LivingTriskele

Thanks, I was originally thinking POW x5 as well.

Now I'm thinking the PC's POW vs the POW of the temptation on the Resistance Table. I was considering power points vs the POW of the temptation on the Resistance Table (because power points fluctuate, just as a PC's resolve might), but it doesn't really make sense to me that a spell-caster's willpower would suffer from casting spells...

I know this is probably a newbie question (it's been a long time since I've actually run a BRP game...). Is there a roll akin to a Will roll? Something to determine a PC's ability to resist temptation for example. I could have sworn there was, but after a quick look at the Big Golden Book, did not see it...

Hmmm... interesting. My name is mentioned but I didn't have anything to do with this adventure (mine was a sort of a dark fantasy, infernal tropical island thing). My adventure was called Skull of the Sleepers. Maybe they have other plans for it.

Just curious if anyone knows what happened to it. I was told that my adventure was selected and that they hoped to have the book published in Feb. 2012. Now it looks like Chaosium is accepting submissions for 2012's adventure contest.

That's a good idea! I think I might look into that...

Hi Triff, I just sent you a personal message regarding my situation. The simple answer is still yes. It may take a while, but it will be completed.

I'm just curious if anyone who submitted, has heard back from Chaosium yet. Or if anyone knows how long it generally takes to hear back regarding submissions (this is the first time I've entered).

Cheers

Whoops. No they don't do they?

So playing that Epics roll 1d6+12 and Superhumans get 18 has not exactly been RAW. Taking a look again at the rules it appears that allowing players to choose Siz freely doesn't come from the rulebook either.

Edu roll seems to be 3d6+3 not 3d6 so for point buy why not start at Edu at 13 rather than 10? And leave allocated points as is?

I considered starting EDU at 13 but ended up deciding to give the players an extra 9 points to spend on Characteristics instead (to give them a little more freedom with creating their characters). Starting at 13 makes sense to me though.

Perhaps another option would be to just increase the multiplier to EDU for professional skills so that a base of 10 EDU yields a similar amount of points as characters without EDU

Ah, I should have mentioned the game I'm running is heroic... 6 pt increase for normal sounds good. 9 pt for heroic? Do you have any thoughts regarding other campaign levels. Thanks for the response, BTW.

I was considering giving the players an extra 9 points (to equal a starting EDU of 13, and thus a similar amount of professional skill points). Do you guys think that's too high?

You can definitely make a house-rule and fix the issue no problem. That’s not really my point. Bottom line is, the EDU combination with the point buy system has the issue I’ve already addressed (no need going over that again). It’s an unnecessary inconsistency. With a minor adjustment characters created with and without EDU could be on an equal playing field.

As an aside, personally, I think it does affect the balance of power if you plan to say, write an adventure for publication with a specific campaign power level. Heroic characters without EDU and built upon the point buy system will be more powerful than those with.

I don't see an inequity here, becuase if EDU is used in a campaign, all the characters will have an EDU stat, and thus have a level playing field. As long as you don't mix characters with EDU with those without EDU there is no problem.

This is one way of looking at it. But the fact remains that incorporating EDU with the Characteristic point-buy system creates a loss (comparatively) in either professional skill points or Characteristics, even though campaign type (normal, heroic etc.) remains the same.

I agree with that. But the campaign setting I'm working on is both combat heavy and has a lot of Knowledge-based skills (dark half-modern fantasy with clockwork wonders, steam energy and eldritch secrets) so I need to be able to allow for both types.

Just to clarify, I love BRP and am not bashing it. But I see a lot areas where the text could be tightened up. I'd like to see a 2nd edition some day and I've made it a sort of personal quest to expose the areas of the Big Golden Book that don't really make since to me (so that when/if Chaosium does begin work on a second edition they'll have some fan-based suggestions and observations regarding improvements). I know that not everyone is going to agree with what I think is important, but no one has too--one of the cool things about BRP is that it's so customizable.

I think the Know Roll is very useful for determining trivial basic knowledge but it shouldn't take the place of a specialized Knowledge Skill. A successful Know roll might give a PC a vague idea about something, while a successful Skill roll would allow for more detailed information. I think it's more of a tool for the GM to keep the game going when the PCs get in a bind... I don't see (yet) how it makes since that having a Know roll justifies having less skill points. Characters get an Idea roll for free which is just as useful.

But the more pertinent issue to me is the EDU Characteristic and how it interacts with the point buy system. Adding another Characteristic as important as EDU without increasing the points to purchase Characteristics means that players have to spend more points to gain a similar amount of professional skill points. Try making an archetypal "fighter" using the point buy system with and without EDU:

Method 1 (without EDU being used) the character starts with 250 skill points to spend on melee skills

Method 2 (with EDU being used) the character starts with 200 skill points to spend on melee skills if he/she leaves EDU at a base level of 10. If this player wants an equal amount of skill points he/she has to raise EDU, which means less points to spend on STR DEX and CON.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not complaining. I'm trying to improve upon the system. This is an inconsistency that I think is worth being addressed. I actually do use EDU and already have a solution for the problem (that works for me). I'm just wondering if anyone else has considered this. I'm looking for constructive responses from people who are interested in improving the core mechanics of the game and clarifying inconsistencies and typos in the book.

Professional skill points determined normally without the EDU Characteristic

Normal: 250 pts for professional skills

Heroic: 325 pts for professional skills

Epic: 400 pts for professional skills

Superhuman: 500 for to professional skills

With EDU multipliers are:

Normal 20 x EDU (20 x an average EDU of 10 = 200 pts for professional skills)

Heroic 25 x EDU (25 x an average EDU of 10 = 250 pts for professional skills)

Epic 30 x EDU (30 x an average EDU of 10 = 300 pts for professional skills)

Superhuman 40 x EDU (40 x an average EDU of 10 = 400 pts for professional skills)

In a campaign that uses the optional EDU Characteristic, a character must have an EDU of about 13 to get approximately the same amount of professional skill points as a character generated for a campaign that does not use EDU.

Normal: 250 (20 x 12.5 EDU = 250 pts for professional skills)

Heroic: 325 (25 x 13 EDU = 325 pts for professional skills)

Epic: 400 (30 x 13.33 EDU = 399.90 pts for professional skills)

Superhuman: 500 (40 x 12.5 EDU = 500 pts for professional skills)

In a campaign that uses both EDU AND the point buy system to generate Characteristics, a player must spend 9 of his/her points to have an EDU of 13 (and thus gain the same amount of professional skill points as characters in campaigns that do not use EDU). For a normal campaign this leaves 15 points to spend on the remaining Characteristics.

Normal: 24 points to purchase Characteristics

Heroic: 36 points to purchase Characteristics

Epic: 48 points to purchase Characteristics

Superhuman: 60 points to purchase Characteristics

I can see two possible solutions for this problem:

1) Get rid of the multiplier to EDU entirely and just use the regular professional skill point values as if EDU is not being used (250, 325, 400, and 500 respectively).

2) Give the players an extra 9 points for purchasing characteristics so that they can begin play with an EDU of 13 (if they want to) and therefore have an equal amount of skill points as characters in campaigns not using EDU. The issue with this second option is that players may want to use this extra 9 points to purchase Characteristics other than EDU (something I’m fine with).

I’m curious if anyone else has given this any thought, or if anyone has even read this far…

Thanks! I just downloaded it.

I was thinking the same thing (regarding your suggested third option).

And I agree about the need for errata. I've begun to re-read the book and note the areas that are unclear (like the one above). I may document them on this forum for future reference.

p. 19, Step 3 Age reads “For every full 10 years you add to the default rolled starting age of your character, you can allot another 20, 30, or 40 professional skill points (based on the level of campaign, as described in Step Six)."

There are four campaign levels: Normal, Heroic, Epic and Superhuman, but only three numeric increases to skill points per 10-year increment given (20, 30, 40 respectively). Are these skill point increases for Normal, Heroic and Epic, or are they for Heroic, Epic and Superhuman? Regardless, what about the missing fourth Campaign Level?

Also this page states that Campaign Level is discussed in Step Six when it is not. Step Six delineates Personality skill point bonuses.

LMFAO

In the end, what ever brings the most drama to the game table is probably best. It's just a matter of determining what that is. For example, rolling NPC/foes attacks against PCs adds an element of uncertainty and lack of control to the players, so that makes sense to me. Having a PC roll to resist poison makes sense to me as well. Having a boulder roll to resist a PC trying to push it up a hill, not so much...

One neophyte GM maneuver I’ve made in the past, was having the PC roll, but against the wrong numeric value. As per the above poison example, I gave him a 60% chance of resisting, when actually he should have had a 40%... neophyte...

Is it the active or the passive force that makes the roll?

With the example on page 170 regarding poison POT 17 (active) against a CON of 15 (passive) the Resistance Table yields a roll of 60 or less as a successful poisoning.

I’ve always assumed the passive (defending) agent makes the roll, but in this case I’m guessing the GM would make the roll on behalf of the poison.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to treat the defender’s Con of 15 as active and the POT of 17 as passive, and allow the player to roll against a chance of 40 to avoid the baneful effects of the poison? I know the chances are same but it seems more intuitive to me to let the defender roll.

Thanks! I want to refine these and re-post them, maybe with a few more ideas.