drohem

That seems unsupported by several of these items. When you see swordlike blades attached to wooden hilts in exactly the same fashion axe blades are, or things that look like nothing so much as axeblades with a knife or sword style hilt, to suggest that there is no crossover evolution is simply not supportable.

Incorrect.

Horse cultures that make use of the bow have trained since early childhood. There are numerous example of horse culture societies that use the bow from horseback quite effectively. The Mongol invaders almost sweep all of Europe due to their recurve bow and effective use of it from horseback.

Horses can be trained for war and charge opponents. I was a knight in a jousting company that worked Renn Faires across the country. I charged my horse regularly against an armored foe with a 12-foot lance. Sure, some horses took to this training better than others, and some you had to stay on top of or they would turn. However, if you are an experienced rider and have control of your mount, you can make your mount charge an opponent.

You see just that among a number of Asian forms. It can be argued which direction the influence goes (where they attempts to make axes more knifelike or knives more axelike?) but to suggest that suggest things such as the cleaver-like swords don't have a relationship to axes is simply nonsensical.

No, it cannot be argued. Axes and swords have completely different evolutions, and are not related at all.

I'm aware of Yrth, but I don't have much evidence its a special draw for GURPS players.

I agree with you on this point. We only played in Yrth several times. All of the GMs in our group (I as well) just created their own fantasy setting using the GURPS rule system when we played it extensively.

Nightshade, I believe you are incorrect on most of your points in this discussion.

Let's just say I disagree with almost everything you have said thus far on this subject.

I can agree to disagree.

You are incorrect about bronze swords. The Celtic and Chinese producted bronze that 3,000 years later are still razor sharp. Even with today's technology, we cannot reproduce the level of craftsmenship of those weapons.

I don't doubt knights sometimes did so, but I have no evidence they were considered anything but a secondary weapon off horseback and outside of formations.

The Celtic and Germanic societies used spears extensively. Almost every culture across the planet has used spears as a martial weapon, and yes, outside of formations.

Both are true. Swords certainly show a relationship to knives, but they also are a progression of the idea of focused force. A basic mace delivers force in an extremely broad fashion (spikes confuse this, but they still tend to spread the force around); the axe does the job better, but still has wieldiness issues because its mass is not really balanced. The cutting sword is (at least with simple material technology) the ultimate derivation of concept; it provides the best comprimise of force over area against anything but completely rigid armors, while still staying comparatively wieldy.

No, they are not both true. Maces and axes did not evolve from knives.

Swords are directly related to knives: swords evolved from knives.

The World of Yrth is GURPS fantasy campaign setting, and it is unique. It mixes cultural groups from earth's past with a traditional fantasy setting.

hmmm...what's your secret?

Are you an immortal (i.e. Highlander), vampire, etc.?

hehe...just playing around.

Ok, I apologize. I realized that English my not be a primary language for some posters. I meant no offense.

I remember how at the start of William Wallace rebellion how some English Knights scoffed at the Naked Scots, many armed with only sharpen wooden stakes.

hmmm...what's your secret?

Are you an immortal (i.e. Highlander), vampire, etc.?

hehe...just playing around.

I love James Clavell's novels...

In Shogun, his most famous (probably because it became a miniseries starring Richard Chamberlain and Toshiro Mifune (1980 - go rent it it's most excellent - better yet, read the book - best of all, do both, it's worth it,)) The arrival of John Blackthorne, an Englishman, in Japan in 1600, caused immense confusion when the Japanese learned that this European was enemy to the other Europeans, and because the Portugese and Spanish, who were the only Europeans they had encountered at that point, were *Catholic* Christians, while Blackthorne was *Protestant* Christian, a distinction none of the Japanese could be made to understand.

I like Shogun as well. I read the novel (or encyclopdia! LOL) and saw the mini-series. It really showcased cultural differences and morals. I like how the Japanese thought them barbaric because they wouldn't wash themselves and forced them to take baths, LOL. Also, how his crew were executed and he was allowed to survive because of his status and capacity to appreciate and learn their culture. Yeah, it is great stuff.

Avalanche Press has created a line of historical RPGs and supplements using the OGL d20 system. A couple of interest to this thread are the Celtic Age and Viking Age RPGs and their associated supplements. This could easily be converted to the BRP system.

hehe...I hear you and agree. Specifically, I think that open or blatent real-world religion parallels don't work (i.e. christian/muslim conflict in GURPS fantasy setting) well and appeal to the masses. Personally, I find it cool. I am a history buff and so find it extremely interesting myself.

I think that you can take real-world religious parallels and transform them into a fantasy campaign like you did with your dwarves. There is an obvious real-world parallel there. Those outside the dwarven culture would just think that the dwarves are crazy because they don't understand the foundation for the eminty between dwarven religious factions. I really like your campaign idea for the dwarven culture. I like dwarves!

Well, I did say I would like to see a "scrubbed" down version of the Sanity rules. I think that some of CoC Sanity effects would be over the top for other genres and styles, but are fitting to that style and genre.

It would something along the lines of minor phobias and quirks are gained by the character. Let's face it, unless the gamer is experienced and a roleplaying focused person, then most run-of-the-mill gamers aren't going to add something "bad" or negative to their precious character, LOL.

I agree that sci-fi campaign settings just are not a money-maker for the RPG industry like generic fantasy settings. Too bad.

Another d100 game system is TSR's generic system called Amazing Engines. This came out in the early 1990s and had several worldbook/campaign settings published in the line. I rather like the system, but could not convince my D&D fanboy gaming circle to try it out even though it was published by TSR, lol.

I would really like to see Aliens and the Space Marines done again. The Leading Edge game system was too cumbersome and detracted from the experience.

If the Aliens license cannot be obtained, then maybe a campaign similar to TSR's Bughunt from the Amazing Engines line could be done.

Halo done in BRP would be cool as well.

Hehe...I like hard sci-fi military type campaigns.

The one thing that I really loved about GURPS fantasy setting was the concept of the Banestorm. This allowed a GM to add anything to his fantasy campaign in small doses.

I think that one of the pitfalls of the GURPS fantasy setting was the overriding religious tone of the historical christian/muslim conflict. Although the concept was logical and sound- humans displaced from earth's past onto a new planet would continue their cultural practices- I think that it appealed to a narrow base. Those interested in a historical/fantasy setting would love it, but those interested in a more generic fantasy setting would be turned off by the religious overtones.

I agree that anything Cthulhu should be kept out of the new BRP system. I do think that a scrubbed down version of the Sanity rules should be included as an option in the new BRP system.

For example, if a BRP character ecounters something terrifying like alien entity, werewolf, demons, etc., then it may be possible to loose some Sanity and/or move closer towards mental instability. I think that this would be a great optional rule which could help set the tone for a horror setting in fantasy, modern, or space opera genres without being tied to the Cthulhu mythos.

I like the concept of using a hard sci-fi campaign setting as the official campaign for official BRP products. This would break away from the RPG industry standard of a "classic" fantasy setting as the standard or default campaign setting for official products released in that line.

Yes, so do I.

Can someone tell me about the following BRP monographs- BRP creatures and Brp Magic? What type of creatures are in the Creatures monograph? Is the magic from RQIII?

Yes, basically that version of the BRP system is RQ3 with all references to Gloriantha removed.

Umm...maces and axes are not an evolutionary trend towards swords.

Swords evolved out of knives due to better metallurgical technology.

My group uses ScreenMonkey and it works well. It has a good mapping fuction, and you can import your own maps.

The dice roller can be embedded in the chat.

http://www.nbos.com/

Only the GM has to purchase it for one-time fee of $30. The players can use it at no cost. Also, the GM can assign a co-GM or transfer GM privillages to another player.

As I understood the concept of Strike Ranks in RQ, it was a representation of weapon reach and wieldability.

Since the game mechanics for combat in almost all RPGs is just an abstract representation rather than a strict simulation, the rules are simple by necessity so that the game doesn't bog down.

As a matter of personal taste, you could always create your own combat House Rules for any RPG system.

The beauty of BRP is that you could add layers of complexity, and the system still stays robust.

If you want a good combat simuation system, look to GURPS. If you want a simple combat system, look to D&D.

I think that RQ3 combat mechanics are fairly detailed as written, and do a good job of represtation the basics of combat simuation.

Here my opinion about gun damage. The values seem fine but I think that guns should " Impale" and do double damage on any special hit. This is to reflect that a normal shot just hits muscle but a special shot would then hit an artery, vital organ ect.

We used this rule as well, and it worked fine.