Mister Apocalypse

I got it. But I don't think that it makes for a good RPG. In my own experience, the most successful character I even saw, was a character I had who never read a mythos book, and somehow managed to avoid a direct encounter with anything "unnautural". I think he saw something like a Mi-Go or Byakhee once, but it was dark, and two barrels from a Holland & Holand Nitro Express didn't leave it much fight. It is sort of a sore spot with the GM that such a character did so much better than all the investigators. I've played the game. Our GM used to run CoC for years. Thje thing is- 1)see a nasty make a SAN roll and loose some SAN (most creatures cause some loss even when you make the roll) 2)read a tome in order to get an idea of what is going on, loose some SAN. Not that the Mythos knowledge will do investigators much good. Except with CoC, sooner or later the "stars will be right and the "nuke" is going to go off anyway. So anything the PCs do, in the long run, doesn't matter. As for the "minor" mythos creatures, all are more powerful than humans are many are either invulnerable to conventional weapons or highly resistant. Except in D&D every monster isn't as tough or tougher than the PCs, and with experience a PC can take down a red dragon. Also D&D doesn't put the player into things "blind". They usually know what a dragon is and that they should avoid them. In CoC the investigators typically are encounter new and unknown horrors, with some of the group spazzing out of freezing up at the crucial moment. I think most of the surviros are the ones who ran while they buddies plied "feed the shoggoth." I'm starting to think that of most the people who play I think that it proves my argument. It's not a merit of the game, but a solution for dealing with a flaw. I don't consider such groups to be playing CoC so much as using the underlying BRP system for a modern (or nearly modern) RPG. I's like someone running a Superworld campaign, sans superpowers, and saying what a great game it is.

The way to deal with the weather would be for the airdock to use lift to rise above it, or move away from it. Assuming that they have some technology for checking out the weather (anything from radar, to satellites, to little transmitters scattered through the globe), they could get some sort of advanced warned and move to avoid the storm. The killler technology for something like this would be advanced ceramics and polymers. The structure would need to be light enough so that it could hold enough hydrogen to lift it (and any docked craft). It could probably use a hose and pump to draw up water for fuel from the sea. The submersible dock is also a reasonable idea. You don't have to go very deep to avoid the strom, either. The trick here would be to make sure that the craft is light enough to be able to surface in order for the ship to take off. It might even be possible to design a spacecraft that is submerible. It is already most of the way there. If it were only going to dive below strom depth, then it wouldn't need too thick a hull, and the ship could draw off water for fuel. The big advantage of the dock would be in reducing the fuel a ship would need to take off or land on the planet. The funny thing about the dock is that I got it from an airship design that you mentioned awhile back. The high altitude weather craft. An airdock is technically possible with current technology, but it isn't very practical, or economical. But on a waterworld with a lot of volcanic activity, the sky would be a good place to live. Of coruse, without some form of antigrav the thing would need to be huge. I mean really huge. If I recall my airship notes, the volume required is something like 1000m3 per metric ton of lift. So a 1000 ton dock capable of supporting a 500 ton ship would need 1500000m3 oh hydrogen to support it. That would be something like 1km long, 100m wide, and 15 meters thick. Well the submersible ship would solve the antigrav concept. Another possibility would be if the ship had balloons on board that it could fill will hydrogen gas (from it's fuel) to provide lift to support the ship. Of course once you have antigrav, it kind of become the proffered solution for a lot of things.

I wouldn't say it was any more "magic" that the ability to go to Mars and back. And it isn't really safe, non-polluting, limitless or cheap. In fact, so far, it has been very expensive. Eventually, if it pans out it will be superior to fission, but it won't be a cure-all. Ah, Traveller reactors- that a different kettle of fish. Traveller, like most Sci-Fi exaggerates the capabilities of the technology. Yeah, the ones from Traveller are too good to be true. The big thing that most SF tends to ignore is just how much fuel spaceships require. Even something like a fusion powered engine needs to blow through a lot of fuel to get the amount of thrust and acceleration they have in the game. Much, much more than Traveller requires.

A "non-magical" alternative, especially for a waterworld, would be to make a "airship dock" (think Zeppelin) that uses hydrogen (or better yet, deuterium) to provide lift. No only would this provide lift, but it could also be used as fuel for both the platform, and any spaceships that dock. And either could be processed from water, something that is highly abundant on the planet. So a ship could make it's way to the upper atmosphere, land at the "airdock", power down the engines, be brought closer to the planet's surface, loiter around indefinitely, load and unload cargo and personnel, make repairs, top off the tanks, and be brought back to the upper atmosphere, take off and leave. All with a net gain in fuel for the spaceship. Since the docks generate power, they could be used to recharge the batteries as well as the fuel tanks on any craft on the planet.

I can see dumping FTL travel and antigrav, but I don't see the objection to fusion power. The increase in energy output from a fusion reactor or even an antimatter reactor is not a fantastic improvement over fission reactors. Space's biggest obstacles, after the hostility of the environment, are the vast distances involved (even Star Trek has to cheat and have the ships move much faster than their listed speed to get from one system to another is any reasonably amount if time), and the fuel requirements (getting something off the Earth into orbit takes about 9-10 times it's weight worth of fuel). Fusion just makes it the latter a little less impracticable.

Multi-rank stabbing as opposed to firing. A longer barrel also means another couple of feet of reach when fending off cavalry. From what I've been reading about rifled-muskets it is a reason why the rifled ones had such a long barrel. Calvary and Naval forces were quick to adopt shorter length rifles. Considering that the smaller bore of rifled weapons and that the rounds were spin-stabilized, they didn't need to reach maximum velocity to be effective.

Ouch. You don't even have to leave home and go to the battlefield.

I think you missed my point., Apparently rifles didn't need as long a barrel as muskets. So the rifles with musket length barrels had some specifically advantage to armies of the day. Or it might just be that with the ranges armies were used to shooting at, a short rifle could provide enough stabilization to meet exceed the range and accuracy of a longer musket.

Hm, that reminds me of how I bought a few CoC source books for use in other Modern Day RPGs. Ignore the occasional Deep One, and Bermuda Triangle is the best RPG resource covering the Caribbean.

Yeah, Rob is right. One of the several reasons I have read for the term "Rifled Musket" was that there were rifles with the length of a musket. Appently, the rifle, didn't need to have as long a barrel as a musekt, and the longer barrel was to make it easier for them to be used from the second rank. While my sources don;'t say in what capacity, I'm inferring that they meant for them to be used as pikes to fight off enemy charges-especially calvary. It is harder to form a spearwall if the second rank is armed with short barreled weapons.

I just don't get it. I can find lots of nihilistic and futile things to do in the real world. When I play a game I want do do something that isn't either. But then, I could never figure out why people who thought that the Young Kingdoms was "too depressing" would gleefully play Cthulhu. There are games man does not have to play. :confused: Sorry, but if they want my money, they need to give me a reason to bother. As far as I can tell, playing Cthulhu is like being a damage control party on the Titianic, stumbling about in the dark, with only a thimble to use to bail water. Seems like a better name for a villain. Imagine what the ordinary folk would thing if they heard that Mr. Apocalypse and Major Disaster were coming to rescue them. :eek: I grabbed the moniker to relive mounting tensions on this forum about the world coming to end when someone in particular reaches 2,000 posts. I plan to revert to my alter ego just as soon as some SAN score go up a bit. P.S> I am not try to bash anyone choice of RPG or anything. I just don't understand why anyone would want to play CoC. It just seems frustrating and pointless.

Now that I "get". Generally we used to have the most fun when we were playing adventures that had nothing or little to do with the Mythos. It seems to me that the "just one way to play" is the way that they expect you to play and the way that the adventures are written for. It looks to me that if you are not going to use the Mythos much, BRP will probably let you do as much and more.

Yes, there is some stuff that is converted. No that one isn't in there. I don't have that one either. Third Edition does have some of the stuff from BH1 to BH5, as well as the "Fastest Guns that Ever/Never LIved" articles from Dragon. It's nice to get stats for Doc Holiday or The Man With No Name. BTW, In the Downloads section there is a partial price list I did up for the Old West that I did up for BRP. It is a Document, rather than a PDF, and still needs work, but it is certainly more accurate and comprehensive than the list in Boot Hill.

rust, Just what do players do during a CoC game? As far as I can tell the purpose of the game seems to be to try and survive long enough to go permanently insane. :confused:

I'd figure that they would get some spear training. All that bayonet practice.

I would think so. Back in those days, you might not have had the time to reload after a shot before the enemy was upon you. Even today armies give their solider some bayonet training, just in case. I guess Jason meant that you couldn't parry with the Rifle skill. Instead one would have to use spear or Staff/2h Club. Or dagger/sword is you are caught while still attaching the bayonet. I think many of those weapons still required the user to pl;ug the baynet into the barrel and didn't have the type of plug that allows the weapon to be fired with bayonet attached.

Hmm, and the Musektoon was from 1861, too. Faster twist and supposedly more accurate than the 1853, and that's saying something.

Anyone object if I change the Parry stat for these weapons from "No" to "Yes"? They used to put bayonets on the end and used them as spears.

I've found a few articles, and it looks like the early imports were from Britain and Portugal. So maybe they would be making Enfields rather than Springfields? Do any books mention a 1853 Pattern Enfield with Chinese marks? From what I've read, about 700,000 Spingfield Model 1861's were produced. Quite a lot compared to the older M1855. I also see 1,500,000 Pattern Enfields, or twice the number of Springfields. So I guess it's a safe assumption that if the Chinese weren't copying them, they probably bought some from the British. I'll have to put a few on the list then.

Thanks rust, If information is that scare, it is probably going to be hard to spot minor errors.

Jiangnan Arsenal questions. I'm working on the list of firearms, and I was wondering if anyone had any more info on Jiangnan Arsenal's early firearms. Were they producing copies of Remington rifles, or Remington Revolvers (1858)? And is the 1861 rifle mentioned a copy of the "Springfield" 1861 or some Remington weapon that I am unaware of? I got data for a few period weapons, but I'm not sure just which ones would have made it into the region. I'd assume that some of the US and British Military Rifles like the Springfields and Enfields would have been produced in enough numbers for export, but probably not too much else. I starting to think that while there might be some local copies of modern Western firearms, there would probably be quite a few older muskets still in service. A firearm was a valuable item, and newer models would be scare in a land with such a high population. So probably any firearm from the 1500s on that at least looked functional was treasured by somebody.

BOOT HILL 3rd EDITION The third edition of Boot Hill is a lot friendly as far as BRP conversion go. Characters have Attributes and skills, making the conversion process a lot easier. CHARACTERISTICS TO determine BRP Characteristic scores use the following conversion method. BRP STR=Boot Hill STR (use the Main Table) BRP CON=Boot Hill STR (use the Main Table) BRP SIZ=Boot Hill SIZ (use the INT/SIZ table) BRP INT=Boot Hill OBS (use INT/SIZ table) or roll 2D6+6 BRP POW= Boot Hill LUC BRP DEX= Boot Hill COORD BRP APP= Boot Hill STAx2 or roll 3D6 Main Table 2D10 (3D6) 2(3) 3(4) 4(5) 5(6) 6(7) 7(8) 8(9) 9(10) 10-11(11) 12(12) 13-14(13) 15(14) 16-17(15) 18(16) 19(17) 20(18) INT/SIZ Table 2D10 (3D6) 2(8) 3(8) 4(9) 5(9) 6(10) 7(11) 8-9(12) 10-11(13) 12-13(14) 14-15(15) 16 (16) 17-18(17) 19-20 (18) SKILLS As Boot Hill Has Skills, they can be converted. For Combat Skills multiply the skill level by 15% and add to the BRP base chance with the appropriate skill. For Work Skills: Multiply the Skill rating by 5% to get the rating for the appropriate BRP skill. Optional: A GM might wish to allow characters to spend INTx10% on personal skills but limit these to BRP skills that do not have Boot Hill equivalents.

Here are some guidelines for converting Boot Hill characters over to BRP. I've got stuff for 2nd edition and 3rd edition. If someone has the option go with 3rd edition as it has more characteristics and even adds skills to the Boot Hill game. Plus much of the earlier stuff was converted and included in the 3rd edition rules. SECOND EDITION BOOT HILL CHARACTERISTICS Use the tables below to convert Boot Hill Abilities into BRP Characterstics BRP STR=Boot Hill STR (use the Main Table) BRP CON=Boot Hill STR (use the Main Table) BRP SIZ=Boot Hill SIZ (use the INT/SIZ table) BRP INT=Boot Hill BRV (use INT/SIZ table) or roll 2D6+6 BRP POW= Boot Hill BRV BRP DEX= Boot Hill SPEED BRP APP= Boot Hill BRV or roll 3D6 Main Table % (3D6) 01%(3) 02%(4) 03-05%(5) 06-09%(6) 10-16%(7) 17-26%(8) 27-38%(9) 39-50%(10) 51-62%(11) 63-74%(12) 75-84%(13) 85-91%(14) 92-95%(15) 96-98%(16) 99%(17) 100%(18) INT/SIZ TABLE (8-18) % (3D6) 01%(8) 02%(8) 03-05%(9) 06-09%(9) 10-16%(10) 17-26%(11) 27-38%(12) 39-50%(13) 51-62%(13) 63-74%(14) 75-84%(15) 85-91%(16) 92-95%(17) 96-98%(17) 99%(18) 100%(18) SKILLS Since Boot Hill didn't have skills until third edition this is going to take a little work. Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun: skills can be determined by using Boot Hill's Gun Accuracy percentage. So a character with 50% Gun Accuracy would have 50% in those skills. Thrown Knife (Spear, etc.): Can be determined by using Boot Hill's Knife Throwing Accuracy percentage. So a character with 50% Gun Accuracy would have 50% in those skills. Experience: Add the % skill modifiers to the converted gun and knife skills. Professional Skills: The character gets three times his Experience Ability percentage in skill points to break up among professional skills, with the restriction that gun and knife skills cannot be raised (they have already been improved). For Heroic games add another 75 points. Epic Games add another 150 points. Superheroic games, add another 250 points. Normal limits apply. Personal Skill Points: 10xINT as normal.

Rats!. Conversion Notes I have are for 3rd edition. It uses a different stat and skill system. I'll pull out 2nd edition and get to work on a conversion.

Which Edition of Boot Hill do you need to convert? Stats changed a bit from 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition-as did skills. I think I have a conversion lying around on my HD.