Atgxtg

There are several games that handle it well, just that BRP was more SCA based. The damage die tends to make a large caliber weapon in unskilled hands more deadly than a small caliber weapon in the hands of someone who can really use it. Stun/Shock and delayed fatalities help with this. It all stems from damage being listed in "points". In the real world, any weapon can kill you, justhat is is easier to do it with some than with others. With a Hit point system, it is all based on if your weapon can do enough points of damage or not. Take a look at knives and daggers. In most RPGs they are a joke, and tend to be only slighly more damaging than a punch. In the real world you can cut someone's throat or stab them through the heart.

I agree. In fact, I'd go one step father and say that location is key for all weapon damages. It is just becomes less imprtant the more powerful and larger the weapon is. With pistol bullets and knives it is crucial, with nukes is isn't important at all. Plus with most melee weapons you can do damage taking the weapon "out" of the foe too. BRP's strengths and weakness tend to come from it's SCA orgins. n SCA combat you don't get linger deaths, and all that. You get up and functiong, lost limb, or dead.

Not much investigation. The Romans began developing more mobile formations for defeating Phalanxes and eventually adopted the thrusting sword encountered during the Iberneian campaign during the Punic Wars. The spear never actually vanished from the Legions (the Hasta being issued up to the end of the Empire), just that the Gladius became the primary weapon. Mostly becuase it does what a shortspear does, but is a bit stringer and makes wider wounds, and is less likey for the head to snap off or get stuck.

The reasons why a shortspear wasn't the standard weapon for roman infantry. 1) In the early years, the legions were still using longspears in Phalanxes. 2) In latter years, the Legion had worked out how to defeat the Phalanx, and by then had acquired the Spanish thrusting shortsword (gladius), which was ffaster and more effective for the style of fighting used by the Romans. Epscially if you have your front ranks "lock & lift" the enemy's spears and let you shotswordmen duck underneath and butcher them. Which is just what the Romans used to do against Phalanxes. But is is pretty much the gladius that kept the shortspear from becoming the primary weapon of the Legions.

IMO, the older damages are a bit more consistent, basically you could work out damage values by compaisons with the statsgiven. The new version just looks like someone tweaked it to give what he felt was right. But that ended up pushing the pistol damage in to close to the rile damages. THe big difficulty with firearms in most RPGs, including BRP is the variable damage. In realisty firearms tend to make smaller wounds than swords and axes, but are still lethal becuase of wound placement. With a variable damage roll (1D10, 2D8, etc.) the damage done is more a factor of how well you roll on the damage die than how well you place the bullet (skill). 80% of your damage is just random by weapon. Something liek +1 to each damage die per 10% you make the roll by would probably work out better. We'd need to reduce the damage a little first though.

You missed my point. You see all ages at Chess clubs because Chess has been on the shelves continually. In RPG circles the same is true of D&D, in one form or another. But it is hard for a 15 year old to pick up and play an RPG that hasn't been on the shelves for 20 years.

Well, most people who try that either get stopped before they get a statistically significant sampling, or have government backing. But, based on the stuff that we found out from wars and firefights, pretty much no one actually dies immediately. There are very few spots on the body that will kill you right away if destroyed. So instant kills are probably less than 5% with all of the above. That said, the chances of someone dying with a few seconds, minutes, hours, or days without proper medical attention is pretty close to 100% for all of the above, too. And not being killed isn't the same as "up and fighting". Some who is down in 5 seconds and won't wake up for an hour is effectively out of the fight. There are some differences between gunshot wounds and wounds from other weapons, but all in all the primitive weapons probably have worse complications than bullet wounds. Such weapon leave bigger, more jagged holes, and are not as clean so the wounds go septic more often (warriors are notorious for not sterilizing their greatswords between opponents).

Probably the real reason* It's too OLD. Unless ypu are a CoC fan, you'd have to be pretty old to remember BRP products-older than the average gamer. If we took music or TV shows from the early 80s I doubt they would be propular with the average gamer today either. How many of the under 20 crowd are on this forum?

It does match what I used to see in the tramua room as well as personal experience. I used to get adrenaline shots at the ER, and would go into a state of hyperactivity, despite being sick, dead tired, and low on oxygen (asthma being one of the reasons for the adrenaline shot). When I was a child, there were times when I had to be physically retrained to keep my from running around, at least until I coughed up blood and got freaked out. That old fight or flight reflex is scary.

Actually the SR benefit is oay for attack, but the spear sort of get's screwed defensively in RQ. One thing that I liked about the Usagi Yojimbo RPG was that spears no only had reach (Similar to D&D 3+, but with people having differernt move rates), but that they had a rebound critical/special. Tat meant you could use a spear to cunterattack (basically attack vs. an attack instead of parry) and keep the counterattack to use in the round against another attacker (assuming you made the rolls. If you sucked of the other guy did good, you just got hit and wound in up close with a long range weapon). It made spear users a bit tricky to handle. You could try to rush in and hope to beat the spearpoint aside for the attack, or slowing close in and try to trap the guy somewhere where he couldn't backpedal and be able to keep the spear in play. It made the pretty useful for fending off animals, too.

Sometimes I just can't understand the reasoning behind certain posts. :confused: No such luck with this thread! :D

Yeah, From what I've read, it seems you sort of take a "blanket impairment" when the adrenaline rush kicks in and can basically ingore most of your injurues, for the short term, unless they are very severe, or make fucntioning impossible (i.e. you can't used severed body parts). Once the adrenaline wears off, then it all seems to hit at once and the guy crashes. Not too many RPGs work that way, do they?

Yeah, I agree with pretty much what both of you have posted. It is just that things such as "cheap and easy" generalyl don't apply in RQ/BRP. PCs, like most poeple who regualrly stake thier lives on their weapons, will try to buy the best avialbe, and spend the time to improve. But, skill pays too too. A man skilled with a spear can be a very formidable adversary for someone with a sword or axe. They pretty much have to knock the spear out of the way prior to any real attack, and then step in.

Ah, intersting. Of coruse that does explain steel cored bullets and other forms of encasing a penetrator with a softer outer metal. The Russian 5.7mm pistol round does that. It also explains why that doesn't happen with tank guns, too, as they fire fin stabilsehd rather than rifled rounds (rifling is a disadvantage at those velocities). I7m going to have to show you a copy some day. It is a little overcomplicated by today's standardards, but very detailed and does things very well. It has a lot of nice ideas, and is one of the few games where modern (even futuristic) weapons and primitive ones can coexist. Like is life, pretty much anything can kill you, just some things are better at it than others.

Well there are a few reasons for this. First off, the sword is typically a better weapon overall than most other melee weapons. It is fairly strong, and highly verstile, as you can slash & stab with it. Many other weapons of the era were either not as study, slower, or not a versitile. Swords were the weapons for the rich. So in a way they should be better. Eas of use has been mentioned, and is quite true, and should be factored in. The old adage that to train an archer start with the grandfather comes to mind. THe ability to make and maintain weapons is a factor too. Sometimes people just got stuck with what was avaiable, rather than the "best" weapon. Another thing overlooked is the various "special effects" of weapons usually don't come into play in RQ. For instance, Certain weapons are more effective at bashing down foes in armor and that plays a factor. I think the solution to the problem would be to facotor in different effects for special success. Maybe give each weapon two or three special effects to choose from. For instance, a sword might get a slash & stab options, with an axe might get at cleave (more damage than a slash), and a maul might get a bonus to knockdown (2x) or some such, a hammer might get an 1/2AP benefit, Bills & Hook could get a dismount special, and staves a trip, swotdcathers and sai could get a disarm (foe makes DEX roll or disarmed) on a special, and so on. Also, weapon reach isn't a big issue in RQ, but is a big factor in real combat. The spear has been and continues to be (thanks to they bayonet) a very useful weapon in part because it has a nice reach advantage over most swords, aces, and maces. Oh, and I disagree with Nighshade about the spear. The Egyptians, the Greeks, medieval militia, Swiss Pikemen, bayonet. The weapon has been one of the most used weapons throughout history.

Not too shabby Rurik, About the only thing I'd dispute is that AP rounds loose accuracy over long distance. I don't think that is a property of AP as much as a property of less mass, and thus lower inertia. Main reason I bring that up is because a lot of AP rounds have increased powder for more energy and flatter trajectories. Oh, and the AP anti-tank round typically have the longest range. BTW, Sandy may have used Jane's to get the weapon damages, but for whatever reason, those numbers were thrown out when they revised the game. First edition CoC damages are different that what is is 5th, and seem to work better IMO. P.S. Rurik, you sure you haven't read Timelords? Your damage idea is fairly similar to what they do there.

So far this is looking like the most decisive poll in RPG history!

The reduced damage values would work with the bleeding rule I inbtroduced eariler. As for the damaged in the book, they are pretty random, and do not match up well with the actual energy of the various rounds. FOr example a .38 round is not nearly as lethal as a 9mm round. A .38 special round on the other hand is. The big problem I have with the 5th edition damage is that the pistols are overpowered compared to the rifles. For example, an 5.56 nato round has more energy than a .44 Mag, yet the damages are about the same. It also has nearly twice the penetrating power, an important factor when dealing with body armor. First edition CoC (and most Chaoisum products) put the 9mm at 1D8 so I went with that. I suspposed I could redo the damages with the 9mm at 1D10 and shift up the rifles a little, but was worried about making some weapons "autokills". With general HP and little armor to speak of, I am concerned about making the guns too lethal. In the real world, one shot from most weapons won't kill you-at least not right away. Lying on the ground, bleeding, crying for your Mommy, yeah, but not dead. BTW, I was assuming that double damage on an impale was still the standard rule for CoC, so that, combined with the shot range modifier would make most pistols pretty dangerous at the 20 foot range that they are typically used at.

I've seen a couple of good fixes to this. 1) Cap off the damage bonus equal to that of the weapon. So you can't have a troll getting a full 2d6 db with a dagger. Makes sense, but not quite right. 2) Damage beyond the weapon AP counts as damage to the weapon. The idea being that the weapon just wasn't built to habndle that sort of force. Probably the more sensible and realistic option. MEans that trolls and such would need heavier stronger weapons to pull off the massive damage results.

After seeing dhorma damage bonus table, I'm reminded of the one from SPQR. (d2/d4/d6/etc.) Personally, I7m all for updating the damage bonus and spreading it out a little instead of just lumps of d6. Going from 1d6 to 2d6 is a big step.

I think I prefer Damage vs CON on resistance chart rather than straight CONx5%, since a more devatating injury should be more lethal. BTW, I looked over the CoC 5th eidition damage rules, and I have to argree with Joseph Paul, they are outta whack. First edition damages were better. While the .45 vs 9mm thing is debatable (although it does cause a problem with armor, since anything that will stop a 9mm WILL STOP a .45), but I can't accept that a .44Mag is doing the same damage as a 5.56 round, and only 1 point less that a Browning .30 cal. IT looks like the CoC tables stressed bullet diameter a bit too much. I messed around with 3G and the CoC damage scale, and used a nonlinear progression for damage (roughly based on the square root of the rounds ability to penetrate) and came up with: Round CoC(Revised) .22 1D6(2D3) .25 1D6(1D6-) .32 1D8(1D6) .38 1D10(1D6+) .38S -- (1D8) 9mm 1D10(1D8) .357M 1D8+1D4(2D4) .45 1D10+2(2D3 or 1D8) .44M 2D6+2(1D10) .22LR --(1D6+2) .30car 2D6+2(1D6+1D4) .30-06 2D6+4(1D10+2) Barrett M82 (.50cal) 2D10+4(1D10+1D8) 5.56N 2D8(2D6) 7.62R 2D6+1(1D10+2) 7.62N --(1D10+2) BTW, If we use that "survival roll" thing I came up with, then we can give the .45 the lower damage roll (2D3), but apply a +3 modifier to it's damage for the survival roll, and for "stun/shock" roll.. This would keep it's stopping power while giving it a lower penetration ability.

One Fifth Cycle rule that I liked that could be houseruled into BRP was the "Rule of One". Whenever you rolled a "1" for damage, the attack did 1 point and you didn't add any bonuses. This would be nice for BRP, allowing for the occasional .50 cal graze or scratch from a trolls greataxe.

A simpler way to do it, and one close to BRP is what the James Bond RPG did. In that game the damage a weapon did varied based upon the quality rating (think success level) of the shot. A good quality rating meat a hit tot he vitials for more severe effects (KILL, INCAPCITATE, HEAVY WOUND), while marginal quality rating hits were grazes and such and did less damage. This meant that while rifles were usually more damaging on average, a well placed pistol shot could be deadly. Great for a setting where the main character carries a .25 ACP Beretta. The game even had a few options that could port over, like a called shot for more damage that increased the damage done, but at a penalty to hit (about half skill in BRP terms). The game also had an aimed shot option (took a turn, but shot at 1 1/2 skill), and the two options could be combined. Something like 1 die, 2 dice, 4 dice for damage might do it.

There is some truth to that. I think the tables grew out of real life experiences in the SCA. Now while the table probably do mirror the sort of screwed up stuff that happens to weekend warriors doing simulated battles, I doubt it reflects just how things went for people who actually did this sort of thing for a living. No offense to any SCA folk, but I doubt many of them could go toe to toe against an average merc from the middle ages. So I think the fumble chart might be a little biased from the perspective of weekend warriors. Maybe something like at at over 50% skill rolling twice and taking the lowest result?

Sorloc, You might want to look at 3G (Guns! Guns! Guns!), the weapon design system used for Timelords and CORPS. Basically that's what Greg Porter did. Weapon damage was mostly a factor of the energy of the weapon, bullet diameter, and range. If the cases of pistols and rifles that use the same ammo (like a .22LR), the rifle did benefit from a slightly higher energy due to optimum barrel length (most bullets need a certain length of barrel to reach maximum energy, too short and some energy is lost). Weapon damage does drop off over range, too. So a .22 bullet at 1000 yards isn't nearly as nasty as, say a .45 at 10 yards. The system is playable and fairly accurate. The big twist to Timelords, and CORPS is that they don't use the typical losing HP model for reflect injuries. So weapons that inflict lots of damage are not guaranteed kills, nor weapons that do a little damage just stuff you can shrug off. They way it works is that the damage taken determines how likely a wound is to be fatal as well as how much time you have to do something about it. COPRS is the simpliest. What it does is use the damage taken at the chance of a wound being EVENTUALLY fatal (rolled on a d10, CORPS is d10 based). If a hit is eventually fatal, then the die roll is then number of minutes you have before you start to loose health from bloodloss. then the time increment doubles until ou run out of health, or get treated. Hit Locations give a +/-1 modifer to the leatality (head hits more lethal, limb hits less so). The actualy damage points taken are used as the impairment for tasks attempted with the damaged location. So a rifle round through your arm won't kill you right away, but will mess up your penmanship. Timelords is more complex, but divides the body into 31 hit locations. THis way not all chest hits are alike. Depending on where you hit, a bullet can go right through with little immediate effect, or drop the guy like a poleaxe.