pulpcitizen

If reduced back to 3 classifications (move cold to radiation/radiant, maybe darkness as well, but that seems the 'iffy' one) but keeping the costings as suggested, then 3 points of defense against all would be 9 pts versus 10 pts for a typical EP attack, so arguably the costing would be near to acceptable then I would think. Basically for slightly less than the cost roughly 50% of the maximum damage would be prevented.

Cheers. :thumb:

Any update for us, caeman?

I have been thinking about this for a couple of weeks now myself, for other reasons. In some ways the current system makes sense: a specific defense is far cheaper than a specific attack in terms of matching capability. It is the moment a character wants to be resistant to two or more energy types equally that it becomes prohibitively costly as you note. What about rewriting Armour as-is, by building on the old Superworld classifications? Have 1 character point buying 1 point of armour against one (with the option to buy the power multiple times, as can be done now) of the classifications of: Kinetic - kinetic, sound, vibration, wind, gravity Electromagnetic - electric, magnetic Radiation - heat, light, radiation Entropic (?) cold, darkness Making the armour specific against only one energy type from within a classification (eg light) then maybe that could double points of armour for the CP cost; choosing the force field option could simply double the armour points gained. It is a simple approach that could be applied to other protective abilities - basically maintaining the current cost structures but adding breadth to the purchased ability. I have added an extra clasification here over the old superworld 3, but I feel it is something that makes some sense. Yes Kinetic is the 'best' category for breadth, but it isn't the only useful one. It also keeps some of the variety advocated by RosenMcStern when using the Hulk example which I agree with. Thoughts?

I have been perusing my copy of the BRP rulebook back and forth but cannot seem to find any rules for alternative ammuniation types such as armour piercing, hollow point and less-lethal options. Can anyone point me in the right direction? I am not after strict simulationist rules (if not in BRP), but a 'good enough' approach to these ammunition types. Thanks in advance, Leon.

It is funny you should say that... PM sent. :thumb:

Thanks for replying guys (and any more insights welcome). :thumb: I have to acknowledge a vested and ulterior motive in posing the question, as I have been working up an idea based on a broad range character motivations/archetypes for something I am trying to cook up. I suppose the question is whether or not the perosnality approach - or similar alternatives - are useful for GM's and players or if most just disregard them. Maybe i should have done a poll.

Thanks Nick. Do you think a strongly envisioned pitch for a supers-based monograph could work, or do you feel that monographs will remain largely Cthulhu-centric with a smattering of BRP books?

My mistake Nick, apologies to all and especially Jason for misunderstanding this post: post

Thanks. :thumb: Leon.

Ultimately I don't think that Challenge Ratings have ever worked as fully envisioned in D20, let alone transferring the idea across to BRP. The reason I say this is that a sense of optimal balance is inferred, and given all the variant feats, atatck ratings, wepon options etc, then any such rating becomes notional in my opinion. Given the ranges of competency and ability that could be mustered by groups of characters in BRP, and the range of combat ability specifically they could potentially muster, then I am not really convinced such a system would achieve its aim if transferred. This is compounded by the relatively potential lethality of BRP combat versus the 'protected by mountains of hit points approach' of D&D. Would not a better approach be to ensure that the players understand the world and many of its risks at the outset? That characters should live or die by their own informed choices? Often in RPG's there is little real sense of threat or risk: in D20 this is due to the model of encounter balancing (as seen through CR's, which I don't feel are entirely fit for purpose and devolve the game to the level of a video game; in many supers systems - Hero, MEGS and M&M especially - it is through mechanics that create a low-lethality environment unless optional rules are invoked; I am sure there are many other examples since many systems have mechanics that allow catastrophe to be avoided through fate points etc). Rather than trying to emulate another game, why not use BRP for what it is or what it can do, which is arguably what D20 can't do. Now, stepping off my soapbox for a moment ( ), what about having an Idea roll based approach and basically eye-balling it (every party is different, so threat is relative), then having a selection of indicative descriptors (ranging from minimal threat or equivalent to extremely dangerous or whatever is appropriate; with perhaps multiple descriptors for similar levels of danger) that can be expressed without resorting to numerical values, which can themselves break the stroytelling illusion.

I may be wrong, but the sense I have is that they (Chaosium) are not too motivated to pursue a fully-fledged supers system, given that Jason Durrall had to fight to retain inclusion of superpowers in the BRP book.

Just posting this quesion out of curiosity, and not seeking support for any hypothesis. What I would like to know is who does or doesn't use Step Six in character creation in their games, and why you do or do not (whichever is the case)? I see a lot of potential in the system for alternative ways of viewing the Step Six bonuses, and I am working on something specific as a result, so I am interested in any 'live' experience. PS I posted the title with Step Six/step 6 to make future potential seraches easier. There was method in my madness.

Thanks for the clarification. So has anyone had experience with Mythos Magic? if so any thoughts or recommendations?

Which monograph? Thanks.

From the currently (and indeed no longer published) Chaosium works, what if any games and supplements could serve to expand either the magic and/or sorcery rules? Bear in mind I haven't played CoC since its GW edition, so I can no longer recall whether or not that spell system was reminiscent of either magic or sorcery. Also does anyone have experience of Mythos Magic (monograph)? Does it act as a standalone or supplementary system? Is it workable with BRP? Any help greatly appreciated.

Re: the use of BRP at high levels, then I would agree it breaks down at that kind of level. Of course what defines high level is another matter, but please bear with me. Translating older game/handbook information for the likes of Marvel's Thor and Hercules puts them below 140 STR since they were both rated at being able to lift around 95-100 tonnes or thereabouts. Now translating a fictional absolute into a game mechanic is fine if the resistance table is not used, but since I don't imagine the writers who conceived of those numbers decided that they succeeded either 5% or 95% of the time (or some similar variation), it is a little tricky. So splitting the difference we get a ballpark figure of Str 136 or so. For Superman, and basing this on DC Heroes 2nd and 3rd edition (where he was toned down mind you!), we are looking at STR in BRP terms at around STR 800. A pretty big number. Assuming reasonably heroic SIZ 14 or roughgly that for each, we see that translating the old Marvel handbook and game data yields DB's of around +8D6 for Thor and Herc, and a whopping +49D6 for Superman. To buy STR to 136 from a reasonable 16, then the two Marvel heroes are looking at around 120 pts just to purchase their Super STR, let alone anything else. The equivalent points in an Energy Projection yield level 12, enough to surpass the basic melee damage of the STR-based guys, and inflicting a mean of 42 pts of damage, meaning that when contemplating Major wound thresholds as well as defenses everything gets very complicated. So if Thor and Herc break the game, then I think we can safely assume anyone above them does so also (Hulk, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter, Dr Manhatten, Supreme, Mr Majestic et al). Now onto Spider-man. On-line Marvel data lists an optimal lifting capacity of 10 tonnes. We could perhaps put optimal at any arbitrary chance from 5% to 95%. I'd go with either 5% or 50% based on the resistance table, sine the 95% chance could push his potential upper limit to high, placing his STR between 72 and 80 at a guess. So with SIZ 12 and STR of say around 75 (basing of 50% as optimal) Spider-Man probably has a +4D6 damage bonus (mean +14 damage), costing probably around 60-65 pts to achieve that STR rating. Much more within the limits of BRP I'd suggest, and pretty much as other posters have offered, that Spider-man and those on a similar or lower level of ability (Wolverine comes to mind, most of the X-Men in fact; most 'street level' heroes; most of Marvel's non-cosmic, non-FF and non-Avengers characters; most of DC's non JLA or JSA characters; most VALIANT characters would fit; Archie's red Circle/MLJ superheroes also; most Milestone characters; most Comics Greatest World characters - Dark Horse; and more besides). The scales are there to emulate so far, and when beyond then the game will begin to break down. But as other posters have noted, those games equipped to handle high level games often struggle to capture the low end well at the same time, so what BRP doesn't appear able to do without significant modification, it arguably makes up for in other ways.

Sorry, I meant Master of the Future - it is the sequel to Gotham by Gaslight. Apologies for the error.

Sounds intriguing - keep us posted. Have you checked out the seminal Gaslights superhero works such as Gotham by Gaslight and Master of Tomorrow, as well as the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?

Thanks for the information, Mr Moeller. I hope the 'dead tree' version materialises sooner rather than later - I am interested enough to buy the book but I don't like PDFs, so I am waiting for the print version. I hope that time and motivation return for you since it sounds as though you have invested a lot of work in this book. Good luck with any sequels you may produce.

Or at least a POD option for PDF's, even if at a higher cost.

I have posted a few times already but I thought I'd take the time to introduce myself. I have been gaming for too many years to count (20+), starting with red box D&D, graduating to many other systems mostly with homebrew campaigns. High points of gaming enjoyment have been GW edition CoC (despite the rubish way they - GW - lumped the books into a single volume with 2 or 3 sets of page numbers!), DC Heroes, GURPS, Champions, WHFRP 2nd edition, Golden Heroes (really!), and recently True20 and M&M, and no doubt a few I have forgotten. When I heard of this generic edition I knew that it was something I wanted to try out, and so I am busy brewing up my next campaign. I think Jason (and Sam) did a great job. This site is enjoyable for me and informative, all that I can ask for, so thanks to Trifletraxor. Anyhoo, glad to be aboard and amongst fans of what I think is such a mechanically elegant system. I look forward to seeking out answers to my questions from better informed minds. Leon.

That sounds a good way to go. Even with the near limitless options of core and 3rd party feats in 3.0 D&D onwards, there is an argument that they were not all wholly and intrinsically balanced. Writing your games to meet the needs of the group you have and the stories you'd like to teel is what is at the heart of rpgs for my money, so more power to you.

I think game balance is a bit of a false idea in rpgs in some ways, since it is dependent on so many variables. The only way to have true 'balance' is to have all protagonists and antagonists being precisely equal, ie identical: hardly a desirable choice. Is a warrior as useful as a thief or a magic-user or whatever alternatives there are? The answers are specific to individual campaigns and gaming groups, and the unspoken meta-game they develop. To anyone concerned about balance in an rpg (and no point build system achieves perfect balance either, in my view), I'd suggest to not get to hung up on it for surely to do so is to overlook some of the key points in playing a rpg in the first place.

Any further word or progress update on a printed version of the book? For those who have the book (or indeed its author), is there any additional mechanical gaming material included in addition to the setting information (for example powers - magic or sorcery, super powers etc)? Thanks in advance to anyone who can help with my questions.