Atgxtg

Not really. You just need people to look at the whole picture. I think a lot of this stems from the fact that RQ was not orginally desined with tanks in mind. I think BRP has a bit of a problem becuase of superpowers. Basically a 40 or 70AP tank works just fine in the game, until you get to a superhero. Generally superpowers probably don't scale up damage dice to the 20D6 point needed to be able to "fight" a tank. Likewise criticals and impales were developed with sword and spear in mind, and foes wearing armor a few milimeters thick, and with exposed areas. Not for something with a couple of inches of armor.

Referred sure. But as far as how a rule would working BRP, no. You can't just expect anyone who buys the game to either own or go out and but a previous Chaosium product to look up a rule. Yes. It was just that it would be wrong to put a "minimum requirement" on something without stating somewhere what that meant. YEah, but not much. Virtually anyone can pick up and hold a rifle. Even the Barrett. We're not talking about lugging around an M2. I'd be more worried about STR in requires to burst fire than with a sniper rifle. Thats really the only place where low STR could be dangerous. Than and perhaps elephant guns, but a lot of that is covered by skill. BVy that line of reasoning, why pull out a rule book at all. If I wanted to houserule everything I'd buy from Mongoose. Likewise, nearly every topic raised on this forum could have the same answer. "Houserule it." The idea of a forum is to express different points of view and interact.

That is just what I was thinking of when I was working on the vehicle design rules. But, the thing is with the way the implae and crti rules work, it means that rigfles, heavy pistols, and SMGs can also kill those old tanks. While there was a 7,92 mm anti-tank round, most small arms couldn't hurt a tank. Well that's from CoC. It's alittle low, but only because of the higher powered weapons. There is a problem with impales and shotguns too, but they could be spot ruled. The iplae system was designed with semi flexible armor over a soft human as opposed to several inches of RHA armor over a steel chassis. I'mm thinking that for armored vehicles (as opposed to cars and trucks) you can only get the effects of the special if the weapon could penetrate the armor normally. THat way only the .50 cal and other big guns could hurt even a vintage tank. How about a spear, 18 points gets though the armor and does DB. Or a lance charge against a vintage tank. Very few die immediacy, most die a bit later from blood loss. It isn't quite as quick as you might think, either. In a way, the power of the 50 cal works against itself as far as killing humans. It tends to go right through and so dumps the minimum energy into the target. 9 points being survivable depends a lot on which rules set you are using. 9 points with hit locations is a lot meaner than 9 points without. And the 3 die bell curve, combined with impales kick up the lethality well beyond reason. Not all changes for accuracy would bog things down. Some other changes become a question of trade offs. Some things that some people consider very important other don't.

Here's one for the folks with BRP Zero. Does BRP have rules for stunner type weapons? I'm working on a Sci-Fi setting, and was wondering what the baseline rules are, if any. So far I've considered: 1) Match damage vs. Hit Points on the resistance table 2) Roll damage is greater than HP target is stunned 3) Give the target a roll (HPx something) to resist 4) automatically stunned (per CoC) If there something in "zero ' about this.

Sounds like Spirit of the Century. Depending on how skilled your PCs are you can get away with thingk like 10/50% Mooks and 12/60% mooks quite easiley. Even a +5 or 10% pile on bonus for mutiple attackers, instead of the normal method. So 4 10/50% goons would get one attack at 80% (50+30) and one guy would drop for each 10 HP of damage (or major wound). Simple, but it works for the genre.

Well that sounds less that useless. I would assume that the word minimum would mean something. There isn't a sidebar option for what to do about it? Errk. Hold the phone. RQ and SB don't apply. If we are talking about possible problems with BRP we need to stick to it's rules. If the game says minimum STR/DEX without any guidelines about what to do about it, then yeah, the requirements are sort of required. TO prevent whatever the penalty for being short might be. I agree here. The Battet uses extensive prting, has a lot of recoil absoption and is fired braced on a bipod. Technically, I don't think any small arm should have a STR minimum. Anybosy can pull the trigger. We're I'd see the peanlty would bein terms of recoil and response time. A guy with a 5 STR might get the second shot off a few DEX rank slower than a guy with a 15 STR. Maybe. But overall, yeah, firing a Barrett from the ground is easier than firing a 30-06 or a .357M standing. Probably something like: STRx1.5 is used 2 handed +5 STR if braced, bipod, etc. +10STR for tripod. If you want to go there. About the only weapons that I can see where it makes a differecne are the large caliber hunting rifles. Even then it is more a matter of precieved recoil rather than actual recoil.

I disagree. If you look at the trend to towards lead by the nose adventures, you will see that it goes hand in hand with certain games. I haven't seen many, if any D&D adventures that weren't linerar. Nothing by TSR, nor by WotC. FASA adventures for any of their RPGS were very linear, too. Probably the majority of RPG sceanrios are. Some companies did put notes about running things differently, but there were (and still) are the minority. But I don't see linear adventures as a change in "good old gaming", more like the resurgence of "bad old gaming". I'll point the finger at D&D more that other RPGs because there is so much stuff out for it, and practically all of it is linear. If most of the D&D stuff is linerar then by default most adventures are linear.

Yes, but not much. One reason why this is a problem is that RQ didn't use opposed skill rolls. Dodge was restrcted in RQ3, making it undesirable, and Hide did have a special case. One of the old advantages of a successful Hide roll was that it required the Spot roll to be noticed. Otherwise the defense would see you automatically. That helped to balance things out.

One thing about the central issue here is that while specfic stats might be "more than the average gamer wants." The effects of the damage values chosen will have an effect on how the game plays. Weapon damages and APs really go hand in hand. So altering one should have an effect on the other. So if someone were to intrduce a new weapon damage table, the AP vales would need to be adjusted. For instance, in CoC 2" steel plate has 19 APs. InBRP a VIntage tank has 18 APs. A reasonable conclsuion is that vintage tanks have a little less than 2" of armor, or that they have more, but of lower grade steel. Now, since 2" steeel plate will stop anything up to a .50 caliber bullet the damages should be such that those weapons can't kill a vintage tank. But lets toss modern firearms out the window for a minute and just work with gold old fantasy weapons. 18Aps means that a guy with an axe can chop through a tank's APs. So it is all interrelated. Personally I find Delta Greens damages excessive. With BRP's fixed hit points, a weapon that does 2D10+1d8+6 is practically an autokill. Likweise a 9mm pistol really doesn't do more damage that shoving a spear into someone's stomach. Swords, separs, and axes are actually just as deadly as firearms. A lance chart is actually more damaging that a .50 caliber hit. More energy, more mass, more momentum, and it doesn't drop off after the initial contact. So all the damages should be alternatives to each other and the armor and hit point ratings. As long as the number compare well to each other, there shouldn't be a problem. Changing one set of values, like going with Delta Greens gfirearm damages, means rethinking the others.

Yeah. The neutralization thing woks in games with finer degress of success., or where the margin of success makes a difference. But since BRP has 80% of successes being "Average" there isn't much distinction. Maybe the idea of a partial success might work. A partial sucess in gamlbing reduces how much the other gun wins, or reduces the amount that you loose personally. That is the missing component from the Pendragon system, and parry sort of works that way already. IMO the D100 system handles opposed rolls so poorly anyway that O think it would be best to either dumped opposed rolls completely or switch over to the Pendragon method completely. Or the rolemaster D100+skill high wins method.

Neither term is complementary. Neither was the context of the responses. Both were more along the lines of a knee-jerk reaction to someone criticizing the game. By not liking the tables the fault likes in Zane and his friends are somehow at fault.

THE MRQ situation is exactly what I'm worried about. The desired effect seems to be that you subtract, but on a tied success level, the winner of the opposed roll gets a normal success. But I just want to be sure I'm interpreting it correctly.

That's what I would think, but just wanted to make sure. The concept, seems to match that I saw on a BRP site where a successful parry turns a crtical hit into a special. THe fix seems to be to specify that if success levels are the same there is no downgrading. Otherwise about 80% of the opposed rolls will be tied failures.

Okay, so let me see if I got this right. Two characters are having an opposed test. Say Gambling. Let's say both have a 70% skill. The first guy rolls a 26, the second a 54. Now by the rules of oppositiong the second guy win the resoiltuion by rolling higher, yet under his skills. Then his success gets downgraded to a failure since the first guy did succeed. Is that how it works? :confused:

Nothing sexual in to caress lovingly? Yeah, right.

Well, there is always the original meaning of the phase. Originally, master was a rank for trademen that showed that they were capable enough to handle the various aspects of a task. Hence terms like master locksmith. Or Master baker, MAster Archteict. The main contention was that anyone with less ability was still studying. That interpretation does seem to fit well with the skills going over 100. But that is (yet another) a valid interpretation. How does that work when the success levels are equal. One guy wins by an opposed roll and then gets downgraded? Does success vs. success get downgraded to a failure? :confused:

Accepted and agreed. Zane could have been more tactful. But the gun fnlding crack was over the line. All it does is to beg for a resposnse about what you have (or lack) to fondle. Even if Zane were the President of the NRA (in which case he should have spoken up more on the Planet of the Apes thread!) he doesn't deserve a personal attack. And the gun-fondling crack makes it seem as if you believe they are some sort of deviants for doing so. Most gamers aren't interested in the fine points of an implaed weapon, active defense, or BRP in general. I think the important part is what your take is on these things. We are all in a minoirty RPG community anyway. No, because CoC only competion is what? Superworld and Nephilim? All RPGs where standard combat dynamics are not an issue. No I didn't offer a counter argument. First off, I don't have a reason to arguem with it. Secondly, I think it sidelines the original question. Anything can make sense in a supplment. Especially for a game that by it's nature is going to gloss over a bunch of stuff. I am focusing attention on what I consider to be the issue that requies it. A insulting comment that was unecessary. I have no problme with people disagreeing with Zan about this issue. I know I have. Even exchanged private emails over it. But if we are going to start insulting people becuase the focus what we consider too much attention to one facet of the game, then why single out this guy. THere have been long raging debates about magic systems that didn't spark accusastions of people spending too much time playing with their wands. Or one of the many other points od disagreement on this forum. We really don't want to go down that path, do we? Cheers, Nick Middleton

Let's see if I can clarify. "Fondle" is a term used meaning to hold and caress, with strong sexual implications. Typical used in terms of fondling one own, or another's sexual organs. As you are not a native English speaker, I can understand how you could miss that. But that is why Nick's and Tweakers comments were, IMO out of line. Frankly the "only xx fondlers" argument can be thrown against any topic. In fact it was regularly thrown against RQ by D&D fans back in the day. Those who thought that parrying, disabling injuries, and doing strikes in sequence rather than simultaneously were often regarded as kooks who got way to much into detail. From what I've read, Steve Perrin wrote RuneQUest because he felt D&D was too abstract. All Zane did was post a question to get people's reaction to the firearm damages. He diudn't deserve to be called some sort of deviant for simply posting a thread.Sure, he could have done it better, but nowhere is his post does he do worse than question Jason's familiarity with firearms.

You know, folks you could have said the same thing to Zane without being defensive, rude and insulting. I.E. Irrelevant. D&D has sold more copies. Should we all switch to that? And CoC is the RPG that is the least combat oriented out of Chasoium's line-up. Bullets don't work on most mythis creatures, and PCs usually get eaten rather than shot. 1D10 bouces as well as 1D8. was completely uncalled for, and frankly inexcusable. I by the way, don't like how pistols and rifle bullets can impale a tank. Guess I'm a tank hugger. I see the trend is now to attack the pseron rather than his position. and ) Meanwhile, other fans of the game, without the same interest in guns and their effects - or not so knowledgeable in this respect - yawn and continue discussing their campaign ideas and actually playing, possibly even finding the system highly enjoyable in all other respects despite the wimpy weapon stats... Implies that since some people have fun with the game, that there is no problem. Well, then eyerytime you guys complain about something, you deserve the same treatment. There are people out there playing and enyouing every RPG-even Spawn of Fashaan. The man asked for people's take of the gun tables, and didn't deserve to be treated that way. You could have said "I like them", or "they're fine", or "I was a bit disappointed, but can live with them" as several other people managed to do without being insulting. Id you didn't like how he phased his question, then mention something about that. But don't get insulting about it. And for many reasons.

You probably never will get firearm damages that work well with the hit point system. THe main difficulty lies in that since firearms really only do a relatively small amount of damage, it is the placement that is they key factor. Not in terms of leg, chest, but in exactly where in the leg or chest you get hit. There is a good deal of "bang you're hurt, bang-bang you're dead" with the way damages and hit points intereact that will always throw off firearm damages. For example that 2D6+4 damage for a bolt action rifle gives it one shot kill percentage of over 50% once you factor in the specials and criticals. THat is absurdly high. In the real world you only see firearms hitting that level when being held by experts and being specifically aimed for maximum effect.

But the frequency of the strangeness will be a factor in how acceptable something is. I've seen some RPGs that handle firearm damages rather well. Deriatives of RQ/BRP have generally not been among them. In part due to the fact that firearms have been something of a sideshow in those games that had them. Most the monsters in Call of Cthlulhu are highly resistant, as as superheroes and villians.

I think we are mostly in agreement here. I never liked the old dungeons where the party would have a massive fight in a room, only to open the net door and surprise the (apparently) deaf monsters who had faired to notice all the clashing steal, shouts, and bloodcurdling screams of the battle. So I'd say linear "pulled around by the nose" adventures are really a relic of the old days, not a new wrinkle. I think the problem is that as a certain RPG that is noted for linear adventures has had a resurgence, so has some aspects of that game that were better left in the dustbin. That the linear module approach is the easiest to write and run has a lot to do with it's longevity. Especially when you consider that a large percentage of DMs don't write adventures but prefer to buy something pre-written.

I've found 3G gun values to be decent. EABA ones, with alittle ttweaking can work for BRP too. THe big issue is that BRPS damage system (hit/damage./drop dead) doesn't mirror the real world very well, and guns brings that under the microscope more than swords and axes (we don't have to many axe fights anymore). THe real world chances of killing someone outright with any firearm is slightly higher than nil. Giving them an injury that will kill them sooner or later is, conversely, slightly lower than 100%. Any damage tables won't match up well with the hit point system. Even worse, the difference between hit locations and general hit points is such that the effects are about 30-40% more severe with hit locations.

I'm not surprised. I think that is really what most of the long term BRP players are going to do. We might bend for specfic settings. We might use certain spot rules for a superhero or Sci-Fi game that we'd never use elsewhere, but I don't expect a big rush to convert over from what are using now to BRP. I've seen some of this with posts, and from personal experience while writing stuff up. I had at times designed something one way for compatibility while I would run it a different way in my own campaigns.

There is actually some real world justification for that. Originally SMGs were designed to fire an bullet that was an intermediate cartridge more powerful than a pistol, but not quite up to rifle standards. This idea had made a comeback lately, too.