frogspawner

Yes, "toolkit" is the word.

I agree it's not great in terms of evolution - but it's in print! That's a very good selling point. For me the multiplicity of options and rules, even if they conflict, are all to the good - it lets me choose/interpret what's best. My players are highly unlikely to read such a weighty tome anyway.

I suggest you start with the much simpler "BRP Quickstart" freebie, cut-and-paste in any extra rules you want from the main book (missing out "opposed rolls", obviously! bleurch!), and use that...

Fighters [Multiple Attacks] - I agree with your approach here and use something very similar myself. (It's modelled on Martial Arts but gives extra attacks rather than extra damage). I call it "Expertise (<weapon>)".

Rangers [Favored Enemy] - Mmm, interesting - I may nick that one!

Thieves - I let Pick Pockets (aka Sleight) give extra back-stabbing attacks. (But not as elegantly as Fighter's 'Expertise', just as a crude number - reminiscent of OD&D's damage multiple.)

Wizards - For these I have a number of different magic-related skills, giving rise to special abilities, including some rather like yours.

I'd suggest you go back the original AD&D source and convert from there. BTW, what would that source be? I think the Barbarian was in an old White Dwarf, but I don't know of it in any official 1st-ed book.

Can anyone speak to Basic Roleplayings ability to mix these genre's?

It's ideal. Go for it - and enjoy!

Hmmm, 'frog gaming'... as per that other classic Bunnies & Burrows... one day, perhaps...

Sorry, but it really should be a Killer (as in, "Temple of the...") Frog. There's nothing more classic than Blackmoor.

Thanks for the suggestion, I like it and will use it. :thumb:

You're welcome. Any chance of shoe-horning Killer Frogs into the list...?

Didn't the first edition of the AD&D god book (Dieties & Demigods?) contain Cthulhu but later verions ommitted it because of complaints (by Lovecraft's estate, or whoever owned the rights to his works)?

Yup. And Melnibonean.

I think it was , um, er, Chaosium

Yup again. Latest I heard, they just wanted a "By kind permission of Chaosium" statement - and got it in the next printing. But then a later editor didn't want to give a credit to a rival company, so took them out. But forgot to take out the credit statement!

And may I suggest "Ocular Tyrant" instead of just plain Tyrant? (Assuming it is "That Thing With The Eyes" TM, Order of the Stick...)

I guess Im odd. I got a print out of the resistsnce table. And I generally use it.

Not at all - you're just like the majority of us for whom this is a non-issue.

This thread is just attempting to provide an answer those few who think the traditional Resistance Table is lacking in some way - perhaps by being 'unscalable', i.e. not useful for contests between higher-than-typical stats (such as supers might have).

That's really not very useful as a clairvoyance spell at all then - it'll allow peering round corners but that's about it...

Indeed. And a GM could also get strict over the requirement to be "physically next to" the target area, even within the 10m range. "Sorry, your witch-sight can't reach into the Abbot's chamber 3m away, because you're outside the monastery's perimeter fence."

The psychometry is more useful, but still not game breaking.

... assuming suitably mean GM interpretations. A pretty safe bet, I trust!

To get 1KM of range requires 10 power points...

Nope, the max range is 100m tops, no matter how many pp spent. So that aspect's not too powerful at all.

That is the inherent problem that many older RPGs have. They use multiple rolls to resolve combat, but then use a quicker method of resolving other skill tests. The original idea was that combat was more interesting and more important than, say, a basket weaving contest.

Depending on what you are trying to do, you can used "extended skill tests" and set as target number of "success" as a goal. The first one to reach that goal succeeds. Specials and Crticals could be worth multiple successes.

Note that this could be stretched to cover things like "sneaking past the guards" too. The GM just sets a few waypoints that the sneak uses to try and get by the guards. IF he gets enough successes he gets past the guards. If the guards get to the total required successes before the sneak, they were alert and spotted him. This also allows the GM to determine just where the sneak was when spotted, or explain how guards could get edgy and think that they might have heard or seen something.

Yeah, that's just the sort of system I'd like to resolve Hide/Sneak type situations, but with as few rolls as possible to eliminate the excessive chanciness.

But I can see why most people would prefer single-roll contests for some things - fun though it might be to have a campaign where Competitive Basket Weaving supplants combat as the major conflict resolution system! (I see it as taking place in an asylum populated by failed & insane CoC characters, btw... maybe a monograph? )

So I wonder if my "Patent Scalable Resistance Table ", as seen over in the Resistance Table thread, might be pressed into service for this too?

Using that, 100v99, 100v95, 95v94 all come out as 50%, 90v80 as 55%, and for more examples 75v25=85%, 75v60=60%, 80v20=90% and 200v50=95%. These seem intuitively 'about right' to me. And there's the added advantge that adopting this (in place of the standard table) doesn't proliferate the number of different mechanics in the system.

"Clairvoyance + Clairaudience up to 10m or up to 100m for familiar areas; or limited Psychometry (like the Psychic ability), up to 1 day into the past per level; or Identify properties of magical objects, 10% chance per level."

Yes, you may well think this is too powerful - especially since the Psychometry psychic ability has a Big, Fat "you might want to ban this as too powerful" disclaimer on it, and this spell does even more!

To limit it's power, I'd make the following interpretations:

1) "Familiar" means very carefully studied areas (closely examined to the exclusion of any other activity for several days, or lived in for a month or more);

2) A hazy image of the caster appears at the place being viewed (warning/scaring anybody there);

3) Visions into the past don't last an additional day per level, they're only projected back 1 additional day per level (i.e. they still only show 10 rounds, so the chance to see something significant is minimal).

4) Any psychometry the GM thinks isn't "psychically significant" just shows a blank haze (but this is also the effect if anyone involved is/was wearing cheap protective charms to ward off the 'evil eye'...)

That should do for starters...

... Also depending on the situation I may contest the play a little more. If a player nearly misses a roll, I will allow a second roll.with a midiefr, like 10%. The game logic is "did I really hear something"?

I like that approach. I'd use re-rolls if the Degree of Success is a draw. (But perhaps just for the higher-skilled character?)

The problem with a single roll v. roll is it's too chancy - higher-skilled characters cannot rely on their superiority as much as they should. This approach helps by spreading the contest over multiple rolls, giving higher skills better opportunity to prove their worth, as combat.

IMHO BRP has never scaled well far past 'normal human' ranges. ... And the fact of the matter is there is no simple solution.

OK, how about this "Scalable Resistance Table" ?

To make it, I worked out the multipliers which gave the standard results for a number in the normal range (12, in this case), and then found the numbers that'd give the same chances, assuming scalabilty. (Yes, it needed a calculator, or rather a spreadsheet, but now it's done you don't need one).

To use it, read down from the Active stat to the first number which equals or exceeds the Passive stat, then use that line's percentage chance:

[B]%     1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 35 40 50  %[/B]

100%  0  0  1  1  1  1  1  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  3  3  3  3  3  3  4  4  4  4  4  5  6  7  8  100%

 95%  0  1  1  1  1  2  2  2  2  3  3  3  3  4  4  4  4  5  5  5  5  6  6  6  6  8  9 10 13   95%

 90%  0  1  1  1  2  2  2  3  3  3  4  4  4  5  5  5  6  6  6  7  7  7  8  8  8 10 12 13 17   90%

 85%  0  1  1  2  2  3  3  3  4  4  5  5  5  6  6  7  7  8  8  8  9  9 10 10 10 13 15 17 21   85%

 80%  1  1  2  2  3  3  4  4  5  5  6  6  7  7  8  8  9  9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 15 18 20 25   80%

 75%  1  1  2  2  3  4  4  5  5  6  6  7  8  8  9  9 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 15 18 20 23 29   75%

 70%  1  1  2  3  3  4  5  5  6  7  7  8  9  9 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 15 15 16 17 20 23 27 33   70%

 65%  1  2  2  3  4  5  5  6  7  8  8  9 10 11 11 12 13 14 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 23 26 30 38   65%

 60%  1  2  3  3  4  5  6  7  8  8  9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 19 20 21 25 29 33 42   60%

 55%  1  2  3  4  5  6  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 28 32 37 46   55%

 50%  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 35 40 50   50%

 45%  1  2  3  4  5  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 33 38 43 54   45%

 40%  1  2  4  5  6  7  8  9 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 35 41 47 58   40%

 35%  1  3  4  5  6  8  9 10 11 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 38 44 50 63   35%

 30%  1  3  4  5  7  8  9 11 12 13 15 16 17 19 20 21 23 24 25 27 28 29 31 32 33 40 47 53 67   30%

 25%  1  3  4  6  7  9 10 11 13 14 16 17 18 20 21 23 24 26 27 28 30 31 33 34 35 43 50 57 71   25%

 20%  2  3  5  6  8  9 11 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 23 24 26 27 29 30 32 33 35 36 38 45 53 60 75   20%

 15%  2  3  5  6  8 10 11 13 14 16 17 19 21 22 24 25 27 29 30 32 33 35 36 38 40 48 55 63 79   15%

 10%  2  3  5  7  8 10 12 13 15 17 18 20 22 23 25 27 28 30 32 33 35 37 38 40 42 50 58 67 83   10%

  5%  2  4  5  7  9 11 12 14 16 18 19 21 23 25 26 28 30 32 33 35 37 39 40 42 44 53 61 70 88    5%

  0%  2+ 4+ 6+ 7+ 9 11 13 15 17 18 20 22 24 26 28 29 31 33 35 37 39 40 42 44 46 55 64 73 92    0%

Since it's scalable, you don't need to extend it to 300, 400 or whatever - just divide the opposed stats by a factor that makes both fit on the table. Would anyone find this useful for their Super-Sized Resistance Rolls?

PS: This version was based on 12 (so 12 is identical to the standard Resistance Table), but another base number could be chosen if you prefer. There seem to be some oddities at the low end (caused by rounding?) but I'm sure these could be tweaked for the final version. And all numbers on the bottom line should be that or more, but not all the +'s wouldn't fit!

OK, it's a fair cop. But I still reckon the system shouldn't have built-in advantages to PCs over NPCs. (Giving those is the GMs job! )

Yes, but advantage should always be given to the PC.

I think you're skating on thin ice with that idea. Will there never come a time when PC acts against PC? Will one unexpectedly fail, in the absence of an advantage they'd become accustomed to?

Stealth is "attacking" and Listen is "defending," just like a Weapon Skill is attacking and Dodge defending.

I have to disagree with this. "Attacking" is the player character who's turn it is, regardless of the action.

Sorry, but I don't think either of these is exactly correct. Trying to hide/sneak away from a ravening monster is "defensive", right?

"Defending" is the player character who is the object of the "attack".

Yes, that's more like it. But isn't trying spot/hear someone who's hiding/sneaking away with your treasure "defensive" too?

The bases are only meant as a starting point for all characters: everyone is not as good at Stealth as Listen by default, but training can make them better at it.

By default they are the same - unless you spend development points or play the skill category bonuses option. But even then the principle remains true, that Hide/Sneak is on average less likely to succeed than Spot/Listen, given equal training etc.

The release date is confirmed: May 29, 2009...

That's marvelous! And I've got just the campaign area for it...

US customers will be able to purchase the book from Chaosium at about the same date.

Hmmm - any chance of a reciprocal arrangement? Us customers here on the right side of the Pond being able to buy other Chaosium stuff from you (i.e. without the prohibitive trans-atlantic shipping costs) ?

Or, to keep it more in line with normal skills:

d100+Skill (or Statx5%) vs Same

Highest Wins

You'd just have to reverse Specials and Criticals and Fumbles to the high end.

...and to keep it simple, dispense with Specials/Fumbles, define a "Threat Range" for Criticals (natural 96+?), where a good re-roll gives 2x damage etc....

Of course, there is another change we'd have to make - the game's name would go from "BRP" to "D20-with-D100's" or some such (DwD?).

PS: Ah! I have it: "D20-on-D100", or "D-on-D"...

Though I think we're getting confused with the "contested rolls" thread now.

Scarily, my preferred alternative to the Resistance Table is not too dissimilar to what you just said (i.e.: STATx5, with stat-modifiers of +/1 per Point the opposing STAT/POW/POT is under/over 10 [i.e. identical to the RT, but as a formula]).

However, that doesn't handle the one remaining problem - scalability.

But D&D has opposed rolls - so how would a having an such a mechanism in BRP alienate D&D players?

By being too complicated.

In D&D, they only use the very simple 'd20 + mods v target number' method. It's just that in some cases the target required is the result of an opponents 'd20+mods' roll. (Not a special opposed roll mechanism).

Yes, I agree (as I said earlier) - D&D does this better*. It manages to be better by generating a (more realistic, incidentally) Continuum of Success, instead of BRP's over-quantized (and often misleadingly-named) 'Success or Failure' (etc).

*Until we can come up with a similarly simple method, that is... And isn't that what we're here for?

Could work this way:

Both values in the 01-25 range -> Resistance roll (or opposed stat x5 roll)

Both values in the 26-50 range -> Opposed stat x2 roll

At least one value is above 50 -> Opposed stat roll

This seems to me to be a bit too complicated. The reduce-in-ratio solution would be preferable, though still not as easy as I'd like.

Point is that you or Frogspawner do not [like opposed stat rolls], but the average player does. So the "official" solution should be the one that appeals to most.

Yes, the preferred solutions are the simplest. But I don't believe the average player prefers opposed stat rolls - or has even heard of them. The 'average player' is probably a D&D player, for whom opposed rolls of any kind are probably too hard. And even if we're talking the average BRP player, we should still try to Keep It Simple®.

So, yes, the "official solution" should be the one that appeals to most: i.e. the simplest (without being simplistic) solution - which has the best chance of attracting new/ex-D&D players to BRP. IMO, any opposed roll mechanisms are too complex for that.

I make the base 50 because, if someone is trying to sneak up on someone whose listen skill is equal to theirs, it would make sense that they have a 50/50 chance of success (ie, since they are both equal in skill, they would both have an equal chance of success).

Yes, that does seem fair.

But who ever said life was fair? Is it reasonable that the chance would be fifty-fifty to sneak up on someone (or past them, or simply hide from them), relevant skills being equal?

And the bases are different: 10% for Hide/Sneak, 25% for Listen/Spot. So should a Sneaker always be at a -15% penalty (i.e. only a 35% chance) against Targets who have trained the same percentile-amount in the relevant skills?

And another complication - what does failure to Hide/Sneak actually mean? Does the other side definitely immediately see/hear them? I prefer to think the other side may just be made 'suspicious', and gain some advantage, such as being able to try further/active perception rolls in future rounds. If this interpretation is used, then the base chances should perhaps be different.

It also seems to me that high-skilled Sneakers (e.g. professional thief/scout types) should be able to rely on their skills a bit better (but not too much). Some sort of advantage should go to the higher-skilled, I feel (a kind of 'insurance policy' against those bad rolls). If you've worked your Hide up to 75%, should you really - fully 25% of the time - be as vulnerable to being seen as Joe Dimwit usually is (totally untrained Hide 10%)? I think not. [i hesitate to say it, but this is something the D20 system does better!]

So I'd like to combine that principle with the 'just suspicious' idea, above, but haven't worked out anything simple enough - yet... Can anyone help?