badcat

Yes, but Theleb K'aarna was 'potentially' a good fighter. One of the fun things about Stormbringer was the 'play what you get' factor. Like, a pc could start off as a kid right off the farm, and have good stats for a fighter, and still be 40% best weapon. And so on, but you already know all that. It was a positive for me, anyway. As for the other thing, about houserules? Most people around here play D&D, which game has the philosophy of empowering the players with 'builds', without much regard to empowerment for the GM. That leaks over and when they make a character for a different game they often bring certain expectations of power level and so on. So I find that it is easier to sell a game with a simple base. The new BRP book has a simple base, but a lot of tinsel (options) too. I guess my main concern boils down to my comfort level and being able to draw players without the game turning into something I don't enjoy running or playing anymore. You say SB1 is your favorite version of BRP? Then, just out of simple curiosity, why didn't you use it as the basis for the new book instead of SB5?

I saw it rarely too, but they did start splitting sometimes when weapon skills got up towards 150%+. It was a very effective way to wear down a powerful npc opponent. They would wolfpack and sometimes reduce the npcs defense by 90-120% and then attack again. Very effective indeed. I think the highest skill was one had 180%, so he was still getting a critical chance of 26% on the 'real' attack. Did not see it used at the start, when the highest skill was 105% or so, but I don't know if that was choice or simply that they didn't know the system well enough yet.

I'd like to point out that the attack/parry cycle was not really a problem in SB5/Elric!, especially at high skill levels, and that feinting was just a matter of splitting that high skill level appropriately. That is, someone with 135% (I had one campaign that got considerably higher than that) and DEX 13 could 'feint' with 50% on his first attack and five DEX ranks later make the 'real' attack at 85%...if that's not at feint I would like to know what is. And that tactic was really effective if used with a long weapon. Of course this is apparently the default method in the new book anyway. But I simply see NO REASON to add opposed mechanics to this system. It has a solid base mechanic already...the percentile roll...which can be made to do all the tricks necessary for a good solid simulation. Mind, I do use games BASED on opposed rolls sometimes (Talislanta 4) and I wouldn't want to see some percentile mechanics bolted on to that system. It would clunk it up just like opposed rolls clunk up BRP.

Touche', Jason.:thumb: I still prefer Stormbringer 1...I find it easier to ADD or modify rules, usually, rather than have them as options (it's easier to houserule than pick and choose from a toolkit, I think). That is one reason I have stayed with BRP rather than use Hero or GURPS. Players see stuff and want to know why we aren't doing THAT. Then again, maybe the feel will be different with BRP. But I am hesitant to buy in, and this is one reason.:confused: Also, it made sense that someone who was smarter and luckier would be a better natural fighter, at least as long as he wasn't a total wuss physically. And my favorite character in D&D was the fighter/magic-user. It's just me. This is probably a whole new thread...

I think that is the same thing. Whether INT and POW are limited depend on which version of BRP you are playing. Early Stormbringer depended on higher and higher levels of INT and POW to become capable of summoning more powerful entities, for instance. It also was the source of some dissatisfaction with that game, because the wizards tended to have the best weapon skill bonuses too. INT and POW made you a better fighter as well as a better sorcerer...

I'm not afraid of subtraction, and I have never said simple was always better. Indeed, what I have said is that there is a sweet spot which varies from gamer to gamer. Because some of us are not comfortable with some of the ideas that are so prevalent right now does not mean we are stupid...as you seem to imply with your 'gasp subtraction' snip. I don't care for many of the ideas included in this BRP book because they are beginning to carry it beyond my sweet spot. Contested or opposed rolls, traits, heroic abilities, fate points, etc. are no improvement, IMHO, especially in a system which can be run effortlessly as it already exists. I also do not like being talked down to by anyone. I like what I like. 4e just looks like a mess, and an expensive one, 'simpler' or not. The new BRP is beginning to feel like GURPS. There are, however, a couple of bright spots on the horizon. I do regret that I cannot give the new book more support, but I feel right now that the inclusion of clumsy mechanics such as contested rolls and the multi-genre nature of it are going to leave me, for one, out in the cold.

It is pleasant to find someone of like mind on this subject. I am afraid I am thinking of giving up on the hobby as a group activity because most gamers I talk to these days seem to favor mechanics like opposed rolls and 'modern' rpg mechanics. Right now it is unlikely that I will even get the new BRP book due to all the bells and whistles that are getting attached to it. The parts I like are, alas, already known or available. Unfortunately it looks like hte new book will not bring anything useful to me to the table. I don't know. I'll likely stick to Stormbringer and CoC with imports from other systems and use Atlantis if I actually get to run a game, and spend my hobby hours working on my own setting. It is still an enjoyable hobby even if it is pulling away from my tastes in many ways.

I think part of it has to do with the era and weapons, too. I can see deflection if you are talking about rapiers, sure. Broadsword and shield, I don't know. From personal experience I do know that after a while it gets hard to even get a shield in position. The thing is, in a rpg you are looking for the feel of combat without necessarily getting every little nuance of combat style and function down pat and portrayed perfectly (at least for me). You don't need mechanics like opposed rolls and 'feats' to have a perfectly good, accurate feeling (as emulating your favorite movie or historical novel) and fun game. Give me the middle of the road complexity of Stormbringer or RQ or CoC any day. I not only like simple, but don't even like to see some of the complicating options in the new book...because they are not needed, and BRP does not need and should not try to be computer science.

The terms are pretty much interchangeable, that is, guns with locks go by several names which share the basic function of using some sort of lock mechanism to ignite gunpowder. The muskets in 'Sharpe's Tiger' are flintlock muskets. Wheelocks and flintlocks, and earlier designs, were all 'firelocks'. Another name for that type of firearm was 'fusil', as in 'King's Fusileers'. Firelocks and fusils. Have a culture that is based on an advanced Hellenic setting, you could call it 'Fusils and Falcatas'.

OK, that's what I thought. I was hoping the 'heavier' missile damages from SB1 had made the cut, plus some of the interesting options from that version of BRP such as using bucklers and target shields as missile weapons. It would make it easier to sell to a new group if they can be shown an 'official' rule. Perhaps in a future version/edition of the book? I'm guessing you are probably keeping a list of possible things to add or modify.

Another question. Are there rules for adjusting the level of lethality for weapons? If the default weapon damages are as Stormbringer 5 (my understanding right now) is there any allowance for adjusting the missile weapon damages to be more in line with Stormbringer 1, for instance?

I'm reading the book 'Sharpes Tiger' right now, and notice that one term for Napoleon era muskets was 'firelock'. How about 'Steel and Firelocks'?

Well I don't want to kill anyones excitement, so how about a 'maybe yay'?

I'm with tal here. Been burned with rpg books big time the last few years. Chaosium included.

I am just the opposite: when SB1 came out I dropped the more complex (unnecessarily) RQ hit points and strike ranks. My games have always worked just fine and been fun for all. Maybe it's heresy, but it's good heresy. Durall has tried to please everyone this time out. We'll see.

I do OK with a D12...

Almost. I understand the new book is most similar to SB5, that way, so yes but the SB1 chart is simpler with fewer results. Stuff like, 'your right leg is amputated, lose 1d6 Dex and x movement' and so on. The chart in the new book will probably have provisions to dress up the effects (if it is like SB5), give some choices on the fly, like 'this happens, or this, depending on this' and 'like x, above, but worse'. It's more of a guide whereas the earlier SB1 version was more explicit. But the general idea and game effect should be about the same, yes. It has the advantage that you don't worry about where the hit is unless it truly is critical. No round to round tracking until someone does get seriously hurt. The really good thing about the upcoming BRP is that it looks as if everything can be modified to taste with a minimum of confusion. Sort of like GURPS with less in the way of attachments. Hmmm, better reserve judgement on that last. 384 pages of rules is a lot of rules for a game that up until now pretty much consisted of just a few dozen pages of game system rules. We'll soon see. I mean I will, most of the people with the 0 edition seem pleased with the content.

Oh, I was replying to a reply to a reply, or something like that. Just talking about one of the options. I usually just do it like SB1, myself. Less steps.

Seriously, Trif, RosenMcStern nailed the problem with the 'reverse attack roll' hit location chart as in Warhammer. It can work, but you have to arrange things so that the percentage chance to hit never falls below 20% or so...like Warhammer.

I usually use SB1 style major wounds and sometimes a couple of D12s for hit location. Mine have head x1, arms x2, torso x4, legs x4 and 'target' x1. I only use them for major wounds, when they are rolled and hit, that is.

I'm still a BRP fan, but I like skill systems that take 'native ability' into consideration where skills are concerned, myself. I think I am going to use this with my next game. Up until now, my go to skill system has been the old Stormbringer 1st ed. skill set, but I was never 100% satisfied with it. And downright unhappy with the CoC or Elric! skill sets even though those two games have consisted of 90% of my GMing career. Legend of Yore is still available at Noble Knight for ten bucks, that makes it about 15 to 20 after it gets rebound. And you would have to. The glue binding is totally rotten, mine just simply disinegrated as soon as I opened it. That was a shock, because the book looked fine just laying there. Other than skills the rules are...different. The author departed from a purely percentile ruleset after the skill section. However, there are many good ideas in the rest of the book. It really is a good resource all around for anyone who uses BRP in general. It has a very good magic section, with a logical way to integrate divine magic (not like RQ, more like a D&D style clerical magic by 'domain'), RQ2 style hit points, humanoid monsters as PCs, some other stuff. With all that, the combat system involves subtracting defense from attack and consulting a chart *wince*. I have no idea why. And the author thought it a good idea to include a couple or three other things to keep track of like endurance and 'pain'. It is an intriguing mix of old and new. But the good parts are very good.

That is it. Skill ranks are simply +5% per rank to the base. Each skill has a base cost in experience, and that cost times rank being purchased is the total cost per rank. Harder skills have higher base costs. For example; Spell Casting has a base cost of 5, Cook has a base cost of 2. So they progress as; Spell Casting: 5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50 Cook: 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,20 You fulfill any training requirements the GM asks for, pay the experience, and add 5% to the skill total. In the example above, Cook is Knowledge based so 45 base plus one level. If the skill was not taken, default is base minus cost times 5, or 35% for this pc to 'cook' with no skill level. There is a very comprehensive skill list with base cost, controlling stat, and descriptions. New pcs get a background, professional, and secondary skill list and total them. It's a basic 'life path' skill system. The base costs range from 2 to 5.

Hey, Slade, my major English Lit professor in college thought Lovecrafts' fiction was the greatest although he was not allowed to introduce it in classes. Prof. Merrill was a gun/train/horror loving geek in professor's tweads. Cool guy. I had him for Shakespeare...'two handed engine of destruction' and 'once more unto the breach, dear friends', two of his favorite quotes.

Hey, Slade, my major English Lit major in college though Lovecrafts' fiction was the greatest although he was not allowed to introduce it in classes. Prof. Merrill was a gun/train/horror loving geek in professor's tweads. Cool guy. I had him for Shakespeare...'two handed engine of destruction' and 'once more unto the breach, dear friends', two of his favorite quotes.

I would add the third Gor book, 'Priest-Kings of Gor' to the not awful Gor list. At least I thought so. The rest of the series I agree, I couldn't read them even when I was in my early twenties and read smut, well, sometimes... I agree about Lovecraft too. I like Lumley and Ramsey better for Mythos fiction. CAS and Howard too. I am sort of an apostate when it comes to CoC, using more of a 'Lumley flavor' than the recommended 'Lovecraftian' we-are-doomed-to-go-crazy-and-die flavor. It's still very scary, or so I've been told by my players. For bad fantasy, a couple of writers that get my vote are the Tolkien rip-off artists like Brooks and McKiernan. And Robert Jordan trying to write Conan stories. Or anything else.