RosenMcStern

Yes, I do see problems in it. This way, an INT 18 character knows almost everything in the Universe, which is not correct.

There is however, one big design problem in having too many Lores as skills, as they "waste" a lot of points and do not increase with use like other skills. This surfaced during the editing phase of Merrie England for BRP, and I was tempted to introduce a new system in order to determine in a non-arbitrary way what a character can know. We decided to go with the standard system for Merrie England, but I will soon suggest (and publicly playtest) a new approach to the problem.

Be careful with this assumption. The MRQ magic system relies heavily on opposed rolls and on Combat Reactions (MRQ Countermagic would simply not work in a plaing BRP game). Conversely, BRP magic relies heavily on the Resistance Table, which does not exist in MRQ. There is some work needed to convert between the two approaches.

You see, I haven't yet tried either system in practice. But I am inclined to replace BRP with RQII for the more melee oriented games (fantasy & pre-modern), and reserve BRP for scifi and modern games, where melee combat is not the main focus.

Definitely. Each variant of the basic systems shines in a different area.

(As an aside, how many people would be interested in such a product?)

Me for sure. I liked Outpost 19, and I am waiting for River of Heaven. We have too few SF publications for BRP at the moment.

Your thresholds are too high. A 13-HP character has 5 HP in the head and 4 HP in the arm. You need 12 HP to cut his arm, and 15 HP (higher than his overall HP) to cut his head.

I think the best thresholds are:

HP x1 : Major wound

HP x2 : Critical wound

That is, the current quantities (which have worked fine for the last 25 year). The only difference could be that you do not mark the damage up to the first threshold in general HP, and do not mark accumulative damage in location areas.

On page 32 of the BRP core book, it's explained that fatigue points are the result of strenght + constitution, and it's also explained that ENC value affects the fatigue points: how? I've read on other posts and on RuneQuest core book that ENC must be subtracted from maximum fatigue points, is this interpretation correct?

Yes.

On page 180 there's the explanation of the ENC rule, and it is in this section that I have big problems of interpretation. It's written that ENC is equal to one size for general purposes, but in human scale ENC is equal to 1/6 of size. So which of these equations do I have to use? ENC = size or ENC = 1/6 size?

The latter. As a rule of thumb, 1 Enc = 1 kilogram, and 1 SIZ = 6 kilograms, so 1 SIZ = 6 Enc

Another and last question: it's written that a character has a 50% chance of lifting ENC of up to his strenght value x 6 on the resistance table. What does it mean? Does the character have to do a resistance roll every time he has to lift ENC?

No. You can usually lift up to 12 x STR and stand still, or lift and carry for a small distance 6 x STR without making any roll. However, in a dangerous and rush situation, the gamemaster could call for a Resistance roll, in which case your chances of lifting STR x6 are exactly 50%.

However, if you are new to BRP, do not use the Fatigue rules. They are a leftover from RQ3 that almost everyone dropped or houseruled. They are a realistic system, but they do not work well in practice, because in a battle with 10+ characters they slow down combat immensely. Use the simplified fatigue system instead (p.32), and have characters roll Stamina or suffer fatigue when they march or fight with Encumbrance above their STR + CON.

The real problem with locations is that... it is not possible to avoid the fourth roll! Assuming you use General HP only, the fixed AP values give a level of detail that is too low for most hardcore Fantasy players. Most people will use Stormbringer-style variable APs, which resurrects the fourth roll. Besides, the location die can be thrown together with the to-hit, so it is not a real problem.

What is annoying is keeping track of both general HP and location HP. I think that using locations in addition to the "threshold" mechanics allows for variable armour values and also gives you a very simple way to evaluate the threshold without introducing new mechanics: it is the HP per location as sxplained in the rules.

What might be bugging is the CONx5 roll, I agree. The solution would be to just ignore damage below the threshold: "It is just a flesh wound".

The point is that this system actually work better in conjunction to hit locations. You just don't keep track of accumulative location damage any more.

You hit and roll damage normally, then choose location and subtract armor. Then you compare the damage that goes through to the HP you have in the location (computed as per the rules).

- If you do damage between 1 and the HP in the location, you have a minor wound: no accumulative effect, roll CONx5 to avoid temporary location stun if the damage is equal to location HP or one less (two less for SIZ 21-30, three less for SIZ 31-40, etc.).

- If you do damage in excess of location HP, the location is disabled and the excess damage goes to general HP. Roll CONx1 to be Heroic.

- If you do damage in excess of double location HP, the location is maimed. No Heroic roll. You are bleeding to death.

At half your HP, you are unconscious.

Excellent idea. Something similar surfaced during the playtest of MRQ1 (the "threshold") but was rejected.

The big problem is finding a way to evaluate the "thresholds". CON/2 for Hit Points could be good, and SIZ/5 for the threshold at which you actually "feel" the wound .

Ah, it was a subjunctive "did". English is a very neat language, without subjunctives and all, but this sometimes causes some ambiguitiies.

Even if Chaosium did nothing, BRP is pretty much set.

What do you mean by "nothing"?

They kept the torch lit during the Long Night. This is not "nothing".

You might also want to take the rules from the Luxury SRD and use those ones with the spells described in RQ3. Don't use the SRD spells, instead: some of them are heavily bugged!

First of all, remember to use the Sorcery rules from the official errata, or the ones in the GW edition, not the ones in the Deluxe box.

There are several reasons why the original rules for RQ3 rules needed to be upgraded. They are, in order of importance:

1) Free INT -> it makes your magician thoroughly dependent on items; this rule is banished in every Sorcery system that was published later

2) MP usage -> it makes your magician thoroughly dependent on items; this issue is fixed in (both) Mongoose versions of the rules; MRQ1 is, strangely enough, more versatile than MRQ2 in this as you do not spend MP to cast basic spells - a rule that was criticised but worked very well in practice for me

3) Duration -> the original system is awfully mp-dependant, so it makes your PCs ultra-powerful if he has magic crystals, no matter how skilled he is; Sandy's Sorcery fixes this issue with Presence; both Mongoose rulesets simply abolished long-duration spells, but this is as satisfactory a solution as amputating a limb you do not know how to treat

4) Your spell skill does not limit your ability to manipulate spells, which is not in line with the philosophy behind sorcery. This is fixed in Sandy's rulesets and in MRQ1, but not in MRQ2, where your spell skill influences only Intensity.

5) Individual spell skills -> contrary to Pete's experience, I never experience this problem; all of my characters played very smoothly, and since they used spells every adventure, their skill went up fast by means of experience; it is just a matter of not relying too much on Palsy or Venom in combat (cast Fly + Animate + Damage Boost on a sword before combat and you are much better off). The Mongoose Rulesets, with the Grimoire skill, fix this problem, but basically IT IS NOT A PROBLEM

All in all, the real problem is that your magician is awfully item-dependent, a condition that does not add anything to character interpretation - being an effective sorcerer is all about having matrices and not about studying and having skilla. Unfortunately, no single ruleset fixes all of the above problems. But in any case, the RQ3 rules are rather fun, if you accept the additional complication of keeping track of spell durations and MP accounting. Don't believe people who tell you they are unplayable. It's skybullsh...

There was a debate about ripostes, using the secondary weapon, one year ago. You should find a rule suggested by Jason, and one suggested by Rod Leary (and included in classic fantasy) in the wiki, or by digging it out of the forum.

Ah, and Jason is playtesting his fencing rules for insertion in BRP interplanetary. Bribe him for a copy

Really nice ideas. A shame that Jason did not include an "official" option for traits in the golden books. Maybe I can incorporate these ideas into our new settings.

[*]When the GM feels a player is not acting in accordance with his trait, he can call for a trait check. The player has two choices: Either roll against the trait (and here success means the GM is right and the player needs to change action) or refuse to take the skill check, in which case the GM awards points to the counter trait

Ought to be tested a bit, but it has a great advantage. You cannot be forced to do something you do not want!

Traits and Counter traits cannot total more than 100%. If a GM awards points to a countertrait that would take the sum over 100%, the corresponding trait decreases (and probably loses the advancement check)

Another good idea. In the end, you will have a total of 100 in the opposing pairs if you roleplay a lot, but you start with low traits.

[*]A Trait is 'stressed' whenever the player rolls against it, or the player & gm agree that it was stressed (i.e. the player is playing in accordance with the trait in a stressful situation)

[*]Stressed traits are eligible for advancement

Ditto. A good variation on the Pendragon theme.

Why not just stick to the Pendragon model, and have opposed traits going 01 to 99? We used this system in the glorious Kustria PBEM of 1997 and it was fun. It is simpler. The only problem is that it requires an opposed roll, so Frogspawner will not like it

The "fiddly" part of adding 1/5th to rolls can be solved by using a table approach instead of pure maths: 01-24% no modifier, 25-49% +5%, 50-74% +10%, 75-99% +15%. Be careful to add a corresponding penalty to another, opposed skill each time you invoke a Trait benefit. For instance, if you use Honourable to increase your Perform (Oratory), the next time you use your Persuade to cover an unpleasant truth your Honourable trait might detract from your skill roll (you are a bad liar), or increase your opponent's Insight.

The point to remember, however, is that the occurrences when the player's behaviour influences the Trait must be much more frequent than the ones when the Trait influences the behaviour.

Ah, and I like Frogspawner's idea of APPx5% as the starting pool of trait points very much.

Go the RuneQuest way. Have the players play within their social groups, and not as freebooters. They will have to adapt to their group's value system, or struggle to change it. In both cases, they will have to check their morals and behaviour in order to obtain what they want (more combat effectiveness).

Check the clan/tribe approval of their actions whenenever they try to sell or buy anything, even a dozen eggs for breakfast. Enforece this with major material benefits, especially the ones that cost something to the benefit provider. Will the Shaman burn out his own POW for an outlaw? Certainly not.

Once they appreciate the advantages of getting more cool stuff by pleasing their fellows'ethic sense instead of just killing and cashing in the loot, the trick is done.

Yes, it is a horror/urban fantasy setting. Nothing to do with alternate earth.

However, we are all eager to read a review of it.

I'm very familiar with HeroQuest, but that doesn't go to say you cannot do the same with the BRP and run narrative adventures.

Absolutely. The only difference is that HQ has a definite and established set of rules to handle that. In BRP, you have to improvise some parts. But you can have very intense sessions where you do not swing a weapon or roll a die.

Rust, do I have permission to use your above paragraph in a game supplement? If I spent one work day to express the same concept, I could not phrase it better

That sounds awfully like roll-play, as Damon would put it. The biggest problem with BRP is GMs relying on a successful skill rolls to determine the out come of a scene or a scenario itself. I've seen many CoC scenarios grind to halt because players have failed dice rolls and therefore missed a vital clue. And simply doubling the skill and making them roll for the sake of it makes you as the GM look as if you're trying to fudge the outcome.

This is something that has been stated many times by people used to game systems where there are no rules for sociali interactions: rolling the dice prevents roleplaying and "breaks the flow of the story". But the truth is different.

I will make a concrete example of a game I played several years ago. It was Fantasy Trip, not BRP. My character was a charismatic leader (ST 9, IQ 15, Charisma talent) and had an argument with another PC (ST 14, IQ 8, despised for his habit of harassing women) about who had committed a crime for which we were both accused. We both made a convincing speech as players (the other player is a lawyer in real life...), then the other player, asked by the GM if that was in character with his IQ 8 PC, replied "Hey, he is smart, not intelligent: this is the typical trick he performs to get out of the trouble he usually finds himself in."

Apart from the dispute being among PCs, what would have you done in that case? Adjudicate the victory to the character with non-existent social skills because the player had roleplayed it well?

You see, the point is that the choice of not putting points into IQ was a roleplaying choice made by that player - similar to playing an INT 10 fighter with poor Persuade skills in BRP - which is made irrelevant if you replace appropriate skill rolls with actions (speeches) made by characters. It is like asking "Show me how you down your foe with your sword" instead of making a "to hit" roll. You make the player act, not the character.

I have done that before, like in instances in which player characters have crept up on a sleeping enemy, an NPC of no consequence, to slit their throats or to put a downed enemy to the sword. If the fight is a foregone conclusion and the players are going to win anyway, what is the point of making them roll for it? I always determine the outcome of fights between two NPCs without making dice rolls. It bores players to death when you try and play out a fight between two NPCs by rolling dice. It's easier to say the soldier is cut down by an arrow, or Lancelot slays the attacking marauder with a single thrust of the sword.

Please do not mistake what I am saying with the practice of over-rolling that some GMs apply. I was talking about significant combats adjudicated without rolling, not irrelevant fights that do not deserve more than a quick description. Would you adjudicate a fight witha major villain without a roll? certainly not. Why, then, are you willing to accept that a social conflict, a significant one, is decided by player interpretation and not by the fact that the character is good at social interaction?

Apart from this, I suspect your playing style would fit HeroQuest better than BRP. But please note that in HeroQuest rolling your social skills (passions, etc.) after roleplaying is mandated by the rules

Note that having traits does not force you to do something. The GM may require a roll for particularly "out of character" situation, but it is an extreme case. The basis is that you make a check every time you behave in a given way, so that your character traits reflect how you play him or her, not the opposite.

I am not very convinced that you should award experience checks in, say, Etiquette or Persuade for good roleplay. If you are trying to persuade someone, then you should actually roll your Persuade, with a big plus for finding a good excuse of course, up to twice your score. But you should roll in order to get an experience check.

Let us make a parallel with a combat situation. If you have a good plan, your character will gain a tactical advantage and receive decisive bonuses to his combat skill rolls. But ultimately, he must roll his combat skill to overcome the opposition. What would you say of a game in which, if you make a good plan, you do not roll for attacks and the GM lets you win automatically?

As for passions and traits, all the mechanics are there with Complementary skills. If you have "Hate Lunars" and you are fighting them, you might add your special success range in Hate to your attack score. This will. of course, make you less cautious and you might suffer the same penalty to your defense. No special rule to introduce.

I met Andrea Angiolino in person one week ago at a Convention. He is alive and kicking, and writes a lot of stuff for boardgamegeek. It could be feasible to re-publish Basic Egypt in English some day, but it is not a priority and I do not know (yet) what our BRP schedule will be in 2011.

What your post reveals is, IMO, not a problem of the experience gain system, but a [well-known] lack of "social" traits in the current incarnation of BRP. Basically, if you are adventuring in a dungeon or in the wilderness, your PC rolls a lot of his skills. If you are interacting with other individuals on a roleplaying basis, you only use Insight and sometimes Influence. I think your problem could be solved also by introducing Pendragon-like traits, or stressing usage of the Status skill. You might also want to introduce Relations as skills, like in HeroQuest, in order to give players who like to roleplay a lot an appropriate reward for what they did.

You can find some examples of this in Rome: Life and Death of the Republic, where Pete stressed usage of two "social" skills that are extremely important for characters and do not advance as a consequence of experience, but for roleplaying, and in Crusaders of the Amber Coast, where I tried to tie the advancement of the campaign to the advancement of PCs in Status, introducing different Status scores for the different factions they may interact with during their adventures.

I think BRP would really benefit from such rules mechanics. At the moment, you only have such opportunities in HeroQuest, but the BRP skill mechanics could support it, too.