SDLeary

You mean hire an author with a grounding in the sciences and put together a list for dedicated gearhead fans of the system to hash out methods and models? GURPS didn't seem to have a problem getting that done. >:->

Funny, when playing GURPS way back when, I don't remember them having it right. In fact, way back when, Hero seemed to have a better grasp. >:->

And, I'll bet that most of the "got it" on the part of GURPS didn't start with the RPG crew, but with fans who wrote things up with additional/optional rules and submitted them for consideration. That game has been around as an active setting-less system for much longer.

I am tired of eyeballing things. The eyeballing is breaking down pretty quick in some instances too. SIZ is an example, in that it can represent four different things: actual mass, volume, reach, and is a constiuent in HP. This causes problems with dense objects, large but lightweight objects, and other permutations. It needs to be restated and have some of the qualities of SIZ broken out into other stats. Does it sound like I want a D100 Gurps? Well I don't. I want a BRP that can handle what GURPS can and do so with the elegance I found in Runequest where nearly every rule had a coherent explanation for why it did what it did. What is wrong with that as an expectation?

With SIZ, I agree... they should just say Mass and get it over with. Perhaps re-introducing body types. But I don't see it as a deal breaker for a game.

As far as handling what GURPS can, then perhaps something should be written up and submitted? Thats what is being done with Vehicle rules, IIRC. Perhaps if something is written up it can be released with a Genre supplement?

SDLeary

Why bother flipping them? With armor of 6-14mm you could stab a spaer through them given the premise that 2" of steel=19AP (meaning what is the AP of 6MM plate if 2" is only 19 pts?). Once you get past using descriptors (Heavy, medium, light etc) and start applying RW numbers in the BRP games things start getting funky.

Storytellers can handwave such inconsistencies away but I really want more consistency and a good grounding in RW physics and materials.

Joseph Paul

I think you would have to find a way for Chaosium to retain a Physicist/Engineer then. None of the people there currently have science training that I'm aware of. That means that for a lot of this they are eyeballing the stuff to levels that make it reasonable in a Story, not RW. Note that they have not done a SciFi (where the eyeballing would work less) since Ringworld.

SDLeary

But if some body want to do a supplement that give real details on different guns , type of bullets etc I would encourage them to do so. I still have my copy of The Armory by Kevin Dockery which was written for Espionage and Mercenaries Spies and Private Eyes . Still a very good book after 23 years.

OOOH I hates you.... you dirty hobbits.

One of the best supplements for multiple games ever. I regret getting rid of mine years ago.

SDLeary

Referred sure. But as far as how a rule would working BRP, no. You can't just expect anyone who buys the game to either own or go out and but a previous Chaosium product to look up a rule.

Ahh.. you cut too soon. Note the sentence about BRP being in final print. Until we see the final product, referencing older games upon which the core rules are based on is valid

Yes. It was just that it would be wrong to put a "minimum requirement" on something without stating somewhere what that meant.

Agreed. And Jason know knows about it.

YEah, but not much. Virtually anyone can pick up and hold a rifle. Even the Barrett. We're not talking about lugging around an M2. I'd be more worried about STR in requires to burst fire than with a sniper rifle. Thats really the only place where low STR could be dangerous. Than and perhaps elephant guns, but a lot of that is covered by skill.

Pick up, yes. Pick up, aim, hold on target? Not necessarily. That is where the STR/DEX requirements come in, and skill. When the weapon is in use. As for burst fire, that should lower chance to hit IMHO.

BVy that line of reasoning, why pull out a rule book at all. If I wanted to houserule everything I'd buy from Mongoose. Likewise, nearly every topic raised on this forum could have the same answer. "Houserule it."

True... but your not talking about everything. You are talking about a part of the combat system that most people (based upon responses on this list and in my history of play) don't consider to be off to the degree that you and a few others do. Are the authors and publishers to make the somewhat extensive changes you describe in a settingless core rulebook to satisfy what appears to be a vocal minority, or should that be left to those who design specific settings for the game. Personally, I think the latter.

As for purchasing and houseruling from that other company, you could certainly do that too.

The idea of a forum is to express different points of view and interact.

Yea Verily!

SDLeary

This sounds good. How are the weapons differentiated?

Simply by country and weapon name. So you need to know you are looking for an HK-MP5 SMG for example. Each weapon lists its caliber, magazine capacity, base range, and malfunction. You then reference the Damage Tables to find the damage of the round. After the tables is a small section that talks about different ammo types and their effects.

Other than that, all the weapons of a particular caliber are pretty much the same.

SDLeary

Jason,

Equipment: Advanced Missile Weapons Table (p256)

Stun weapons in general.

There is no description of how these weapons work. I'm assuming these work based on the "Stunning or Subduing" Spot Rule, but there is nothing to direct you here. Or is it the "Knockout Attack" Spot Rule?

---

Spot Rules: Stunning or Subduing (p232)

Bullet point two references "blunt weapon special effect described on page 232 of Chapter Five: Combat".

Obviously the rule referenced is not on p232. ;-)

The only rule I can find that references blunt weapons in the Combat chapter is the Crushing rule for Special Successes.

Also, bullet point three references another Spot Rule... Knockout Attack. Perhaps the two should be combined to avoid the cross referencing?

Thanks!

SDLeary

That is just what I was thinking of when I was working on the vehicle design rules.

But, the thing is with the way the implae and crti rules work, it means that rigfles, heavy pistols, and SMGs can also kill those old tanks. While there was a 7,92 mm anti-tank round, most small arms couldn't hurt a tank.

Maxims also often defeated the early tanks. The 7.92 and 12.7 were going for the sure kill. If you look at the early designs of the AT rifles, they were often like oversized sniper guns. They often aimed at the driver position and got the kill that way.

Well that's from CoC. It's alittle low, but only because of the higher powered weapons. There is a problem with impales and shotguns too, but they could be spot ruled. The iplae system was designed with semi flexible armor over a soft human as opposed to several inches of RHA armor over a steel chassis.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that handguns and shotguns should NOT impale, but its not a deal breaker by any means. I also think that Criticals bypassing armor should not apply when talking about armored vehicles.

I'mm thinking that for armored vehicles (as opposed to cars and trucks) you can only get the effects of the special if the weapon could penetrate the armor normally. THat way only the .50 cal and other big guns could hurt even a vintage tank.

How about a spear, 18 points gets though the armor and does DB. Or a lance charge against a vintage tank.

See above.

Very few die immediacy, most die a bit later from blood loss. It isn't quite as quick as you might think, either. In a way, the power of the 50 cal works against itself as far as killing humans. It tends to go right through and so dumps the minimum energy into the target.

9 points being survivable depends a lot on which rules set you are using. 9 points with hit locations is a lot meaner than 9 points without. And the 3 die bell curve, combined with impales kick up the lethality well beyond reason.

Not so much so...

With Hit Locations, a hit in the trunk will knock you unconscious and start you bleeding at 1 pt per round. Thats at double or more than location value. Less than double it depends on where in the trunk you get hit.

Not all changes for accuracy would bog things down. Some other changes become a question of trade offs. Some things that some people consider very important other don't.

Lets see some options then mister!!

SDLeary

PS... Anyhow I'm off this subject... until the next time it comes up ;-)

Errk. Hold the phone. RQ and SB don't apply. If we are talking about possible problems with BRP we need to stick to it's rules. If the game says minimum STR/DEX without any guidelines about what to do about it, then yeah, the requirements are sort of required. TO prevent whatever the penalty for being short might be.

Referencing these games is valid. They were the two combat heavy versions of BRP, and the vast majority of the rules are based on Stormbringer, with references and options from other BRP versions. Also, BRP is not in final print yet. Hence all the debate, which the author, Jason, is monitoring and participating in.

Now with that in mind. He did correct me on the penalty. See above.

I agree here. The Battet uses extensive prting, has a lot of recoil absoption and is fired braced on a bipod. Technically, I don't think any small arm should have a STR minimum. Anybosy can pull the trigger.

We're I'd see the peanlty would bein terms of recoil and response time. A guy with a 5 STR might get the second shot off a few DEX rank slower than a guy with a 15 STR. Maybe.

But overall, yeah, firing a Barrett from the ground is easier than firing a 30-06 or a .357M standing.

Probably something like:

STRx1.5 is used 2 handed

+5 STR if braced, bipod, etc.

+10STR for tripod.

If you want to go there.

About the only weapons that I can see where it makes a differecne are the large caliber hunting rifles. Even then it is more a matter of precieved recoil rather than actual recoil.

They still need to be able to hold a good chunk of the weight off the ground and on target (if on a bipod) or in both hands if in other firing positions. So, yes, some strength is required. (if on a tripod or pintle I agree with you)

As for this and the other stuff, if thats the way you see it, then house rule it.

SDLeary

I don't have my book handy, but the rule is (supposed to be) that using a weapon you don't meet the minimum requirements for makes your attacks Difficult (1/2 chance).

Oops! Your right. I totally missed the italics there. Perhaps the (1/2 chance) could be placed there as a reminder.

Sorry!

SDLeary

For instance, in CoC 2" steel plate has 19 APs. InBRP a VIntage tank has 18 APs. A reasonable conclsuion is that vintage tanks have a little less than 2" of armor, or that they have more, but of lower grade steel.

Now, since 2" steeel plate will stop anything up to a .50 caliber bullet the damages should be such that those weapons can't kill a vintage tank.

But lets toss modern firearms out the window for a minute and just work with gold old fantasy weapons.

18Aps means that a guy with an axe can chop through a tank's APs.

So it is all interrelated.

Yes and no. I think this hinges on your definition of Vintage Tank. In this case, this description conjures up images of a British Mk III, German A7V, early French Renaults, etc. The .50 BMG round was designed as an anti tank round against these threats.

And, 19 points seems low for steel plate. Iron plate, yes, but not steel. Perhaps the higher APs simply need to be adjusted up. I think this might have to do with language differences more than anything else.

As for axes going through... it would have to be a crit with a maximum roll on a 1d6 DB... possible but not likely (the hit not the effect)... I got nuthin.

Personally I find Delta Greens damages excessive. With BRP's fixed hit points, a weapon that does 2D10+1d8+6 is practically an autokill. Likweise a 9mm pistol really doesn't do more damage that shoving a spear into someone's stomach.

While there are instances of people living (heroic CON roll?)... most people who get hit by a .50 in the trunk or head do die "immediately", or shortly after due to blood loss. Most of those who live get hit in the limbs. Also note, that the minimum on that weapon is 9... so a minimum roll is "survivable". Again, thats probably one of those abstraction issues.

Swords, separs, and axes are actually just as deadly as firearms. A lance chart is actually more damaging that a .50 caliber hit. More energy, more mass, more momentum, and it doesn't drop off after the initial contact.

So all the damages should be alternatives to each other and the armor and hit point ratings. As long as the number compare well to each other, there shouldn't be a problem. Changing one set of values, like going with Delta Greens gfirearm damages, means rethinking the others.

I'm all for more accuracy, IF it doesn't bog down an already (potentially) long combat sequence. I still haven't seen one which does this though.

SDLeary

I can't deny the list is rather rude, it was posted to show my players concerns. The Barrett Light .50 mirrors mine, as I specifically asked for the gun-fondlers[1] opinion on it. Unfortunately it is a weapon that he doesn't have personal experience with. Most here don't seem to have a problem with it being minimum STR 5, we're not convinced. Are we right in this case, I honestly don't know, and would really like to. Maybe this points to a need for more detail on exactly what the STR/DEX minimum's mean, and how to calculate them. I've previously said there needs to be details on how to calculate this.

In RQ III is was a minimum to use the weapon without penalty. Each point of the characteristic below the minimum listed reduced the chance to use that weapon by 5% cumulative.

In Stormbringer if you didn't meet the minimums, your chance with the weapon was halved.

In BRP, no penalties are suggested, but the GM is urged to not ban the use of a weapon outright. So its in the GMs court.

So in none of those situations are you REQUIRED to meet the minimums.

The ratings, IIRC, were based on proper use of that weapon. In the case of the Barrett Light 50 (now the M107), the proper/designed use is NOT from the hip, or standing from the shoulder. Its using a bipod, tripod, pintle, or other bracing/mount. So I can see a minimum STR 5.

SDLeary

On the other hand, BRP does not work that well with guns - it works, but it's not even close to work as well as it does for melee weapons f.ex. As mentioned before, this probably have something to do with the lack of focus on guns in previous BRP settings. It's an area where BRP can improve a lot. Creative work in this area would be most welcome I think.

How does Delta Green handle guns by the way?

SGL.

It has separate tables which handle "Guns" and ammunition. The gun tables give the stats for the weapons, sans damage. Damage is given for the ammunition. Damages are slightly different to what is in Cthulhu, but seem to follow the model of earlier versions of the game, and Cthulhu Now.

SDLeary

My concern is that most people I've ever known that play RPG's are quiet interested in the weapons their character carries. None of my current players will accept being told their character is carrying a Medium Revolver, and a Sporting Rifle. At a minimum they want to know what caliber it is. More realistically they want to know that it is a .38 S&W revolver, and a .22 bolt action rifle with a 8 round clip.

What do I think the book should contain in the way of weapons tables for guns? I think there should be an amunition table as I described, and tables of example firearms, the list in CoC 5.6 is good enough for a list of example firearms. There should also be instructions on how to translate basic (real) gun stats in to BRP stats. So if I know it is a .38 caliber 6 shot revolver, I want to have a pretty good idea how that translates in game stats.

Additionally weapons ranges are another area my players informed me the weapons tables make no sense.

I would suggest a copy of either Cthulhu Now (if you can find one) or Delta Green (ie Setting/Scenario books). The weapon stats are not perfect, but a bit better than what is in the core book here. Still very deadly though.

SDLeary

I think I see the confusion here, and I'll make sure it's clear(er) in the BRP book.

For normal use, shields shouldn't have their armor values applied twice, which is essentially what you're doing here (once as a armor value, once as HP).

Not really applying them twice. There is only the one value. When a shield is damaged, that one value drops.

Generally, it's only when you're dealing with specials and criticals that the shield's AP or HP are even an issue. These are ablative, as well, so a damaged shield has a lower AP for subsequent attacks.

Actually, its having their integrity only effected at this time (during Specials and Criticals) that makes them more durable than in RQ or Stormbringer. In these two games, their integrity was reduced when their defensive values were exceeded, not simply during Specials or Criticals.

The HP for shields came from Stormbringer, or were extrapolated using those values as a benchmark. And for clarification, RQ was the third tier of reference for this book. In order, the first source was Elric!/Stormbringer, then Call of Cthulhu, then RQ was utilized where those works didn't suffice. Then came Elfquest, Ringworld, Superworld, etc. So things aren't supposed to work exactly the way they do in RQ.

Understood. The issue here is that the higher defensive value of the shields IS taken from Stormbringer AND they are harder to damage than they were in either RQ or Stormbringer, not simply that they are higher than the shield values in RQ.

I must confess to a bit of frustration that, due to factors beyond my control (the release of the old RQ3 stuff as the BRP monographs, for example) it's been assumed that this work is somehow meant to fill the same role of RQ. If you'll note, many of the optional systems are those from RQ, while the default is a gameplay style more inspired by Stormbringer and Call of Cthulhu.

No no.. this is understood.

Thanks Jason!

SDLeary

I think you're contradicting yourself, or I'm missing something in your statement.

If a shield is (relatively) easy to damage, then wouldn't someone using one become easier to eventually kill?

Since shields are designed to be able to soak up a lot of damage, they're pretty tough. However, since they can be damaged by specials and criticals, they're hypothetically vulnerable.

In RQ for example, AP values on the shields is much lower, 8 points lower in the case of a hoplite shield (18 in RQ vs 26 in the table on p261). In RQ, Javelins did 1D10 damage (I believe they based this on a Pilum), in BRP its 1D6+1/2DB. Even using the higher damage rating from RQ, the hoplite shield in BRP cannot be penetrated, even on a critical. Even a BRP Buckler or Half Shield will stop a BRP javelin, most of the time on a crit.

In RQ and Stormbringer, a shield is damaged if its AP are exceeded. In RQ, the shield is reduced by one AP, in Stormbringer by the difference (thus 28 points done to a 26 point shield do 2 points of damage to the shield). In BRP, its listed as requiring a special, and then only inflicting one or two points of damage to the shield, depending on the parry success level.*

By increasing the AP/HP value of the shields, and by increasing the threshold required to damage the shield, the fighter with the shield has become much more a tank than they were before. Fine in a Stormbringer (Epic?) level game or higher, but a bit high for a normal or heroic level game.

I know all this can be changed based on genre and house rules. It just seems like these changes will prolong combat a bit more for those who choose only to use the core, or in pick-up games.

Thanks!

SDLeary

* Another change just noted... The "Attack and Parry Matrix" on p 193 shows shields taking damage (up to 4 points) depending on the level of success of the attacker. This is another change over the old "core" rules. Intentional??

SDLeary

Shield Table (p261)

I don't know if this is a range of typos or not....

Why are the AP/HP values so high? Based on what's stated in the combat chapter, they can loose a lot of defensive value on a special or better, rather than the one point when value is exceeded as in RQ, or points over value in SB.

These high values and the ability to damage them on a special or greater, make anyone with a shield and even pretty moderate amour pretty indestructible.

A typo??

SDLeary

Armor: AP (p258)

States that there are two armor values separated by a slash; first is fixed AP, second is Variable.

The chart on p257 has separate columns for each, not one with two values as described.

SDLeary

Jason,

Powers: Super Powers Summary (p147)

Omits the Resistance Power from p160

SDLeary

Jason,

Started putting this in the Corrections thread, luckily caught myself.

Correction? Possibly... more of a nit, but thought I'd bring it up anyway.

Melee Weapon (Various): Fencing (p69)

Should this be under Melee Weapon, or under Martial Arts? It seems to me that Rapiers (earlier ones anyway) and Sabres would fall under swords, and Fencing would be a technique.. ala Kenjitsu.

SDLeary

I sort of figured that. But it is still a ballon. Poke some holes and it's going to get taken out fast. Especially when most are filled with hydrogen. Maybe something like lowering it's "major wound" score to 25 or so?

Um... Airships haven't been filled with Hydrogen in quite a long time. Helium is the preferred gas, and has been since a famous airship went down in Lakehurst, NJ. At least here in the US. In fact, it was preferred even before that incident, here in the US.

Now... poke them with holes and they will fall, yes. The hole(s) would have to be pretty large or numerous to cause this to be catastrophic. Rigid and semi-rigid airships also tend to have more than one gas bag, so you would need large or multiple hits in multiple areas, so I can see 100 hp because of their overall size(area not mass) and fragility.

Jason... Am I correct in assuming that for vehicles and other objects that SIZ=mass? (I don't have 0 yet, so don't have access to your charts).

SDLeary

Now that I've had a bit of time to think, I'd like to see Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles as a setting. Late Antique/Early Dark Ages.

This came up as a setting being sought after by Matt during the ill fated public playtest, but hasn't come about (At one time thought to be the Holy Grail setting).

Vendel Scandinavia would also be an interesting setting.

SDLeary

Heh. My almost-a-year-old daughter got hold of it briefly and nearly made it the fabled-but-lost #1. It escaped unscathed, and resides now atop the highest shelf in the house.

As much as I hate to say this, that will only serve as a deterrent for the next six to 12 months ;-)

SDLeary

See above. As A says above, there were a lot of infantries where learning to march long distances and still be able to fight was considered part of fundamental training. And its an issue beyond just the usual toughening up, as some armies were used to it and others not.

Yes, but would that be a skill, or would that be characteristic training through physical conditioning? Romans, for example, did a lot of physical conditioning. Other ancient armies that were not professional, such as the Athenians, tended to not do quite as well.

I think it could go either way, but here it just seems to me that characteristics seem a better fit.

SDLeary

As I recall, RQ: AIG had both a Run skill and a March skill to cover the two cases, too.

Hmm... perhaps in house play. I don't see them in my manuscript (the well laid out version; copyright 93 OJ)

I can see a run skill... I'm not so sure marching should be based on a skill though. Perhaps if you have no fatigue mechanic. If you do have a march skill, perhaps it should have a high base. Strength and Constitution (Average x3?).

SDLeary

Regarding Traits, I've generally been better disposed to the HQ view of them than the Pendragon one. Pendragon Traits are, for me, too much of a "system"; whilst it's a very elegant one, it occupies a very central role in the game, which is appropriate for a game like Pendragon. But, personally speaking, I think it's too heavy duty for less "emotionally structured" games. The HQ "system", on the other hand, is so lightweight as to hardly be a system at all - you basically think of one or more personality traits you want your character to have (it could be a straightforward "Brave", or something as specific as "Hate All Trolls"), and give it a score. Then, in circumstances where it's appropriate, you use it as a direct ability, or use it to get a bonus to another skill (it'd be reasonable to up your attack roll against trolls if you have "Hate All Trolls" (nothing personal Triff )).

Anyway, I'd be inclined to go with the very lightweight version - so, to answer your question, it's not integral at all, it's something you can use as much or as little as you like, if at all. You could even say your Orlanthi all have "Hate Lunars" at 50%, which gives them a +5% in attacks on Lunars, and be done with it.

Happy New Year all!

Sarah

Re Pendragon Traits...

I haven't yet found a way to totally divorce the Pendragon magic system from them. But, I kindof like the idea of cultural and religious values playing a role. Makes things interesting if they stray too far from their homeland, or if they want to join cult Y because it has cool magic, but the cultural values make them totally unsuited to admission.

I am thinking of having the values (and passions too) add to rolls ala Hero Quest rather than the Inspiration rolls in PD.

Happy New Year everyone!

SDLeary