Gollum

Either do I. But because I did both (and still go on doing both) I have to admit that rolling under is faster than adding two numbers together. Especially in the middle of huge combats... When it is late in the night and when you are alrady playing for a very long time... At least, for the Game Master who has to do that for a huge number of NPC while the player content themselves with only one character... But I perfectly know that it is just one opinion.

That's right. Having said that, trying to find arguments about once opinions is not necessarilly ignoring that it is just opinions. Opinions are not chosen randomly. Everyone has good reasons to think what he think... Even if he can't be sure that it is the truth... And even if what is good for someone is not necessarily good for someone else. And knowing the reasons of other's opinions is good. It opens the mind. As long as nobody becomes a fanatic. That is especially true for beginners. They often find difficult to understand why a low roll is better in BRP.

Of course. A lot of games use D20 and D100 differently from D&D and BRP. Two more examples: Bushido uses a D20 like BRP or Pendragon, and Middle Earth Role Playing Game (the Role Master version) uses a D100 like D&D. But D&D and BRP are the most famous roleplaying games. In France, they are always in the three first places when the question is: what is your favorite RPG?

I fully do agree. This rule is much better than mine.

BRP's skills are more versatile than GURPS ones (for instance). I remember an hint about the use of scientific skills in Call of Cthulhu: these skills also allow to say whether the character personally knows a scientist who can help him (more you spend times in university, more you know its teachers)... Furthermore, the spear training certainly teach how to use it to knock your foe back (or out) with the shaft. I'm practicing okinawa's kobudo and every weapon is used in a lot of manners. Knowing your weapon, especially when you know it well, is knowing all the way it can be used. And there are a lot of way to attack with every weapon... I fully do agree with that. That is why I wrote "instead of damage". To my mind, either you use a spear to impale a foe or you use yo knock him back... Or even to make him fall down by swinging at his legs... Edit: The game master could require the Martial Arts skill in conjunction with the spear to use it in any other way that trying to impale the foe (and to parry his attacks). That would make sense. It would make a difference between a mere soldier, who knows how to use it among many other weapons and someone who really masters the spear and all its possibilities...

Of course... But both are very connotated. When you say D20 to someone who knows roleplaying games, he immediately thinks to D&D. And when you say D100, he immediately thinks to the BRP system... I'm sure that at least one voting in two was influenced by this connotation.

Not necessarily. It all depends on how the character uses it. He can for instance swing it rather than thrust it, and use the handle to hit the foe rather than to impale him... That is, use it like a quarter-staff (or bo, in japanese).

I would allow knockback attacks exactly as rules allow judo throws or limb immobilizations. That is, instead of damage. Then, I would certainly require a STR against SIZ roll on the resistance table after the succesful attack, to avoid a hobbit making an elephant knockback with a penknife for instance*... A succes on this second roll would mean a step knockback**. A special success would mean a two steps knockback*** and a critical success would mean a three steps knockback plus fall down****. * With chance modified depending on the weapon : hard for a knife and easy for a large shield for instance... Chance of success would also depend on how exactly the character tries to make his foe knock back... ** With the victim immediately making an Agility roll to avoid falling down. *** With the victim immediately making a hard Agility roll to avoid falling down. **** Without any chance to avoid falling down.

To me it does matter... Not a lot, of course, but still a bit. The D&D system uses a D20 + adds system, which can be quite boring when a combat occurs between PC and a dozen of NPC - especially when there are a lot of bonuses and penalties. The BRP system, with its roll under a score is much faster: comparing two numbers is always quicker and simplier than adding them together. Having said that I fully do agree with Atgxtg and what you wrote here: The main difference between D&D and the BRP system is not the type of dice used.

There also is the Runequest Deluxe SRD, which is free on this BRP Central (in the Download section). Runequest brings some options, bonuses and penalties, to make combats vary.

Yes. This is precisely one of the major difference between GURPS and BRP. GURPS gives as many option as you want for combats, with very precise modifers to apply in each case. BRP lets it up to the game master. Both are nice. With GURPS, you precisely know what to do, but you have a lot of rules to remember. In BRP, rules are much more light, but you have to be imaginative and to follow your intuition. It's just a matter of preference.

Thank you. The most important, in role playing games with a flat die system, is to make the chance of success vary a lot according to what the player characters exactly do... Like this, they don't have the nagging feeling that the results of their actions is purely random. Instead, they begin to think to find clever ideas, in order to make things easier… Exactly as if they really were in the situation. Likewise, another way to make things more living is to describe the dice results in terms of event rather than in terms of luckiness or unluckiness (as it has been said above). A failed sword attack? The foe avoided it. A failed shoot? The target moved just when the character was pulling the trigger. A failed library research? The book that the character was looking for was in that shelf, just in front of him… But someone borrowed it. Bonuses, penalties and good descriptions are the tools which make everyone forgot dice and think at the story and the characters.

Such a thing doesn’t happen in GURPS, because GURPS uses 3d6 rather than a flat D100. Thus, the least bonus improves a lot odds of success, especially when the skill is around average… If the player has 10 (50% chance of success) or 11 (62% chance of success), for instance, he just has to choose the all-out attack maneuver (+4) to raise his skill to 15 (95% chance of success) or 16 (98% chance of success)… Now, I’m not here to tell that GURPS is better than BRP. It is not. It is just different and I love BRP too. When you’ve got a system with a flat dice roll, the only way to avoid that unluckiness make things go wrong for a character several times in a raw is to play with bonuses an penalties. And BRP allows that! As said above, think to attack from behind… If a character does so, his attack becomes easy, which means double chance of succeeding: 55% becomes 110%! Also think to point blank range. If the player shoot his foe with a range less than 1/3 of his DEX, his attack is easy too. The character can also aim at his foe. For 5 DEX ranks (which means that he does his action as if his DEX was DEX-5), he adds 10% of his skill to his skill: 55% becomes 55 + 6 = 61%. For 10 DEX ranks (which requires that his DEX is above 10), he adds 20% of his skill to his skill. 55% becomes 55 + 11 = 66%. And if he is very dextrous (DEX above 15), he can even take his action as if his DEX was DEX-15 and get +30% of his skill: 55% would become 72%. A character in a superior position (higher than his foe, that is on a table or above on stairs) has a bonus of +10%. And be imaginative… There are a lot of circumstances that can give other bonuses, from +10% to +30%, or even make the attack easy. A cornered foe, sand in the eyes just before the attack, etc. If you give your players bonuses when they have a clever idea (that is, whenever they do something that is supposed to make the attack easier), they will begin to think rather than contenting themselves with: “I attack… I parry… I attack… I dodge…” Descriptions of their actions will become more and more interesting and combats will be more memorable. Finally, I use a house rule during my games. BRP allows what GURPS name “all-out defense”: the character can abandon all his attacks to have a better defense. Fighting defensively (the term used in BRP) allows the character to have one more dodge. So, I allow my player to fight “offensively” or “aggressively”, that is to abandon all their defenses to have one more attack (what GURPS names “all-out attack”). And since subsequent dodges are at -30%, the fighting defensively option corresponds to a bonus of +30%. So, in my games, fighting defensively allows two defenses or just one with a +30% bonus, and fighting offensively allows either two attacks, or just one with a +30% bonus. But the players have to be careful with that! Once they made their choice, they can’t change it. So, if their aggressive attack is not a good one, they don’t have any defense left!

I don't know if it is the simplest answer (many other house rules are very simple too) but it is another good idea. Thank you for it.

4.5 + 2.5 = 7... And 12 points of damage - 3 (for a light modern helmet, for instance) = 9 points of damage, which is a major wound for a 12 hit point character. With the optional Hit Points by Hit Location rules, it is enough to crush completely his skull, despite of his helmet (and it occurs about 3% of the time)... 7 points of damage (the average) - 3 (for the helmet) = 4 points of damage. It represents one in third of the total hit points of an average character... So, the blackjack as described in the rules is not really likely to "damage a bit"... It is likely to severely wound an average man despite of his helmet. Which is not realistic for a "small sewn leather sack, full with heavy substance like lead shot". Having said that, this thread is full of solutions to correct this damage which is, in my humble opinion, an erratum. And your solution to reduce it to 1D6 rather than 1D8 (which lowers it from "like an heavy club" to "like a light club") is a very good one too for those who don't want to use fatigue points, wound locations or knockout rules. Many thanks to you and to everybody for yours very quick and interesting answers.

Yes. I fully do agree with that.

Good rule too... Which makes me think about something... When you are knocked out, it is never without pain. It hurts, and still hurts a lot after being awaken. So, we could also rule that knockout attacks always do minimum damage. Even when they are fully successful and knockout the victim. Who will recover with a strong headache for a while... It would be much more realistic. Especially for barehanded combats. They don't always kill, of course, but a punch in the nose or a knee strike in the ribs still inflict a wound that lasts more than a few minutes. Especially when they knock you out!

Of course, it all depends on the genre the GM wants (realistic, heroic...) and on optional rules he is using or not... Having said that, I really believe that the knockout rule is the better choice. 1) You don't have to change anything on the book. Just to add a K to the weapons which are obviously made to knockout rather than to kill (blackjack, punch, kick...). 2) These weapons remain dangerous, as in real life: if the damage rolled is not a major wound, the weapon does it's minimum damage, but these are true damage. Then, repeated blows can kill. And quite quickly. Especially if the victim is already wounded! 3) Kicks and punches do more realistic damage. For a character with a damage bonus of +1D4, it gives 2 points of damage per blow – rather than 2 to 7 points of damage (or even 2 to 10 if you use 1D6 for kicks!); for martial artists, it gives 3 points of damage... And it gives a fair chance to knock out the victim before killing him. 4) A “sadistic” GM can easily rule that a fumble kills the victim if it is a bad thing for the attacker, which gives the accidental death from which news talk from time to time. 5) If the death of the victim is not really a bad thing for the attacker, the GM can just rule that a fumble to the defense means that the attack do true damage, which still gives some chance to kill the victim “accidentally”.

The problem of this rule is the fact that fatigue points are much higher than hit points. Strength + Constitution. Then, it becomes harder to knock out someone, especially if he is a bit strong. And it becomes very hard to injure him (and even harder to kill him) – which is not true for the blackjack, as described in the wikipedia quoted in the other thread. 1D8+1D4 gives an average result of 7. The average victim has 20 fatigue points and 10 hit points... Knocking him out would require about 3 blows. Killing him with a blackjack would require 5 blows. With this rule, it could do the job better. But that still gives two special or critical blows to knock someone out with the blackjack. Yes. This is exactly what I think. Long term death is linked to recovering rules, not to damage ones.

Yes. This is another problem of the blackjack damage as written in the rules. 1D8+db is able to wound despite armors or helmets... But a blackjack, as described in the book, is not able to do so. It looks like an errata is really required here... Oh, about errata, I have a question: is there any official errata for the BRP system?

Yes. I don't use the location rules (though I always locate wounds in my descriptions - that is just a descriptive effect depending on the amount of damage) but SDLeary's house rule is a very good idea.

I fully do agree with this post. That is why, to my mind, using the knockout rules is the best way to use the blackjack. It can kill, but not too often... Even in detective fictions, where it is the most used. Except if the character really want to kill with it, of course... In which case he would have to hit his victim a lot of time... Thus, the damage would have to be reduced... Nobody ever tried to kill someone with a blackjack. A lot of murderers killed others with knifes though... But a bad guy who read the Basic Roleplaying rules would inevitably say: "Hey, guys, drop your knife... Your blackjack would do the job far much faster!"

I still read this page before writing my post... Almost everything I wrote is right: longsword and not broadsword, heavy club and not heavy mace... But you're right about the warhammer. I missed the +2 – and I don't know why. Thanks for the correction. That is perfectly right. My knight example was exaggerated... Having said that, a lot of medieval warriors or fantasy characters used long swords, flails or even heavy club against armored foes. Nobody, even a thieves, would never try to use a blackjack in such a situation... Which means that a blackjack is normally not as powerful. To my mind, a blackjack, as described in the rules – see page 249, quoted above – is closest from a light club than from a heavy one for its lethality power. It would hurt me a lot, of course... But would it wound me more than two butcher knife blows in the stomach? The rules, as they are explicitly written for the moment, still say than the blackjack is much more lethal than a butcher knife. The page 249 is very precise about the sort of blackjack which does 1D8+db point of damage. “A small sewn leather sack, full of a heavy substance”. It's always hard to know what is realistic in a role playing game and what is not. It would require a lot of statistics: how many killed by blackjack blow to the head? We lack such statistics... So all what we can do is comparing weapons with other weapons in the same game system to see whether it is coherent. And this is this kind of comparison which made me think: “Wow! The blackjack is a very powerful weapon. As dangerous as a longsword or as a medium revolver!” If I had the choice, I would still prefer to be hurt by a blackjack than by a longsword or a medium caliber... Yes. Making it nonlethal is a good way to make it more consistent with the other weapons.

Realistically, if you really kick someone with all your strength, he won't only be hurt; he will be wounded. And he will have to go to the doctor, if not to the hospital... Unless you pull your blows, of course. Which is what most people instinctively do... News are full of stories where people were seriously wounded in street brawls. Having said that I perfectly understand the interest of Fatigue points damage for more heroic genre... Or for blows that are not inflicted in a life or death situation... Now, there is still a difference between being able to injure someone and being able to kill him in only two blows... Which is why I don't use 1D6 for kicks but 1D3, as written in Basic Rolepaying. 1D3 sounds more realistic.

Yes. As a karate practicer, I perfectly know that blows to the head (or elsewhere, actually) are very dangerous. You can kill someone without wanting it... To my mind, this is a very good result for a critical failure! If the player character doesn't really care about the victim's life, or if the attacker is a non-player character, the fumbler remains a miss, as usual... But if the player character absolutely wants to knockout the victim without wounding him (or her), then death becomes dramatically interesting. "Oh my God! You killed her! What will we tell his father?"