Atgxtg

For example, a SIZ 12 rock is 75kg. But a rock with twice the mass (150kg) would be SIZ 20 (base 12 plus 8 for doubling). A rock 16 times the mass, or 1200kg, would be SIZ 44(base 12 plus 32 for doubling four times).

Yeah, it does. What you are failing to see is that water is heavier that hydrogen or oxygen. If you look at Earth,m we have no hydrogen to speak up. Yes, we have a lot of water, but any free hydorgen would escape the Earth gravitational pull. Look up Minimum Molecular Weight Retained to see what I am getting at. It is why all the big planets are hydrogen gas giants.

Yeah, but it isn't just oxygen you have to worry about. As the gravity increases the planet is able to retain lighter elements, not just oxygen. So Nitrogen-CO2 becomes less likely. Eventually you reach a point where the planet is mostly hydrogen.

That's one way to cow your players into behaving.

I7d say just go with SIZ by mass, and ingore the old 1 SIZ = 1 ENC thing. That would give you SIZ 13 for a man (SIZ 12 for 75kg), SIZ 126 for a 180mt blue whale, and SIZ 5000 or so for a Iowa class Batleship. Not too bad. Of coruse, if we stuck with the doubling progession the whale would be around SIZ 102 and the battleship SIZ 167 or so. Numbers that would be quite usable for Supers yet still big enough to illustrate the differences.

Well, technically it isn7t the same game, but rather a series of similar games, most of which have died.

That actually isn't such a bad idea. It is what they do with die rolls for stats. Reminds me of a short lived campaign I ran. The Pcs had robbed a dragon, and it hunted them down. The dragon breathed fire at one PC, mised and wound up hitin they guy hiding behind the bushes. The player was a bit miffed and argued that he was hidden and that the dragon couldn7t see him. It didn't see him. It thought that it just fried a bush.

Mostly, messed. Up. From around 8-88 SIZ follows a doubling progression, where x2 mass = +8 SIZ. The problem is that past that point it usies an increasing scaleuntil it become linerar at SIZ 330. I did do up a expanded SIZ table that could help in converting any SIZ to a mass. It is on the board. I also got one for converting SIZ by Volume, ut it won't give you the same value as by mass, unless you are dealing with something of the same desnity as humans. Part of the difficulty with vehiclsis that Jason chose tofactor down the SIZ of big vehicles to try and keep the numbers small enough for supers to interact with. IMO, what was should have been done was to use the SIZ table from Superworld, rather than CoC. That way it would scale up perfectly. It would solve most of the SIZ problems, too.

That is a two tier system.

One of the reasons why I used airships was that there are actually quite good for this sort of setting. In a Nitrogen-Co" atmosphere, air would be a lifting gas, so any enclosed structure would be viable as a flyer. Carbon fiber frames and skins and pumps that would fliter air out of the CO2 would have a lot of advantages as a colony vessel. It is almost the idea vessel for such a setting. But, what am I doing? I should kep my mouth shut and write up Adnex as a game setting! BTW, Be careful how big you makeyou planet. Since you prefer a hard SF setting, you should be aware that as the size/gavitiy increases, the minimum molecular weight retained is lowered. So a big planet could hold oxygen or other lighter gases. A ntrogen-carbon atmosphere would suggest a low gravity.

Hey! You thief!! Swiping my Adnex setting!!! . I'm going to half to be moe careful with my emails! [quoute] ...which Earth had before oxygen producing algae developed. Theoretically the carbon dioxide would be somewhat toxic, but someone attempting to breath the atmosphere would suffocate because of the lack of oxygen long before the carbon dioxide could do any significant harm.

Not quite. At least not in either of these cases. The VHS/Betamax war was won by the rental porn industy, the Blu-ray, HD-VDV war is in "wait mode" with many sitting on the fence to see which side gets the best support. With RPGs I doubt the standard free market economy model even applies. By the standard business way of looking at things, neither BRP nor Legend are worth supporting. Too much time and money going after too little market share. Heck, BRP shouldn't even exist if you look at this from a business standpoint. I hope not. Because then we'd probably end up with a D100 that is heavily influenced by D&D, which probably sell more product over a long weekend than BRP or Legend will over a year.

Okay guys, I7ll conceed to the 21 limit over the 18. I failed to consider the extra 3 points in the rolled method. As for stats 30+, they require specific approval by the GM, and are designed for epic/superhero campaigns with a "larger than life" aspect to them. I7m fine with doing so for such games, but thaose are hardly the standard. I still say that for a realsitic game (and that was pretty much the default for Chaosium games) STR shouldn't exceed SIZ beyond a certain amount. Smoking Frog, I didn't say that players shouldn't get anything they want. Just that they are not entitled to something just becuase they want it. There is a big difference there.

Yeah. Or at least a few differernt points of view for determing just where the "too complex" line is. I7ve actually have most of the above in various states of readiness, and a few other things that could be adapted to BRP. For example, I have a vechile design system that I wrote up for an entirrly differernt RPG (one that is fairly rules-lite and not very "crunchy") but it could be adpated to work for BRP by swapping out game terms. It can handle anything from sailing ships to futurstic spaceships, and might make a good "lite" vehickle design system for BRP. You wouln't get as much gradulations between vehicles as you might with a more complex method, but the final design would be just as usuable in BRP terms s one donme using more complex methods. P.S. Once we are testing out any conversion, modfication and design rules, any playtesters could also help by statting up more vehicles. I7ve got several hundred vehciles mostly statted up on spreadhseets, but there are obviously areas that I failed to cover with enough examples. Just ask (or blame) rust about SWATH ships.

Well, for starters, look at the caulaty figures for combat. You will see that the majoirty of people who get shot, survive the battle. And that includes those hit in the chest with bullets from assault rifles. This kinda touches upon what I mean about damage being too tied to bullet type/weapon. In the RPG an assault rifle does twice as much damage as a medium pistol, regardless of who is uning it or where he target is hit. If real life, rifle bullets often over penetrate the target. The whole thing isn't quite as linear as the game mechanics are. .

Actually it is limited to lower than that. Usially 18 (the max you can roll). And raising it above that is hard, and the upper cap is 21, not the cap during character creation. And my point is that character do have limits imposed on them. So there is nothing wrong with this limit. If I wanted a game with a character like Conan, I'd probably just allow the players to dip into the super power rules. So Conan might have a few points of SuperSTR. I would if I were not running a Supers game. I'd also complain if the building didn't fall apart when he lifted it to, unless it was a supers campaign.

No, Dreji's right. it is Howard. They guy wasn't a big tough guy, and seemed to be somewhat fixated on heroes who were tough and strong. Not all pulp heroes are that way. I'm not even sure if Doc Savage could pass Howard's physical fitness requirements.

Can be good. Competition isn't good of itself. It can be good or bad. For example, look at how standardized formats for video players is better than several competing formats.

Well, an "on" switch would have helped.

I think rust is right. The orignal game system was not designed to do all the things it has been adapted to. That it help up as well as it did is testament to how good a system is is. But each of the various mods and spinoffs done were to adapt the system to a spefic genre or seting. None of it was really built for mixing and matching. Also, over the years, various authors have "shifted" the emphasis of the system. Orginally RQ was simulationist and a bit "crunchy." Then it gone simplfied into BRP, and Worlds of Wonder. After that, CoC trimmed the rules down even further, andbecame the model for Chaoisum post RQ2. So the game doesn't fit toghet the way it would if it had been designed as a genric RPG from the group up. There are a lot of options, variants and alternate rules culled from various ancestors that don't quite work well together. Some things do work well together, and some others come close, but not all of it. And yeah, he system is showing it's age. In part becuase nothing really innovative has been done with the system in the last 25 years.

Thanks for all the info and opinions. Lets see if I can put this all together and see if I can come up with something that should cover most of what people want. Fee free to let me know if I missed something. 1) Guidelines for stating up real world vehicles.Why? - It is heck of a lot easier for most of us to look up data on a 1977 Porsche Boxster 986, take the 240kph top speed and convert that to a MOV of 267 than it is to take a 1420 kg car, throw in a 150 kW engine and figure ouit what the top speed will be. -Some people will want stats for existing vehicles for specific campaign settings. For instance, a 1920s CoC campaign would need stats for more than one car. -Having some guidelines will make it easier to "eyeball" other vehicles, including fictitious ones. If you know your custom car is about as fast as a Boxster, you got a way to get a baseline MOV score. -It gives up a common frame of reference to work with. That way one guy's writeup of a particular vehicle will have stats pretty much the same as another guy's writeup. That way each GM doesn't have to worry as much about who wrote up what and. -Many vehicles in Sci Fi, Anime and Comic books, are given real world data in order to increase thier level of verisimilitude. Thius any guidelines that work for real vehicles should elp with imaginary ones. For example, if we know that an Avengers Quinjet is listed as having a Take off weight of 29000 lb, a top speed of Mach 2.1, and a total engine thrust of 36100lbs, we could use the guidelines to get game stats like this: Quinjet Skill: Pilot, Rated Speed: 50, Handling: +5%, ACC: 12, MOV 2858, Armor: 6/2, SIZ 72, Hit Points: 70, Crew: 1, Passsengers : 5 -Some consistent guidelines would give people to check up on game stats that look odd or are Obviously a typo. So if some idiot author (who I shall leave nameless to avoid self incrimination) gives a car an ACC of 87, anyone can look up the stats and work out if an 8 or 7 is the correct value. 2) Some sort of vehicle modification rules. Why? -So people can customize things so they can do "road warrior" or superhero stuff. A simple way fopr people to figure out what happens if they add an inch of armor to thier car. 3) Super-vehicles. Basically, a way to modify vehicles using the super powers. I see a couple of options here. This isn't too tough. We would just need to work out how some powers might apply to vheilces. Increased STR could up the vehicle's MOV, DEX allpy to handling and so on. -First off, players could simply spend anyof thier hero points on thier vehicle. -Secondly, characters could make some sort of skill roll to add some points to a vehicle. The more points the vehicle has, the harder it will be to modify. 4) A compendium of Vehicle Stats. Why? - Whatever is already written up in already available for use. GM's and players don't have to do the work. Especially useful when you need stats during play and don't want to stop play and waste time to get the stats for a Porche. -The more vehicles that are written up, the more data points we have to use as guidelines for new designs. 5) Vehicle Design/Construction Rules. -This would allow us to write up stats for any sort of vehicle. -Ideally, I think a "front end loader" approach would work best. What I mean by that is, like with some computer programs, there can be more than one method for designing vehicles, but all the methods would give similar (if not identical) results. That way we could have a quick and simple method for those who don't like a lot of complexity, and a more detailed method for those who want a higher degree of control and accuracy. -The front end approach also ensure that the end user can be shielded from some of the math required. If we want to get decent stats, we need a method that is somewhat grounded is reality. At least for modern vehicles. Otherwise we risk "garbage in/garbage out" results. 6) Spaceship Design Rules. -This should be generic, but capable of being adapted to any Sci-Fi setting, including Star Wars or Star Trek. For rather obvious reasons we can't do a Star Wars book without the rights (at least not if I hope to get this thing published). But with a good design system and maybe a Star Wars "plug-in" it should be possible for someone (even me -Like the front end approach above, the spaceship stats should be the same/compatible with the other vehicle design stats, but thet could be stramlined to reflect the needs of Sci-Fi, and other stuff could be dropped, or simplified. For example, we probably wouldn't need spaceships of every SIZ value and could assign SIZ by type/function. . 7) Cargo capacity, passenger accommodations, range, whether or not the vehicle has headlights, and other"fluff" data that could be useful in a game. Naturally, there must be some sort of cut off point to the level of detail. While I'm all for knowing the engine's power, STR rating, and how much weight something can carry, I don't want to get so involved as to work out the number of cup hiolders something has. 8) Rudimentary Weapon Design Rules -Not much sense starting up WWII era tanks if we don't have the WWII era tank guns to go with them. Does that look good?

I was wondering. Just what sort of Vehicle rules do people want for BRP? I know not everybody wants them, and that's cool, but there are those BRP fans who want something to cover vehicles, spaceships and such. Pretty much every other "universal" RPG has rules to cover this sort of thing, too. Plus, like any other set of rules for BRP, those who don't want them can just ignore them. As some are aware, I've been toying with conversions and design rules for awhile, but I am curious as to what sort of vehicle rules people would like to see. There isn't much point in wrting something if nobody wants to use it. So, I'd like some input. Just what do people want. And how detailed do they want it? Would a list of prestatted vehicles help?

Grab a box of treats, and toss him asnack whenever you want him to perform that trick. Works great on animals and students. We have one guy in our group who can total up dice really fast. And another guy who takes forever, and as often as not, getsit wrong. Guess which one is the engineer. But the thing is, most of the time no one really has to do the math. The really low rolls and high rolls are easy. So there are only a few cases where you have to stop and figure out if a roll is a special or not. For instance, for any skill with a success chance of 43% or higher, any roll below 10 is a special.

Sure there are. Quite a few of the tables are flawed, and in some places the text contradicts itself. It is just that most of us are so familar with the system that we don't even need to read the rules most of the time. And what bugs there are can be easily dealt with by a competent GM.

And the math was brought up in response to the argument that the 5% and 20% math is "too hard" to do on your head. Anyone who can do 10% in their head (and that is what the pro 10% side say they can do) should be able to do 5% or 20% in their heads as well. Rusts case of the scientits doesn7t even factorinto the debate, since she probably couldn't work out "10% of X" in her head in the first place. It's not a case of asking the lame to walk, but one of asking people who can figure out 10% thier heads to do 5% and 20%. Buut, I guess it is a lot like asking the blind to see.