Atgxtg

Well if the miracle alloy was very strong it could be fairly thin, and lightweight. In fact, it could conceivably be easier to swim in that a T-Shirt, since it wouldn't soak up any additional weight in water. Funny thing is, there are a few material of the drawing board today that could do it, but they are not metallic. In real life though, anything that flexible would leave BB badly bruised from bullets. The armor would keep them from penetrating flesh, but not stop all the kinetic energy. Maybe BB discovered Vibranium? It's got all the right properties.

Offically normnal armor is considered to protect against kinetic damage only, although some of the rules for fire let armor metal soak a total amount of damage equal to it's rating (before becoming too hot to soak any more). A houserule that I've been toying with is to allow armor to work at half value against other types of attack-modified by what common sense I might have (i.e. metal armor wouldn't be too effective against electricity).

I did just that awhile back. Basically what I did was assign bite damage based on the creature's SIZ, shifted up or down by diet (carnivores have teeth designed to rip flesh). It worked pretty well, and matched up pretty closely with the creature stats in RQ3 and BRP. I can dig up the table if you'd like. Roughly the max damage kicked up 2 points for every 8 points of SIZ.

Ah, okay. My bad. I tend to miss things when I post while sleep deprived. The basic differences between scales mostly translate into trade offs between granularity, usability, and preference in the rating values. If you make a change to improve one factor, it will probably impact on the other factors. All games have a "sweet spot" where they are designed to work in, and tend to break down when pushed too far out of the sweet spot. It helps to know just where the sweet spot is going to be when you design the game. It all breaks down to what you want to do with the game. That sets the parameters and helps to point out what features to emphasize. My desire to get rid of attributes is mostly due tot he fact that in most RPGs a single attribute point doesn't mean much, and most characters tend to have a bunch of average attributes that have to be tracked but which do really mean much. For instance, there is very little difference between a 10 STR and an 11 STR in BRP, or in most other 3D6 systems. It usually takes a change of several points to make a significant difference. The same with damage bonus. So getting rid of stats and just assuming an average value unless otherwise noted saves a ton os stat tracking and helps with playability. Random character creation isn't necessarily incompatible with this approach either. Instead of rolling random attribute scores you could use table to assign traits and skills.

Do't feel bad. It's hard to follow a lot of this without some sort of context. I had a partne who was pretty good at math, that I used to bounce this stuff off of and he would often (usually) fail to follow it until we put it into some sort of context. So on that note let me put this into some sort of example. Just to show the way the LOG system works as is, lets set up some sort of tug of war between some characters. Let't start with the Hulk. According to Marvel he can lift about 100 tons, more when he get's angry. In the LOG system that would be about STR 5.0 (5d20+0).Iron Man,used to be listed as being able to lift about 80 tons (it tends to increase when the armor gets upgraded) so around STR 4.9 (4d20+9). That illustrates what I mean about the limitations. of the scaling system. There is only a 1 point difference between them. And no way to differentiate someone like Capitan Britain at 90 tons. Now if we assume an average human can lift 65 kg (STR 11 in BRP) that would give him STR 1.8 (1d20+8) in the LOG system. Now it's pretty apparent that an average man has little chance of holding his own against the Hulk. But there is a slight chance that the Hulk could roll very poorly and end up with a total low enough that an average man could beat.

Oh, and just to threadjack this a bit further, my latest game design attempt has ditched attribute scores. Instead I made the attributes advantages (if high) and disadvantages.(if low).The goal was to eliminate a lot of the bookkeeping (like tracking 10s and 11s).

It's not so much a flaw, as a limitation. The coarser the scale, the coarser the "steps" in ability. For instance, with the LOG system a +1 is about a 26% improvement. If someone is only 5 or 10% better than someone else, it is too small a difference to merit a +1. Going to a D100 log system would let me track 2% steps, but would be more cumbersome. The LOG system could work just fine for arealistic, gritty setting, It's just that the stat range would be compressed. That means that there would probably only be a 3-4 point spread in most stats between the PC heroes and the average Joes. That would probably have the effect of making the system more...gritty and realistic! Is a variable scale possible, uh, yeah. All you'd have to do would be to use an increasing exponent. The SIZ scale for BRP doesn't actually do that. It mimics that,l but it doesn't follow an actual formula past SIZ 88 or so. An increase scale would also make the values much harder to work with to do math shortcuts (that's one thing I hate about RQ/BRP- wish they stuck with the Superworld SIZ formula!) Hmm, you got me thinking. Looking at it the way you suggested, I think you don't really need to adjust the scale at all - you could just increase the amount needed to adjust the dice rolled. What I mean by that is that it is the difference between the opposing scores that is important, not the actual scores. .So I could give a default roll, say 2d20, and then increase the size of the increments needed to get an additional +1 (or an additional die). But is is also possible to just use smaller increments. For instance, instead of using a base 10 LOG, we could use 10&base2 LOG. That would actually give us a slightly finer granularity that we get with BRP. Or we could use 8*base2 LOG and get the same granularity as (and and easier correlation with) BRP. There is actually quite a bit that can be done with the mechanics for the LOG system, since most of the system is based on real formulas and data. So as long as the method is applied consistently, the ratios will be correct and the system will still work. For instance, We could use multiple d6s or d10s instead of d20s. We could even do something like use a log based formula to get a % score that we could use as a success chance. 40%*LOG gives a scale pretty close to the SIZ and resistance tables. Hmm, let's see, at 40*LOG an 4g ant would get a SIZ/MAss roll of (-)96%. We could use some sort of bump method to handle an opposed roll here. For instance we could add 100% to the ant (giving him a 4% success chance) but bump down it results 1 success level.

I doubt the 1500 PSI figure. Other sites list their bite force at closer to 400 PSI. One major reason why I can see wolves having a lower db is that their mouths are not as big as say an alligator shark, and The wolf isn't able to get that much of its mass behind the bite. At least not to the same extent as an alligator. According to http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f48/top-20-worlds-strongest-animal-bite-forces-new-2393047/ the wolf has a bite force of 406 PSI, the American alligator 2125 PSI, and crocodile has the strongest bite force measured at 7700 PSI. The same site lists the African Lion at 691 PSI (the weakest bite force for any big cat) and the Bengal Tiger at 1050 PSI (Ouch!). But I think the reason for the reduced db is that the animals' full db is excessive compared to the results against people in the real world. In BRP a 3D6 or 4D6 db is pretty much an autokill, yet in real life people do survive such bites much more often than they would a 4D6 db. Likewise wolf bites aren't nearly as effective as a broadsword swung by an average man. .

Probably because most animal's jaw muscles, while powerful, are not as large as their other muscles and therefore not at strong. Plus most animals are not carnivores, and their mouths are not made to attack with. Also, a lot of critters get their damage increased but drop their db entirely. This is typical for smaller animals that would normally have a negative db, and so wouldn't do any damage by the rules. Small dogs, cats, and hawks are some examples. . As far as the rules being consistent, they aren't. But then, realistically, real animals are not "consistent" . Alligators have an tremendous biting force for thier size, while wolves do not. What you kinda need to do is look at the animals by their niche/function and body type. For instance, alligators are semi-aquatic ambush predators, while wolves are pack predators that chase their prey. So the alligator needs a killer bite attack, while the dogs need more intelligence and endurance.

What? the LOG system? I was really fond of it for design purposes as well as for ease of generating game stats. It was very easy to write up vehicles using real world data and working up top speed using (POW-DRAG)/3 or (STR-DRAG)/2. What was also nice was that for task against a fixed force, such as lifting a weight, the difficulty could be fixed instead of rolled. So a 50kg rock would be difficulty 17 to lift. And I always though it could be fun for handling a microverse type of game where the character shank down to insect size. -3d20 of mass brings a 80kg man down to 80g, and should drop STR down by 2d20. So humans would probably be beating up most insects, thanks to the square-cube law. . One of the bad bits was that on a logarithmic scale human attribute range is a pretty small spread. Each point of attribute is worth about 3 points in BRP or most 3d6 systems. It was probably a little bit too generous to the underdog. An average human (rolling 1d20+7) probably has a better chance of winning a tug or war against a horse (rolling 2d10+7) that he probably would in real life.

Yes and no. I had a scale but it was logarithmic. Matter of fact that was one of the things that was killing the effect system mechanic. It just didn't stat out well. I had a nice logarithmic scale game system I was working on that seemed to hold up better, but was d20 based, not percentile based. They that worked was the game stat was equal to the base10 log of the value. The whole number was how many d20s you rolled, while the decimal value was the add. For example, a 50kg barbell would have a stat of 1.7. That would mean rolling 1d20+7. A 65 ton M1 tank would have a stat score of 4.8, translating to a 4d20+8. That system had a few advantages. . For one thing anything that could be measured in SI (metric) system could be easily stated up. Opposed tests were easy. Also, the stat score was also very close tot he average score (17 is about the average roll for 1d20+7, and 48 is almost the average roll for 2d10+8). It was also easy to shift scale. You could shift the scale up or down a factor of 10 just by subtracting or adding another d20. I also liked it because I could do a lot of math tricks with it. For instance, I could design vehicles using the actual real world data, and work out like top speed using the real world drag formula, which was a lot simpler in logarithmic form.

You haven't quite got it. The EFFECT die is the 10s digit. The LOCATION die is the one's digit. So there is only a 1/10th chance of the defender rolling the same location as the attack, but a reasonably good chance of bumping a parry over to the right location. Going with your example, let's say the attacker rolled a 50. That would mean a 5 EFFECT hit to location 10 (the head). Now if the defender rolled a 68 parry (6 EFFECT, location 8) he could burn two points of effect to shift the parry to location 10. Since he would only have 4 effect left to block with, the defender would end up taking 1 point hit, or a partial parry.

Yeah 2 & 3 were mutually exclusive. The reason being the way Pendragon works. Each round the winner of an opposed weapon skill roll gets to inflict damage on the loser. Since the winner could change on any given round, no one was ever really on the defensive in Pendragon. There were a few special maneuvers such as the Berserk Attack, and Fighting Defensively, which did pretty much what you suggested, but no one had the upper hand per say. Generally the sp[special options were chosen in play based on the circumstances. Berserk was good in you thought you could soak the other guys attack, or if you were greatly over-matched, since the attack was unopposed. Fighting Defensively was usually a good stopgap measure to use when you could double or triple team a foe. The guy being attacked could fight defensively while his allies could do the damage. What I was trying for was to actually force someone to be on the defensive for a few rounds or so, until he worked his way on to the attack. For example, someone with a weapon that had a significant reach advantage would generally start off of the offensive, since the opponent couldn't hit them. Said opponent would have to try to knock the longer weapon out of line and step in close, but do if before the attacker recovered. That's where effect came in. A defender would need to use a difference in effect to knock the weapon aside, and to step a pace (=yard/meter) or two (1 EFFECT for 1 pace). It actually worked out pretty simply in play. I could make the character move dynamically in the fight instead of just standing still and trading blows. One of the other things I was toying with was uisng the hit location for parry rolls. The hit location table looked something like this: 1-2 Right Leg 3-4 Left Leg 5 Abdomen 6-7 Chest 8 Right Arm 9 Left Arm 10 Head For example, if the attacker rolled a 56, he would hit location 6 (chest). To parry or block the defender needed to get his weapon to location 6. If the defender rolled a 83, he would "burn" 3 points of EFFECT to move his parry from location 3 (Left Leg) to location 6 (Chest). Now, if/when the defender had any EFFECT left over he could spend that to do stuff like a sidestep, beat the attacking weapon aside, and so on. . Shields had a spread or radius of locations they covered, such as +1, meaning that they could parry attack is within 1 of the location they rolled. So someone using a shield who rolled an 83 parry could block any attack from locations 2-4 automatically, and only needed to burn 1 EFFECT to shift to locations 1 or 5. It made shield feel like shields.

Uh which aspect. Now I'm confused. As far as my variant went, the basic idea was that I used the 10s digit ion the die roll, and added modifiers to generate an EFFECT score which was then used to buy whatever results the character wanted (and could afford). I was trying to decide between 3 combat systems. Alternating attacks (such as most RPGs use), a winner is the attacker method (like in Pendragon), or an advantage system (one of the combatants has the advantage, and is on the offensive, which the other character is forced to defend until he can find some way to gain the upper hand, such as from a good parry or sidestep).

Okay. I guess we just disagree. Funny thing is, I didn't consider Chargen to be all that bad. It was the insane number of tables. You couldn't tie your shoes without having to flip through the books to find the right table. I remember making an 11 page GM screen, and that was for MERP. And that wasn't quite big enough! Oh, and yeah, the various options were often incompatible with each other. Some things weren't bad ideas (smoothing the stat bonuses, and altering the stealth bonuses for elves in RM), but the e3nd result was a mess. Virtually every part of the game system had a variant of alternate.

Need? No. But there there is no need for just about any game mechanic. That doesn't mean that there is no value to such a game mechanic, though. It mostly boils down to what you want out of the game system. In this particular case, I wanted a way to allow for things like crtical hits while factoring in for skill rating without having to use a table, or track a specific range of values. .I was also trying to streamlining the die rolling process by eliminating the damage roll. Everything was just measured in terms of EFFECT. Oh, and results other than inflicting direct injury were achievable with EFFECT. Basically EFFECT was a sort of currency used to accomplish things. Disarms, trips, locked blades could all be purchased by spending effect. In the magic rules, EFFECT worked kinda like how Intensity worked in RQ3. A spellcaster would generate EFFECT and any amount over that required to cast the spell could be used to augment the various aspect of the spell such as range, damage and duration.

LOL! Hardly streamlined. It was so cumbersome that they made several attempts to try and streamline it. Arms Law was kinda neat, but the full RM system is anything but streamlined. And there were so many alternate and variant rules that the BGB looks simple in comparison. The MERP version was more streamlined, but in odd ways, since the Arms Law stuff wasn't hard to run (just swapping out tables).

In Top Secret SI the way it worked was the damage inflicted in unarmed combat was equal to the 10s digit on the attack roll. That is if the roll was successful. For example a character with a 79% skill who rolled a 74 would do 7 points of damage to location 4, but if he rolled an 80 he would miss. Weapon damage was just a variable die roll. For my variant I wanted to keep the link between the attack roll and damage so I changed the variable damage die roll to a modifier. So someone with Sword at 79% using a sword with a +1 damage modifier, would do 8 points of damage to location 4 on a 74 result. Where it got cute in my variant was with the raised difficulty. Someone with a high skill score had to try more risky, powerful maneuvers to take maximum advantage of their skill- and that increased their risk of failing the roll and "zeroing out". For example, let's say we had a character with a Sword skill of 180%. In my variant he could roll and make his sword skill rolls all day, at normal difficulty. But if he were to raise the difficulty to level 2, he would halve his success chance to 90% (180/2=90) but add +5 to his effect when he was successful. This gave him a much higher effect score, but at the risk of failing the roll (rolling over 90) and getting a zero result. Since if an attack hit and how much damage inflicted was tied to the effect and the difference between both sides it made things interesting.

No Ringworld in the BGB. For the most part the BGB is based off a the streamlined RQ ruleset used in games such as Elric! and Call of Cthulhu. Most of the crunchier bits from RQ, or it's realted systems were discarded.

Yeah, that's RoleMaster. Basically, you'd roll % dice and add your skill and try to beat a target number - typically 100.

The mechanism I used was from TSR's Top Secret SI. For unarmed combat, the 10s digit was the damage and the 1s digit was the hit location. What I did was expand the damage to apply to all damage types. I just added a modifier to reflect weapon adjustments. For example: 1d4 = -3 1d6 = -2 1d8 = -1 1d10 = +0 2d6 = +2 2d8 = +4

I did try to complete change the way BRP works with a skill roll variant. What I did was use the 10s die as the "Effect". That would mean things like damage inflicted, how long an effort could be maintained, how many items juggled, etc. But that was done instead of the usual criticals, specials and fumbles. A failure had a zero effect, regardless of what was rolled on the tens die. Higher levels of effect could be achieved by raising the difficulty (i.e a normal difficulty was raised to hard, cutting the success chance in half, but adding something like 5 to the effect if successful).

Yup. But then I wasn't trying to completely change the way BRP works. Frankly, I'm not fond of your variant for several reasons: 1] It makes attributes too important. A beginner with high attribute scores will give a master with poor attribute scores a pasting. That just isn't right for most skills. 2] It would need to be extended to handle characters with attributes higher than 18, and will causes problems with handling big tough creatures due to their higher attribute scores. 3] Some character cannot ever fail (or do poorly) if they have high attributes. For instance, someone with a 18 INT is going to be fairly good at speaking French, even if he never heard it before (skill 0).

I did something awhile back where skill categories were used as the base chance for skills. It simplified the math for determining starting percentages without eliminating the effect of attributes on skills. For example, in BRP, Knowledge skills use the INT modifier (twice), so in my variant KNO skills have a base score of INTx2%. I also used the categories as modifiers to improvement rolls, similar to RQ3.