islan

I would probably only really enforce the MOV spending if it was a battle that used miniatures (or, dice and little gem stones), which most of my battles don't. Otherwise I'd probably just speak in relative terms to the players ("Yes, he's close enough for you to close in to, nevermind the exact distance").

I had one idea for this, considering putting it into my own games. Whenever someone makes a Dodge attempt, they have to move one MOV space. This takes up one of their total MOV rating, and requires there to be an open space adjacent to the character (if we're talking in terms of grid-play). Characters can still perform "static" dodges, such as ducks and side-steps, but they become Difficult. What do you guys think?

But who wouldn't put the extra points into Dodge? It would seem that the bonuses that I mentioned earlier would make it quite worth it.

I don't know if I've talked about it on this forum before, and it's bothering me again, so I thought I'd bring it up. In combat, it seems to me that people try to parry much more than they dodge. While parrying is about getting in the way of something, dodge seems to take quick-forethought as to where the blow is heading. BRP doesn't seem to have this distinction: dodging is just as easy as parrying a blow (so long as the skills are equal, of course), and many times dodging is preferable (such as getting attacked by a weapon too large to be parried). What's more, parrying can result in your weapon getting damaged. So, why should I parry more than dodge in BRP?

I think the target has to receive at least 1 point of damage from it in order to be affected, but I have nothing to reference for that interpretation.

I'm not sure if this should be in here or the Basic Roleplaying forum, since it is not an official setting. I'm thinking about adapting BRP to run a Post-Apoc game set in the Fallout world. Not entirely sure what adaptations I need to make just yet, but I am thinking about using the following optional rules and rule variants: -Have Five Slots for each Stat (besides SIZ) representing 5 levels. Each level is a multiplier of the first one (ie, if you have a Str of 15, level 2 would be 30, level 3 would be 45, level 4 would be 60, and level 5 would be 75). Not really specific to the setting, I was thinking it would help make the stat-checks more flexible (say "Make a Strength level 3 roll" instead of "Make a Difficult Effort roll") -Double Max Hit Points along with Hit Locations -Use Fatigue but only for long-term exhaustion; ie, going without rest, water, food, or suffering from radiation could all lower your Fatigue Points. Let me know if you have an advice.

Oo! Not Sense, but Insight. I think that would be the way to go for me.

Without much experience with real-world fighting, I think I'm getting rather hung up on this "fail to find an opening" thing. I would think that successful dodges or parries would be "fail to find an opening" since, if they failed, then it would leave an opening. I was actually thinking about adding a Feint maneuver to BRP that would allow an attacker to make a defender waste one of their defensive rolls (thus giving them a -30) on their next one. The defender would probably have to make a Sense roll in order to see if something is in fact a feint and thus not fall for it.

Well it seems like in the BRP book, attack and defense seem to be considered to be rolled at the same time, because a failed attack with a fumbled defense results in the defender still being hit (see parry fumble table).

Well, for example, I was recently running a survival horror game with BRP. Players would keep on making shots at enemy monsters who did not take much interest in defending, but their offensive skills were kept low in order to highlight "survival" part of it. Or, a character charges forward with a melee weapon to go one-on-one with a monster. With other games that have static rather than active defenses, I normally just say that the monster dodged or the attack only winged it. But with active defenses, I find the act of imagining the battle more difficult when an attacker just "misses".

I can't really imagine what that would look like outside of medieval skirmish combat (where everyone is clunked together and moving)

If both an attacker and a defender miss, what does that mean? Does it mean that the defender actually succeeded in dodging/parrying? If so, then does that imply that you automatically hit someone who isn't allowed a defensive action? The spot-rule for Backstabbing seems to imply differently, making the attack only Easy (which could still warrant a miss, if the attack skill being used is <50%).

On the notion of speed and with heavy combat, I was thinking about having a ton of bad guys fighting. With a d100 I would have to roll them individually in order to best assess their results and not getting the dice mixed up with one another, while with a d20 I could pick up as many d20's as there are bad guys and just roll them all at the same time, immediately dropping any that roll over their skill. But yes, still very abstract, though

That's what I want to hear about: the difference of feel. It can be argued that the percent-chance remains the same, but the feel is definitely different. Just sitting here rolling dice, I got the feeling of a d20 to be more simple and broad, while the d100 is more attention-to-detail feeling. Yet I still want to here from people with game experience with this.

I know that Pendragon uses a d20, but I haven't played it yet. It seems to me that if you used a d20 for BRP, you could easily make Stat Checks without having to "math out" the derived stats (Effort, Idea, etc) and could easily figure out degrees of success (since the scale would be much smaller). Meanwhile you could change the Resistance Tables mods from + or - 5 to just + or - 1. I guess you'd have to alter the way skillls improve, though. So, I guess for those of you who have played Pendragon, how does it compare to the base BRP model (ie, how does it "feel")? For everyone else, why would you prefer d100 over d20, besides just to be different?

Either Brawl or Agility roll, though Brawl wouldn't deal any damage. I would suggest just sticking with the Agility roll, since touching someone is easier than just punching them. Targets can still dodge and, I think, parry.

I was running my first BRP game earlier tonight, and one player wanted to play someone who primarily used the Grapple skill. He was into high-school wrestling (or something thereof), so he has some knowledge himself on how it usually works. We both agreed that the way Grapple works as-written seems rather slow; ie, that you have to roll to grapple one round, but have to wait to apply any effects until the next round. So I ruled that you could apply a single effect on the same round that you start a Grapple. Any reason I shouldn't do this? I also noticed that one or two of the options "Immobilize" the target in some way. This makes me wonder: if you still have to immobilize a character (or limb) you've already grappled, then what are the actual effects of just a successful grapple? Or does it just open the player up to the options of the effects? For the last part, I just want to make sure I am interpreting this right. When someone successfully grapples a target, so long as the target has a free arm then they can make Easy attacks on the grappler. The grappler, however, has to use both his arms in order to grapple; attempting any other action such as normal attacks would result in them dropping the grapple. However, the grappler is able to automatically damage the target (as per the optional effect) for 1d3+db damage every round, but doing so will give the target the chance to break free with a Str vs. Str roll.

I think I'll go with the second method you propose, most related skills have the same base anyway.

I just noticed that each skill of Melee/Missile Weapon is considered to be of one Weapon Class. However, each weapon within a Weapon Class has a different Base Chance -- what base chance do you start with? For example: a player puts 60 points into Melee Weapon (Sword). If he is looking at Great Sword (base chance 05%) then his skill would be 65%, but if he looked at Long Sword (base chance 15%) then his skill would be 75%. However, this is really the same skill. So how do we know what the starting base chance for a weapon skill is?

Looks cool, though I haven't looked at every single one yet.

To elaborate, one thing I was thinking about was to only allow PC's to make use of the "Use of Spells by Non-Magicians" at chargen, and only through the course of play may they find the opportunity to use the "Becoming a Magician" rule.

Yeah, but just declaring yourself a magician at chargen automatically grants you four spells with base skill equal to your POW. In a sense it is free skill points. And even if they don't spend downtime training in them, they can still increase them by normal means of use. I should note that I'm not so much concerned about game balance as I am concerned about everyone and their dog getting to be a magician. Just doesn't fit my notion of magic as something only some are gifted at, I guess.

I notice that there really isn't any requirement for a PC to become a magician; couldn't and wouldn't every PC just become a magician just for the hell of it (though I'm sure some will be more devoted to raising their magic skills than others)? I'm wondering if I should institute a rule like Sorcery's requirement of a 16+ POW, though maybe it would be more like 14+ POW.

Hmm, I think the Difficulty-level assigning would be more, how you say, easy to do, rather than assigning modifiers. Besides, aren't all modifiers typically suppose to be in the + or - 20% range, just to make things easier?

It is an awesome doc, I must say.