Atgxtg

I know what you mean. A D&D emulator for BRP?:confused: Not to knock any game system, but I don't see the rationale behind this. It would seem to me that if one wanted to have the "D&D experience" one could just play D&D.

No comments, I wonder if that is good or bad? Do people think the car stats look so good that no one has any complaint or so bad that they are not worth trying to fix? Or maybe not many people really care one way or the other about vehicle stats?

Yeah. This was something that was raised a looong time ago in the RQ2/3 era. Basically, in the old days, combat was the primary focus of RPGs and got a lot of detail. Everything else was considered less important, and got a simplier approach (single skill roll). This was also partly because people used to think that combat was interesting, while, say, Craft (Caprentry) wasn't. But if the other skills are considered important/interesting (using carpentry to make a raft to get off an deserted island, or to win some contest) then something more than the single roll could be justified.

I'd say either don't used opposed rolls in the game (it wasn't designed for them), or just go with best success level wins and reroll ties. Even the worst case scenario (05% vs 05%) can be resoleved in 4 or 5 rolls.

No. Not really. A is still going to win on those rolls above 40 where B doesn't roll below 41. What you seem to be doing is considering B rolls above 40 to be autowins for A, when in fact there are still contested. So A losing the 41-80 range for success is got back when B rolls over 40. Now you can say "B wouldn't have won those anyway", but that is incorrect. B only would loose the one where A beat his roll (by rolling a success or rolling a better failure). If B flubs, A wins all of the time unless he flubs. Regardless of high/low. So we need to ignore B failing - it is the same no matter what. If B fails, in either high/low in the event of a tie, A wins 80% of the time.

But there is a point. This is an opposed roll. SO those results will matter in the win loss ratio. Since somebody is going to win the contest, then all the times B flubs the roll still count. It's not like an unopposed roll where a failure means nothing happens. In normal BRP/RQ type rolling, if both characters failed, nothing happened. For example, a failed parry vs. a failed attack. But with an opposed roll, it doesn't work that way. If B rolls an 81 and A rolls an 82, B wins. That is a fundemental difference between opposed rolls and unopposed rolls. Consider the roll high system. If B rolls a 40, A "looses" half his success range there too. Anything below an 40 would be a failure. Okay, specials and crticals still give A a chance, but it is really the same thing as the other way. In fact the high roll wins, hurts A just as much as the low roll wins, since when both roll in the 41-80 range, A just wins, rather than getting his result bumped up to a special as in roll low.

Yeah, but that is like saying roll low is bad because if I roll an 01 you can't beat me. This is essentially the same thing that happens with critical and special successes in the game. . The situation Vagabond uses an 80% vs 40%, with the 40% character rolling a 40 and the 80% character rolling 41-80 is offset by the times where the 40% character rolls over 40. Mathematically there are the same range of results it is just that what the 40% gains in the success range is lost in the other ranges. he total number of results (100^2=10,000) is the same, and each character wins the same number of contests with high or low. Flip it around for a second. If the guy with 80% skill makes his roll, the guy with the 40% skill still has a less than 40% chance of winning. Where it will balance out is the times where the guy with 40% rolls in the 40-80 range but looses because he failed the skill roll.

But mathematically, I think it is the same as roll high. The 40% that "A" appears to loose is made up for when B rolls over 40. It just shifts the percentages from Success vs Success to the Success vs Fail range. I think if we did the win/loss numbers for all the ranges and added them together it would come out the same.

Tried that. It doesn't work, The little buggers are simply too clever, and just roll in the middle. Luck involves an element of chance. Hate does not. So dice that hate you are more constant and reliable (in a bad way) than dice that are just lucky.

Could you give an example? I think what is lost in one success range is probably made up in another.

Some Mook ideas: -You could do what SotC does, and just give the Mooks a rating. For BRP the rating could be thier skill% in whatever skills they are going to use in the encounter. HP could be set to 1/3rd the Mook rating. So a 30% mook has 10 HP. Or if you want weaker mooks, use Skill/4 or even Skill/5. Giving you 7 and 6 hp mooks. -You can treat hoards as one big opponent, adding up the HP, but only getting about a 5% skill bonus per mook. So a half dozen 30%/6 HP goblins would form a hoard with +25% skill (55%) and 30HP. Each 6 points of damage will take out a mook and drop the hoard's skill by 5%. -You can quicken the pace aNd bookeeping by eliminating die rolls for the mooks. Instead, if a PC fails his defense roll (parry/dodge), he gets hit for normal damage. If a PC makes his defense roll he gets through the round unscathed.

Although I know better, I want to believe the "trained dice" philosophy. After years of playing games like RQ and James Bond, I got used to wanting to roll low, and my dice seemed to try and meet my expectations. Whenever I played systems where the goal was to roll high, I didn't do so good. It reached the point where my characters weren't much of a threat if D&D, but none of the other players wanted to cross swords with me in Flashing Blades (a roll low system). Maybe we are subconsciously slecting slightly deformed dice, or using telekinesis?

Many "BRP-like" games also use a roll high method for resolution anyway. With roll high the method works nicely. WIth a roll low method it is counter to the way the crticals and specials work. Personally I lean towards "Low roll wins".

Probably a security precaution. It is easy to put a virus or other hostile program into a zip file or exe and have it activate when unzipped. It's not hard to protect against it, but not everyone knows enough to do so, or how.

Here's a sampler of some cars for BRP. Most of the values work worked out by formulas in the spreadsheet with only some minor tweaking to account for technological progress (or lack thereof) and lack of data (corning ability for early 20th century autos). Cars are sorted into three eras, Edwardian, Vintage, and "Modern.Let me know how the stats look. I've got over 300 cars and trucks in the spreadsheet and my goal is to have stats for 1000 cars for the vehicle rules. Both to test the accuracy of formulas and to give people a lot more options when selecting a vehicle for RPG purposes.

I think you just concisely and succinctly proved ilans argument. BRP is more of a toolkit combining elements for many RPGs rathen that a universal RPG. It probably needs things like a generic Fantasy book, a generic Sci Fi book and so on that can help GMs tailor it to a specfic setting or genre. Gurps, Hero and and other genrric systems do something along those lines. For us BRP junkies, it's not a big deal, since we've been running the system for decades, but it is probably a bit confusing and overwhelming for a GM new to the system.

I know what you mean. For vehicles I thin Papyrus might look a bit too archaic. I need something modern for things like cars, planes and spaceships. So I'll try something like Futura LT or Eurostyle and see how they look.

Glad to hear, uh, read it. BTW, In the threat I started for vehicles/cars, I did a table that correlated horsepower and kilowatts to STR using 1 hp =108 pounds/1 kW- 65kg and the SIZ table for correlation. I might tweak it a little, but It seems okay for most of the stuff I've tried it with, including some mecha designs of my own and even one suit of powered armor, although I really had to use torque instead of power for truck STR scores (otherwise those 212hp, 1500 ft-lb big rigs end up as strong as a 4 door sedan). I'm curious if you did something similar for your mecha write ups. A lot of the anime series give out technical specs for the mecha in real terms that could be correlated that way.

Any suggestions? I tend to learn toward Futura Lt, it's clean and easy to read, but I wonder-what would be a good font for a vehicle sheet?

That might help, although personally I consider Elric! to be one of the weaker more flawed versions of the game. I all depends 'heavily) on your style of play and preferred setting. Since BRP is a generic system trying to "touch base" with a lot of different settings/generic can't help but go off in several directions. The same is true of it's fans. Those who have a lot of experience with the system have an idea of what they want and can play "mix 'n match" with all the optons to get what they want. Unfortunately, that makes the game somewhat less accessible than most of it's predecessors.

Gestault?

That is one of the problems with BRP. A lot of people who are familar with the system from years past, don't need to real the rules, and so tend to miss details about how the game actually works compared to how it worked in the past. IT was aa big factor in why "BRP Zero" had some flaws that no one noticed during the playtesting. All the GMs "knew" how the game worked, and didn't have to read the rules. I suspect most of us long time RQ/SB/COC players do it.

You7re welcome. I'll try to do an improved version. I'd like to use the same font as in the BRP core book, but I don7t own them. Maybe I caqn find a free font that is similar.

Just letting everyone know that I put up a Vehicle Record sheet in the downloads section. It'S nothing fancy, but it is a vehicle sheet.

Complete? Good question. It will probably never to truly complete, as I don't plan on statting up every vehicle ever created. I will consider it "complete enough" when I have all the conversion formulas worked out, and when what I consider to be a suitable sampling to ensure that the design formulas are good enough to use. To some extent what makes a "suitable sampling" varies by vehicle type. The way I look at it, most people won't be running a lot of RPG adventures on Battleships or Carriers, but nearly every modern era PC will have some sort of car or truck. So I'll be satisfied with a dozen or so Battleship write ups but will want significantly more car write ups. I'm at around 200 cars now, should hit 300 by the weekend, and have yet to sink my teeth into the "typical" cars like Chevy, Ford, Honda, and Toyota. I should have a nice sample of Edwardian and Vintage era autos written up, so this might be of interest to Call of Cthulhu players. It never hurts to have a fast car in that RPG. I'm hoping to be able to upload some car and truck conversion guidelines and a spreadsheet that people can just plug in the data and get game data. 've got a sort of master list for cars that does just that, and it makes it a lost faster to stat out a vehicle, if I can get all the data. No doubt some vehicles might need to be "tweaked" here and there, but the spreadsheet does most of the work. As fas as the formulas go, I am fairly happy with what I'm using for ACCeleration, and Handling, but I'm not sure exactly where to "cap" the Handling formula. Also I'm not quite certain about the progression for Rated Speed. It seems to start off as 1/10th MOV, but at 10 switched to square root or so, but drops off at higher values. What I got is good for cars and trucks, but not for anything faster. I also need to work out the armor and hit point formulas. I've got some ideas using the type of frame and body-for instance a car with Ash or Fiberglass will have a lower armor rating, but it isn't ready yet. I've done some work on the aircraft stuff, and barely touched mecha or spacecraft. P.S. I did up a quick vehicle record sheet and uploaded it to the downloads section.