Atgxtg

I'll drink to that!

Sometimes. I'd say the damage bonus is significantly different but most weapon damages are the same or similar. How much of obstacle that is is another matter. For the most part an experienced GM can look over the weapon tables, compare similar weapons, and get a rough idea of what the approximate damage would be in Elric! Even if a GM just ported over the weapon stats directly the values wouldn't be too far off, as BRP and Mythas use similar hit points and armor values. I think most weapons are within a point or two, on average.

You might not need them Early on, blackpowder weapons didn't penetrate armor as well as modern firearms do. Armorers would even "poof" thier weapons against firearms (and crossbows) by test firing a round at the armor and leaving the dent to show that the armor was, indeed, bulletproof. Such armor sold for a lot more, too. So if you wanted to you could just assume the same level of technology and go with the stats without any AP modfiers. It would probably make the most sense, too as once bullet start penetrating armor, armor starts to go out of use. If you want bullets to penetrate armor, I'd suggest just lowered the value of lower tech (or non "poofed") armor against firearms. In Elric! the easiest way to do this would probably be to lower the dice rolled. For instance, Full Plate (with helm) protects for 1D10+2 (ave. 7.5) in Elric!, but you could lower the die from 1D10 to 1D6 or even !d4. Considering the damage rating of blackpower weapons, it won't take much of a reduction to get through the armor. I'd say just reduce the armor die by a couple of steps, depending on just how much protection you want the armor to provide, if any. You could always rule that the blackpowder weapons just bypass armor, but that might make them too good, and leave players wondering about wearing armor. For instance, if you reduce the dice by one step...Leather = 1d4, Mail = 1d6+1, and Plate = 1d8+2. if you reduce the dice by two steps...Leather = 1d2, Mail = 1d4+1, and Plate = 1d6+2. if you reduce the dice by three steps...Leather = no protection, Mail = 1d2+1, and Plate = 1d4+2. if you reduce the dice by four steps...Leather = no protection, Mail = 1 point, and Plate = 1d2+2. if you reduce the dice by five steps...Leather = no protection, Mail = no protection, and Plate = 2 points (or 1d3 if you prefer). You can just slide up and down on the die size until you get the values that you like. Probably not. As I noted above, at the time plate armor was still in heavy use, firearms weren't always guaranteed to piece it. However, many version of BRP have an "impale" rule where some weapons do double damage on a very good hit. This is in addition to the critical hit rule. THat kind of leads to a lot of missile weapons getting past armor a lot of the time. Oops correction! The Basic Roleplaying BGB did have official rules: Primitive or Ancient armor only offers 1/2 protection against high velocity or energy weapons. also If armor value is being determined randomly, you should roll for the armor's protection, apply any modifiers, then divide in half, rounding up. Note the term high velocity. Weather or not you consider Blackpool weapons to be high velocity is the question. Historically they fired large, relatively low velocity (for firearms) balls or bullets, which is why plate armor was actually effective against them. Personally, I think I'd rather tweak the armor dice than divide the die rolls in half, too. Perhaps the best thing for you to get, if you can find it would be the Basic Roleplaying rulebook, usually referred to around here as the "Big Gold Book". The BGB is a collection of rules from various RPGs produced by the Chasoium over the years, all of which use the same underlying rule system. Pretty much any BRP based Roleplaying game (Elric!, Stormbringer, Magic World, RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Elfquest, Worlds of Wonder, Superworld, Ringworld, etc.) is mostly compatible with other as at least 80% of the game system is the same for all those games. THe BGB collected a lot of that stuff into one book. It might be quite helpful for doing the stort of stuff you are doing, but it's out of print. There are also a lot of "D100:" based RPGs that aren't BRP, but still similar enough that you could take stuff from them, such as anything for RQ6/Mthras, OpenD100 or even BaSiC.

Yeah, that works. Just as long as they have some chance. Assuming the PCs have the abilties to do so. See what I mean? If the skills are very narrow then it becomes impossible to cover all the bases and it becomes very easy for the group to get taken down by something they lack. Large ships full of NPCs can help with this too. If you got a space cruiser with a thousand crewmen aboard, then the GM can easily throw in an "Astrobiologist" or "Temporal Mechanics Engineer" into the game if the PCs find themselves in sudden desperate need of one. But probably works fine for the game. Same with Civ. Relasitically, most technologies would probably require several other technologies to learn, and most techs aren't all or nothing, but tend to have layers of knowledge to impart. Plus most new technolgies grow out of older tech. It's not like lightbulb technology was created in a vacuum (😉) but that it came out of existing knowledge of electricity and material science. Same with laser technology. It's all additive. For instance, Blu-Rays came about because of knowledge of light wavelengths. Blue light has a shorter wavelength that red light, thus a blue laser makes a smaller mark than a red one. That was pretty much academic until someone decided to use lasers to write as much information as possible onto a defined area (the disc). I suspect the same idea will have merit in the medical field one day, if it hasn't already. I'd like to see that. Are you using your own ship design system or some preexisting system. I'd have to see how you do up ships and aircraft to see. On a possibly related note, I recently bought a Naval Wargame and was midly disappoin ted that it used generic stats for aircraft, so maybe indiviualized stats might be useful after all. Possibly, I kinda depends on how you do it. Reminds me of Blake's 7. The main characters were a bunch of convicted criminals/freedom fighters in a oppressive empire , who somehow got control of an advanced alien spaceship. It's a great set up for a RPG.

Yes. just as long as the player characters can get those skills before they need them.

I think it will help. Just to claify, my big concern is that it's easy to create a [problem that the PCs lack the skills required to solve. I might be a bit over sensitive to this though, as it is a big limiting factor to some of my starting campaigns. For instance, in the James Bond RPG, rookie PCs tend to start off with a half dozen skills or so, and it's easy to see them fail because no one knows how to fly an airplane or defuse a nuclear device. This despite the game only having a skill list of around 25 skills. So I'm careful with what I throw at them during a mission at first. After a few missions, when the PCs make it to agent rank, this isn't a problem anymore and if the group lacks a skill it's their own fault, but early on they just cannot cover all the bases. The same holds true in modern and high tech settings where there are so many more skills (and specialties). BTW, in the Bond RPG, there are Fields of Experience, which cover things that aren't considered to be skills. A character who has the proer field either can avoid certain rolls, or get a bonus to taks involving that field of experience. For instance, anyone would get a roll to try and identify the rank of a character in uniform, while someone with the MIlitary Science Field of experience would be able to tell without making a skill roll. That kind of approach might help. For instance, a character could make an enginnering roll to fix a defective FTL drive, while someone with the FTL Field of experience could do so without a roll. While it make make total sense in real life for someone to fail at some task due to lack of knowledge, it doesn't make for a good RPG experience. I would kinda suck if the Enterprise blew up because Kirk didn't know how to stop a warp core from going up, and no one else was in the Engine Room. It's much better if that soret of thing doesn't happen, and that usually means either given Kirk some chance to save the ship. IN RPG terms it's much better if Kirk saves the ship, maybe by ejecting the warp nacelles, and then has to deal with the problems caused by his actions (i.e. how do they get back home without warp engines?). LOL!. Keep in Mind that MoO is a 4x game for a computer, not an RPG. So a lot of stuff that works in MoO won't necessarily make sense in a fleshed out RPG. It's why you have to be careful when adapting MoO to BRP. Hmm, in a similar vein, in Civilization VI you can build the Pyramids without knowledge of Mathematics! It's really just the nature of the skill tree. Plus in a game like Civ or Orion there is more of a "big picture" view of things, and and All of nothing approach to technology. In real life things aren't so clearly defined, and a lot of skills are semi-known by a civilization. So take some of MoO with a grain of salt.

JUst two things I'll stress again: There should be some way for a character to do something without the proper specialization, otherwise the PCs will eventually wind up not being able to do something vital-as there is really no way for them to cover all skills. Even something like a LUCK roll to fake it, or spending Hero Points is fine. Just as long as they have some chance. It's not all that fun when the one character who can fly or repair the ship is dead on incapacitated, leading to a TPK. Be a little fuzzy with science and technical skills. There is a lot of cross pollination and overlapping going on. For instance nearly every science and tech skill relies on Mathematics to some degree. Most rely on physics to some extend as well. So some sort of default or crossover makes sense.

Yes, and that is my concern as well. It's kinda like the problem with Superheroes. It all works fine until an NPC shows up with a power that the PCs have no defense against and trashes the group. It's not the PCs fault either, because there is no way they can cover everything. I had most armor could as half value against other forms of attack sor just that reason. Plus I figured six inches of hardened plate steel is probably going to stop some laser, heat, etc.

Yes, take a look at the Star Trek RPGs from LUG/Decipher. They greatly shorted the skill list by combining several skills. Alternatively, keep the FASA skill proficiencies so that a 10% skill makes someone qualified to operate something, fly a shuttle, etc. FASA Trek gave characters a lot of low skill socres in secondary skills that worked with the 10/40/100 proficiency scale, but wouldn't help much in standard BRP.

Probably, if you use a shortened skill list in SciFi. Either that or a specialty system where the specialtiy gives a bonus to skill. The thing that worries me about making everything exclusive is that the players will never be able to cover all the bases, and eventually lack a vital skill at the wrong time. I mean, who thinks to specialize in "Life Support Systems" during chargen?

Yes, the default BRP system is more restrictive, but not all BRP systems as that restrictive. RQ had/has a rule for related weapons starting off at half the skill of a weapon that you know, and I could see something like that applying to other related skills. Someone whith Medicine skill should know something about biology and biochemsitry. No, for BRP I'd go with a related skill rule, and then handle the overlaps on a case by case. For instance, someone with Aircraft repair probably could get a car engine to start, but probably wouldn't know how to refine gasoline. For your system, I'd just allow a broader use of specialties. I think is had a lot to do with just what is wrong, rather than what you are working on. For example... Let's say a medieval peddler who drives a small cart from village to village has to change a tire on a car. Now he obviously doesn't have any automotive skill, but the concent of repalcing a wheel isn't foreign to him, and, if he knows what a screw is, he might figure out how to loosen the nuts and take a wheel off. Or let's say that a radar technican is having car troubles so he opens up the hood of his car to check the battery connections. My point is, skills and tasks aren't as ridigly defined as most game rules would like. The LUG/DecipherStar Trek RPGs come to mind here. They have some skills that cover several things, such as shipboard systems. The idea being that if you can read a control panel you can operate most controls and systems on the ship. It works too. Those games also have specialties. Thus a character could have Shipboard Systems (Helm) 2 (5), making them great a piloting the ship, but only okay with everything else. That's really not too far off from what you are doing by trimming down the skill list too. Oh, and bringing up another game with a short skill list, Bond, it handles science skills with one science skill, but allows fro specialties. A character with the appropriate specialty gets a bonus, while one lacking a specialty gets a penalty. It allows for just the sort of overlap I think we need for a good RPG. Ultimately, we all want the PCs to have a chance of success. It really can kill a campaign if the PCs can't repair something at all and end up stuck on some planet with no chance of escape or even contacting someone for rescue.

Yes I should.

It was kinda stillborn - at least as far as the BGB went. But the core game mechanics are used in virtually every Chaosium RPG from RuneQuest to Call of Cthulhu, and even Pendragon, although the latter uses a highly modified version. So BRP is probably as alive as it ever was, except maybe in the early 80s.

I get your intention, I just think it's a bad idea. Oh, I get your intent, I just disagree with it. In real life there is a lot of crossover. A medical doctor's knowledge and skill does apply somewhat when working on an animal. That's why I don't like your all or nothing approach. In the real world medicine isn't worthless without specializations. A human doctor is going to be much better at treating a sick or inured horse than someone with no medical knowledge at all. I just don't think that's a good idea. You are going to win up with lots of odd situations where someone's related knowledge will prove worthless. That's why I think you should allow either to work. Again, in real life someone with either electronics skill or mechanical locksmith skill could open the door. The difference is in how they do it. For example, some places use key cards that employees need to scan to access certian areas. THe way they work is by encoding the proper access codes onto a magnetic strip on the card. Now if someone wanted to bypass that type of lock they could: Manipulate the lock mechanically as a locksmith Trip the lock eletrically with electronics Copy the acess code witha computer and put in on another key card with Computer skill Reprogram the access codes for that lock with Computer skill There are multiple ways to get the desired result, and which one you lean towards depends on your skill set and what equipment you have. I think just limiting it to one applicable skill or specialty is not a great approach.

Medicine without specilization shouldn't be useless, as there are a lot of common factors between living organisms. For instance, a licensed M.D. is going to have a good idea or what certina medicines would do to a horse, or how to treat the wounds on an injured dog. I suggest that for each "Step" away from what the character is specialized in, they take a penalty. Something like a M.D. working on humans at full ability, primates with a minor penalty, other mammals with a greater penalty, non-mammals with an even greater penalty, and non-cababon based life forms at an even greater penalty. Again, I'll raise the same argument I did with medicine. A modern auto mechanic could probably get an old automobile to work- even something like a Stanley Steamer. Enough of the underlying fundametals are the same. It would be more difficult. I think one way you might want to address this is with fumbles. What if someone with a specialty got a LUCK roll to avoid a fumble, while someone without the specialty didn't? Thus a mechanic working on a Stanley Steamer who lacks the specialty is going to have a much greater risk of the boiler blowing up. I'd suggest allowing either skill to work. That way you don't get too bogged down into what you cannot do. In the real world there is a lot or crossover between skills. For instance, I have a degree in Electronics and used to do electrical repairs on various things including CnC Lathes, house wiring, and automotive wiring. I did most of that while working for an Electrical Engineer, who had a somewhat different (and more extensive) skill set. But I was able to work on all that stuff because fundamentally it all works the same. In fact, some things I did better than my boss, because I was trained to work with small connectors and circuit boards, which go with low voltage electronics, he was more versed with high voltage electrical systems. So I think you'd be better off with skill descriptions being a bit more "fuzzy". Rather than assuming a character must have X to work on X, just assume that there is enough commonality to be able to work on X, but that it will be more difficult and probably riskier.

Whatever method works. Even the CoC idea of bonus dice could be used if you wished. THe general idea is to make shield blocks easier than parries, but make shields a little less durable in the process.

Double post

I think every experienced GM has had some aweful experience when somethnig they never thought of (or forgot) came back to haunt them. I think we all get a little paranoid about it, but it's okay just as long as we don't let the players find out 'cuz they're out to get us.

My suggestion would be to add in an Armor Piecing Effect (AP) to modrn weapons, and half low tech armor and shields against it. You could then upgrade the AP effect by Tech Level if you wanted, so that TL 8 blaster rifles might by AP/3 or /4 and so forth. That way a Legionnaire in Lamellar with a Large SHield doesn't shrug off blaster rifles. I believe that was me. The idea was that a shield block would be easy (x2 skill) instead of normal, but shields would stop less (about half RQ3 AP values). This would actually make shields a bit less durable, but not too bad, as there would be a lot more special successes which would extend the life of the shield a bit. Another approach would be to do what Pete Nash did in his Rome books for BRP and Mythas, namely by allowing shields to cover several hit locations like armor at half AP value in melee alike they can vs. missiles in RQ3. While the rules are different the net effect would appear to be very similar to reducing AP and easy shield block. That works but a big shield can soak a lot of damage before you hurt the warrior holding it. Maybe you could increase the effect vs. low tech armor? Say x2 or x3 vs. low tech stuff. Sorry to make you worry, but it's better for you to think about this stuff before you begin play than have it blindside you during a play session. I could just see a half dozen "primitive" lizard people with stone axes and hide shields slaughtering a group of explorers armed with "advanced" weaponry.

Okay. In that case do you have any special modifier for hi-tech weapons vs. low tech armor? A large shield in RQ3 could stop 16-18 points and that's just about average on 3D10. Unless you want the primitives to go all Ewok on the advanced troops.

And mine as well. The key point here, and where this started was that a dagger isn't any better at getting through this than a spear,or even most swords, yet the dagger has a higher minimum damage. As I said before, I'm not in favor of the adds that go with most weapons, as they tend to eliminate things from happening that should be possible, such as minor arm injuries that do not incapacitate a limb for an average person. But at 1d4+2 plus probably another 1d4 db, dagger hits have a better chance of incapacitating a limb than a sword.

I disagree. Part of what makes a game fun and exciting is suspense, and a fight where both sides go back and forth parrying each other attacks is both effective and entertaining. Just look at any swashbuckling film, or even a lightsaber duel in Star Wars. Such encounters are fun in game because they show closely matched opponents. Yes it is. I'd say that is also a matter of taste. I know a lot of D&Ders who feel that RQ combat is boring because of all the parrying and "not much happening." Likewise I know RQ players who consider D&D combat to be boring because, thanks to increasing hit points, and no actual effects to being wounded, "not much is happening". Again, I disagree. It can leverage tactical thinking quite a bit. In fact, I'd say more so than many of the alternatives, where class and level tend to dominate tactics.

To be fair here, it was a matter of personal preference. If I recall correctly the authors were more fans of the of Worlds of Wonder game system than RQ. So the BGB uses more of WoW, Stormbringer, and CoC as the base system rather than RQ. It's a legitimate design choice, just not the one some of us would have preferred. Of couse, if they had made the base system more like RQ then fans of Elric, CoC, and WoW might not be as happy with it. So no matter what they did, it wasn't going to work for everyone. The nice thing is that it didn't have to. Anyone who prefers RQ3 rules to the BGB already has RQ3 and can just use it instead. Maybe port over some tidbits from the BGB if they want to (or even from some other BRP related game that they already have). Nothing stops us from running a Stormbringer or Pendragon campaign the RQ3 rules. The stats and game mechanics are mostly compatible between BRP games. Although a Stormbringer campaign using the Pendragon rules could be very interesting.

For me, it's not just hitting the gaps but also hitting a part of the body where the damage would be more significant. A dagger in the eye might not hit as hard as a great axe in the pinkie, but it certainly more lethal. Much better protection. The muscle curiass was more of a status thing. One of the reasons why mail stuck around forever was that it really is one of the best forms of armor out there, assuming that it's made properly and has proper padding. Even when full plate came about, mail was still used to protect the areas that couldn't be covered by plate.