Atgxtg

How adjacent do you want to go? Perhaps the simplest stat block belongs to West End's Star Wars RPG, which grew out of the Ghostbuster's RPG that Chaosium created for them. It introduced the idea of a 2D/4D statblock (2D attributes/4D skill) being the typical NPC. I've adapted that to BRP with 10/12hp/40% statblocks for typical NPCs without a problem. You don't really need much to track average.

Yeah, intiative is mostyl a game convention. In real life it's more like everybody is trying to do something at the same time and some people's stuff work and other people stuff doesn't. I think Pendragon might have one of the more realstic methods with everything combined into one opposed roll, with the winner inflicting damage upon the looser. Yeah, I know what you mean. DEX/reaction speed in important,but it also improvses with experience. Yeah, I could see the die being determined by the weapon type and speed (again the damage dice are a good starting point) and perhaps dropping down a die size when skill hit certain thresholds. So maybe a Sword would be DEX+1d8+1 to start but drop to DEX+1d6+1 when skill hit 50% or so then the to DEX+1d4+1 at 75% and so forth. But that would be a bit complicated, and I'd rather go with an opposed roll first as it would be simpler and sidestep most of this fairly elegantly.

That kinda depends on the length of a combat round. For 12 seconds it's probably a tad slow, but not horribly so.

Thanks DreadDomain, It's an interesting idea to tweak the SR system that way, especially when handling modern firearms, many of which can empty their magazine in under 12 seconds. Ringwolrd used to add the full Action Rank (but it was just a DEX SR but with a wider scale) and allow for rollover. For instance a character with a DEX of 13 would have an Action Rank of 4, and could draw a weapon on 4 impulse, aim in for action 4 impulses (impulse 8 ) and shoot the weapon on impulse 9 (a minor action taking only 1 impulse), then aim again to impulse 13, and shoot again on impulse 14. I suspect some variation on that idea would probably work out really well.

How were you implementing the SR mechanic? I could see several variations: 1. You just used the normal attack SR of the weapon provided it added up to 12 STR or less. 2. As above but you let attacks roll over into the next round. 3. You used the normal SR for the first attack, and then added the DEX SR for the next attack.

Uh, not so much, at least with melee weapons The thing is "an attack" in melee constitutes more than just a stab or swing, but instead a combination of moves that ultimately lead to a stab or swing that can potentially damage the opponent. And the time for that would be variable. Now I could see someone letting SR roll over into the next melee round, like with RQ3 magic or as in the Ringworld RPG, and maybe rolling a die to see how many SR an attack takes (base weapon damage is a good start), modified by skill, or some such. But that would be a radical shift from what we have now, and I'm not sure how it would play out. It would be a a very interesting playtest though.

And probably makes sense when you have a 12 second combat round.

The RQ3 approach was to double one of the spells parameters (range, duration, intensity, etc.) by adding +1 MP to the cost and requiring the casting roll also be under that skill. So if you wanted a bladesharp spell to be +4 instead of +1 it would cost you 3 more MP (much like standard RQ) but you didn't need to know Bladesharp 4, you just had to know how to amplify the spell and make the roll. Making the spell last longer worked in a similar fashion. Most paramaters were on a doubling scale. So making spell last twice as long would cost 1 MP (and reguire a duration/extension roll) , making it last four times as long would cost 2 MP, and so on. I mentioned it becuase it at sounds similar to what you are trying to do. BRP Magic, much like everything else "BRP" is cut & pasted from previous Chasoium RPGs, much of which was never intended to be used together. The staff and familiar thing came from the original Magic World from Worlds of Wonder, and was needed as a way to give spell casters enough POW/magic points to cast a few spells. But MW was an attempt to make a high fantasy style FRPG using the RQ/orginal BRP and a 16 page booklet. It kinda worked mechanically, but didn't really hold up well for long term play. Now it really sounds like RQ3 sorcery/lunar magic. Generally speaking sorcerors in RQ3 started off the weakest but had the most potential, as their magic was more flexible and adjustable. With experience and a lot of stored Magic Points they could do things the other magicians could only dream of. It just took a lot of time, experience and power strage to get there. Looking forward to it. It will make it a lot easier to discuss too, as I'll be working from the same page.

But you are aware of Battle/Spirit Magic, RQ Sorcery and Lunar Magic (a hybrid between spirirt magic and sorcery), right? Lunar Magic might be close to what you are trying for. What it did was make it possible for a caster to adjust and enhance the normal spirit magic spells. For instance using magical skills to turn a Bladesharp (Sharpen) spell into a Bladesharp 6 and/or make it last twice as long and so on.

Don't thank me, you were the one doing it. That is the basic RQ1-3/BRP method. I think they may have plated around with things a bit in "spin off" games. BTW, Are you familiar with old RuneQuest? It might cover some of the same ground. Both the old sorcery system and Lunar magic could be close to what you are going-albeit without your limits.

The traditional rule was that the creature took damage from the bladesharp/sharpen. For instanced a Sword with Bladesharp 2 would do 2 points of damage to a creature immune to normal weapons, such as a werewolf. Most such creatures tend to have a weakness (silver or rune metals for werewolves) though where they take full damage. A mage who can turninto fire might be vulnerable to water or some such. On the plus side, immune to normal damage is pretty rare outside of Call of Cthulhu.

Yeah or if someone has to swich weapons. Oh, I got that one covered, use the core for Agility (DEX x5%). Or a Strike Rank system, or a cost per action system. Me too, across the board. It handles a lot of thing very elegantly.

Me too. Of course this approach would work with DEX ranks too, if actions had some sort of DEX rank delay. Like say, it took 5 DEX ranks to relaod, and a character could move X meters per DEX rank. Not a bad idea., although it could get complicated as you'd need to track multiple skills.

Okay, I'll walk away. I thing Pendragon would be better off without you. Also RuneQuest and HeroQuest/Questworld. But hey, if that's the game that people want, then so be it. And I have no doubt that by the time the KAP6 is published and the bugs in the quickstart worked out, it will be as clear and concise as RQG. And you were never able to play with those women all these years? It's all about being WOKE. You got it. And don't complain when people walk away from Pendragon when you change it from what Greg had intended. Greg could have made the game gender neutral in 1985. He didn't then, and he never did later on. Instead you guys pull this two year after his death so he can't speak out against it.

But Morien one of the reasons for the big push to make female knights commonplace was that some people would be too uncomfortable playing characters who were of a different gender than themselves. So thins change would ensure that everybody was playing a character different from themselves roughly half the time, so you're still in the same boat. If this was something that was going to be implemented across the board, then there would need to be some sort of escape clause so that players don't get stuck playing a character of a gender they aren't happy with, to please those players who this would upset. Now to that end I can propose two possibilities: 1. The parent selects their heir: Primogeniture is actually anachronistic, and didn't come about until the latter middle ages. So for our purposes the player can select if they want to pass the land down to their son or their daughter. 2. "Girls": The world girl originally applied to all children. What if intend of roll for the gender of a child during childbirth, the player just selected the gender when they rolled up the character? Then all you just need to do is track how many girls.children a knight has and not worry about gender. One problem I have with your economic model here is that of what happens to all those males? I don't see them sitting around the manor spinning cloth waiting to be married off, like their sisters would have been. There almost certainly needs to be some sort of career path for them, and as part of the nobility their options are limited. I'd suspect that the stigma associated with free companies would be dropped, as probably everyone would have a relative serving in one, and that would be the change that wouldn't harm the status quo. Another, is that, since the women will be disadvantaged physically, why would liege lord be all hat keen in having them as knights? We've all seen what it like in combat with a character who does 3d6 damage. That is exactly where the typical female knight is going to come from. Now, maybe we could assume that all that training as a squire would build up muscle mass that ladies wouldn't have and bump STR and SIZ, that certainly makes some sense, but then male squires would get that training too, and that would just shift the same problem over a couple of points. I think the best solution here would be to just go with 60 point characters and assume that most female characters spend a few more points of APP than STR or SIZ.

Yup. I moved away from D&D becuase I felt that skill based games were less restrictive, and did most things better. Wounds were actually a concern, and even a master swordsman could still be killed by a single hit. I never got into CF becuase to me it was taking a step backwards, to the style of gaming I consciously moved away from. But apparently some people were looking for something halfway between D&D and BRP. LOL!. I didn't. Most D&D settings tend to be knockoff of Middle Earth with modern socio-political beliefs somehow shoehorned in. Or, the modern wester world without the tech, but with swords & sorcery. There are some exceptions to this, but the generic D&D settings are too generic for me. GO for it, it will be a nice shake up. One of D&D strength is that just about anybody can make a D&D supplement, so we can get an almost infinite number of takes and views on things. On of it drawback though is that just about anybody can make a D&D supplement, so we can get an almost infinite number of takes and views on things.

Take a look at some of the posts in this thread, that is exactly what some people want and believe the game must do to survive. I have no problem with there being a female knight in the start set or much anyplace else. I am the same guy who worked with you on the APP/2 idea for courtly skills because I felt female characters in Pendragon get shortchanged. I have no problem with there being one female knight in a campaign, or even a group comprised solely of female knights. That up the individual GMs to decide upon. I've had female warriors (but no knights yet) in my own campaign and frankly the knighthood thing hasn't been much of an issue in the pre-Arthur periods. I have a big problem with altering the rules for what is already a fine game just because supposedly some woman out there will supposedly be too uncomfortable with the setting unless women get equal representation in knighthood. There is no need to change the rulebook to accommodate someone who could just house rule things the way they want anyway.

Yeah I remember that thread. The idea was that a Lady could have some sort of knight protector whom they could run as subservient character to fight off bandits and monsters and stuff while the lady traveled about. If I recall correctly, I think Khanwulf was doing something with the idea. There was also some talk on coming up with more ways to get glory through courtly activities and maybe some sort of Influence points to reflect all that courtly intrigue. Basically to try and give ladies something to do other than flirt and look for a husband. It's tough for lady characters since their best stat (APP) doesn't have any real game benefits, and they don't have any real goals to aspire to, other than to find a knight and raise a family.

Yeah I remember that thread. The idea was that a Lady could have some sort of knight protector whom they could run as subservient character to fight off bandits and monsters and stuff while the lady traveled about. If I recall correctly, I think Khanwulf was doing something with the idea. There was also some talk on coming up with more ways to get glory through courtly activities and maybe some sort of Influence points to reflect all that courtly intrigue. Basically to try and give ladies something to do other than flirt and look for a husband. It's tough for lady characters since their best stat (APP) doesn't have any real game benefits, and they don't have any real goals to aspire to, other than to find a knight and raise a family.

Yes. Yes, and if you read the thread there are people who beleive the game must change to be more female friendly and inclsuive. And that is what they want to change. THe want female knights to be commplace, along with female liege lords. Basically the want to improve modern values of beleivf onto the setting. People don't ususally hold thier passion in check to make sure they are ready to go on campaign, or do they always know when they are going to be invaded. As would I. A knight who goes missing for years would probably come home to find someone else running the manor. Injuries and illness affect everybody and are not things that can be ancitipated, or avoided. As long as they can show up to fulfill their knightly duties then they are living up to their end of the feudal contract. A knight is obligated to be loyal , show up , and do thier duty, not to be successful. Of course such a knight would either prove thier worth through other skills (such as Battle) or get captured and need to be ransomed. Excelt that the feamle knight has all of the above limitations too. The point is if half the knights of the realm are female then the number of knights avaialbe at any given time will generally be less than if the knights were all male. Then there are the risks assocaited with if the female knight does try to fight while in an late state of pregnancy. She probably can't wear most of her armor, and a good spill cost cost the baby. In short it will be a problem for the female knight's liege lord, if said liege lord has a large number of female knights. Again, I don't have a problem with the rules as they stand currently, or with having one or more female knights in a campaign. I have a problem with making Arthurian Britain be more like modern Brtitain.

Healing Rate? Not so much. Most monsters heal up "off screen". It might matter for horses though. I think it is far more ideal than the "ho-hum a giant" we'll get in the future. I've already noticed that monsters really aren't all that much of a threat in KAP. Sure they do lots of damage if they win, but they a real do. Even critical hits aren't pink-mist time, for PKs in the old rules are ties negated damage. Now in the new rules tying with a giant is going to be bad news for a PK. But then why reinvent the wheel and use it to replace the once you just removed? It's much easier for those who don't like the -5 per opponent to just use the old rules. I don't. Big monsters tend to get ganged up on in Pendragon, as adventures rarely call for a dragon, and a group of Saxon raiders to fight at the same time. So it becomes the entire group of PKs vs. the monster and that's pretty much the end of the monster. I think the initiative problem has more to do with how fighting defensively counters "all- out attack". But then, I'm of the opinion that "all- out attack" is broken.

I would be. Speaking of the comics, what are the current best reprints now? I haven't seen the Fantagraphics stuff as much online and there are now some sort of hardcover edition. I would like to restart my PV collection one day and get at least all the Hal Foster strips, but I'm not sure what edition to collect. The strips really are one of the best sources for adventure ideas in an Arthurian or medieval RPG.

It doesn't baffle me. When the show runner actually states that he values the show as a political platform rather than for it's actual merits, you get poor quality preachy TV. Yes, but Pendragon has been and hopefully will remain Pendragon. Otherwise it looses the very things that attracted people to it in the first place.

Yeah, I can see dropping the weapon, but shields are stapped, and between the getting up peanlty, and two reamring penalties it seems a bit harsh. It does favor pagans a bit. That +2 Healing Rate from the religious bonus i going to look pretty sweet. IMO it put that bonus solidly in first place- if it wasn't already there. Yup. That is the intention, I think, but the wording, especially the use of the term "capped' isn't clear. More like it allows a skilled knight to cut down multiple less foes pretty easily, or if they fight defensively. I shudder to think what some of the PKs with Sword 30 can do- if not for their 20 Horsemanship. Overall I think I prefer the current method to the new one. Oh, yeah, and that just make it much much worse. Most monster foes have low skills to begin with. The general idea seems to be that the giant will squash you, if it actually wins. But now four or five knights ganging up on a giant means lots of free attacks! I much prefer the idea of letting the giant split his skill and watch the players sweat it out to see if it rolled than one-in-twenty chance of a critical. Giants are going to be more of a yawn now. And I still say. Yuck. You don't need to scale up CON to make hit points reasonable, you need to to make major wound reasonable, and still do. It's not like that 120 HP dragon is wimpy. All this change is going to do is increase the hit points of anything that counts. Do chargers really need 68 HP instead of 46? I don't believe they do. From what I've seen so far this is the rule change I like the least, although I'm highly suspect of the new passion rules. BTW, is it just me or does every PK in the quickstart have hafted weapons at half DEX? And does that mean what I think it does?

Yup, and I might walk away from it like I did RQG, and like we both did from MRQ. If it just me it wont matter much either. If other walk away too, then it might matter after all. P.S. Nice to see you posting again, bug.