Mikus

Is this still in the works or dead? BGB and Runequest Fantasy Earth seems to have been misplace.

Actually it was while looking at STR values, ENC and the resistance table where things seemed a bit wonky. ENC and what it indicates about lifting does not scale well with the RT. As in 132 vs 120 in ENC weight capacity in lbs opposed to 132 vs 120 on the RT. Using the RT 132 vs 120 is the same as 32 vs 20 or 22 vs 10 or 13 vs 1. Yet 13 vs 1 is 13x where 132 vs 120 is rounded to 1x. All 12 apart and generating the same % chance of success/failure if I am correct. Exponential gains in STR makes sense of this BUT ...ENC uses linear calculation. If you do the ENC math it makes no sense. The systems don't jive. I just noticed discrepancy because it's the first time I dug into giants more that a passing encounter. I was using ENC weight as the gold standard so the RT in comparison is broken. Using RT and STR with exponential gains makes sense but trashes the ENC weight system. It was AD&D Against the Giants. Now, use the RT with POW and it's the same thing. 132 vs 120 POW would create very similar spell fueling ability but 13 vs 1 POW is vastly different. 13x as much! As long as 120 fights 132 with sorcery other than a POW vs POW battle his odds are about equal. If he enters POW vs POW he's is toast. Once again, the sub systems SEEM at odds at high levels. Rarely, if ever, would I get anywhere near these levels but they become noticable soon after human norms.

I certainly can't argue with you here in your probably right. The issue all came up when I was messing with converting the giants adventure from D&D tO RQ and funky things started to happen. Have to fudge enough that it highlights certain underlying problems.

True. I love the system more than any other but still ponder if there are better ways without increasing complexity or ruining the feel. Heck, RQ/SB/MW/CoC/BRP are all in the umpteenth edition each with minor tweaks including dropping the RT completely in some editions. Bug fixing and contemplation is just part of GMing I think.

Well the swim STR relates to your towing STR if I remember correctly. It uses SIZ for what you can support. Which is itself wonky because a dirigible would be easier to support than a tiger tank based on buoyancy yet has a far greater SIZ I would think. In some ways linking SIZ to weight can create unusual problems. I wonder what the SIZ of a 1" cube of collapsed star would be? One SIZ for weight and another for targeting purposes, unless it drew objects to it due to its own gravitational force. 😲 SIZ should have been left for fleshy critters and weight for weight I'm thinking.

ENC still muddies the waters however. Looking at ENC I see 1 ENC = 1/6 of a SIZ point, or 2 lbs. Encumbering weight is ENC = STR x 6, so 80 STR = 480 ENC and 88 is 528 ENC, or 960 lbs and 1056 lbs respectively. The scaling is just way off between the ENC and RT systems and in no way does the ENC reflect +8 points = x2 previous value. I'll have to check BGB to see if this was fixed but swim is still kaput.

You gave me some food for thought and a different looking at things. I'll look at the BGB some more. Mostly I use RQ3 and I don't think it has the same chart but I could be wrong. And that was my reason looking into this in the first place. Once you scale up above human norms things get a bit wonky. But honestly its just an exercise really, as in game any human making a STR test with a giant is simply gonna loose.

I guess I can accept that it just seems odd that everything else would be, percentage wise, diminishing returns or linear except for direct STR vs STR comparison using the RT. Like in arm wrestling. By your statement an 88 STR means that 8 points of STR is worth 80 additional strength when compared to a character with 80 STR when they arm wrestle. Yet only has the effect of 8 STR in terms of lifting. Or am I wrong here? Does a character with 88 STR have the ability to carry 2x the weight of a character with 80 STR? Using the Swim skill as an example you can carry anything non-boyant up to your STR in pounds indefinitely. So 15s 15p, 80s 80p, 88s 88p. More weight than this and you make a STR vs SIZ roll. To me this just doesn't scale well at all but math is not my strong suit. Is there a STR table which shows this exponential increase like the Comparative Size Chart? I do not see it but I could be missing it. Now, I do see in the BGB the Comparative SIZ Cart and the doubling effect. If STR vs SIZ is used in this way I could better see the logic. But then the Swim example above still seems broken to me. 88 STR should be able to carry x2 of what the 80 STR can carry before using STR vs SIZ on the RT. In the end its a game and no big deal I was simply exploring alternate methods. Stats use xd6 and skills use percentage. So nd6 for stat resolution and %d for skills seems fairly logical. BRP already uses the nd6 for resolution of stats and damage, (or other dice combos), so using it for task resolution is not introducing anything new and matches bell curve of stats.

Are you sure? By this logic a character with 88 STR should get twice the STR attack bonus and damage that an 80 STR character has. Hit points figured by SIZ + CON should also be doubled by each increase of 8 points each. If not, then a single point of STR, SIZ, CON do not exponentially increase in value EXCEPT on the resistance table? By this I mean on the resistance table each 8 point increase equals all the previous points. 9 is worth double 1, 68 is worth double 60, 88 is worth double 80 and 1008 is worth double 1000. On the resistance table. But in all other ways.. hit point calculation, endurance, damage adjustment, skill % modifier this is not true. In all cases except the RT 2 is double 1, 68 is double 34, 88 is double 44 and 1008 is double 504. Each point is worth only 1 point in relation to any other 1 point regardless of what it is added or subtracted from. That seems odd but perhaps I am missing something.

Yes. BRP skill experience defiantly promotes using the skill. In real life I know fighters who are more prone to the 'rope a dope' wait for an opening defensive style and those who go full on berserk. BRP allows for this beautifully and adds color and depth to characters based upon their actions in the game. It really is an elegant system. I'm just learning HERO and it rocks as well but doubles down on the crunchiness and promotes more dramatic, cinematic play. Of all the systems I have ever tinkered with RQ3 still seems to be the best for 'realism' in terms of mechanics. BGB is a great tool kit.

I like the resistance table ok but it doesn't seem to scale well. Two beings, one with a 3 STR and the other with a 6 STR are separated by 15%. Two other beings, one with a 15 STR and the other with a 18 STR are separated by 15%. Yet 3 is 1/2 of 6 and 15 is 5/6 of 18. I was thinking perhaps each being rolls nd6. Whoever rolls under their characteristic and has the lowest roll wins. The number of dice rolled being determined by the highest characteristic in the struggle. Such as 18< = 3d6, 19-24 = 4d6, 25-30 = 5d6, etc. This way a hobbit arm wrestling a giant is never likely to end well for the hobbit. The bell curve of 3d6 makes 3 vs 6 heavily in favor of the 6 while 15 vs 18 is not nearly as bad. Am I breaking the system or making it worse?

Yes. This is what I was thinking and better stated. Thank you. Most of my experience is with Stormbringer and RQ3. I like the categories but I think any degree of melee skill would translate to some degree of skill regardless of the exact weapon. Simply due to body mechanics, timing, general experience. I also like separate attack and parry to cover instances such as a Warrior who nearly always enters combat by initially thrusting his spear at 'long' range hoping for an impale. Then leaving it in the opponent to hamper him and switching to sword. (as one simple example) Using a spear like this would allow you a spear ATTACK skill gain roll but your PARRY skill should not get better if you always manage to get the initial attack and never parry. But this is a separate issue and was unfortunately argued in another post. Someone who has 100/100 with a 1-h Axe would never have less than 50/50 when in melee using this system. I like that. It makes the general warrior more logical and battlefield ready while not taking away from the 'Master of the ......'.

Some people like attack/parry to have the same chance with each weapon. Some like them to be separate. This is an issue I have banged around before and people seem passionate on both sides and I don't really want to discuss that here. What I do want to ask is how you handle basic attack and defense %s. I feel a warrior skilled with a staff who has 88/83 should certainly not get these levels translated when fighting with a short sword but he should not fall back to his basic attack parry characteristic skill %s. My thoughts are perhaps 1/2 your greatest skill percentage as a base for melee, thrown, missile, siege as long as you comprehend the basics of the weapon adjusted by the basic characteristic skill %.. Shooting a crossbow is really not that much different than shooting a rifle yet swinging a staff is very different than swinging a nun-chuck. A bare knuckle boxer is not a knife fighter but either one would be able to translate some of his skill into fighting with the other. So attack +11%, Dagger Attack 73% = 84% Dagger Attack. This would give a base 11+37 = 48% unarmed hand. Of course, if your unarmed skill is greater than this you would use that instead. Anyhow, just wondering how others treat this.

Yepper. My repeating the point was just to establish that we agree that inclusive combat style with many weapons would be hard to take afield. And it would then follow hard to skill up with the missing ones. I'm not sure why it is hard to model this as it was done very well since the early 80's. Or so I thought. I know NASA says we can't go to the Moon because we no longer have the technology and misplaced all the telemetry, 🤔 but I still have my old BRP stuff and the BGB so fortunately the Van Allen belts and powerful engines are not an issue here. sorry....I digress in musings..... As for lazy I suggest you consider why communist societies tend to be dung holes and the massive growth of generational welfare over the last 50 years. Not everyone is lazy, to be sure, yet the masses certainly are less than highly motivated. I'm not sure a Trump, Ford or Rothschild would consider us 99% to be in the driven - winner class. And I doubt Trump, Henry or Mayer would be swinging the blade, they would hire some 'loser' to do the dirty work. Its a view point. Just out of curiosity, how many hours a day do you practice your profession when your off the clock? Thats why the residential electrician never gets good with the bender. He may do some extra study of what he needs, (will earn him more money and / or an easier job), but not what he never uses. That would be a waste of time and quite frankly, foolish. My time is better spent honing my crossbow skills than my bow skill because I hung up my bow and don't use it. Your assuming that because a combat style has spear in the name she would practice with it and I am assuming that if she never uses it she will decide her time is better spent practicing with the weapn she actually will rely upon. Actually, I'm not assuming anything as the 'use or train it to gain' model has that covered. But all this that aside you guys HAVE convinced me to try Mythras as is, and them tweak it if I like. It's BRP at it core after all. Thanks for the suggestions my friend and I do appreciate your point of view.

Ya...I kinda figured that. Guess its a trip to the dollar store for a 3x cheaters. But Raleel has it right. All I need to do is use the PDF... but I'll print the charts for personal use. How about a large font GM Screen? Surely that is doable. Hollow Earth Expedition did some real nice ones. They would stop a speeding die from an irate player.