Atgxtg

I'm not big on fomulatic speed because it doesn't really work. On the other hand rating creatures by an advange speed and giving a boos for a running skill would appeal to me. As for vehicles, that is pretty close to the way the work now, and is exactly what I did with that vehicle plug in that I sent out to some people.

Not really. The MOV number appears to be abstract. If it were a direct relationship the horse would have more like a 15 than a 12. Of course it could be that Horses might be able to sprint at greater that MOV x5 and than x5 might be a canter and that the could gallop at 75m or so. The book is more RQ2ish in terms of MOV.

You get a MOV score. It is similar to RQ2. Humans are MOV 10, and can move at 30m per turn or sprint at up to 50m per turn. Horses have Move 12. Vehicle MOV is a little different. It's abstract, but seems pretty close to kph, at least for everthing except ships. You can but you can go a little faster if you are pushing for top speed instead of combat speed. Some sample speeds: Modern sportscar: 200 Motorcycle: 166 Vintage tank: 42 Modern tank: 83 Jet: 1084

Sure, a few. British Mk I tank (WWI) Armor: 6-12mm = 14-18AP (Average 16 AP) British Mk VII tank (WWI): Armor 16mm = 20AP British Mk IX tank (WWO): 10mm = 17AP British "Whippet" Tank: 14mm (max)= 19 AP German A7V tank (WWI): 20mm sides 30mm front, but not armor grade steel so can probably drop AP by -2 to get 19 AP and 24 AP. (Average 21.5AP) German Panzer IV tank (WWII): 10-80mm = 17-29APs (Average 23AP) German Tiger II tank (WWII): 25-180mm= 23-34AP (Average 28.5) US Sherman Tank (WWII): 19-91mm= 21-30AP (Average 25.5 AP) US M3 Stuart light tank (WWII): 13-51mm= 19-27AP (Average 23 AP) British Matilda II tank (WWII): 13-78mm = AP 19-29AP (Average 24 AP) German Battleship Bismark: 50-320mm = 27AP-37AP (Average 32AP) US Iowa-class Battleship : 190-310mm = 34AP-37AP (Average 35.5 AP) King George V class Battleship: 136-374mm = 32-38 AP (Average 35 AP) US M60 tank (1960+) : 150mm frontal = 33 AP M1A2 tank: 650mm frontal = 41 AP Russian T-80 tank : 335mm frontal = 38AP BTW if we wanted to work facing in most tanks seem to follow a double rule, so find the frontal armor and get that AP rating. The sides are front -4AP. Rear is -8AP, and Top & Bottom -12 AP. Works pretty close for most tanks. Or to simply. If you got the average AP score: Front= +6 AP Sides=+2 AP Rear= -2 AP Top/Bottom: -6 AP

Ah. Thanks. That makes it easy to work with zero.

I've been looking at the weapon damages and AP ratings did a little puttering around and came up with a forumula that seems to fit the data points for armored vehicles. I was wonder how does this looks to people? [table]mm(thickness)|AP 1| 4 1.2| 5 1.4| 6 1.7| 7 2| 8 2.4 |9 2.8|10 3.4| 11 4| 12 4.8| 13 5.7| 14 6.7| 15 8| 16 10| 17 11| 18 13| 19 16| 20 19 | 21 23 |22 27| 23 32| 24 38| 25 45| 26 54| 27 64|28 76| 29 91| 30 108| 31 128| 32 152| 33 181| 34 215| 35 256| 36 304| 37 362| 38 431| 39 512| 40 609| 41 724| 42 861| 43 1024| 44 1218| 45 2048| 48[/table] Note this this would represent modern armor grade steel. Weaker metals could be rates a few levels lower on the table, and some could take a hit vs. certain types of attack (like medieval plate worth 8 AP might be -4 APs vs. modern firearms). This table is set up so that the firearms on the weapons table can just barely penetrate the armor that they can in real life, with a good roll, and not much more.

Are the Handling values going to be similar to the old Handling numbers or Maneuver numbers? In other worlds will a sports car be a +14% or a +5%?Just to get a ballpark figure.

:thumb: The hard part for me as a GM is usually the start of a campaign. Despite often having more prep time adventures are tougher to write, since I'm working in a vacuum. Once a couple of adventures have been played, things become easier as characters make friends, and enemies, establish goals, and run into obstacles. Eventually adventures start to write themselves.

Someone asked this before in the Types, erratas thread. Jasons, response was:

It is a matter of degree. We don't need to do a full scale geogical study an map out the tectonic plates, but on the other hand itf it get too silly it can make it difficult for anyone to take it seriously and that hurts play. Xanth many have it's fans, but not a lot of RPG groups and playing there. Yup. It is just that with mutiple designers finding a map that we will all be happy with will be a bit tougher than if any one of us were doing it. I agree. I'd also suggest we take another hint from both Euproe and early RQ and only deatail part of the world. Not only does it give us that air on mystery and the unknown that we will want for adventuring, but it leaves new areas open for new authors or new ideas. A land mass the size or Europe or an archipelago could serve us well.

Well, sometimes that is the same thing. There is something stage magicians do called a force. One example is to get someone to pick a certain card. The whole idea is to get the person pick the card you want them to pick, but do it in a way that they do not suspect that their decision is being influenced. If done with care a GM can get a player do do what he wants and it will be the PCs own idea. And there are times when the course of events can force players into things just out of common sense. For instance, if the building is on fire it is a good bet that the PCs are going to want to get out of there.

A lot of this is also a matter of degree. Any sort of storyline is going to have certain pre-established elements. While it is possible for a completely chaotic adventure to coalesce into a stroyline, it is unlikely without some deliberate effort. But there is a bit difference between having an orveral stroy arc and planning every "scene" down to exact detail. I hate being led around by the nose. I have no problem with being pushed a little, or better yet. motivated to charge in on my own volition.

THat's really how it works in Pendragon for the most part. Except how you act ends up adjusting your trait. The GM may force a roll for some sort of test of if the player is behaving out of character (like the guy who is greedy 99% of the time manages to walk past the pile of gold without batting an eye, but it is really mostly a tool for measuring the character's traits rather than enforcing them.

Rogue: The computer game that got me and my little dog, too.

Most of which will need to be updated to fit with the weapon rating in the BRP book. I reckon the Ol' West is gonna hafta sit a spell while then folks out at Cal-e-for-ni-ay get the book printed.

I suppose it depends on how silly and what the game world justification is. I wouldn't like it to be silly in game. For example, in one campaign the GM gave us a map and it had a river on it and we were told which direction the river flowed. All fine except the river flowed from the ocean to the mountains. The GM didn't see the problem, but a couple of us players were looking for magic to see what could make water flow uphill. So anything that is different from the way things appear to work to us in the real world could cause some difficulties. I wouldn't mind floating cities in the cloud populated by winged folk, assuming there is a good in game justification as to why those cities can fly--be it powerful incantations or liftwood. If it were supported by a million sparrows flapping away it would put me off. Hmm, winged folk....

Yeah, to some extent I think that should hold true for most things. People can work up a concept and it it makes something important, then that is a reason to include that feature. For instance if someone wants to have a culture of desert dwelling nomads then that is a good reason to have some deserts. Ditto for history. If some people do up some ancient cultures and other do a young vibrant culture then the ones doing up the ancient culture get to work out the history that the newbies don't know about. The other players can chime is as we brainstorm, but history can be treated as "you break it you own it".

You mean like you have to click on the right eyes of the stuffed mongoose that is on the mantelpiece to open the secret panel in the wall that leads down to the inderground dock where the rowboat is that you can take to go over to the island?

Ah, you forgot about the part where you use j equations and multiple the results by the square root of negative 1.

Technically speaking. The original damage for a 9mm pistol was 1D8. someone redid the damage tables for CoC in one of the later editions. I've been considering going with something like STR min =1/2 max Damage. Then modfiying it for using a weapon in two hands, be braced, if the weapon is mounted, etc. Realistically, anyone can fire just about any firearm. The only real problem is how they handle the recoil. The hardest pistol to fire is probably the Griffin, and even a 8 year old could fire it. Might sprain his wrist but he could fire it. Yeah. Especially if you factor in reloading times. Smaller pistols often take a little longer to change clips because everything is so small. Are you interesting in redoing the armor values? One thing to keep in mind that if the damages chance the armor has to change to keep up. DG has higher damages for some weapons like the .50 cal, and that will mean that it can shoot through anything in BRP short of a Battleship. On a more pseronal scale this means that body armor will need to keep pace with the higher values too.

Nope. A linear adventure has a prepolotted storyline that is followed. Players don't "run amok" they are dragged from scene to scene and have no real impact on the outcome of the adventure other that success/failure. If the adventure is about the PCs fighting and killing a vampire that is one thing. If the adventure is set up so that one player WILL lose his girlfied, another his mother, and that the adventure will end with the PCs facing the snarling vampire at four minutes before sunrise, in the ruins of a castle, with a pack of wolves at their heels-that's linear. There is no "running amok" it is all predestined. The worst gaming experiences I ever had with with a GM who had a story to tell and was not about to alter it for anything an trivial as the actions of the players. Nothing illusionary about that. I would point out that unless you have actually seen the guy run, you don't have enough to go on to know if you run the same. I doubt you run exactly the same in any case. Based on your views and statments I'd bet that you don't run the same. No. If the players can have no impact on the course of the adventure there is is inferior. The whole point of an RPG is that the players get to role-play and make decisions and take actions that affect the course of the adventure. If the players can't do more than run around a maze like mice looking for the piece of cheese, it is inferior. If I want someone to tell me a story I will read a book, listen to a CD, toss in a movies or watch TV. I'm not going to sit there with a character sheet and wait to see what decision the GM will allow me to take. And I have been in groups where we were not allowed to do things because it wasn't part of the adventure. Which would imply that groups that are comprised of active thinking players and a GM involved in a creative interactive RPG experience would be superior to leading a bunch of drones around by the nose. Wouldn't it? I've seen both and I know I'd rather not game with the lemmings. My guess is that it is being bothered by something being 1 pixel off from where you want it to be. I think the reference was in relation to the grid on a battle map and a PC standing in the wrong square.The point being that a GM wants to have a lot more control over the players actions that he should. Ironically enough, doing something "one pixel off" and "pixel bitching" was quote common with the lemmings PC games.

Maybe the mass suicide was really a ritual to embody certain members with enteral life (or unlife), and a few Akershule still exist and keep watch over the gate to ensure that what once happened can never happen again?

Anyone from the UK want to comment on this? Or do you lack the synergy? Being someone on a larger landmass... Half the world ancient civilizations sprung up around islands, so I don't think they are a bad idea. Plus some of those Questworld islands were pretty big. If we are dealing with a low tech culture, we could all share one or two islands easily.

Gnarsh has some good points here, The thing with personality traits in Pendragon were that there was an ideal to aspire to, and real game reasons to do so. Actually there were several ideals, depending on your culture and religion. In most RPGs it is very easy to roleplay a valiant or pious person. Likewise it is very easy to roleplay resisting torture. The player isn't having toothpicks shoved under his fingernails. The risks are all intangible. So players tend to roleplay what works. In Pendragon adventures could be based around characters having to past tests, not just of prowess, but of character. And that is what the traits did very well. Many stories simply won't work without something to handle traits. The other thing is that the traits didn't play the character, but the player's actions defined the traits. Unless a character was being deliberately forced to test something by the GM, such as aking a valor roll to face a dragon, the choice was up to the player. Even when the player failed to do something, he could master his passion later. So someone who didn't have the courage to charge the dragon can screw up the courage in a little bit.

There are some people who don't like the opposed mechanic. Personally, I would rather not use D100 for opposed mechanics but use more degrees of success. Basically, with opposed resolution there is really no reason to use D100. IMO it is better to go with a smaller die and modify the results by the Margin of Success. A good point. But the , half/minimum/none version balances this off just as well as a limit and balanced out with the always taking some damage (except on a crtical) where a parry can block all the damage most of the time. Dodge might still be better for 40 and 50 point hits or better, but at that point the difference is minimal. Another method that would work would be to give the attacker the win on ties, unless the defender retreats. Then the attacker could try to back the defender into a corner.