Atgxtg

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.

RQ3 Do you think that a wooden shield is more resistant to breakage than a steel sword? The thing is, as shields are good for blocking attacks they get a high AP in RQ3, but a side effect of that makes them much tougher than they should be. THe BGB relies too hevily on the combat system from Elric and CoC, IMO. But to be fair, RQ/BRB has always confused parries with blocks. A properly executed parry should deflect all damage, that is precisely what a parry is supposed to do. A block, on the other hand, sticks someting in front of the attack to take the hit instead of the blocker. Parrying is harder than blocking though. In a real fight, the great axe is actually easier to parry than the dagger! There is so much more to parry. It's also risker, since if the defender messes up the parry it's probably going to end badly. The thing about a parry is that the defender doesn't try to stop the attack, but instead redirect it away from themselves. A bigger weapon like a great axe is easier to parry since there is a lot more shaft to work with. Only if you run it that way. Nothing says that PCs acan get the equipment repaired or replaced, or that the NPCs can't show up with damaged equipment too. FOr the most part, I don't mind a character having to replace their shield fairly regularly. Shields were disposable. I'm not so thrilled about most weapons breaking that quickly, but I guess it really was a thing. I'm partial to the weapon breakage rules from Harn. In that system each weapon has a Weapon Quality Rating (WQ). When a weapon is used to block, you roll against the WQ on the weapon with the lower rating to see if it breaks. If it doesn't, then you roll against the weapon with the higher WQ to see if it breaks. It's fast, simple, and really makes high quality weapons worth their weight in gold. A weapon with a really high WQ rating is nice not only because it is unlikely to break, but it is also more likely to break other weapons.

Yeah, that could work. I'm not sure if I wan't to work it that way- I'd need to see what the weapon damages and armor protection was first. I mean if a plasma cannon was doing 8d10 or some such, then a 20 AP shield probably wouldn't cut it. Yeah. I've played a few SCi-Fi RPGs and the shield as Hit points approach is the most common. It's a viable approach. I suppose this comes down to just how closely you want to model Master of Orion.

Yeah, but I think it would be better just to give the shield 10 AP instead.

But is that a bad thing? I mean you could easily speed up combat with a one roll, winner take all model a la HeroQuest, but most RPGs don't because that usually isn't what we want. If someone wants the fastest method of resolving a conflict in a BRP based game, go with the opposed method from Pendragon. It's fast, brutal, and most opponents don't last for two rounds.

Yes I have, there used to be an armory in the city where I lived. As far as the bronze curiass goes -no protection to the armpits. A mail hauberk provided much better coverage and protection. You don't need to hunt for gaps in the armor when there are unprotected areas to strike instead.

Well the original drop a point when exceeded came from RQ3. It was a marked improvement for weapons, which used to break after two or three of parries in RQ2. The main "bug", IMO, is that it makes shields a bit too tough, as they have high AP scores. IMO, shield should probably have lower AP scores, but should be easy to parry with. Yeah, you can off off with all sorts of interesting ideas, especially with SciFi, as that's not as well defined in BRP, as pre-industrial weaponry. Does damage come off the hit point shields before damaging the ship or both at the same time? If you ship above got hit for 25 points would that do 20 points to the shield, 20 points to the ship, or both?

What I started to tinker with was the idea of starting off weapon skills at DEXx10% or so. Realistically, hitting someone with a melee weapon isn't all that difficult. Most people will hit most of the time, unless the opponent does something about it. That worked out okay for melee, but wasn't so great for skills. But basically the 1-100 scale for rating skills doesn't match up to well with using them. That meant either coming up with some other modifiers to match the skill to the difficulty, or alterting the dice rolled. One thing I was looking at was the way FASA did it in the old Star Trek RPG. In that game, things that required a basic proficiency, would be rolled on 1D10 instead of 1D100. So someone who was a qualifited shuttle pilot would only need a skill of 10 to drive it around safely on a routine basis. A professional pilot would need a skill over 40, and would roll against the difference. I was thinking that using differernt die sizes could work here. Someone who is a novice swordsman might roll 1d4 or 1D6 while a skilled warrior could roll 1d10, and so on. Exactly. That was a problem I noticed as well. In theory we thought it would be 1D10-1D10 (parry) with modifiers. In reality, it's much worse than that, as you normally couldn't roll higher than 1/10th your skill.

I'll bite. You probably should start a different thread for it, though. The easy way would be to adapt the RQ3 weapon damage rules. Basically anytime the armor's AP are exceeded it's protection drops 1 point. You could do spilt values, but frankly i wouldn't. If you wanted less durable armor you could drop he AP by more than 1 point each time it is exceeded. Something like ablative armor might drop even if it isn't exceeded. I dunno. It's not much different that a low tech melee fight with shield and armor protecting wearer. You could just say that whenever a shield is penetrated it gets blown, or if it gets beaten by X amount it gets blown.

And I can assure you, it's not the same thing. Living skin on an animal is a lot less resilient that hardened leather. Double so in a fight against someone who is moving. More like there are more gaps to find with plate. One of the reasons why non-rigid armors worked so well was because they could cover and area and still allow for freedom of movement. Plate doesn't allow that- especially not the plate we see in a typical RQ/BRP campaign. Nothing wrong with trying to get someone to change thier mind. And I'd have to see that to believe it, as I've seen just how good thich leather is at stopping an attack.

Yes in RQ1 a dagger did 1d6. Except it's not. I don't think there is a single weapon in RQ that has the same exact damage as OD&D. Yes, there are similarities, but that is probably more due to the dice available than anything else. Just look at Savage Worlds, same basic die spread (d4, d6,d8,d10, d12) so weapon damage look similar. They all try to fit the weapon damages to the scale available. Mongoose is a another can of worms. LOL! I was working on something along those lines,.Basically the damage was the tens die with modifiers for damage modifier weapon type, and success level (doubles were critical and you got to add both dice). The big hurdles I had trouble with were: Getting opposed skill rolls to work with the limited success chance inherent in most BRP games. With an opposed roll you can assume that the higher roll won the exchange, but with the "blackjack" method we would up with a lot of cases where nether combatant succeeded. Modifying success levels sot hat they were no longer tied to low rolls (so we could have the tens die be the damage) Trying to work parrying in a similar fashion. For example a 80 hit vs. a 45 parry would mean 4 points slip through. G How to handle skills over 100%. Out best stab at it was to give such skill a +1 to damage per 20% over 100. I was leaning to the sum of the % rolls to try an open up the spread a bit. Yeah. One of the things I liked about Sanguine's Usagi RPG was that weapons had a choice of crticals, which gave the wielder options under certain circumstances. The wielder might even had a extra crtical type or two available depending on what abilities he knew. I guess Mythras does something similar.

Most real leather armor is stiff and hard for a dagger to pierce. Daggers are ususally better at finding gaps. Which is why daggers were used against downed foes in armor5. It's probably as effective at finding the gaps in plate than with any other armor. I think you miss my pointt though. Namely that with 1D4+2 a dagger will always puncture leather in RQ/BRP. That's what I dislike about the adds.