Evilschemer
-
Posts
118 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Profiles
Events
Posts posted by Evilschemer
-
-
Reaper has some good minis in their Chronoscope line. http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/Chronoscope
Are you looking for military? Street? Action-movie?
EM-4 make some good SWAT/military/near future/cyberpunky minis, both pre-painted and un-painted. http://www.em4miniatures.com/
Chaosium sells some good minis for modern characters. http://catalog.chaosium.com/index.php?cPath=36
Here are some more: http://www.frpgames.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=41018&ref=goog
-
I would like to point out that in first post I suggested a mechanic for quickly resolving intractable social conflicts that were boring to roleplay.
Then, in my second post, I essentially recanted my first post, suggesting instead that GMs, when faced with an intractable social conflict that no one is having fun roleplaying, should instead take a break and think of a third alternative that disrupts the conflict or causes it to come to a swift resolution. It's a twist on the classic "..and then, suddenly, ninjas attack!" trope in RPG story-telling.
-
Did they really say this one? Because it implies they could kill the baron, in front of his men.
At this point, violence would have shifted to "logical choice" for the NPC in question, at least in my games.
Unfortunately, this thread somehow became about the incident that inspired my thinking about stand-offs, not how to handle intractable non-violent (but with the implication of possible violence) stand-offs more in general. I didn't really mean to talk about the original incident, but somehow it became the focus.
A better hypothetical stand-off might also be two guys with holstered guns, both paranoid that the other guy might shoot him in the back, waiting to go through a door one at a time. Each guy saying "You first", "No, after you", "I insist", "No, by all means", "I said you first", "age before beauty", etc.
Neither guy wants to actually pull a gun and shoot the other, but neither one trusts the other NOT to pull a gun and shoot him.
This kind of intractable stand-off becomes BORING quickly! And the GM has the weaker hand. Either I continue arguing about who goes first forever, which is un-fun (and it's part of the gm's responsibility to make sure everyone's having fun), or I just give in and go through the door first. No player will ever willingly go through the door first if they are paranoid about the other guy. So my first post was a mechanical way of ending the argument and determining who the hell goes through the door first.
-
Have you ever heard of "peace-bonding"?
Oh, and in real life, if you don't put the weapon down you usually get shot multiple times from many angles. When a cop tells you to lower your weapon, real or not, you better damn well do so.
Read it again, no weapons were drawn. All weapons were holstered. Everyone was calm.
The setting is a fantasy-sci-fi-western setting, so the "authorities" was the local baron in charge of a small western town, equivalent to a town mayor with a gang of henchmen (Brian Dennehey in Silverado, Gene Hackman in the Quick and the Dead). The murder victim was an associate of the "town boss". The PCs were lying to cover for their buddy, who was nowhere to be seen. But, essentially, a wild west "Town Boss" and his henchmen telling some suspicious dudes "Surrender your weapons and come with me. I'd like to talk to you privately."
The PC response was "We'll come with you to talk privately, but we won't surrender our weapons."
NPC response, "That's unacceptable. Surrender your weapons, come on, let's go."
PC, "You'll have to kill me first."
NPC, "I don't want to kill you."
PC, "And I don't want to kill you."
Etc. etc.
-
that's because the game ties dice damage to height fallen, not to velocity/momentum. Your velocity increases exponentially with height, but damage is linear with height.
So, either you can assume that the damage progression is not linear, meaning that 4D6 is not twice the actual damage of 2D6 but actually some greater amount, or you can change the falling damage rules.
Of course, this is REALLY because equating falling damage to distance fallen is a lot easier than trying to communicate damage times velocity at time of impact in an RPG.
-
A few things to keep in mind from my original example:
a) In the original example, the PC's didn't want to start a fight. The NPC's didn't want to start a fight. NOBODY wanted to start a fight! The NPC authorities wanted to ask the PC's some questions and they needed the PC's to be disarmed during the questioning, Just a polite "We're not accusing you of anything, but to be safe we'd like you to disarm while we sit down and have a talk.". The PC's did not want to be disarmed and said "We'll come with you and answer your questions, but no way are we giving you our weapons!". The PC's weren't threatening anyone. They were just wearing their weapons on their gunbelts. The authorities were just trying to be prudent, as they usually are. THAT was the stand-off!
In the real world, the NPC Authorities wouldn't start a gun-fight because the PC's refused their request. In the real world, they'd negotiate with the recalcitrant until they got tired and gave up their weapons, or they could taser them. I didn't feel like role-playing a 4-hour stand-off as the authorities tried to get someone to put down their weapon. In the real world, the PC's might actually acquiesce and temporarily hand over their weapons on the promise of their return. But because this is a game, I had no bargaining position and I was trying to move the story along to the next part, the part that WASN'T about a 4-hour stand-off negotiation. Thus my first attempt was for rules that simulate and resolve a 4-hour stand-off negotiation. Then my second realization that I should have just by-passed the scenario with a third option.
the guy who sent me the e-mail wasn't even in the stand-off! He committed the murder, but was hiding. The other PCs were covering for him. His e-mail and attitude aside, this thread wasn't about him. His comments, however, got me to think of alternatives to a mechanical resolution. -
Here's a better table that converts meters/sec to km/hour to MOVE (assuming 1 MOVE = 3 meters per 12-second combat round) with damage.
m/sec km/h MOV Damage 8 28 31 1D6 11 39 43 2D6 13 48 53 3D6 15 55 61 4D6 17 62 69 5D6 19 68 75 6D6 20 73 81 7D6 22 78 87 8D6 23 83 92 9D6 24 87 97 10D6 25 92 102 11D6 27 96 106 12D6 28 100 111 13D6 29 103 115 14D6 30 107 119 15D6 31 110 123 16D6 32 114 126 17D6 33 117 130 18D6 33 120 134 19D6 34 123 137 20D6 35 127 141 21D6 36 129 144 22D6 37 132 147 23D6 38 135 150 24D6 38 138 153 25D6 39 141 156 26D6 40 143 159 27D6 41 146 162 28D6 41 149 165 29D6 42 151 168 30D6 43 154 171 31D6 43 156 174 32D6 44 159 176 33D6
-
Thanks for the equations Evilschemer.
Actually my questions were more in the line of "how does BRP do it / does BRP even consider it?" instead of what would be a realistic even if simplified way to find the values. Nonetheless, your equations are helpful.
I see that no one tried to answer the original question :
Question 1 : In BRP, how does movement translate into damage for a slam or a passing strike for example?
Two places.
BRP page 61, Grapple Effects, Throw Target. If your character wins, the defender is thrown: he or she flies 1D6 meters, is automatically knocked down, and must make an Agility roll or suffer 1D6 point of general damage.
BRP page 223, Falling. A falling character takes 1D6 base damage for every 3 meters fallen. If the character was thrown with conderable velocity, the gamemaster may even double the damage dice for a fall.
This is over-simplistic, of course. But you can translate the above into damage per velocity.
the velocity at a given impact is sqrt(2*9.8*distance in meters)
3 meters = 7.67 m/s = 1d6
6 meters = 10.84 m/s = 2d6
9 meters = 13.28 m/s = 3d6
12 meters = 15.34 m/s = 4d6
15 meters = 17.15 m/s = 5d6
There's no easy formula for determining dice of damage per meters per second velocity. Essentially, use the table above, then add +1d6 for every +1m/s after 17.
-
Personally, I think this is the root of your problem right here. Unless you and your group really likes railroading (and from the response of your player, he doesn't, though certainly others do) then you shouldn't allow yourself to get caught in a situation where the characters need to do something in order to advance your story. You should think of it as their story - a story that unravels as the PCs perform actions - and just roll with the punches. My personal opinion is that you should have played the NPCs according to their own motives. If that meant shooting and killing PCs, then so be it. If that meant maintaining the stand-off while they called in reinforcements with teargas grenades, then so be it. If that meant letting them go, then so be it.
The situation last Friday came about as the result of the OPPOSITE of railroading. I was ad-libbing, responding to player choices and throwing plot twists in to spice up the situation. Let's just say PCs robbed a pawn shop, one of the PCs murdered the pawn shop and his friend and the other PCs tried to cover it up. When the authorities arrived, a witness accused the PCs of being involved, the authorities wished to detain the PCs for questioning. I wasn't even accusing them of anything, just detain them for questioning. The entire stand off was the result of a combination of player-driven story and my ad-libbing the response.
The stand-off was terribly not fun. Ending the campaign with a TPK after the entire episode would have been terribly unsatisfying for everyone. I just wanted to get everyone back on a less skeevy track.
-
I just had an e-mail conversation with one of my players, a player who emphatically states:
This may be a little off-topic, but, in all honesty--Just never, ever put the PCs in a situation where NPCs will take their toys (weapons & armour {maybe thieves picks & tools}) away and confine them. If you like campaigns ending in a blaze of glory keep writing in to the story that "the PCs get captured". I won't. I'll release nerve gas in a town of innocents to prevent my capture. I'll fucking nuke the site from orbit to prevent my capture. I'll shoot my cone rifle into the nuclear reactor to prevent my capture. I will never be voluntarily captured alive in-game. Probably out-of-game as well.If you want me to derail another campaign with YET ANOTHER example of how my character will not be captured alive, please feel free to write in to your "script" how Dave's character will be captured. If I am captured by GM fiat I will make every attempt possible to destroy the campaign in a fireball of nuclear nerve gas and angry and spiteful recriminations. Just a FYI.
He has a great point. His reaction is representative, I think, of the thinking of almsot ALL players I've ever gamed with, whether they realized it or not. If put into a situation where the only three options are fight, flight, or surrender, the players will ALWAYS choose fight!
I, as GM, should be more aware of this. Instead of trying to get THEM to change THEIR thinking, or implementing game rules to FORCE them (fair or not), the campaign would probably be better served by not getting them into these stand-off situations in the first place. Or, failing that, because stand-off situations can and sometimes do happen because they are the only logical direction for a story given the PCs' actions, then it's my duty to provide a THIRD ALTERNATIVE to fight, flight, or surrender.
In my situation in last week's game, I could have interrputed the stand-off by having the rebels side with the PCs. A fun fire-fight would have ensued and the story would have advanced in the direction I wanted. Or I could have interrupted it with a bandits raid, or a retributive attack by the lizard people, both of which would have changed the dynamic, either allowing the PCs to slip away or allowed the two stand-offs to team up. Again, the story would have been advanced with a cool battle.
These are all in hindsight, of course. The lesson for me is, when this happens again, stop everything and think of a third alternative.
-
I had a situation pop up in last week's game where the the PCs and the NPCs faced a stand-off.
The NPCs had no wish to start a fight, but they needed the PCs to put their guns on the ground and come in to the local jail for questioning.
The PCs did not trust the NPCs and had no wish to put their guns down (PC's never do, ever). That being said, the PCs had no desire to start a fight either.
No one had drawn their weapons yet. It was a tense stand-off.
And very annoying for me as the GM! I did everything I could to reassure the players that nothing bad would happen to their characters. I wasn't going to screw them. These NPCs were trustworthy. I also pointed out that the PCs were outnumbered and out-gunned and if fighting started, they would probably all die, and a TPK over this would be stupid.
I was unable to negotiate in character because the PLAYERS had the advantage, not in game but meta-game. They were essentially forcing my hand, "We'll die before we give up our guns" and I, as the GM, didn't want that to happen!
Ultimately, I dropped the plot-hammer on them and explained that they needed to give up to get to the next phase of the story. The whole side-story in the town that ended in the stand-off was an unexpected side trip that was NOT the main focus of the story I wanted to tell and the players wanted to play, and I was trying to get everyone back on track. They agreed and we proceeded.
However, thinking about this today, I came up with a fair in-game mechanic for resolving these stand-offs. A kind of social combat mechanic.
Rules for Resolving Stand-offs
For situations where neither side really wants a fight, but neither side wants to back down, use the following procedure:
Step 1 – Everyone gets one skill roll to make a plan. Knowledge, Insight, Strategy, Psychotherapy. (Optional)
Step 2 – Everyone gets skill roll to make their case. Persuasion, Fast Talk, Command, Perform: Acting, Bargain, Etiquette. (Optional)
Step 3 – Both sides make a POW x 5% rolls, modified by the following:
-20% per fumble from steps 1 and 2.-05% per failure from steps 1 and 2.+05% per success from steps 1 and 2.+10% per special from steps 1 and 2.+20% per critical from steps 1 and 2.If one side succeeds and the other side loses, that loser capitulates and gives up peacefully. Otherwise, repeat steps 1-3 until one side wins and the other side loses. A fumble in step 3 means you have escalated the stand-off to fighting. Begin combat.
If, at any point, either side changes their mind and wishes to escalate, then combat begins. If, at any point, either side wishes to voluntarily capitulate, then the contest ends.
This, of course, only works if both sides honestly don’t want to start a fight, but at least one side doesn’t trust that the other side won’t, or won’t take undue advantage of them if they capitulate.
-
Hey DreadDomain, I have created spreadsheets for other games (Fuzion, Mutants and Masterminds) to calculate the zenith of a jump and the duration of the leap. A super-leap is essentially the same as firing a ballistic projectile. If you know the total horizontal distance, and the angle of the trajectory (I assume all super-leaps for distance are at 45-degrees), and the gravity (assuming 1), there are formulas for calculating the launch velocity, height at zenith, impact velocity, and duration of leap.
If you know the distance in feet, here's the EXCEL formula to determine launch velocity in feet/second:
=(([DISTANCE IN FEET]*32.17)/SIN(90*PI()/180))^0.5
Using that, you can calculate the height in feet:
=([LAUNCH VELOCITY IN FEET/SECOND]*SIN(45*PI()/180))^2/64.34
Time aloft in seconds:
=([LAUNCH VELOCITY IN FEET/SECOND]*2)/32
From there, it's just a matter of multiplying by seconds-per-round, feet-per-second into miles-per-hour (=([LAUNCH VELOCITY IN FEET/SECOND]*0.1136)), etc.
Ironically given the complicated math above, I'm keeping things simple by ignoring things like wind resistance, aerodynamics, etc.
-
Hey Conrad, I think you're being over-sensitive here.
I understood Rosen's comments in the spirit in which they were intended: as constructive criticism of my review. He had some good points. My review would be more useful to potential new buyers if I didn't even mention the other review. Mentioning the negative review in my own review, making my review a response to the first, hurts my credibility as an impartial reviewer. It makes my review immediately look reactive and defensive. My review is a reaction to seeing a product receive an undeserved negative review, not out of a sense of loyalty to the product, but my review made it look like I was just being loyal.
I have edited my review to remove references to the negative review.
Also, I don't see "fanboy" as a pejorative. It simply means someone who is loyal. Personally, I try not to be "loyal" to any rpg brand. I have been in the past, and would get defensive if someone criticized my favorite game, but I have come to recognize the silliness in that behavior. I'm a consumer, an rpg is a product, and an rpg company is a producer. I have preferences, but I really have no reason to be defensive about my preferences.
-
I did not speak from a "morally superior" point of view, but from a business point of view. Sometimes, from _that_ point of view, it is a good idea to describe crap as "matter that could smell more pleasantly".
Please read my post carefully - like dougla.s should have done with "Chronicles" : I never accused Evil Schemer of being a fanboy, I just said that his words, in that context, sound as "fanboy talk". There is a difference - a big one - between talking about someone's words and talking about him or her. A point that the aforementioned dougla.s sounds like not understanding well, to be honest.
I tried to balance praise with my honest criticism. I honestly feel the book didn't deserve a 1 star review and wished to provide a more balanced review for potential buyers.
For those that don't know what we're talking about, here's my review:
By Christian W. Conkle "El Capitan de Outre Espacio" (Portland, OR) - See all my reviews(REAL NAME) This review is from: The Chronicles of Future Earth: A Setting Book for Basic Roleplaying (Paperback)
I read the other review of this book and was perplexed! This book is an excellent supplement and does a fantastic job capturing the feel of a "weird" fantasy setting.
The cover is evocative. The interior artwork ranges from good to great. There aren't any pieces of art I would describe as "amateurish", such as pixelated images (other than one slightly pixellated image on page 59) or re-used public domain artwork, like you'd find in many small-press RPG books.
The maps are very well done, especially those in the included adventures.
The writing jumps around from topic to topic without any real sense of cohesion, giving the feeling of "collected snippets". Other than that, the writing is adequately professional and the "snippets" do a good job of getting the point across. I especially like the chapter on the gods of Urth and the artifacts.
On a more technical level, I would have made different font choices for the headlines, the grey-scale borders look a little busy, and I wouldn't have used alternating shades of grey for the tables, but these are purely aesthetic choices.
The adventures included in the book offer a good balance of investigation, role-play, and old-fashioned dungeon crawling, and as I mentioned earlier, the adventure maps are top notch.
Even with the flaws, I find this book to be informative, inspirational, and useful. DEFINITELY not deserving of a 1-star negative review. I give this product 3.5-to-4 stars (let's round it up to 4).
-
I'll remedy that negative review by posting my own review. It's not all positive, I mention what I think are its warts, but I give the book 3.5 to 4 stars (rounded up to 4). Definitely doesn't deserve 1 star.
-
I think a stat block might include:
Goblin (HP 8, AP 2 [Leather Armor], MOV 6, Short Sword 40% 1D6+1-1D6, Target Shield 40%)
Lizardman (HP 13, AP 4 [scaly Skin], MOV 8/6 swim, Scimitar 50% 1D6+2+1D4, Tail Strike 50% 1D4+1D4)
Orc (HP 12, AP 4 [Leather with metal bits], MOV 8, Scimitar 50% 1D6+2, Martial Arts: Scimitar 20%)
More complex NPCs and boss monsters will still need a full write-up.
-
I'd be more likely (and have considered) condensing all melee weapons into:
light melee weapon: 1d4 damage+db, +10%, short
small melee weapon: 1d6 damage+db, +5%, medium
melee weapon: 1d8 damage+db, +0%, medium
large melee weapon: 1d10 damage+db, -5%, medium
heavy melee weapon: 1d12 damage+db, -10%, long
You might be able to trade off +/-5% for a longer reach.
-
I have added a preview of Swords of Cydoria, the monograph I just completed, to the files section. The preview includes the first 11 pages plus representative sample pages from throughout the 206-page book that I hope provide a taste of what to expect from it when it's made available. I also included the full index in the sample to show that the book will have one.
-
I have uploaded two versions of the character sheet to the files section. One is the official character sheet, the other is an unofficial sheet that I have optimized to my own personal preferences in my campaign.
-
Since Interplanetary is delayed and the release date for the Disney movie draws nearer and nearer ...
Radium Gun
The radium gun is a long, musket-like weapon that fires explosive projectiles. Despite its size, the gun is constructed of a relatively lightweight alloy that enables the long-limbed Green Martians to use it as a sort of carbine. Edgar Rice Burroughs claimed the radium gun had an effective range of 200 miles. Since this is equivalent to firing a handgun in Tulsa and hitting a target in Oklahoma City (and Oklahoma is itself a dried-up seabed), the assertion is patently absurd. Burroughs’ claims about the radium gun’s magazine capacity are outrageous as well; an “accurate” write-up would make it a campaign-breaking super-weapon resulting in Total Party Kill for both the player-characters and their foes well before either side could possibly Spot the other. I’ve drawn up more reasonable game stats based upon existing missile weapons in the Big Gold Book.
Skill: Rifle
Base: 25%
Damage: 3D6/2 meters
Attacks: 1
Special: Knockback
Range: 400
Hands: 2H
HP: 10
Parry: No
STR/DEX: 7/5
Malfunction: 00
Ammo: 20
Value: Average
SIZ/Encumbrance: 3.5
SR: 1/SR
I dunno. On Mars, to have a range of 200 miles with a firing angle of 45-degrees, a ballistic projectile would need a muzzle velocity of of about 1100 m/s.
By comparison, the muzzle velocity of some .30-06 rifle is 3015 fps or 918.97 m/s.
Hell, firing a .30-06 rifle at a 45 degree angle on Mars will send a 10-gram (or any size, really, given enough energy) projectile 194011.82 meters. That's 194 kilometers.
Bullets go a lot farther in 0.38g.
You won't HIT anything, but if you fire it in the air at 45 degrees, it will come down 120+ miles away somewhere.
-
Are all the creatures and races shown in the pictures actually statted out in the book ?
Yes. Although the big lizardy monsters are generically and collectively referred to at Teraxes.
-
-
Oddly, I can't see the images, nor can I open the website www.mecha.com.
Yeah, it apparently went down for a few hours today. It's back up now.
-
the guy who sent me the e-mail wasn't even in the stand-off! He committed the murder, but was hiding. The other PCs were covering for him. His e-mail and attitude aside, this thread wasn't about him. His comments, however, got me to think of alternatives to a mechanical resolution.
THE CHRONICLES OF FUTURE EARTH - Science-Fantasy Roleplaying in Earth's Far Future
in Basic Roleplaying
Posted
It's neither Howardian, Burroughsian, Buck Rogers, or Thundarr.
It's closest to Lin Carter's Gondwane (World's End) series. There's an element of Jack Vance Dying Earth. Probably more than a little Zothique as well (though I'm not as familiar with those books). I've heard it compared to Moorcock's Hawkmoon, but I am completely unfamiliar with that series.
It's millions of years in the future. There are absolutely no touchstones to our modern day or our current society. It's a completely fantasy world with strange non-human races, magic, demons, the mutating force of chaos, and other dimensions. There are ancient artifacts created of a poorly understood "techno-magic" which bears little resemblance to anything we, today, would call "technology".
The world of this time is given no detail. The book focuses on the Imperial capital of Korudav, located in what we today call the Iberian peninsula.
One of the criticisms of the book is that it barely mentions the rest of the world at all, and that it gives tantalizing name-drops of other races, along with a half-sentence description, but provides no other information.