a particular hero. I suppose the GM could toss out random stat generation, give everyone 10s for attributes, and a pool of points to buy up their stats and skills using the Powers rules. If someone wants to be a giant or hobbit, it's up to them to buy (or sell off) their stats until they are within the acceptable range for that particulate race.