SDLeary

I assume the sanity rolls are for dealing with the number of times you will have to send the book back to Mongoose because it falls apart! SDLeary

Also posted an old RQ III sheet that I made. Have fun! SDLeary

Just posted a slight revision of the sheet. Added the base skill values, and a few skills that were missing. Also added a section on Character Points and Failings, and a larger notes section. SDLeary

What about returning to Penetration Value? I applaud this effort, but it seems like we are trying to model the real world a bit too closely. More accuracy good; more complexity in the system (ie playability) bad. Penetration Values 0 Pistol / ball ammunition 1 Small Cal. spindle ammunition (roughly 4-6 mm), or large or magnum ball 2 Medium Cal. spindle (roughly 7-9 mm) 3 Large Cal. spindle (those few between 10 and 12 mm) 4 Small Cannon (.50 BMG, 12.7x108mm, 14.5... etc) etc. Each substance would then have a Hardness which the penetration would match against. Armor grade aluminum and steel having noticeably higher Hardness than their non-armor counterparts. Each weapons "Damage" would remain similar to what it is now, perhaps narrowing the overall range a bit, and allowing for the retention of Specials and Critical hits against soft targets. Basic values for penetration and damage would be based on round, modified by weapon for penetration, damage, and range. Different round types (AP, SLAP) would modify penetration or damage up or down, as would "accessories" like silencers/suppressors. Perhaps this IS what your talking about in the end. It just seems like a great deal is being passed back and forth here with no consensus in site! Though if you are simply having fun in the debate <stands aside> then by all means continue!

It must be character sheet week! Just posted my contribution. I'm not totally happy with it, but I'm unsure when I'll get back to editing it, so I thought I'd throw it out there. SDLeary

Not the point. I agree its far more civil than USENET. In some ways far more civil than RPGnet. Mongoose... haven't hit that forum in forever because its almost all noise. The point is that first impressions do matter. Especially when your about to risk your own savings, that of your buddy or your family, and perhaps what ever investors you have. "Woo! I'm gonna build something for my favorite system, publish it, and make some money to boot. Dayum... look at the flame level in that forum. Man, and here too! I wonder if my effort will be appreciated. Probalby not, I won't make much if any money either. Perhaps I should write this for brand D. Not my favorite game, but they have a much larger audience, my efforts will be more appreciated, and I'll make more money." Yes... I realize thats somewhat unrealistic, at least the money part. That is, however, the type of decision that could be made based upon the noise level in fora. I'm not saying that we should censor ourselves; The points should still be made. But they need to be made in a more civil tone, less flame and noise. I do too. And I credit that as a contributing factor in the way Jason has been delivering posts lately, and venting in the last one. But go back and read his post again. There were some points other than his personal displeasure that he was trying to deliver. Im not sure that this is his first experience as point author. He has written and contributed quite a bit to various game. As for the sale of Edition Zero, it is a mixed blessing. But its one that we (the fans) pestered Chaosium for. If we hadn't pleaded with them, then Zero would not be in our hands. On the plus side though, its probably better proofed than almost any RPG in recent memory! SDLeary

<don fire retardant suit; step on soap box> It is harsh, but it needed to be said. Potential developers WILL look at fora like this one. Now, imagine a company that isn't really familiar with how rabid (yes rabid) we are as fans of this system, but they have heard good things about Chtulhu, perhaps played a bit. Now, drop them into this forum, and look at the overall tone of the threads. In may cases they are not simply discussions of the merits, or perceived lack. They are rant and flame fests. Honestly, if you were a company interested in producing a product, and saw this, wouldn't you loose interest too? Now, I'm not saying that this kind of discourse is bad overall. What we have achieved here has been stated in Jason's post above, meaning that we will not have to wait for three months for an extensive list of errata, though I'm sure there will be some.But the signal to noise ratio is way over the top for a product that is still in editing. Especially from those that have yet to see the pre-release/proof copy. We all need to tone it down a notch or two. SDLeary <getting off soap box; walking away with fire retardant suit STILL ON!>

True. But the Personality Traits originally come from RQ, and are in Pendragon. There is no reason a similar system couldn't be put into a magic supplement, especially as Greg has expressed his dislike of the magic system itself for the current version of Pendragon. SDLeary

Ah! But we have Traits! Option: Personality Traits (pp. 290-291) Most of magic works off of "Talents", ie. skill. Passions can provide a bounus to cast through skill augmentation. Certain Traits are needed for certain effects in some of the spell possibilities. Without passions, I would base bonuses on "Religious Bonus", a value of 16 (80%) or higher in each of the 5 traits that the religion values. SDLeary

And if anyone does, could you please not forget to shoe-horn the Pendragon 4e magic system in there? Thanks much! SDLeary

Silly question. If you were the GM, why would you have to do the required calculations on-the-fly? Wouldn't you do this in pre-game prep? And if you are the player, wouldn't these calculations be done during character gen? I can understand it being an issue if you are just doing a pick-up game, but for a planned game/campaign it shouldn't be an issue. SDLeary

If you run through all the digests, RPGnet, and this forum, you will see that not all thought RQs system was that transparent. Complaints about combats taking ages when both sides are competent, book-keeping for fatigue, double book-keeping for hit locations, movement in strike ranks, etc. Back in the day, there were debates on how accurate the weapon damages were. Shouldn't a longbow do more, a javelin more or less, should a shortsword or rapier be able to penetrate plate, etc. There were also debates on how the skill category modifiers should be figured. Was it really fair to give PCs a negative Stealth modifier?! I even raised some of these questions myself. And RQ was tailored to a genre. Its not surprising to me that the same arguments arise here. I have raised one or two myself about some items on the weapon/armor tables. Its the same system at its core. And the transparency can be greater or less than RQ depending on what you choose for optional/alternate rules, and what you choose for your level of detail in a genre/setting. SDLeary

You asked how I could plausibly restrict players/characters weapon choice. I was simply responding to that. As to your assertion that the rules as they stand are inconvenient to a particular genre, this is a matter of personal taste. Some will not mind the abstraction, and some will. SDLeary

In the US, there are waiting periods to acquire weapons (pistols), making them more difficult to get legally. Larger weapons are more difficult to conceal. A large revolver or a desert eagle are much harder to conceal than a 9mm, which is harder to conceal than a derringer... and on. This makes them more likely to draw attention. Even if you have a permit for a concealed weapon, you will get at least outed and questioned by the police if the weapon is noticed. A PC walking down the street in a metro area with something not concealed, say a shotgun, should be stopped by lots of fine men and women in cars with flashing lights, guns pointed in their direction, with orders to halt! A PC walking down the street in a metro area with a light or medium pistol in a shoulder holster with a windbreaker covering things up will probably not even get a second glance. I'm not saying the GM should restrict the ownership of weapons to a PC necessarily, but they should put a damper on how they are carried and used, based on the genre and story line. SDLeary

I agree. I would hope that the GM would restrict based on genre and storyline, and not simply allow the characters to have whatever they wanted, but we all know how that can go sometimes. But I can also see that for other types of weapons that have a ROF of two in Semi-Auto. Matching this would not be unreasonable and might quell things later once the game actually hits. SDLeary

Jason, I don't necessarily agree (recoil, target re-acquisition, etc.), but I can see the point of some about the speed with which a pistol can be fired. Perhaps bringing all three semi-auto pistols (Light, Medium, Heavy) to a ROF/Attacks of 2 makes sense. Mechanisms are similar enough. SDLeary

The Pistol, Light (assume .22) allows you to shoot at the same target target three times per round, meaning three separate shots which all have to hit and do damage independently. If you change targets, you loose the extra shots and can't shoot till your next action because of the time to acquire and aim at the new target. Perhaps slightly fast, 2/round might seem more reasonable, but keep in mind that a .22 is generally not going to have the kick of a .45. Many Special Operators keep .22s in their inventory because they are easily silenced, but also because they don't have a lot of kick and can be kept on target easily. 75mm shells have a fragmentation effect that is generally not present with dynamite, unless the dynamite is contained within something else that will fragment. Ok... I'll give you that. But please look carefully at the history of BRP. BRP was never designed to be played in a crunchy gearhead manner. RQIII was the crunchiest BRP game. That game can be approximated in these rules with the appropriate choice of optional and alternate rules sets. One of the biggest complaints about RQIII (at least that I've heard) from new players was how long combat took. And even that could not be considered crunchy gearhead That was not the mandate of the author. His mandate was to take what already existed and integrate it into a single core system. Also, as has been stated before, none of the people at Chaosium are "gearheads"... the issue about money and history of the company has been stated in other threads. RQ is there, if you choose the appropriate optionaly/alternate rules. It can still be expanded on as you state above, if you want to. In most BRP fan's opinions, Stormbringer 5e was the best version of BRP, and thus that was used as the basis for this effort. Hmmm... in the BRP book, the Steel Plate is NOT listed as RHA. Its listed as Steel Plate. Because of its specific design as armor, I would expect RHA to have a much higher AP value; in fact I would expect any material designed as modern AFV armor to have higher values. I applaud SJG, their writers, or both for being so thorough in their approach to world modeling. BRP was never designed as a model of the world though, but as an abstract. An abstract with enough detail that people could have fun roleplaying in the story that the GM has placed them in. As for accurate world modeling? YMMV, as no two people "see" the world in quite the same way. SDLeary

Woo! Spot on! SDLeary

(raises hand) Oh oh... thats me! I would say yes. And honestly for an AR-15, probably more like a STR 3.

Griffin Island SDLeary

So it would appear Thats what I get for coming in late to the discussion. SDLeary

I believe I saw someone state they received 125 over on RPGnet. SDLeary Edit: Sorry, 115

If the GM allows it. They can allow all, some, or none of this; or use this as a framework to roll their own options. Its all optional. What is listed are simply suggestions. SDLeary

"...and can shift the result by as many categories as you have power points to spend." No... fairly open. Again, I think the intention of this is for heroic games where not everyone has access to magic. Better in many regards than the Ki powers from LoN for that kind of setting. SDLeary

It is going to be limited in the above situation. But then, someone foolishly went after a Dragon without proper prep (proper armor, magical protection, etc). If the character did go in prepared, and had a bad string of luck, then perhaps one of the first two options would be better. Re-roll of his last defensive maneuver, or not using his defense and using his Luck roll instead. Both listed as 5 point options. As for the damage soak, you want this to work or be an option whenever your character will die, or when they will fall unconscious and bleed to death, or be captured with no way out. Don't limit the utility to the extreme. I like this variability. Another suggestion to the GM is to allow the player to spend a total number of PP equal to the entire damage range of the weapon to inflict maximum damage. A very good option in a heroic game where the setting precludes everyone having magic. None of these options are set in stone. The first three are "...ways power points can affect game play other than a power source", and other examples are also given. This is a fairly open system to the GM. SDLeary