Atgxtg

Well, that just ruined MacBeth? "Is this a dag- Hey where'd the dagger go?!" Is there a bladed weapon that does 1D6 or 1D4+2 like a bokdin or a dirk?

Yeah but the "margin" method makes it not worth rolling in cases like that. It pretty much become high skill wins unless low skill gets a crti or special. I think that to some extent it all depends on just how you imagine very high skill levels. If you see things as a "mythic" linear progression as in Glorantha, then 200% is twice as good as 100%. If you look at it with a more "realistic" view, then the standard method makes more sense. Generally in a fight between masters the difference between them is rather slight. And it will take a little while for that extra critical and special chances to make the difference.

Exaclty. O could see someone throwing a stone across the yard to divert the guar's attention for the second try. But it doe depend on if you want a simply pass/fail result or a degree of success result. I lean more towards the latter. Oh, and pretty much any and every opposed skill can be set up with a degree of success. It is just that we tend to gloss over those "boring" tests to get to the "omportant" combat ones. You could actually work up a debate as a series of Faslk Talk/Persuade/Oratory rolls with "attacks" and "parries" and have it do damage and beat down the opponent's resolve (say equal to POW points). Would I want to do that all the time, no. But it would be a great bit for when the PCs get captured and have to convince the locals to spare their lives and not throw them to the volcano god.

You must have psychic powers. I own a copy, read it, and would do the same.

Wow! I'm the opposite. I'd find it much easier to cut away something I don't need that to have to reinvent the wheel., fire, pulley, steam engine, fusion, etc. Plus, if things are thought out at the beginning you avoid most of the problems when you shoehorn stuff into the game later. For instance, the SIZ, AP, and HP ratings of big vehicles combat vehicles like tanks and battleships don't usually matter. But for those who run a Supers game they need to be able to damage, list and throw them like in the comics. On the other hand, they need to be tough enough to seem tough to characters in a non supers environment, or to non supers in the same campaign. One thing I'll give Jason credit for is that his solution (relatively low APs, high Hit Points) does that. Supers can smash tanks, and while the tanks are a bit vulnerable to small arms 140 hit points gives them some resilience. Its not the direct that I would have gone it, but it is a direction, and will lead to some internal consistency. Some people think that you can just cut & paste something into a RPG and that each section, and table stand alone. It doesn't work that way. The different parts of a game interact. One change or addition can alter many other things in a domino effect.

Unless you treat it like combat and give the sneaker some benefit, but reduce it for the successful "Parry" of the defender. For instace the sneaker isn't detected but either didn't get to move (and has to try again), or inly gets part of the distance before he has to duck behind cover. That sort of thing happens all the time.

:thumb: That would be interesting. For the most part BRP can handle Flashing Blades pretty well, too. Lets see,. Do up a few fencing styles notes for color. Social Status, Regiments, banking, a mass battle system, the church....

Oh yeah there is a lot of mix and match. But ultimately he had to make some decisions between things, like which set of weapon damages to use, and each decision has other effects. For instance, RQ2 SIZ, RQ3 SIZ, SB1 SIZ, CoC SIZ, Wow SIZ or Superworld (Boxed set) SIZ? No matter how much he might want to appeal to everyone, picking one option is going to close some doors, and close others. For instance using the RQ3 damage bonus system with WoW Superworld type STR costs means lower strength heroes means that if you want supers to be able to smash tanks you have to give the tanks lower APs, since the damage is lower. For isntace a Character with STR 50 SIZ 10 in BRP would do 1D3+3D6 vs. 6D6 in Superworld.

Cat, you missed his point. He said "The issue, however, is perceiving this as complicated in the first place." It's all about perception. Something that you might perceive as as unnecessary, someone else might perceive as important. If often boils down to personal preferences, rather than absolutes. For instance, many BRP players consider hit location to be an unecessary complication. Others feel that the benefits that hit locatives give outweight the added complexity. Same with the major wound rule, category modfiers, SAN rules and pretty much everything else that's been in one of more versions of the system.

I was not so foruntate that early on I took my SB1 book and rebound it at school with the new softcover book binding machine that was supped to add years to thie life of the shcools paperbacks. That's how a got a copy of SB1 in a 3 ring binder.

Great idea!:thumb::thumb: I'm a fan olf old time radio and a member at RUSC. On more than one occasion I've used an old radio show as a framework for an RPG adventure. In many ways they work better than TV or films. They are shorter and have to explain everything ('cuz we can't see it) making it easier for a GM to get the overall outline of a plot.

That seems to be true with BRO in general. Since it has "gone back" and drew inspiration from WoW, SB and other early Chaosium products (early as in Pre-RQ3/Superworld), it is a step back in several ways. We get a lot of the perks of the simplicity of the earlier system, but loose some of the goodies we got with more detailed systems like RQ3 and Superworld.

Either than or High skill wins on ties. So if both character's roll a 40, and one guy has a higher skill he wins. Basically the thing with RQ is that combat has a method for handling success vs success (hit but parried for a partial result) but everything else doesn't. In part because RQ was written in 1978 when 90% of RPGing was combat. If we put some sort of staged success like I suggested in option 2 we can get the nice an easy resolution method used in combat. Since both characters get something for their success rolls, both will be happy.

Cool. Thanks.

Jason, Not to nitpick, but the book refers to a battleship as a modern battleship. Technically there is no such thing. Battleships have been obsolete for over 60 years and the last ones were made during WWII. The "problem" is see is that if a Battleship is considered "modern" then someone mind think that is is concurrent with "modern" tanks. Unless you intended for a modern tank to be a WWII era tank. Maybe late model or post-Dreadnought Battleship or just plain Battleship would be better?

I should have said GRUPS had the license. It was just ironic that Wild Cards couldn't have been released for Superworld.

The Wild Cards series of stories grew out of Martin's Superworld campaign. That was one of the reason for the world being a bit more realistic than a typical superhero setting. Ironic that GURPS got the lisence.

Two other possible solutionos: 1) The simple "by the most" method: Just use the tens didg and see who makes it by the most. While 7-4=3 is isn't quite the same as 76-49=27 it is close enough most of the time. 2) The "partial success" option mentioned earlier. THe trick would be to let the "attacker" succed, but cut the effect on success down, the way a parry stops some of the damage (if you use parry APs). For instance, if sneaking past a guard, the "Attacker" is the sneaking character and the "defender" is the guard. If the boths succeed, then the attacker only get's partw way before having to stop and duck behind cover (perhaps the guard thought he heard something?) for the rest of the round. Ot you could say that the attacker didn't any distance at all, but didn't get spotted so he can keep trying. If you wanted to get technical with it, you could use the movement rates and give the sneaking character a certain amount of distance based on the success level, and then downgrade it by the defenser's spot/listen roll. Most opposed contests could be handled the same way. Tie results could be treated as a deadlock, as with any for instance, gambling. Same with a climbing contest.

Yes they can rebind it. No it isn't a cloth binding. The best is probably the ring and spiral bindings, followed by the comb. They also put plastic cover pages, the top one is clear, and sometimes you can get the bottom clear too. The spiral is nice, unlike the aluminum spiral used for notebooks, plastic spirals don't bend and warp[. The plastic covers give the book some protection from liquids and other abuse, and you can lie the book down flat or fold it over like a notebook. All for around $4 or so. I also like to print off PDFs at home and have them bind them. That way I can use high grade paper and print in color for a lot less.

That's not to far fetched. Especially if you have a PDF, or scan the book into a computer, and cut & paste. If the changes aren't too great (mostly deleting the stuff you don't want, replacing the weapon tables) then it would be pretty painless. Then just put it in a binder or have it bound at a print store for a few bucks. You can even do that with a real book. I've had a couple of RPGs that were falling apart rebound at Kinko's for $3 or so. Now I can lie the books down flat.

That sort of goes with the whole pretend/fantasy thing. I'm sure women who pretend to be men pretend to be young handsome and sexy, and not wrinkled old granddads. Think about the sort of character most people pretend to be when they play. It all the what sort of person would you like to be. Just in an RPG it's an open illusion. I'm sure most female players would like thier characters to be cloer to the cheerleader than the granny. Back in the days when we used the tables from Judges Guild to generate a female character's vital statistics, I never heard one of the female players request a smaller bust measurement for her character. I did hear a "What?11 Mine are bigger than that!!" Once.

:lol:

We one game reason is that the guy is just lucky. I think we have all had situation where we should have gotten hurt but didn't. From personal experience I've used a knife to cut things "wrong side down" a few times. I even had my hand on the sharp side to apply pressure for cutting through cheese, and when I realized what I had done, looked to find that I had miraculously escaped unharmed. So I can assume that doing so with a dodge is along the same line of thinking, too? THe guy ducks or jumps back and avoids the blow. Well, I can't argue with that. Would you tell the player to make a spot hidden roll? Or would you roll it in secret as a GM. If you tell the player to make a spot roll you are sort of giving him information for no game reason, since is he fails the roll he shouldn't had a reason to become "alert". If you are rolling for him in secret, how can he spend points? But the "bang your dead" thing isn't just confined to ambushes. There are quite a few times when things could happen logically, but don't due to some funky way that the rules work. For instance, in the game leather armor will never stop a dagger. A character can never get grazed by a bolt action rifle (30-06/7.62mm that rolls 2D6+4 damage), for 1 point. Or get up from a fall unscathed. Or that a man can't hit a beat without getting an autokill. Or a blunt weapon inflicting no damage on an unarmored man. In real life, all these things happen. They can't in the game due to the way dice work. Luck points can help address a flaw in the game. Every couple of years there is another story about some sky jumper whose chute doesn't open and he somehow survives the 20D6. There is no in game reason for that to happen in BRP, but there are some real life reasons that account for it. Since the game can't model everything, something like luck points help to do so. I'm thinking of both. Part of the problem with the latter scenario is that the street vendor thing can come up at any time. Dice a fickle. People play to have fun. If you were watching a film and Aragon tripped over his sword and died at the beginning of Lord of the Rings it might be funny, but having the player write up a new character and reworking the adventure to fit in another character isn't. It bogs the game down as the GM retcons the story and the player comes up with another stranger whom the other character would have no reason to deal with. But in an established campaign, it can be worse than funny. What if Aragon tripped over his sword one night while his army is under siege. He isn't doing anything big at the moment, but is he skewers himself tonight, he won't get the chance to reach the big dramatic moment. Oh, I'd see a couple for Film Noir. Despite how dark the setting looks. Philip Marlowe manages to survive through even story. Considering how many times he manages to survive despite people having the drop on him. And I thing the "economy" of such points is the kay factor to making them work. Too many and the game loses any challenge. Too few and the players probably won't have them when they need them. I also prefer a system where the points get used up and must be replenished somehow over systems where the points are automatically refreseh each session or adventure. It makes the players less likely to "make sure" that they use up all their points, before they "lose" them. I agree. That is why I think not all "Hero Points" are created equal. My absolute favorite method is the Hero Point system from Bond. 1 point shifts the quality rating (think success/failure level) by one step. Bond also had 4 quality ratings rather than three success levels. What that did was make it progressively harder to negate a good roll, or to force a good result, but fairly easy to tweak reality a little. Changing the equivalent of a critical to a miss required 4 points, and this in a game where Bond has 13. Bond also limited the points. Once spent they were gone, at least until you earned some more. Every so often a character would build up a handful of points and feel a bit cocky, but it was fun because we all knew it wouldn't last for long, and one the points were spent it was back to normal. SO if the player wanted to rush across an open field while some goon sprayed .50 caliber bullets at him, well, he'd would be doing it again any time soon. If he pulled it off.

I've never played it that way. More like the parry is declared before the attack is rolled, but the parry isn't rolled before. Usually we would roll attack then parry, or both at the same time. All the examples I have seen in RQ and BRP books have the attacker roll first.

Sounds like RQ2. In RQ2 you could "know" any number of spells, but only have your INT in spell points ready for use. So if you had an INT of 14 and knew Heal 6, Protection 6 and Bladesharp 4, you couldn't keep them all us at full value. Maybe that is the intent?