HANZO

In the designer's notes for Superworld 1st edition, Steve Perrin wrote that he

originally intended to have three types of hero/villain, acrobat, inventor, and

superhuman. Each would get points to purchase powers based on a stat and

a multiplier: acrobats would get DEX x 5 points, inventors INT x 5 points, and

true superhumans get POW x 5 points. He discarded the idea after

considering characters like Batman, who is both an acrobat and an inventor,

and went with build points equal to the total of the character's seven

characteristics (STR, CON, etc.).

I think you could do a variation of his original idea that has some merits:

1. Players roll stats as normal (2D6+6 for Superworld).

2. Characters have a total multiplier of 7, which can be apportioned out

to their characteristics as the player desires. So a player wishing to

make a mentalist might use all 7 multipliers on his character's INT score

(INT x 7 points). An inventor/acrobat might use DEX x 4 + INT x 3 (4 +

3 = 7), etc.

There would be different types of characters based on different stats:

STR: strongmen, warriors

CON: bricks, mutants

SIZ: giants/bricks

INT: inventors, mentalists

POW: magicians, those with innate powers

DEX: acrobats, speedsters

APP: illusionists, controllers

Players could be given the option to choose any power they can describe as

appropriate to their character concepts (effects based powers), or the GM

may wish to come up with lists of powers that are available to the different

character types (with or without some overlap of availability among types).

Michael (and his two cents)

I guess that makes a lot more sense. From a power source standpoint. Although I cant think of many comic book supers who would fall into a single power sources. At least not one that is not a one trick pony. Although Mixing two or more characteristics would work for some. Good Idea. Still not sure if I like the approach over just using power. Im going to have to put it to some play tests.

I guess Im odd. I got a print out of the resistsnce table. And I generally use it.

At least on paper I still like using power for character points. For characteristics I often give a spread to be assigned based on the setting. Or point buy. If the player wants to place most his points in power to get more points so be it. If every one does do it (which with my group I doubt it) then again that is balanced lol.

The idea of ramping up power points I like. Since the low amount of them is what I didn't care for in the rules as written, Forcing me to buy more just to use powers. My group is getting together tomorrow, well give it a play through.

The immediate downsides that occur to me are:

1. if you don't allow attribute scores to be assigned, there could be really big variance between characters due to what POW they have, even if you allow the higher starting characteristics option; furthermore POW becomes the 'one stat to rule them all' if you do allow allocation, which I think Jason has stated he tried to avoid - effectively everyone will possibly be running around with a similar POW score.

How is that different that pumping up any stat you choose to base it on. Im not sure I like 18+ appearance being the source of my powers. If every one has one huge stat how is it any different. At least power is mostly useless for anything else. and totally useless really if your powers are based on your very high level appearance.

Luckily I don't have power gamers in my group, and don't have a lot of concern about abuse.

2. if dropping power points, what about extending the fatigue in a similar fashion to power points (Extra Fatigue?), because if not players may look to increase fatigue through other means: which has a knock-on effect - suddenly everyone is buying Super CON because it becomes very valuable (resistance vs some potencies; HP and thus major wound threshold which in turn determines knock out threshold which is a useful supers spot rule; and then fatigue as a very valuable commodity/resource amongst other factors).

How is this any different than buying extra power points. which at the beginning of supers almost tells you have to buy to be able to use your powers very often. I just figured with a larger pool this may be avoided some.

If you start with a low power say for example 8, because you chose to base you powers off your 18 strength. now you are forced to spend a good chunk of your point pool buying up power points so you can use your ability more than twice with out running out of power points. So I get more points. But im almost forced to waist most of them, not sure I like that.

Isn't basing you power point pool off of an already useful stat double dipping? especially a combat useful stat. now iv got a strength of an Olympic power lifter. And more power points for min/max'in my way to higher strength and hopefully a better damage bonus at the same time?

I understand the concern with basing it on one stat. But find the alternative a bit wonky and less balanced. Not that I care as much for balance, But I'm no fan of wonky!

Thanks every one.

Not sure why but basing character points off your highest characteristic score doesn't sit right with me. And I feel using power point to fuel them is just a bit limited. Other wise Ive got to spent character points to get more power points.

Here is how I plan to use supers. Character points to buy powers will always be based on power (not your highest characteristic). super human level is powerx5, this is to average it out a bit since It is too easy to just load up on power.

Rather than power points, powers will be powered by fatigue.

(maybe use power points for lower power settings and fatigue for more superhuman level games.)

that's it.

Them pulling older suff off the PDF market just makes me think of how X-box pulled all support for X-box when the 360 came out. I think even if they do bring back 4E in pdf in their own store or in a format they feel is safer well never see 3.0 or 3.5 stuff from them again. Why support a rule system your compeditors are bolstering.

After all how was X-box going to make money by putting thet exact same game from X-box on the 360. Stop making the older version. Sadly a lot of eirly games were just that, older games in 360 format. While a lot of playstation games came out in both ps2 and ps3. And a lot of people didnt go to the ps3 because the same game was avalible in ps2. This held true till a lot more new format only games came out.

I think this is rather convenient way of pulling d20 and d20 support away from companies that have OGL/d20 based systems of their own.

This is actually what I was thinking of running for BRP. Iv got a print out of the PDF and just picked up the dead tree also. I own the true20 companion and savage worlds companion to Freeport. Having a BRP one would be a great addition. I added a forum post over at GR asking about it. http://www.greenronin.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7539

and was already thrown in here under the RQ companion request. http://www.greenronin.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7225

Me and my brother starting musing on some options for the setting. One thing that struck him was armor values. He was talking about how he like the random roll and how we could use that in game. In armor is found or used we'll roll randomly. If the armor is of average craftsmanship well use the average or roll. If the armor is of "better" quality well roll with some kind of bonus (which cant go over the max for the roll). And for "High" quality well add more.

maybe +1 for better, and

maybe +2 for High.

Ill play with it a bit and see.

One thing we kicked around was the Idea that if a player is struck with a special or critical in an armored area the armor is damaged and will need repaired (loosing a point of armor). This gives crafting a bigger importance. Giving armorcraft the ability to repair and reinforce armor. since we plan on using hit location this could be fun. Same could be said too for weapons. If a weapon takes damage its damage out put could be reduced till it is repaired.

well I was kind of leaning that way any how. Since Our next session will be starting later and not really give a lot of time to re-due the charaters. This is just a test run any how getting the players re-used to the system and introducing the noob to it. Im going to keep my rippers game savage worlds. But Im thinking of taking my freeport game to BRP.

I think its WOTCs loss in the end. There are tons of PDFs that I got, than later picked up the book too. Not that I was interested in 4E, but I do play true20 and have ran modern20 atleast once now and still would have picked up a few more 3.5 they had on PDF.

If a company offers PDFs for a good price its like putting a quickstart out. Since most the time atleast a main rule book is still perfered in dead tree edition.

Most of my green ronin titles I own in both book and PDF. 3rd party true20 books and mutants and masterminds Iv got all in PDF and a few in dead tree. Same with savage worlds. Im working on my second flash drive, going to most likely fill it up to.

I like to think that im some thing close to the average RPG consumer. (In attitude maybe not in volume of material I own) I like to reference PDFs and make notes for my games. I like to print and binder smaller publications since it saves me money. But I also love to have larger works and all my main rules books in dead tree.

I dont share my PDFs, but some games I play my print outs and books are the only matterial my group uses. Some games just dont require every one to own the main book.

I dont pirate out of respect for the companies, I dont play or buy games from companies I dont respect. I think if a company puts them selves in there work and are not just money grubbing they have a lot less to worry about piracy.

I think the discussion on the game's the thing hit the nail on the head.

The Game's the Thing

Yeah that sounds good. Think ill just give them a small magic pool for doing spell skills. I talked to the one non magic playing player in the game and he is cool with it. I guess its easy when your players are your 3 brothers. They take it easy on me. lol

Thanks every one for the help and advice.

Yeah, I think we do. Otherwise it isn't fair in player-vs-player situations. The carry over seems the best solution. It fits most circumstances and it adds tension/drama.

For Player vs. NPCs I think it is probably better not to use opposed rolls but simply have the player roll, and apply a modifier based on the skill of the opposing NPC, say 1/4th the NPC's skill? So sneaking past a guard with 20% in his perception (Spot/Listen) skills wold be at a -5% penalty. Sneaking past an alert guard with 80% in his perception skills would be at -20%.

It's probably biased towards the PCs, but I've never had an NPC complain about it.

I dont think Player VS Player has come up in one of my games since our ill fated run at Rifts back a long long time ago. Is player VS Player a real concern in most players games?

Are there any COC monographs that would be especially useful for a some one who plays BRP but not really into COC.

I noticed the Gaslight Equipment Catalogue. I love Victorian settings so this looks good.

Any one thing the COC dark ages book would be good for historical non-COC games or other settings?

Any others any BRP players find any others useful?

I got my players to make out characters last night. Two of the three played runequest with me back in the day but one was new to BRP, well new to gaming all together. I ran a Victorian era monster hunt game based on the savage worlds setting "rippers". league of extraordinary gentlemen meets van helsing. Which is my regular weekly game.

I forgot to have two of the players put points into spell casting. One is a monk, the other a Rosicrucian mage. I use the optional rules that attributes add to skills through the bonuses. I noticed there isn't one for spell casting as its not on the basic sheet with skills. Which is why I skipped it by accident. We winged it for the first game.

I want to have this added. how does primary POW, secondary INT sound?

Now I got to shoe horn in their spell casting skills. not sure if I should just give them another point pool to just work them up and add them to the character now. Or totally remake the character. damn.

Printed a copy just before My game last night. Worked out great for a quick reference for my one player new to the system. Was a big help. I think he was less intimidated then if I had cracked open the main book.

Agreed. I was just rambling on about what is easiest to wrap my head around in play. Different people = different tastes. Im all about optional rules and tweaking a system to get the feel I need out of it. Some times from setting to setting ill do it different just to get a "Feel" that I want.

Is there any chaosium systems still in print that the professions are like they were in old RQ with a set amount added to each skill based on the profession?

Ok maybe I didn't explain any of that very well. (what I get from almost 28hrs with out sleep) What I kinda was trying to say was lower roll on a higher skill is a greater degree of success.

For example a roll of 50 on a 80% skill is a larger degree of success(30 under). than a roll of 20 on a 40% skill.(20 under).

The 80% skill can roll any thing from 1-60 to beat the 40% skill on its 20 roll.

The 40% skill would need to roll from 1-10 to beat an 80% skill who rolled a 50.

Who has the easier roll to make? how does that not give the higher skill an advantage?

Lets try it again with same roll on different skill levels.

For example a roll of 30 on a 80% skill is a larger degree of success(50 under). than a roll of 30 on a 60% skill.(30 under).

The 80% skill can roll any thing from 1-30 to beat the 60% skill on its 30 roll.

The 40% skill would need to roll a 1-10 to beat an 80% skill who rolled a 30.

Who has the easier roll to make? how does that not give the higher skill an advantage?

subtract roll from skill for range if its not as easy to tell at a glance.

And totally gives the higher skill the advantage.

Higher the skill the easier to roll under it.

Its a wider range.

so its easy at a glance to see who wins.

Biggest range wins.

Higher skill Equals greater range possible if you roll low.

Plus the lower skilled person has a higher chance to just out right fail while the higher skilled person just has to make it with in range to beat that. Some times the lower skill will win. If you don't like that Idea than just rule higher skill always wins. Or if one person is skilled more than 30% greater than his opponent than he out right wins. That way a poorly skilled person has no chance at all. As seems to be the goal other wise.

I just don't like the "price is right" approach. rolling under your skill but higher than your opponents with out going over your skill. Goes against the special success and critical success rule the way its spelled out in the book on page 13 & 173. which is pretty easy to use as is. It just seems wonky and unnecessary to switch it all around. in a lower is better system.

I was not against counting degrees. Just counting them over your opponent when your opponents roll may be impossible to roll with out going over your skill. since a skill 40% person could never out roll an 80% person who rolls a 50. ever.

I believe a lower skilled person should always have a chance. not matter how small. Which I believe is a possible result of the "price is right" approach.

.............................................................................................................................

A method from another % system I'v played before used an active VS Passive approach Much like the resistance table used in BRP. Could be house ruled in pretty easy.

The basic Idea though is that only the active(usually a player) rolls against the skill of the passive (usually the NPC). The chart boiled down to using 50% as a base. Every point below 50% the passive player has is added to the active players chance of success. while every point above 50% the passive player has is subtracted to the active players chance of success.

Player A is sneaking up on NPC B.

Player A has a stealth of 65%

NPC B has a perception of 45%, since perception in 5 below 50%, Player A now rolls VS 70%. Adding that 5 to his skill.

If NPC B had a 70% perception. 20 higher than 50%. Player A now gets to add that 20 to his skill, rolling VS 85%.

Only the active player rolls.

Just a thought.

I kind of got the feeling the EDU score was something your GM assigns, More part of your characters back ground rather than one of his attributes as such.

For example if your group is a bunch of paranormal researchers from the local university. And one player is a professor The GM could assign a base 10 to the party but a +2 to the professor character.

I really like this approach. At the same time I think I would make the professor character use points gained from EDU towards skills that also fit into that background.

EDIT: oops didn't read the last two post above. My bad,

While that is certainly an easy way of doing things, it doesn't factor in relative skills particularly well. For instance, if someone with a 100% skill rolls a 21 (almost a special and certainly better than 'difficult') against someone else with a 20% skill who rolls a 20 (only just barely a success), by your method the person with the lower skill would win, not taking into account that the first person made their roll by so much more. What's more, if someone with a skill of 20% were to succeed in their roll, then an opponent with a skill of 100% would have to roll a special to be able to win the contest. I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure that this method de-values higher skills.

Thalaba

Just seems the "price is right method" of rolling under skill but higher than the other roll, or the roll with the greater margin of success (closest roll to skill) muddles things up too.

If player A has a 70% but rolls a 19. And player B has a 30% but rolls a 20 its easy to say who wins. I guess. But now if you say player B wins because he was closer to his skill and only 10 points off than having a higher skill hurts you too since average rolls are more prevalent. Hitting a 60% skill very close with out going over (or say with in 20) will be way easier than a rare roll of 90. Making a high skill a liability. since now you got to roll very close to the higher extreme to win.

But what if player A has 20% and player B has 88%. Player B has got to roll 68-88 to beat players A's margin of success. since player A cant get lower than a 20 below his skill no matter what he rolls. Player A will win almost any roll he can make below a 20. Which in its self is the real limiter, how often he can make his roll. The higher the skill the harder it would be to beat the margin of success.

So that is why I say If the lower roll wins, the higher skill will win more often. Since the lower skilled player will out right fail more often. But leaves room for the player with a very low skill to pull off a lucky roll to.

If the method you want to use is the player wins who makes his roll but rolls higher than his opponent and margin of success doesn't matter It seems that the higher skilled player now has a double advantage. If player A has 20% and player B has 88% as stated above than player B will win as long as he rolls any thing better than 20% no matter what player A rolls. Since B has almost not chance. only change he has is if player B fails. Might as well just let player B do all the rolling any thing from 20-88 he wins.

So I'm not really convinced either way. I think lowest roll wins give the under dog some chance. Sure he is most likely toast. But if he makes it Under 20% its up to the higher skilled player to beat him. So 1/5 of the time the under dog has a change. I maybe wrong on this. But I ran old RQ for quiet some time and it worked fine back then. Its how ill do it now.

I always just assumed lower was better. The lowest roll wins.

My name is joey, But Im Known As HANZO On all different gaming forums over the last 14+ years. I'm my groups primary GM for just about 20yrs. I used to own the old runequest box set (one with people on stairs). We played it quiet a bit back in middle school and high school. We often used it for running all our other game worlds in. One of the few campaigns I ever got to play in was a Runequest game set in Darksun. But that box set got lost after a few moves.

Although I own and have GM'd a lot of different games in the past, every edition of D&D and AD&D up to 3E, gamma world, Wasteworld, HERO/champions, Cyberpunk 2020, shadowrun, FUDGE/FATE, GURPS, TORG, and tons and tons of systems I cant even remember any more. Iv also designed about 12 homebrew systems and games. Some still being used by my friends and their friends almost 15yrs later.

These days I mostly run true20, Mutants and masterminds, Savage worlds, and FUDGE/FATE. And now Im totally grooving on the BRP system. I think its going to move its way into my core games.

Oh and I just might be the fan of Ron's show who pointed hit to this site.