Atgxtg

There is a film trilogy remakeo UFO in the works. If it will be good or not is still anyone's guess. And on the RPG front, I have played around with game stats for both series in BRP and EABA. I even posted one or two very early attempts at writing up an Eagle transporter on this site. I wonder what those liscenses would cost for RPG purposes?

I'm the opposite. I think it is a great system (at least the ones where Columbia didn't rewrite Crossby), but I'm not really sold on the setting. I think it would have been better if it wasn't a hodgepodge of Medieval, Roman, Viking, and High Fantasy.

Oh, I can't complain much about Harn's prices and economics. It's fairly good and internally consistent, which is more than can be said for most RPGs (there is a thread around here where I noted how silly some most system's economics are).

I think it's age is part of the issue. The other venerable system mentioned have all been in print and supported for the majoirty of the last 2 decades. BRP hasn't, outside of CoC, BRP products have been sproadic, and often recovered old ground (Strombringer/Elric! probably didn't get 4 supplments out before they's print a new edtion. So to the average gamer, BRP is some RPG that they have not come into contact with much, are are not familar with, haven't seen much for it on the shevles, but might be dimely aware that it was popular back when it was called RuneQuest, before they were born. In other words.... ...it's your daddy's RPG!

There are some similarities between the two, but overall Harn has a more comprehensive list. The two price schemes are not quite the same though. I'd suggest checking them over carefully before implementing. You might be better off just using Harn Prices for everything rather than mixing the two, or else you will have some minor problems with the differences in swords, armor and other stuff. As for Harnmanor, it is good, but might go a little overboard in the running of the manor. You actually get down into determining just how much land to plow, what exact crops to plant, and works out yields to the bushel.

Well the system hasn't really changed much since it's creation. The biggest changes have been turning from increments of 5% to a full D100 range, and the paring down of the system from RQ to the original BRP. Even D&D has gone through more radical changes that BRP. It's hard for people to consider a game system as new when it has been around for over 30 years, especially when it is probably older than the majority of gamers.

Be very careful with invention-especially in a historical/fantasy setting. Prior to concepts like Cause and Effect or Scientific Methods of discovery, advances in technology were few and far between. Often a very simple idea/invention would have revolutionize civilization if somebody had just bothered to think of it, but is is a lot easier to do this sort of thing in hindsight. For example, one big technological breakthrough, the one that is partially responsible for the end of the feudal age and the beginning of the age of reason, is the horse collar. Very simple idea: A horse can plow land faster land than an ox. Problem: The ox collar didn't work on a horse (it choked the horse). Solution: Design a collar that would work on a horse without choking it. Today, a problem like this might take a long weekend to solve. The solution is so obvious (design a new collar) that it springs to our modern minds right away. Yet historically, nobody managed to come up with a solution until around the 14th century! Or at least, that is how long it took for the idea to catch on.

Have you seen Wagon's East?

That reminds me of my old AD&D days. I had a character who died (and was brought back) frequently. So frequently that that group had to use a wish to bring me back from before I died the first time (to reset my CON). During one adventure (Inferno?) we went into the lands of the dead and encountered Death. Now we were supposed to make saves against fear, but before the DM could say anything I had my character walk over to the chessboard, move a piece, and walk out through the far door saying, "Your move, Charlie. See you in a couple of days." By the time the laughter had died down, the DM decided to give my a "by" on the fear save, as by then I had no fear of Death.

TRue, but that doesn't jusify your claim that "Dodge reducing damage by a fixed amount is fine." One thing that I think isn't fine about it is that a fixed amount makes dodging more efective against rapiers than great axes, as the latter do more damage. In fact it's counterproductive. Big nasties ike trolls and dragons becvome undoagable due to thier high damge dice. The biggest factorin how effective an attack is should be placement. But since in BRP THE Major factor is the weapon being used, a fixed mount dodge just makes dodging more effective againt ligher weapons.

I don't see what is unfair about a dead character staying dead. That is how it works practicaly everywhere else As for how you are handling it, well, it's a method. I'd suggest just simpllifying the cost with Death to a Spirit Combat. It would save you a lot of work. RQ had rules for rasing dead characters, up to and including divine intevention. Returning from the death was possible, but made difficult as the spell was Rune/Divine Magic, and there were limits.

So that's what the flashing red light on my keyboard means!

But I got two! Even in Mister Apoc was just a temp thing. Not that I used it as a secret ID or anything. And that was by request in order to save the Earth from immanent destruction.

Yeah. The CON thing stemmed from the fact that in the old days of RPGing CON was the only stat that affected hit points, damage capacity or poison resistance in any way. RQ sort of set a new standard by adding SIZ in, even if it was only a minor adjustment (unless you were dealing with big creatures). Personally I'd like to see CON evolve more into health and recovery, SIZ into damage capacity, and POW into the ability to function while injured (the ability to keep fighting after being hurt is far more mental than physical.)

I don't think the threadlock was needed. the thread never really got heated. There were a couple misunderstandings over the use of mild profanity, but for the most part that settled down once that was cleared up. Conrad might have gotten a bit carried away, but it wasn't like there were massive flame wars going on. Most of us have learned to disagree peacefully a long time ago. (A good thing too, considering how often everybody else is wrong around here! ;D)

Not necessarily. For example, for years most people (and many reviewers) would classify the film Hilander as a Time Travel story. Just because those people didn't understand what a flashback is, doesn't mean that the story should be reclassified as something it isn't. Why not? They both have a lot in common, including the lack on constants, and how previous experience affects future performance. The problem with multiple skill rolls is precisely the problem that exists with multistage rockets, too. Whick does not change the fact that the woruld wan not flat depite what the majority believed. Most categories are not created and defined by a majority, but by a active minority. In RPGs in particular, it is usually an active minority of fans who keep a product line alive (D&D excepted). So any product needs to find (not necessarily target, just find) its own niche. But I think we have irreconcilable points of view on this topic. No harm done. We just disagree.

Unless there was some sort of add that kicked in. In RQ2 this might have meant HeroQuesting. Or, it might have applied to battlemagic. I'd have to pull out my RQ2 book to check. No. The rule was that the limit was Min+max. So a dwarf that rolled 2d6+6 would have a min score of 8 and a max of 18 for a max possible CON of 26. (min+max or 8+18) That is why adds made such a big difference in the old system, and probably why the "min-max" formula was dropped in RQ3. Yup. And that was a potential problem in RQ3. In actual play it was a non-problem as the training time to accomplish such a task is probably longer than a halfling's lifespan. Especially since most of the training is going to have to be dome though the less reliable research method (they are no humans who have trained thier STR up 10 points).

I disagree. I think the 3D6 CON made sense. If you look a real world animals, there is noting to indicate that a horse or bear is any healthier than a man. In fact, horses are, in some ways, much more frial than a human. The problem is that CON reallly should play a bit factor in a creatures ability to soak punishment. That is mostly a factor of SIZ and physical structure. Personally, I think the reverse of the RQ2 method with SIZ being primary is more accurate. It should work that was for poisons, too. One thing that CON should play a factor in, but doesn't is in Healing Rate. In RQ/BRP a guy with a higher CON takes longer to heal from a broken arm, becuase he has a higher CON (and thus more HP). Frankly I think the healing rate should vary with CON.

There was a time when 90% of the people thought the world was flat. That didn't mean that it was. One big problem I have with "majority decision" s that in our modern, highly specialized society, the majority of people lack sufficient knowledge of the subject matter (practically any subject matter) to make a correct decision. In my field, if we were to go with what 90% of the people at a assembly plant believe, any and all electrical problems are "shorts". Or, hitting on something we all should be able to graspe, D&D must be a better game than BRP, since the majority of RPG players believe so.

It is besides the point. Something is correct regardless of how the majority interpret it. Most people would claim that 2 + 3 x 5 = 25, and most people are wrong. What most people would recognize as SciFi, isn't (most "sci-fi" films and TV shows are, at best, only part time SciFi). All campaigns/stories have a setting. That does not define the genre. Looking back at my "cure for cancer" idea ealrier, that would be set in modern day. The setting isn't defining the genre. SciFi stories can occur in any setting, provided that the story allows for the existence of science. The reason for the confusion is because most people don't know the terms used to define/classify a genre. They see spaceships and say "sci-fi". They see someone running around with a sword and say "fantasy". Many terms, such as Horror and Terror are used interchangeably when they actually have different meanings.

I suspect you make a "rule crossover". Since there are several similar but not identical sets of RQ related RPGs (CoC, Stormbinger, Elric!) it is very possible (and easy) to see something in one system and accidentally port it over to another related one. Especially since 90% of the rules between the systems are compatible. I know I've done it with BRP a few times.

Interesting. Considering that a lance charge has roughly the same (or more) energy than a .50 MG round, and that a "Sniper rifle" in BRP does 2D10+4, I think that the 1D10+3D6 damage is probably the better result. But then, I generally prefer RQ3 mechanics to BRP right down the line. RQ3 is much more internally consistent than anything Chaosium has released since.

Much the same way you would deal with a fantasy or modern game. You describe some details of the campaign to the players and see if they are interested. Keep in mind that SciFi isn't a genre calssifed by setting, either. You can run a SciFi adventure in modern day, or even a historical setting. For example, imagine if the Romans had traded with the Chinese and discovered gunpower.

With the exception of the roman/novel connotation, it is much the same over here. "Romantic" literature, music, etc. used to have the same sort of meaning as your "Romantik" stuff. Only now most uses of "Romance" are of the love affair variety. If you were to drop the phase "Scientific Romance" in a conversation, most Americans would probably think you were taking about computer dating or some such.

I think the RQ3 stats, much like the BRP ones are designed to cover a wide range of horse types. For specific breeds or types, I'd consider reducing the varible and using a higher fixed result. If I recall correctly, the RQ number match up better to the real world weight for horses. I might take another look at doing up the breed/types again. See http://basicroleplaying.com/showthread.php/1742-Animals-and-Training