Dalmuti

Really. Re-read all of his posts in this thread and find one that actually offers a suggestion other than wait and everything will turn out in the end. Seriously nearly all of his posts apologize for Chaosium or belittle others criticisms and ideas. You disagree? His last post is a good example of being a little harsh and unfair, as well as being kind of a ----. What do you think he is saying here? I think he is discounting mine and others desire for an errata sheet, because our opinions don't matter, there not mission critical. Further they don't matter because his group is fine the way things are, and because his group is fine with it, so should everyone else. Harsh, maybe, but you should be just as annoyed with his condescending remarks as I am. ~Dalmuti

What? Are you some kind of shill for Chaosium? You'll have to excuse my tone but I'm loosing patience with your sycophantic drivel. This discussion is to point out and try and solve the problems of a lack of support from Chaosium for a product we like, and want to see do well. This includes pointing out failures and asking for specific solutions, such as an official errata. But lets address your latest obsequiousness. This is what I would call a False Analogy. (The Logical Fallacies: False Analogy) Just because MRQ did it poorly, which I care neither to agree or disagree with, does not mean Chaosium will as well. This, by the way, is a pretty out of character assessment by you of Chaosium's ability to do no wrong. Could your sinuses have cleared for a moment and you noticed the smell? I disagree. Supporting a product means follow up, it means addressing errors and inconsistencies, it means not being satisfied with your product being "fine". It means not leaving your customers to patch together work arounds for themselves. Other game companies seem to be able to figure this little business secret out and are able to release errata and clarification sheets within a reasonable amount of time, why not Chaosium? They have one official product in the BRP line, one, not dozens, one. To not at the very least correct it's mistakes and inconsistencies is inexcusable and indefensible. This is what I would call an Irrelevant Conclusion or maybe an Appeal to Popularity. The Logical Fallacies: Irrelevant Conclusion<br>(<i>ignoratio elenchi </i>) The Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Popularity<br>(<i>argumentum ad populum</i>) Just because your group is ok with the mistakes and inconsistencies, does not mean the rules are fine as they are. For new players errors and inconsistencies are a source of confusion, for older players it's a potential source for argument as to which rule from which previous version should apply. Sure a lot of us have played long enough to figure it out in our own way but we shouldn't have to, and for $40 I have a right to expect that errors will be addressed. Being an apologist for Chaosium doesn't help them better support the BRP community. Constructive criticism and making reasonable demands does. ~Dalmuti

I'm sorry but I think RosenMcStern and some others have sipped too much of the cool aid here. While I agree that it is a very good thing that there is finally some movement on the third party stuff this is not the only kind of support the community is crying out for. It is true that the system will survive in some form or another for those of us already familiar with it, with or without Chasoium, but commercially it will fail unless it keeps releasing some more support/supplement material on a regular basis and deals with errata and clarifications promptly for that material. I for one would like an official errata and clarification sheet. I'm not talking about fixing misspellings, but rooting out and correcting the errors and inconsistencies caused by the "Cut & Paste" method some of this book suffers from. The system is designed to be easily house ruled, but after 20 years these rules should be rock solid and shouldn't require them. This is not a slam on the writers or playtesters, it not easy to do for this amount of material, but it has to be done and it should have been done already. ~Dalmuti

I'd go so far as to say that if the character is relying on the weapon's skill all the time they actually loose skill. Just mark the skill normally and when experience rolls are made and they succeed then they loose 1% of skill. To balance this the GM should automatically return, not give, one lost skill point for each full battle the character does not rely on the weapon's skill. Another way of dealing with it is to have a familiarity type skill that the player rolls to give up control to the weapon. The base being the characters will or POWx5: a success and the character "lets the Force flow..." (use the weapons skill), a failure and the character interferes with the weapon somehow and their skill is used instead. Regardless, if the weapon is calling the shots, then the character should not increase in skill. ~Dalmuti

RosenMcStern I said in an earlier post that I respect your input and you're definitely in Chasoium's corner in this, which I appreciate. So please don't take this as a challenge, but as a question from someone else that would like to see the BRP succeed. Several of us have thrown out ideas to jumpstart this line, each of them has it's good and bad points for sure, but all of them have the same positive goal. What, other than wait and see, would do with this line to solve the current problems? ~Dalmuti

I believe Rust has already mentioned this but here is a link to the BRC Review of MGRQ Pirates Pirates - D100 Reviews It's very good stuff, with some great flavor adds, though some may be a bit too much for a really serious game. The chapter on Combat on the High Seas covers duels, crew combat, morale, and ship-to-ship combat (and more), which I have found are very useful even outside the pirate setting. The MGRQ rules are also pretty similar to the current BRP, having the same system roots in the older versions of the BRP. ~Dalmuti

I'd argue that Fast Talk is too off the cuff and too impermanent to be the appropriate skill for a Poker Face type thing. Fast Talk is more of a BSing kind of action. It doesn't have to be BS, just that it's presented quickly with the intended effect being to overwhelm your target and get them to agree/accept your point of view before they have the time to really consider it. Bluffing would be Fast Talking with a lie or half truth. A Poker Face is different because, as I said earlier, it requires some time to establish your neutral state (neutral in the sense of whatever demeanor you choose), before it can be effective. It's the same difference in a way as Oratory and Debate vs Fast Talk. The other problem that I see with having it a Fast Talk based skill is that it becomes too generalized. Just because you have a good poker face doesn't mean you are a convincing talker. A side note: I prefer Oratory & Debate over Persuade because unlike Oratory or Debate, the word Persuade implies that a success makes the target do or believe what you want them too regardless of whether or not your idea is reasonable, so it often gets used as an exploit, intentionally or not. It doesn't imply that you need any leverage. By leverage I mean something like information, a compelling story or argument, a thing, whatever, but without it you have no leverage in which to persuade with (note that the "leverage" does not have to be real, your argument could be a lie or false information). With Oratory and Debate it only says that whatever your leverage was, you presented it well enough to be considered. Whether or not they actually come around to your point of view depends on if you had anything to back up that point of view. ~Dalmuti

I would call "Poker Face" a Performance skill, because thats most like what it is. Your not bluffing really, because a bluff is an active thing with a specific purpose, "I have the best cards" for example. A poker face is when you are hiding all your thoughts or emotions from showing through your physical and emotional demeanor altogether. It is really only effective over a period of time too because it works by creating a uniform expression across all reactions, good, bad and indifferent, so as to not give away any change and therefore any way to distinguish any thoughts or emotions. A poker face can be a blank or neutral expression or a happy or sad one, as long as it is consistent regardless of the situation. For example: Poker Face always wears a thin smile and speaks in a mildly amused manner, he never seems to be unhappy or even just neutral. He is confronted with a terrible fact about his work; everyone is actually an alien who eat babies and replaces them with their own spawn! Poker Face heads to work an puts on his normal mildly amused expression (rolls Performance), because he now has to go into work and get proof so as to stop this. While in the records room he sees the girl from accounting, who he had been interested in before finding out she's a hideous tentacled baby eater, he must maintain his mildly amused demeanor or tip her off. Normally she would only need an insight roll to notice something different about a character's demeanor, but because of PFs Poker Face Performance skill she now has to not only succeed her roll but beat PFs Performance success as well. If successful she will notice a difference in PFs normal behavior, if she fails she will not. If she succeeds and she starts asking questions then PF is looking at a Bluff or Fast Talk to cover why he broke from his normally amused demeanor. They way to play it is to have the Character or NPC choose a demeanor such as "neutral" and make a Performance roll for a period of time. If the character is successful then their demeanor hold throughout that period of time, if they fail then treat them normally, if they fumble then they fail but think they didn't or some other effect (such as a bonus to others Insight rolls). The GM would determine if additional rolls were necessary depending on changes in the situation. When someone encounters them they will get a description that includes their demeanor as "neutral" (or whatever the character chooses) no roll is necessary at this point, if anyone attempts to make an Insight roll however they must also beat the character's successful Performance roll (if they were successful). Basically have the Poker Face Performance skill turns an Insight skill roll into an opposed roll. Anyway thats my take on it. Dalmuti

I've been busy at work so missed a few days of responding. I don't disagree, though I do think that if as you say "...a sound business model, some industry clout and the ability to churn-out supporting product at a decent and steady rate to please both fans and licensor.", a licensed product can work to bring new people to your brand, the BRP. I've already made a case and theres no need to re-state it. It does seem though that Chaosium is not any of those things right now, so a push like this would likely fail. I'd go as far to say that even an original setting would likely fail because of a lack of... well, you fill in the blank here.:ohwell: I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread that I was open to doing some layout and design, and even find and work with new artists to help out in a re-launch of the BRP. Even with this recent news I'm still interested, but I will take a wait and see kind of approach for now. I mention this again because this is one thing that I really think will help BRP compete in this new market. Poor delivery (design in this case) really does make a difference, and good design is worth every penny spent. ~Dalmuti

I admit I am no expert in this, however, the company I am with is having no problems at all getting loans for projects. The point I was making is that Chaosium is an established company with a credit history. I, as an individual, am not. A bank will loan money to a company with a sufficiently positive credit history and proven income, even in this current economic climate. Of course if Chaosium is a credit risk they will not get a loan. My comment about getting a loan was to acknowledge that going after a new licensed franchise would be expensive, but that if successful would create the resources required to support the BRP better, which was what this thread was about to begin with. As I believe I said, the point of this exercise was to create a substantial second cash cow for Chaosium, something they would own directly. I have a plan for myself and it does not include starting a RPG company. Don't have to as it's not relevant. What is relevant is that it was a licensed product that had a literary following before becoming an RPG. I don't know how Chaosium got the license from the Lovecraft people, but I would guess it involved raising some money to purchase it. It is my case in point. My ideas, as presented in this thread, are with incomplete information about Chaosium as a company. I have no idea whats going on in their offices, in their balance books, or in their minds, only that they are doing a less than spectacular job of marketing and supporting the BRP. Their doing fine with CoC, but its obviously not enough to fully support the BRP as well. My experience in the creative field tell me that the idea that I laid out has a good chance of working. I could very well be wrong, but I don't think so. In any case I respect your experience and comments and I think I can say we both hope that Chaosium is able to succeed enough to do a better job of supporting the BRP. ~Dalmuti

I'm not sure what to make of a comment like this. If you are referring to my posts I can only say that I have not suggested creating anything or that it is easy, only that if Chaosium is going to have the staff to fully support all of the fan based work and fully support the BRP they need another money making product. My idea, which some are calling advise, is to license a known, popular set of works and apply the BRP system to it. Something that already has a following to draw upon. Chaosium did this in it's early years and it was successful as we can see with CoC, which is a licensed product that had a literary following before becoming an RPG. Look, if we take the attitude that no one can speak out unless they have written and sold a successful role playing game, regardless of what other experience they may have, is ridiculous. It's the classic apples and oranges type of argument ~ "I see you can draw an apple, but since I don't see any oranges in your portfolio I going to hire someone else...". It would likely preclude even yourself from commenting... ~Dalmuti

Not really, interest rates are very low now and despite what you may have read in the paper or on-line news, banks are still loaning out money to business at the same volume as they always have, they are just not being as helpful to individuals. :ohwell: Well, I don't have a name in the industry, Chaosium does, nor do I have the contacts they do. A bank is not likely to give me a large enough business loan for a project like this, and a personal loan opens you up to too much liability, but would likely give one to Chaosium. I would have no leverage when attempting to acquire a licensing agreement to make an RPG, Chaosium would. It would be poor business to negotiate with Chaosium after the fact as I would again have no leverage. Nor would it be good for them as they would not own the license. I also am not suggesting a "side" project I'm suggesting adding a real revenue stream aka. CoC and that would require resources (people) that I alone could not provide without starting a company of my own, which would defeat the purpose of my argument. The truth is I can help but am not in a position to go at it alone. Don't get me wrong, I have no illusions that this is an easy task nor do I miss the potential risks or claim to know everything (or even enough) about this industry. I do know about my industry and I know that Chaosium has some credibly that they can leverage because of CoC and credibility and a good idea can go a long way in any industry. Expecting others to come up with good ideas, and produce them by themselves, to make money for your company is not a winning business strategy. Sure you will make a few dollars here and there, but none of us (or more accurately those that spend their free time to come up with these pretty impressive monographs), just don't have the time and resources to get the really big fish. No matter how many licenses Chaosium gives out they will not reap substantial benefits until they themselves step up and use their brand to acquire another CoC type license. ~Dalmuti

True enough, but that can be said of any business. My point is that it is time for a second cash cow and that can, should, and probably will, be another licensed product. With a new source of income they can better support original products. Chaosium though seems not prepared to take any risks now and the opportunity created with the release of the new BRP is being wasted. ~Dalmuti

Thanks, I didn't think they did :ohwell: My current contract is for the rest of the year, and keeps me pretty busy, but I seem to have more time in the Spring and Summer for other projects. I think I will contact them when the snow starts to melt, but I have a feeling that they are a very insular group and are afraid of loosing control of any part of their baby, even if it means smothering it. So my expectations are low. ~Dalmuti

The name brand is needed to re-start the company brand to compete in the market, not because I really care about the Serenity RPG or whatever. Once the re-start happens all the other opportunities mentioned are possible. But right now Chaosium seems too broke to do a proper job of marketing their product. Thats not to say I don't want good non-licensed games, I do, but I want the BRP to succeed and if that means a couple of high profile franchises then so be it. ~Dalmuti

I know the risks of investment, and I know how hard it can be to come up with capital to start a project, but the rewards of success are real and that investment will pay off in future opportunities. Look at the crappy system used for Serenity and the BSG RPGs. They convinced the owners of the BSG franchise that they could make their game, even though the Serenity RPG tanked. Why, because they took a chance and sold them on a good design, not a good system, but a good visual design and had a slick product they could point to to seal the deal. Imagine if these games were done with the BRP? Did it cost them $$$, sure but their still in business and likely to get the next SiFi Channel hit, even though their game system sucks. If Chasioum had designed the BRP with this in mind they would be sitting in a potential gold mine, but as it stands, it was released without a a plan for the future and it's sinking like a stone. (self help terminology alert) Look, Chaosium needs to move out of their mother's basement, so to speak, and start to open themselves up to the possibilities of real success. They have a great product in the BRP system, that is presented like an 80's re-tread and their too risk averse to step up to the plate and swing for the fence. Find a great franchise, take out a big fat business loan and go for it. 80% of the work is already done with the BRP so most of the money will go to paying for the licensing, design, printing, and marketing (lots of marketing). Plan on loosing money for the first product but walk in with a proven success for the next one. (hell they have a proven success in CoC, it just needs a face lift) This is business 101. If I owned the BRP I'd mortgage my mother to get the money to make this work. In fact, if they ask me I'll design and layout a mock up, and the next set of books, and they'll have a product design to compete with anything on the market today. All they would have to do is prove to me that they are serious by taking out that huge business loan, hiring a real pit bull sales person with literary/film & TV contacts to get a decent franchise when the work is ready to go, and get a decent a lawyer to seal a good deal. All I'd ask in return is a bit of cash for equipment and software, and a contract for a reasonable return off the back end (and I mean reasonable fair, not outrageous). Seriously, really, they can contact me any time. ~Dalmuti

A Troll chiming in. Back in the 80's, I owned five Chaosium product lines. RQ, CoC, Elf Quest, Elric/Stormbringer, and Ringworld. I looked forward to anything and everything they put out. It is true that I mostly bought CoC supplements but that was because thats what I mostly played. It is also true that CoC was likely the only one to make a real profit, but the other games were what companies call loss leaders, they bring in new buyers and keep the illusion of status because they are highly visible. These products need only break even to show their true value to a company. Chaosium seemed like a real player on the RPG scene precisely because of the volume of good product, even if some of them barely broke even on the back end.. The key was, in my opinion, that they were able to get known franchises and custom tweak the BRP system to fit each of them. Each game had it's own feel and each version of the system matched the world of the franchise*. More importantly they took up as much shelf space as the GURPs line currently does, and that gets people to look at and buy your material. Chaosium has forgotten it's roots and has let other companies capture what used to be it's strength and worse, gave up those strengths. They gave up RQ as well so they don't have an original world either. What they need to do is start getting solid, known, literary/movie/television worlds and make custom BRP based games out of them. Even if they are one shots with few supplements (like Elf Quest and Ringworld). Fan developed material is great, but it's not as marketable as worlds based on available, and successful, literature/film/TV series. CoC is a prime example of how this works and why Chaosium needs to start competing again in this type of market. The BRP system is much better than GURPS, D20, and a host of others out there doing this now. It's not perfect for everything, but a few well picked and developed titles can reinvigorate the BRP line and make room for even more support for the really good fan based material currently being developed by the folks on this and other lists. It will also give much needed revenue to support an official original line. The comments on how Chaosium is too small to do this are valid, but only to a point. In any creative business you need to be constantly taking risks and following up on successes. But mostly you need to sell yourself, sell, sell, sell. You cannot take a break or you will loose momentum which is what has happened at Chaosium. Whoever is in charge of A&R, line development and sales is dropping the ball. They should be looking at every popular/viable literary SF/Fantasy line right now and contact those writers to get them to sign off on a BRP RPG franchise. I could name a half dozen right now that would make excellent game worlds. The BRP system is solid, flexible, and has a willing base that just needs to be excited about something other than CoC. It's time for Chaosium to sh*t or get off the pot and hire a person who doesn't "love" gaming but loves money to sell their system to writers and produces as the one for their RPG franchise rather than D20, GURPS, and those crappy systems they used for LOTR etc. Then risk hiring a full time non-CoC team who do love gaming to develop these new lines. ~Dalmuti * contrary to popular belief, one system does not fit all and this trend over the last 10-15 years of shoehorning everything into a "universal" system has produced mostly a huge amount of great source material but few games that actually feel like the worlds they cover which leads to disappointing game play. It's better to use a system as a base and modify it as much as necessary to get the system to work with the setting, not the other way around. The BRP is a good base system, but only if you are willing to tweak it a lot. Chaosium knew this in the 80's and it worked then, it will work again now.

Fair enough, but this is a pretty important rule and there should be some official ruling on it. Right now most of us are guessing, house ruling, or just ignoring new BRP rules that don't make sense and using the rules of whatever other Chaosium title we play most. Plus it's not like this is the only confusing rule in the book (someone read Aura Attacks and tell me definitively how long the effects last, to name one), it's interfering with the fun of the game. I've been playing with Chaosium's games since the early 80's and have to say that my only real problem with them is the lack of follow-up on rules support. It's been more than a half a year and still no errata or clarifications sheet. Dalmuti

I don't have the book in front of me either but I'm pretty sure that this is not the difference. I believe that in the Attacks paragraph in the Combat section it states that if a weapon allows for more than a single attack per round it happens 5 Dex Ranks later. It does not, as far as I remember, differentiate between types of attacks, which is why this rule is confusing. It says in the very first line that the ROF is the weapons normal number of attacks per round, it also say this in the Un-aimed shots spot rule BTW, but then in the very next line states that firing at a weapons ROF is not normal but a "desperate" type of attack and thus Difficult. Dalmuti

I haven't gotten any response on this :confused:, how is everyone else playing with ROF and are they using the Volley Fire rule? Dalmuti

I see what your doing here, it's in a way similar to RQ as I remember it, but how then do you factor in a deflecting parry? It's true that when you block a blow you are basically absorbing the force of it, which will cause damage the shield or weapon. When you deflect a blow you are really re-directing the blows force away. You often don't hit the edge of the weapon at all, or at least not at an angle that it will bite. This is why maces were so effective against plate armor, it was harder to deflect the force of the blow because it wasn't so concentrated at a cutting edge*. So my argument is that an effective (not just successful) parry with a shield or weapon is one that deflects the blow in a way that does no damage to it (or at least no relevant damage at the scale used in an RPG). When I said in my earlier post that it doesn't matter whether the player chose to say the blow was blocked or deflected depending how they wish to visualize it, I meant in the context of an RPG it doesn't matter. In real life it does. Your system doesn't take this into account, every blow regardless of whether it was a deflection or a block, is treated like a block and damages the shield in a way that could lead to it's destruction. This just isn't the case. The BRP makes only Special and Critical success, or Fumbles for that matter, damage the parrying shield or weapon, as well as gives rolled damage to the defender. I think this is more accurate. Does it reflect the actual percentage of deflections over blocks or how much damage that particular shield really absorbed? Probably not, but it does a better job than if you don't take deflecting into account at all. What I meant by the difference between a heaver blocking type shield and a lighter, more weapon like, deflecting shield was in the context of defense. It wasn't that you don't use a shield as a weapon. Heavy, less mobile shields rely on their toughness to protect, and because of their size and weight are used in such a way that doesn't require a lot of swinging around. You can use any type of shield as a weapon in some way, only some are more "weapon like" in how they can be maneuvered. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the current BRP system better represents how parrying works in general, than a system that only takes into account the relative toughness of a weapon or shield. Dalmuti * This is reflected in the Crushing special success BTW

I'm not convinced that you are actually getting any more realism. Your example of the Hoplon is a good one, you are correct that it is not used for deflecting blows as much as it is for blocking them. However, a Hoplon is terrible in single combat; it's just too heavy and unwieldy to move quick enough to block blows. Sure, it will block more of the blows damage when it does intercept than a small shield or sword block, but will intercept fewer of them. So unless your system addresses this kind of thing, all your doing is factoring in a plus without factoring in its minuses. This is a good observation, but not all shields would fall into the weapon like category. A Buckler (very small metal shield) would for sure but a large shield would not. The difference comes from both size and how the shield is held, if it is strapped to the forearm like a Hoplon, Roman Scutum (the big rectangle ones) or heavy medieval knights shield, it's more of a blocking shield used in formation like a wall or as added defense against arrows. These shields are heaver and are not optimized for single combat. If it's held in your fist in the middle so that it can be thrust about then it's more weapon like because it is intended more for single combat. These shields necessarily have to be smaller and lighter or you wouldn't be able to move them around for very long. So like I said above a bigger heaver shield will stop more damage, but is too heavy to use quickly and less able to deflect effectively in single combat. Additionally, being strapped to the forearm limits it's range of motion. A smaller shield will stop less damage blocking but it's quicker and has a greater range of motion enabling it to more effectively deflect incoming blows. A second weapon or parrying with a single weapon works essentially the same as a buckler in that it deflects more than it blocks. So how do you write a system for this? You can't just count the shield or weapons strength, because that skews the advantage to heaver shields, and you can't say lighter shields or parrying with a weapon doesn't protect as much because they actually deflect more often than they block making the strength less relevant. So the BRP just averages this all together and leaves it to the players to decide if the blow was deflected or blocked, because the end result is the same. If you parry effectively (a equal or better result than the hit) you and your parring device don't take damage. If that device was a large shield maybe it blocked blow completely because of it's greater strength, if it was a small shield or weapon, you deflected the blow completely, it doesn't matter. If your parry was inferior you and your parring device take damage. Whether you took damage because you blocked with a small shield rather than deflected and was partially overcome, or that the blade took a chuck out of your massive Hoplon and smacked you in the face is up to you. Dalmuti

As mentioned earlier by Shaira, shields, and weapons, do take damage, and damage does get through parries. Only in the BRP a shield/weapon only takes damage on a Critical or Special success if that success is not parried by a equal or better success. The rules are saying that if you parry a hit with an equal success, you deflect/block the hit in such a way that neither the parrying shield/weapon or defender is damaged. Keep in mind the although the technique for parrying with a shield is different than with a weapon, but both aim to deflect rather than block, minimizing damage to the shield/weapon as well as themselves. If your parry is inferior to the hit, such as a normal parry to a Special success, both the parrying shield/weapon is damaged as well as is the defender (in this case 2 pts to the shield/weapon and a normal roll to the meat holding it). The BRP is, and rightly in my opinion, ruling that how skillfully you defend is the important thing, not how strong the defending item is. Additionally it simplifies the exchange by eliminating the extra math of damage vs shield/weapon HPs. The BRP is basically saying that in a melee it is the skill of the defender that is the deciding factor, and that whether they defend with a sword or a shield is not. Remember an attacker is trying to hit their opponent, not their shield/weapon. The larger size of a shield is also not as a deciding factor in single combat as one might think because size equals weight, and the heaver the weight the slower the user can react with it, effectively balancing its usefulness out and bringing us back to the skill of the defender. But shields do have some advantages over weapons which are adequately covered in the BRP. Those advantages include being cheaper, easer to repair, more HPs, and most significantly being able to defend against missile attacks. Whether or not it should have a higher base skill is debatable, but for the most part the BRP reflects the differences just fine. As to what is better, having a sword and shield or just a sword? Well along with the ability to defend against missile attacks, I'd say not having to fall back on the dagger you put only a token amount of skill points in when your sword breaks... :shocked: Shields, and welding a second weapon, can have an offensive advantage as they can be used to create openings for the weapon hand not being used to defend, but the discussion here is about defense. I would be open for something that could adequately represent this, but there are too many variables to deal with. Adding a bonus for attacking would be the simplest but that wouldn't take into account the real level of skill required, which would likely be a penalty, effectively making it a wash. Shields were the very first man made defense developed in part because early weapons were too fragile or to unwealdly (spears) to defend with. But they were really made to defend against missile weapons and spears. In mass combat they were essential because you can't dodge in a phalanx, but in single combat they are not more effective than a dodge or parry with a weapon that can take a hit without breaking right away. In the bronze age weapons were just too fragile and expensive to use to parry, in the iron age the problem was similar, when steel came along you begin to see the shift to parrying with weapons and the slow abandoning of shields in personal combat. Just to set the record strait. Swords do take damage every time they strike something hard enough, especially when parrying another metal weapon. That damage are nicks, blunting and bending of the blade, and possibly fractures and breaking. After each battle a sword is "repaired" by sharpening, straitening, and if necessary re-forging cracks. Fighting blades are tempered to bend rather than break in combat, where as replica blades are tempered for hardness and shine. The BRP, as with most (dare I say all) RPGs, tend to overlook this kind of damage because in this context it really only matters if the weapon actually breaks. Dalmuti

Here is the relevant rule from the BRP (I bolded the confusing bit): Volley Fire The attacks-per-round (Attk) for missile weapons on the weapons charts in Chapter Eight: Equipment are based on the assumption that your character will be launching attacks at a normal rate. However, at times, your character will wish to send as many attacks at an opponent as are possible in the shortest amount of time, perhaps as suppressing fire or in a desperate attempt at bypassing a particularly effective defense. If your character chooses to throw, fire, or launch weapons as rapidly as possible, use the relevant weapon’s attacks-per-round entry, with the first attack at the normal DEX rank and subsequent attacks happening at 5 DEX rank intervals. If the DEX ranks for any attacks are below 0, your character loses that attack. Though your character may have enough DEX ranks to attack more than the attacks-per-round, that amount is the limit and all further DEX rank attacks are not used. For example, if your character with DEX 12 uses volley fire with throwing rocks (which get 2 attacks-per-round), the first throw will occur on DEX rank 12, and the second will occur on DEX rank 7. There are a few drawbacks to volley fire, however. First and foremost is that it makes all attacks Difficult. Second is that it is (potentially) expensive in terms of ammunition expended. Another negative aspect to volley fire is that the fatigue cost is doubled for every round your character uses volley fire. Ok, so what is it? Do you get the weapons ROF as listed as the number of attacks per round as your normal rate or do you get the listed ROF as the number of attacks as rapidly as possible and at Difficult skill? One guess was that you normally only get a single attack per round, regardless of ROF, if you want to use a ROF greater than 1 it was difficult. You can also double the ROF with Unaimed Shots at 1/4 skill. Dalmuti

Thanks all for your responses. I've been and still am, too busy working late nights to respond properly right now, I'm an animator and the show I'm working on is fast approaching deadline, but wanted to show my appreciation. Probably be able to post again in a week or so. Thanks, Dalmuti