Atgxtg

Silly me, that's right it's D&D. In my current Star Wars campaign, it took awhile for some players to realize that killing people and taking their stuff is not accepted behavior, and is in fact, punished under the law. Actual dialog: GM: You can't kill people and steal this ship and possessions just because they attacked you. Player: But, we're the good guys!

That was one reason why the merchant class rose like it did. Only the bankers really understood how their system worked, and the nobles could just stare and scratch their heads. Generally every time something was exchanged or curries converted, the banker made a profit. Probably the simplest solution is to just give the merchant a % mark up, modified by skill rolls, and Degree of success. Someone posted something like that back on page 1 or 2. One thing I used to do for fun every so often was to have a group go to a different world that used a different price list. I've seen D&D groups react when they found themselves on a world that used RQ, or Pendragon pricing and the PCs realized that they were fabulously rich. Usually about ten seconds after they try to buy something and see the shopkeeper choke when the PCs pay in gold instead of pennies. It's kind of funny to watch. In 1086 the Domesday Book estimated the annual revenue of Britain at something like 73,000 pounds (gold pieces) and the PCs are walking around with 3 times that. One guy got himself landed and proceeded to pay the taxes for all his peasants out of his own pocket.

I think you are on your own here. My suggestion would be to use the Octopus charts, and steal points from Head and Body to add the extra limbs. How about the Wrym? There is also one used for Hawks How about the Dragon? [quote=Foen;29516 Is there an official BRP source for this, or is it an area where the official rules are giving some freedom to the GM?

Probably too little gold around for the to have done so, anyway. This changed only in the High Middle Ages, when the merchants of Florence and others began to build their "trade empires" that handled a sufficient vo- lume of goods to make payments with gold coins reasonable. But even then the average citizen did rarely see a gold coin and would have found it a night- mare to try to spend it, because hardly anyone in town would have been able to change it. One of the reasons why the trade empires did develop was that more gold was being "discovered" (looted) in the New World and brought back than existed in all of Europe until then. Values changed a lot over time, but as a very rough estimate a tiny gold coin with a weight of about 3.6 gram was the equivalent of two monthly incomes of a normal labourer ...

What probably works about as well as anything for a medieval price list is Harn. It's got as much detail as you want or need, and varies things depending on where you are. Pendragon is another good one to use, as is RQ3 (more or less). Of course, people probably would not have that much coin and use barter. Where most fantasy RPGs blow it is that they tend to greatly devalue the money, equating a gold piece with a dollar, pound, make or other modern denomination, and go with a modern price scheme. it would be like buying a big ticket item today, and paying for it in $1 bills (or dimes).

Except how can you pay for the bag of holding in the first place? Run a D&D campaign and enforce carrying capacity and the weight for coins and watch what happens. Do it in AD&D and it's hysterical. The problem is that D&D imposes a fairly modern price structure, with things of values going for thousands or hundreds of thousands of GP, without modern methods of payment, like paper money or credit cards.

In the AH Version, the full tables and HP breakdown are at the back on Book 4, Creatures.

I don't need (or want) an economic system that will stand up for scrutiny by Adam Smith, but I do want something that is basically sound. Fantasy RPGs tend to be the worst. You either have a setting where everyone is rich with tons of money to throw around, or one where nobody can afford to buy a loaf of bread. Or, as in the case of D&D, both. D&D economics are usually good for some chuckles. Mostly becuase PCs are expected to spend most of thier money on magic items, with the prices of everything else being almost an afterthought. Since D&D hand's out thousands of gold pieces on a typical adventure, and uses real or exaggerate weights for coins (AD&D's 10 coins to a pound), you literally ended up with massive problems becuase gold wasn't worth it weight in iron, or wine. Do any sort of trading and the game breaks down under the weight of logistics. Again, I'm not asking for perfection, but I would like my character to have a way to cart around the money to pay for that +3 sword and armor when I get the chance to buy one.

I suppose the approach would depend on the nature of the campaign. For a campaign where PCs move around a lot, to lots of different lands or planets, the simple model works.If, however the GM is trying to detail an area, then the economics start to play a factor in the development of the campaign. One concern is just how good the economics of the game are to begin with. If the game's ecomony is shaky or doesn;t make sense to begin with, trading just makes it worse, putting a spotlight on the flaws. I once ran a "sensible" D&D campaign where I underlined the silliness of the D&D economy. A lord wanted to buy some plate armor for his knights, and: 1) The plate cost more, pound for pound than gold 2) The cost for the armor would bankrupt the nation, let alone the lord. 3) Paying for the armor was impossible, since transporting it would cost several times the value of the payment.

It's a great idea. I know afew RPGs that base the time to perform a task on the Degree of Success. So maybe a failed roll means a lot of wasted time and not as much work got done. That's what happens on those TV "find a wreck" shows. Somebody dives to the wrong spot, and they waste half the dive just navigating to the right spot.

It just a question of mathematics. Even with 100%+ skill, a character in BRP will still fail 5% of the time (96-00). If all failures were serious ones, 5% of all take offs and landings would fail. driving to work would be sucicidal, and most arms manufactures would be sued out of existence. Assuming that your players are going to be making a lot of swim/SCUBA/Hardsuit skill rolls while interacting with the environment, the mathematically effects of mutiple rolls will make it very difficult for any mission to succeed. For example, lets' say a group of 4 PCs got to leave the colony, do some work, and return. They each have a a modfied skill over 100%, and the GM says that they need to make three "Dive rolls" each. At a 95% success chance per roll (the best possible in BRP), each diver has only a 86% chance of being successful. With 4 PCs the odds drop down to 54%. So nearly half the mission will fail. And that's with the best possible divers. Drop down to mere "experts" with 75% skill, and the chances of success are down to about 3% . Unless the colony's profit margin is obscenely high, it would quickly fail and the settlement abandoned. So I think you are either going to have to cut down on the rolling, or on the consequences for failure. Personally, I'd probably limit "scrub the mission" type failures to fumbles, and assume failures just mean some sort of minor problem. Like a guy wastes a few minutes adjusting his suit, the hatch gets stuck, he gets disoriented, the stupid light doesn't work right and so forth.

You can't get enough of a good thing. I don't blame Triff, I blame the gremlins. But, since no one's written up BRP stats for gremlins, we can't beat them.

Considering how often even experts fail a roll in BRP, maybe a simple failure shouldn't be so bad as to end the dive. When I watch divers on TV, something always breaks, but the divers can access the situation and usually continue on with the dive. Most "failures" that I see are little annoyances that are more of a obstacle or hindrance than a mission ended. Maybe you could put things on the table like "loose your knife", "ballast falls off -10% to skill", "a fish gets curious and starts following you", "flipper fell off, try grabbing it before it floats away", "do something stupid, dolphins laughing at you, again", or "mask fogged up, vision impaired until cleared."

Yes, I know. I was just quoting how it works in CoC: The Bermuda Triangle. Like I posted earlier, in the real world, a diver might not even being showing symptoms for several days. I also think the diving penalties might be a bit high, as well.

Yeah. Somewhat. In a nutshell, if you get DCS, it's fatal unless they get you to a decompression tank. End of story. Where you've been down to 80 feet for 2 minutes or 130 feet for 2 hours makes no difference as far as the effects go. The 80 foot dive is safer, and has fewer penalties, but get DCS and it pretty much an autokill. I suspect that in CoC, it doesn't matter mch, since characters are rarely lucky enough to die from something as ordinary as DCS. In the real world symptoms might not even show up for several days.

The 2D6 roll, as listed is just how long you have to transport the guy to a medical facility before he dies. It has nothing to do with what state he is in during that time. With all the lovely symptoms that goes with DCS, our lucky diver may have several "oh crap" moments and might indeed have to make a roll (CON?) to avoid losing consciousness. Cosniding what's in store for him, he might very well wish to pass out and avoid some of the pain and suffering.

Yeah. What CoC did was list the reasons for the roll. So going to differnert depths and back required SCUBA rolls, with the risk of DCS. Other reasons for a Swim/SCUBA roll didn't necessarily result in DCS. Oh and CoC did use a SCUBA skill for this, not swim. Fair enough. In CoC DSC was automatic if divers didn't spend the required time at depth on the way back (like say if they got spooked by a deep one or great white shark). They had to be sent to away for medical aid or die. What you could do it treat DCS like a poison (nitrogen poisoning!), with a delayed effect. Perhaps every hour the character must roll against the poison. or lose 2HP. Success only losses 1. The POT could be the duration (in hours). Just brainstorming here. I suspect rust's colonists have enough brains to have decompression chambers, and possibly a hi-tech medical method of removing the excess nitrogen from the bloodstream quickly and safely. Hmm, to be honest, I'm surprised the colonists don't make their colony a little more buoyant. At 10-25m or so they could avoid all that nastiness. Lower a pressuring diving bell, elevator to work crews on the bottom (or send down robots). But then, if they were sane, they wouldn't be colonists.

I'm not so sure that's a good idea. First off getting the bends (decompression sickness) is due to staying too deep for too long, or ascending too quickly, and is a factor of skill rather than CON. Someone with a high skill, would not the proper procedures and be able to work out the right time at depth. Someone who is just healthy is any less likely to get the bends.He might be better able to survive the experience, but that is something else.

CoC's Bermuda Triangle Supplment had some rules for diving. I'll see if I can find them.

It doesn't have to be the same as before, but it would be nice if it had some character and looked less generic.

Homebrew is fine. Even something like Classic Fantasy done't bug me. The author is quite upfront about what CF is and what it is attemting to recreate. What CF doesn't do is call itself RQ. MRQ1 claimed to be something that it wasn't. It claimed to be RQ. It was RQ as reivisioned by D&D players. But then, I'm the guy who posted on the MRQ boards that the authors of MRQ1 could be noted as the Seven Mothers.

I've got one or two RPG projects I threw together for a 6 year old. Let me know if you want to take a peek.

So what new wondrous features will the new forums have ?

I think I had it right the first time. While I like the idea of a skill based system, I don't agree with the concept that people get better at bleeding to death (or the opposite, getting better at not bleeding to death). When MRQ was first proposed, a lot of us RQ fans got very enthusiastic and hoped MRQ would be a great RPG, with little to no evidence to support our wishful thinking.When it was released most of us dropped it, some played it but admitted it needed work, and some die-hards (I used the term Mongoose fanboys in the past and stick by it) considered it the best system ever and defended every rule, flawed or otherwise, until those rules were errata'd and then the replacement rules were defended as being just as perfect. The weeks spent and flak taken just trying to explain to the fanboys that the game was not supposed to be played according to the rulebook (and that was official) amazed me. While I have hope that MRQ2 will be better than MRQ1, in fact I'll say that judging from Loz's and Pete's previous work its not possible for them to write something worse without deliberately trying to mess up, I still prefer to be cautious about the game until I see it.

I'm not so sure about that. I haven't read MRQ2, so I can't make any comparisons. From what I've seen from the character sheets and previews, there is still a lot of MRQ1 stuff in this that I don't like (Resilience, Pestilence, opposed rolls).