pansophy

Ah! Hang on! A closer look at the Armor List p399 shows a hint: only SOME armors (where under 'Location' 'All' is listed) have also the footnote "2" on it. So that means to me, only the modern and advanced armors which cover all areas do include a helmet. The Ancient and Medieval Armors do not (as shown as "All but head"). Chain may cover the head as well, but does not include a helmet. It was possible to wear a chain mesh and a helmet over it - so this would make sense. Same is true for Thick Clothes.

Edit: "Almost all of these armor types also have helmets. It is assumed that full suits of armor include helmets." The Knight on p362-363 has Armor 10. The Armor List shows Full Plate as AV 8, so adding a Heavy Helmet would add the missing 2. Looks like Narl is right and there's an error somewhere. The Priest lists Armor 8. So at least the error is consistent Jason? Are you around? Or somebody else of the playtest group? Any light here, please?

d20+'rest' seems valid at a first glance. I simply do not like the d20 as it looks to much of a ball to me. But sometimes I only roll the 'tens' die for skill checks. The 'ones' die simply does not make sense if a NPC has 'flat' skill values (e.g. 30%, 40% ...). If the chance of a critical/special success occurs, I roll the 'ones' die to check for it.

no worries, mate. I re-find stuff in the book all the time. Good thing is, other people seem to forget it as well, so it does not hamper the fun during gameplay ... Last time it was the Volley Fire rules which I put up into the WiKi myself - you simply cannot have every rule in your mind all the time.

Hi ragr, please have a look here: Errata and Clarifications The Wiki also has an unofficial Errata and Clarifications section that deals with additional questions. Unofficial Errata and Clarifications Hope that solves your issue. cheers

Same here.

Chaot, I am not sure why you ignored the Aerial Combat Spot rules Sir Argo mentioned. I know there are many possible ways/editions for BRP rules, but if we stay to the rules written in the BGB, in my opinion Joe Jetpack would need to do a flight skill every combat round before attacking. This would simulate if he can handle the jetpack well enough and does not manoeuvre himself in a bad position.

interesting alternative, really. Since I do not have a problem calculating 20% or 5% on the fly I won't use it, but it might be a really interesting option for some people.

yes, I reduced the file size, so it can now be found in the Download Section Downloads

that is a question of 'trapping' to use Savage Worlds slang ...

Sir Argo, welcome to the BRP forums! Fly skill, as I understand and use it: A character using the Fly skill in combat has to make a skill check every round. If the check is successful, the character might use his Combat skills up to the Fly skill value. If the character does not make his roll, his combat skill is still capped at the Fly skill value, but additionally made Difficult, meaning it is halved as well. See page 216 'Chases' for situational modifiers to the Fly skill check. In regards to your first question: aerial combat is too abstract and relies on descriptive scenes. It is not meant to be handled in 'hard' numbers. But have a view at the "chase" rules as they take into account for tight turns, speed and weather effects.

What a about the Superworld Box rules - do they do Supers OK, are they good, or need they improvement as well?

The example Cyborg character has: "Defense 20 (-10% to be hit)". So this seems definitely wrong. 5% is very powerful, so I would go with 1%.

no, Marc is planning to put them up soon as well as putting them onto the CD ROM. Having them on DrivethroughRPG.com is something he is going to do as well. By now it's only the forum and the Download counter in the Downloads section - which will help him to estimate the demand.

It completely depends on the demand. I just received a mail from Marc Miller: "Unless there is a huge demand, I don’t see them being done.". So, I need much F E E D B A C K (criticism, what people want to see, what is missing, etc.) to convince him to do some more. My plan was to put some more Kafer stuff together from the different modules. But if there is a specific module people want to see, I will do that. Yes, "Paper Make It" is a fine tool to create maps. I used to use Dundjinni, but PMIT is a lot faster and is actually rendering an image, instead of using purely pictures. In addition, what was most important, 'stuff' is scaled to fit in PMIT, where in Dundjinni I ended up rescaling stuff a lot. That took heaps of time and I find PMIT a nice compromise between quality and creation time. For example, each map in the Mission Arcturus module was created in around 15 minutes, plus a few minutes for changes and additions (a map is 'never' finished ).

Hello Forum, it is done, I finally finished the Mission Arcturus Module. It can be found in the Downloads section. 40 pages document with conversions for the original Mission Arcturus adventure. The PDF includes a complete Marine team with stats and descriptions, more about the Kafers, the different Kafer weapons and their stats, Kafer assault teams, optional rule for Task Times, an updated Weapon and Armor table and 13 pages of newly created maps for Mission Arcturus. Even if you do not use the 2300AD background, this pdf is generic enough to be used in a Sci-Fi or modern days setting. The maps consist of overview maps and encounter (Miniature) maps. Note: You still need the original Mission Arcturus Module from FarFuture Enterprises (former GDW) to play the mission, as this PDF does not include the adventure itself. Hope you enjoy! 2300AD BRP: Mission Arcturus 2300AD BRP: Conversion rules

I agree. It is simply more easy to modify the current rule system of BRP than adding a whole new thing like Aspects to BRP. I think Aspects can work out of the box for things like "Keen Eyes", "Enhanced Hearing", "Lightning Calculator" and such sort of things, but it is very ease to 'emulate' these things via using Super Powers and/or Mutations. It is faster, easier and does not bring in a new set of rules. In our game something like Situational Aspects would not make sense, as the players already make good use of the environment and I as a GM grant them bonuses for that. If a player takes an action to throw sand into his enemy's eyes (minor action, so it can happen in addition to his attack), I will grant him a bonus of 10-20%. If he narrates the thing well enough, he even does not need to roll. If he 'just wants to do it' without narrating, then he needs to make a Throw skill test. I think this is nearly the same what the FATE system wants to archive: more storytelling, providing Aspects as 'handholds' for the players. But once you get your group to the point where they see how rewarding it can be to do some story telling, I bet they learn fast and pay more attention to the scene and its description. The key is to reward story telling by waiving dice rolls. Sure, only in situations and settings where this will be an enhancement of the game. In a gritty setting waiving dice rolls might sooner or later end in frustration. And it strongly depends on the players as well. I think the less rules you need during play, the more rewarding the game is. Not that I am saying 'The less rules a game system has, the more rewarding the game is'. I think a game system needs a solid set of rules, but good story telling should be rewarded by throwing less rolls. It was possible in our group once, to play out a complete gunfight without rolling dice. The players were so committed to the scene, that they took small amounts of wounds voluntarily. Sure, the fight was nothing major in the adventure, and it happened only once, but it was an amazing experience.

And you can use the optional rule to soak damage with Power Points. It will still be a lot grittier than the SWB rules, but it is a start. You could easily invent a rule to say you can suck up 3 damage points for the expense of one Power Point for a more heroic game. To me, these are side-rules, setting specific. There is no need to have them in the main rule book, but I agree, a setting book should have them. I think a generic system should provide a basic rule frame and several options - and BRP is exactly doing that. It does not provide every possible rule for every setting, but it gives enough rules for a solid and playable start. So, yes, a setting book is worth being brought out and I can see the need for it.

Might be you are right. Thing is, it simply happened too often - and not only to creatures but also to PCs who then felt disappointed. As long as the creatures die with one lucky shot there are no complains, but if it happens to PCs, and I mean t happens a lot, then people start thinking if it is the right game for them to play. For us it wasn't. Anyway, back on topic I hope the book comes out soon as I am already starting to save money for it.

I like Dogs of W.A.R. and Barbarians of Lemuria. Together with BotAftermath it is a blast of a system - if you want to play a rules light thing from time to time. It is simple, uncomplicated and fun. It combines Story Telling and RPG in on thing and is easy to handle. But for more crunch I go with BRP, as it doe the gritty stuff better. You can strip down the BRP skill system to a bare minimum and still have a solid rule system, that can feel like BoL or DoW. Adding the PowerPoints-as-Fate-Chips adds a bit of pulp to it and with some Minion rules it really is as much fun as BoL could. But then, why do the hassle when BoL is that simple and already a finished product.

yes, the deadly d4. I once created a character with a d4 in all skills (unintentionally, I was not aware of the effect it would have). After a few sessions people were complaining, and they 'forced' me to enhance the skills during level progress, instead of buying new ones.

Yes, I did find new stuff in that book even after having read it 4 times. It is a huge amount of rules, about 400 pages without any setting in it. This forum here clarified a lot of questiones and you might have a look at the WiKi where some more clarifications are put in. The nice thing with BRP is you get better because you are doing stuff. It is not because you "level up", that makes the difference. It is one of the strong points for me using that system. Most new stuff comes out because of the people here in the forum develop these nice Monographs - so maybe someone feels to be nominated and is thinking about it right now ...

I can fully relate to what Jason is saying. When Realms of Cthulhu came out, we went "Wooooohhh! Cooool". During the first session the Investigators were encountering a Dark Young. I was thinking: "now, that will be fun and keep the players from advancing towards the story end too fast.". During the first rounds it was ok, though the thing killed one player straight away. But in round 3 or 4, one of the players got a lucky (!) shot with a 9mm pistol, killing my poor creature with just ONE shot! We all sat there, puzzled, and discussing if I had missed something in the rules (other than ruling "this is not possible"). Nope, exploding dice, a valid thing in RoC. We looked at each other and put away the (beautiful) coloured RoC book and back it was: the dark, black and white printed, ink smelling CoC book. We dimmed the light again, made ourself comfy and ended the session after 3 more hours of play. RoC was not the only thing we had bad experience with. Necropolis 2350 was somewhat different. These exploding dice were just too unpredictable. Not that I complain about deadlines, but killing a big Monster (a la Tyrannosaurus Rex) with a Derringer-kind-of-weapon was not realistic and just does not feel right. And it is one of the situations where it can just ruin the fun. Enough of blaming SW ... I just wanted to say that BRP might not be the holy grail, but it is a very flexible and sturdy system that allows the GM to lead a campaign the way he wants it to be - without too many unwanted surprises.

Hmm, if it really was unintentionally, then that is really very unfortunate. I personally have no use for a super hero game (so it does not bother me), but I can see other people would like to play it - especially when it was possible with the Superworld Box set. While looking through the Superworld rules, I can see three main differences to BRP: 1) the multipliers for Characteristics are different in the SWB: STR & SIZ have a *3 multiplier CON & DEX are *1 INT & POW are /3 APP is /2 2) the Damage Bonus Table is different: STR+SIZ Damage Bonus Energy Point Cost 01-06 -1d6 0 07-24 0 0 25-34 +1d6 +3 35-44 +2d6 +6 45-54 +3d6 +9 etc. etc etc 3) there are less skills There might be other differences that I missed at a first glance, but I think by incorporating the above mentioned differences, it will make BRP a lot more Superheroic than it is now.