Arnold-C

On ‎10‎.‎08‎.‎2017 at 4:54 PM, Atgxtg said:

The BRP SIZ table is messed up though. It's a cut & paste from older edtions of CoC which in turn a messed up and taken from RQ3. The RQ3 table is a modified version of the Superworld SIZ table.

The BRP SIZ Table in the BGB is a cut-down version of the SIZ Table published in Stormbringer 1st/4th Edition (page 22), the "Heavy" Body Frame colum only (for both height and weight, in English and metric Units), while the RQ3 SIZ Table is a slightly changed version of the one published in the second Cthulhu companion, Fragments of Fear (page 5). There are some significant differences between the RQ3/Fragments of Fear and the Stormbringer/BRP BGB SIZ Tables on the weight ranges for a certain SIZ.

The RQ3 Version ranges from SIZ 1 to SIZ 48, using +1 SIZ increments, the Fragments of Fear one ranges from SIZ 1 to SIZ 330, using varying SIZ increments of +4 and +8. For weight only, and while the RQ3 table uses both English and metric units, the one in Fragments of Fear does only use English units. Though on both SIZ 1 ranges from 1-12 lbs, SIZ 4 from 38-51 lbs, SIZ 8 from 109-210 lbs, and so on.

Stormbringer ("Heavy" Body Frame)/BRP BGB SIZ 1 ranges from 0-20 lbs, SIZ 4 from 31-80 lbs and SIZ 8 from 80-160 lbs, and neither the "Light" nor "Medium" Body Frame colums do exactly match the ranges given in the Fragments of Fear/RQ3 tables.

The Superworld SIZ Table differs largely from the one published in Fragments of Fear and RQ3 the higher the SIZ number is:

Superworld SIZ 16 ranges from 220-238 lbs, while on the Fragments of Fear table it would be 220-239. Just 1 lbs difference. Superworld SIZ 120 is 901 tons, while on the Fragments of Fear table it would be only 144 tons. Thats 757 tons difference. IMO the Superworld SIZ Table is a complete different approach, just as the tables in Stormbringer/BRP BGB are.

@JasonW The preview PDF for the Fragments of Fear product on DriveThru (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/1686/Fragments-of-Fear?cPath=74_79&it=1) contains the "classic" CoC SIZ Equivalency Table on its last page. That PDF can be saved to your hardrive.

A 1/5th SIZ value from the examples on page 37 of the CoC 7e rules book does more or less match the weight ranges given on that table. The easiest (and least expensive) way to get on a "Build" value would be looking up the weight range on that SIZ Equivalency Table, find the corresponding SIZ value, multiply that with 5 and look for the "Build" value for that SIZ on the table on page 33 of the CoC rules book, counting STR as 0.

So something weighing between 880 and 959 pounds would have an old SIZ of 32, multiplied by 5 you'll get a new SIZ of 160. Which would be of a "Build" of 2 on the "Damage Bonus & Build" table.

On ‎20‎.‎03‎.‎2017 at 1:27 AM, Cosmic55 said:

I've been using 5th edition after losing 3rd, and always miss the earlier editions. I never saw a reason to update.

Me neither. I'm still addicted to my 2nd Edition PDF I got from DriveThrough/RPGNow a long, looong time ago (and I'll never understand nor endorse why it's been pulled!), although I'm playing with the thought to get me a 4th Edition corebook. But 3rd and 4th Edition are still the original 2nd Edition rules, just some sentences modified, content rearranged and Companion(s) added. Since I also already have both Companions as PDF I actually wouldn't need a 4th Edition corebook.

I never liked the 5th Ed. skill list changes (f.e. Botany & Zoology becoming Biology. So a botanist has the exact same knowledge than a zoologist. Why are they then different occupations anyways?).  

Then why not combine Climb, Jump, Throw, Swim into a single "Athletics" skill? Drive Automobile/Pilot Aircraft: "Operate Vehicle". Both are vehicles, so there can't be a significant difference in steering them, can it?  Or, why use varying skills at all? Just roll the appropriate characteristic times 5, 4 or 3. BTW, why roll dice?  They're completely overrated and are only used in gaming rules to make the dice-making industry rich. Flip coins!  

Making "Diagnose Disease" / "Treat Disease" seperate skills did make sense. Even I'd be able to diagnose measles... but I don't have the slightest idea how to treat it. Except consulting a doctor, of course. Or dose a .38...  "Medicine"!

Never Change a winning team! and Don't fix what isn't broken!  

IMHO from Fifth Edition on the quality of the additional artwork degraded markedly (who told the "Dreyfus" guy or gal he/she has a drawing talent!?), and 6th Edition marked the beginning of the bad habit to include colored/monochrome page backgrounds and fancy lettering. Simple B&W and ordinary fonts are much more easier to read!! A RPG rulesbook shouldn't look like nor need the layout of a Lifestyle Magazine!

7th Edition "Pushing the Roll" sort of my CoC group already had back in 1986... when failed a Climb or Jump skill check f.e. we were allowed to make a second check to see if the character would be able to grab and hang onto something. Only when this second check failed too it's been "a parachute would have been a good idea. Get one for your next PC". A recommendation for Keepers to not be too harsh on their players would IMHO be sufficient. As a rule? I don't know.

Bonus and Penalty Dice? Opposed Rolls? There's absulutely NO need to copy borked game mechanics from your competitors. CoC is a classic RPG using a classic (and at the time of it's first publication unique) proven ruleset... and there already is a RPG on the market in which the gameflow is disturbed by the use of excessive borked dice rolling. It's called RollMaster* if I remember correctly. And played by people with a strong pathological tendency for masochism I assume...

Never Change a winning team! and Don't fix what isn't broken!

Finally, I'd love to have the opportunity to get a CoC First Edition PDF. Would be IMHO a nice gimmick for the 40th Anniversary. (Although I'd prefer the 36th...)

(*) This word doesn't include a typo!

4 hours ago, g33k said:

But do recall the fearsome child/infant mortality rates, which throw a large quantity of very-low numbers into that average (and for women, I'm betting their lower numbers are from "died in childbirth").

If you only look at the "life expectancy" of the group of people who survive to (for example) 12 or older (and discount childbirth-related deaths from the women) you're probably looking at an average more like 65-70-ish ...   Yes, child mortality rates were really that fearsome.

 

Yes, child/infant mortality rates might have been included, and you're right on the women. Wealth was another factor, and the noted average life expectance was indeed for the hard-working peasants. Additionally, at that time it was common to live along your lifestock under the very same roof, so diseases sprung from animals to men.

Upper class males, who were generally better fed, did less hard labor and could afford a better medical treatment could expect to reach an age of 60/70 years. Upper-class women could also look forward to a longer life than women from the lower classes, but the task of bearing many children resulted in a lower life expectancy compared to that of males. 

On ‎31‎.‎03‎.‎2017 at 5:38 PM, Jason Durall said:

Just as a clarification... starting adventurers will have a bit of experience, but they won't be seasoned veterans on the edge of retirement, or even in their primes. They'll be around 21 or so, with a few skills in the 70%+ range, maybe one or two higher, a handful of spirit magic spells, not a lot of Rune points, and a fleshed-out backstory. They may have fought in a battle or two, seen a few big things, maybe even earned some passions like Loyalty, Hate, Love, and even gotten a bit of Reputation... but there's still a long way to go before they're going to be ready for the Hero Wars. 

That still sounds like previous experience for a Player Character beyond the age of 16 (15). That's a part of the rules I never had been happy with. A Gloranthan 16 years old adult was always less experienced and able than his Bronze Age Earth counterpart. Which's education would have started at an age between 5 and 7 years (Eqypt, Mesopotamia) to learn their father's trades, and would have lasted for about 10 years. From a 16 years old adult it was expected to soon marry and found his own family, and look forward to take over his fathers businesses, and not to start his education. Looking at the average life expectance at that time (33 years for a male, 29 years for a female) you'd really have to hurry up to get your apprenticeship diploma.

In Greece (at the age of the city-states) a boy would be put to school at an age of 7 (if his family would be wealthy enough), and at an age of 12 he'd start to get military training, for every male Greek citizen was expected to be a soldier at some level. Although boys were considered to have come of age at 16, his education would last until he'd be 18 years old. Families unable to afford the cost of private schooling apprentice their sons to a master craftsman or a merchant to improve their education while learning a useful trade. Apprenticeships, of at least six years, were usually begun at 12 years of age for such occupations as builder, merchant, potter, carpenter, or shipwright.

I am aware of that Glornatha isn't exactly Bronze Age Earth, but I would expect at least a few similarities when it comes to a character's "Previous Experience". Looking at "good ole" Rurik's RQ2 starting stats, the guy would have been toast 9 out of 10 in most situations.

On ‎08‎.‎04‎.‎2017 at 1:56 AM, Atgxtg said:

Plus, I believe it was mentioned in some of the ads for RQ3 that AH wanted to shift the emphasis away from Glorantha and make RQ a more generic game that could be adapted to handle other settings- specifically so that they could sell it as more of a fantasy RPG. There was a Glorantha book in the RQ boxed set, and they did reprint a lot of RQ2 Glorantha stuff for RQ3, but I think that was more to keep the existing fanbase on board while they shot for a bigger market. 

 

21 hours ago, jajagappa said:

This was very clear when RQ3 came out.  Generic players book, generic GM book, generic characters, boring Cormac's saga (where did Rurik go!!!).  And the first materials that came out were Monster Coliseum, Vikings, and Land of Ninja (and annoying boxed sets of character sheets only).  And then when Glorantha material came out, it was repackaged from RQ2.

From my POV it would have been more the question what Chaosium wanted, rather than Avalon Hill. If you take a look at the copyright pages of the Deluxe RQ3 booklets, they were written and edited inhouse, and even the copyright for the published material stayed with Chaosium Inc. IMHO it's a bit too easy to blame AH all the way for the weaknesses and glitches RQ3 had.

At that time, the development of a generic and fully interchangeable rules system would have make sense, if you look at the different RPGs Chaosium had given birth: RuneQuest, Stombringer, Call of Cthulhu, Superworld, ElfQuest... all based more or less on the original RQ rules system, but each had slightly different skill starting percentages and methods to define previous experience for the Player Characters f.e. With a true generic basic rules system all you'd have to do is add a background and add or take away something here and there.

6 hours ago, styopa said:

I thought this WAS RQ3's original rule?  Maybe I changed it so long ago I forgot the original.

You thought right, that's the RQ3 original rule.

On a successful parry, damage equal to the weapon's armor points will be blocked, the remainder, if any,  will go on the body of the parrier and the parrying weapon loses 1 AP, except when the parry was a special success. If the parry was a critical success, no damage will go through, even if the attack would have been a critical success. (Player's Book, Page 48 / RuneQuest Fantasy Roleplaying Adventure, Page 32: "Damage to Parrying Weapons").

As I see it, the Special Success rules (divided by weapon damage types) on pages 194 to 202 supersede the "regular" Attack and Defense Matrix on page 193. The latter one would come in action when you choose to don't use the special successes based on weapon type.

On ‎31‎.‎01‎.‎2017 at 10:36 PM, mikkling said:

If seen as individual actions, I agree that SRs makes little sense: you swing at SR 5, your opponent at SR 8; before and after, you do not act.

Instead, I always rationalised strike ranks as a measure of how fast you can create or exploit an opening for a proper attack in an ongoing exchange of blows or a jockeying for position. This also motivates random hit locations -- you exploit the opening you get. Of course, it gets a bit clunky since SRs serves at least two functions: both as initiative and as a time-keeping device. But it kinda works. Since the exploitation of openings is also a matter of skill, I also house-rule the conversion of skill percentages to SRs, to the tune of -20% for -1 SR and +1 SR for +10%. A +1 SR delay could alternatively net you a ±2 mod to the hit location roll. If your opponent is unaware of you, you get your opening as soon as you reach him.

A similar rationalisation goes for missile weapons, where I use DEX SR + 3 SR for readying and aiming a single shot. Getting good shots at human-sized opponents moving about, especially if they are aware of you, is far from automatic. And if you want to fire into melee and avoid friendly fire, you get +d4 SR to your shot, for moving to a better angle or waiting for an opportunity. 

Best,

Mikael

So you treat it in a more abstract way that in a combat round each combatant does indeed several attacks and parries (which would all count as successfully done) but only the results of those ones that really made a difference are those to be be rolled for?

In my old CoC group, we changed the "1D6% gain for everyone" to that a character will get a fixed amount of his INT/3 instead. We also had a different way to mark successfully used skills. For a regular success you'll mark the skill with a slash and then make a regular Experience Roll. For a critical success you'll mark the skill with a cross and will automatically get that INT/3 for it, no roll necessary.

We also had a different method to distribute the professsional and hobby skill points. Instead for a sum of EDU x 15, freely distributable, you got 15 skil point "packages" worth your character's EDU stat. Each profession skill had at least to get one package applied, the remaining packages could be applied as you see fit, reflecting, that in a modern educational world you really can't choose the training you get or won't get, although you still can choose a field of special interest.

For hobby skills you got 5 packages worth your INT stat, with the restriction that you could apply up to 3 packages max on a single skill.

Characters build that way didn't fail or die more often than a "regular" built one.

On ‎18‎.‎10‎.‎2015 at 11:46 PM, smiorgan said:

Here is version 3. This is it. I'm exhausted and I've exhausted my nerdthusiasm for this monster...

To recap 

- Only complete games. So, no Corum, no Delta Green, no Luther Awkward. I've made an exception for Mythic Iceland, because it's to become a full game, and because I just love Mythic Iceland.

-Only d100, so d20 based BRP-ish games are out. No Pendragon, first of all. Mutant is in Mutant Chronicles is out.

- Original non-English games are in. I have French, Italian and Swedish entries here. I've added the Italian "John Doe" in v.3. I've surely missed some others.

- Modded, expanded, reworked non-English editions are in. Italian and French BASIC, French Hawkmoon, etc. Again I'm sure I've missed stuff.

- The future is in, kickstarted and announced BRP games have made their appearance in v.3!

Enjoy!

Hi smiorgan,

you might consider to add M+D Editores' "Far West" roleplaying game (https://rpggeek.com/rpg/18127/far-west) to your BRP family tree. It unfortunately was only published in Spanish.  

FW uses a partially abridged, partially improved version of the 1980's Basic Role-Playing rules. I got this merely for the beautiful Luis Royo cover, the gods know I'll never, ever, again buy a Spanish-only RPG.  (Fortunately, Google Translate is far more accurate on Spanish-English than it is on English-German... or Spanish-German).

Short description:

uses only the STR, DEX (3D6) and CON (3D6 + 3) characteristics, so the Damage Modifier is based on STR alone.

The skill list looks very similar to that of the early Call of Cthulhu editions, but the base percentages are reminding more on RuneQuest 2, very low, at 10% for the most. Occupations/Professions include Peddler, Gold Seeker, Bounty Hunter, Saloon Girl, Settler, Explorer, Outlaw, Pony Express Rider, Gunman, Preacher, Rebel (Confederate Soldier), Sheriff, Soldier, Gambler, Trapper, Cowboy and Native American ("Indian") (for the latter you can additionally choose between Warrior, Explorer, Shaman and Scout; and includes the affiliation to a distinct tribe, from Seminole over Apache to Cheyenne).

Each Occupation/Profession has distinct starting skills and percentages, additional skill points are the sum of (STR+DEX+CON) x 2, and each Player Character gets additional 1d4 skills at +20% (which can't be chosen from the occupational skill list or weapon skills).

FW includes the well-known Experience Roll rules, with the exception that you'll get +3% fix (+1 for skills of >90%), rather than the result of a dice roll. Also the typical "roll under your skill percentage to succeed" and the "Impale". It also looks like to include a shamanistic Magic System (but I'm just at the beginning to struggle with Google Translate).

 "Strike Rank" is the pure DEX characteristic, minus a distinct modifier depending on the weapon used. A combat round is 20 seconds, the one with the highest (modfied) DEX acts first.

In contrary to the common BRP Systems I know, FW includes nice rules for Duelling: to reflect drawing a gun from a holster, you have to choose (in secret) from a Speed Scale from 1 to 6; 1 being the slowest, and 6 the fastest. Each Speed Level includes a modifier for DEX and an Attack Skill modifier. Choosing Speed 1 f.e. reduces DEX by 15, but does not affect the Attack Skill with the weapon at all, Speed 6 does not modify DEX, but the Attack Skill gets a malus of -50%. So you got to choose from pulling your gun like mad and probably miss, or draw slower to get a lower malus on your attack, but end up dead for the guy in front of you acted first and hit. Neat.

All in all, the Far West looks like a nice "Wild West" RPG (without any weird Monsters or... Zombies!), with some well-thought rule-alterations to the good ol' BRP rules system.

Being OOP for a long time now, it got a new Publisher, and a redefined version would be published in February this year (http://www.farwest-jdr.com/). From what I understood, "Wild Bunch" also plans to aim for the international market, so there could be a chance that the re-incarnation might include at least an English Edition this time.

On ‎30‎.‎01‎.‎2016 at 10:04 AM, Jeff said:

How do you find that the original RQ2 strike rank rules hold up compared to that of RuneQuest 3? I'm curious not just conceptually, but how easy are they to apply in game? Do players have difficulty understanding them? Are there elements of them that don't make sense to you?

To be honest, the RQ2/RQ3 strike rank and melee round rules don't make much sense in my eyes.

Could be just me, but that regular human beings can only act twice in a 12 (10) second timeframe isn't very convincing. What do combatants do the whole time before and after they are allowed to act? Gazing around, applauding to those which had already acted, talk shop...? My best guess would be: they twitter.

Next would be the favorization of a weapon's length alone. On a distance of 1 m to another I'd say that the guy with the 1.2 m swift Rapier (SR 2) would have a remarkably advantage over the guy with the 2.5 m Long Spear (SR 0). Just because a Long Spear is a bit more bulkier than a Rapier. And I'd bet that a Rapier guy will get a Long Spear guy Chop Suey'd 9 times out of 10 in a real-world competition.

A combatant with a weapon of a longer range would only have an advantage at his weapon's "effective range" (at a spear's head f.e.), when the hassle occurs up closer, he'd be at a disadvantage.

A possible resolution could be a shortened duration of a Melee Round, let's say maybe 2 seconds, further divided into 10 (or 12) "phases", and an additional SR modifier reflecting a weapon's bulk/weight (maybe by just adding the ENC value).

Just my 2 Cents.