frogspawner

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.

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?

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. 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.

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?

I've never found a system that's entirely satisfactory (and not for want of trying). Your idea seems pretty good, though. But why is 50 the best number to add? If it was 25 (the normal Listen/Spot skill value, which most defenders could be expected to have) then the Stealth could normally be rolled unmodified. (And your 80v60 example would have a 45% chance - is that unreasonable?)

I think the 'Shared World' should in fact be separate campaign areas, with creative control retained by their respective authors (to which they could add others' contributions, if desired). So, there would be Rurik's Portal, Puck's The Green, Rust's own setting (if he cared to publish), and whatever anyone else cared to add. Individual GMs woud be free to combine them as they saw fit...

OK, guys, coming out with this nonsense is all very well for the fun purpose of winding me up - but you should be ashamed of yourselves. Some readers not so familiar with Glorantha might actually be fooled into believing your guff. The Travels of Biturian Varosh from Cults of Prax, probably the foremost Gloranthan tale, has Rurik alive in 1614, two years after his supposed death to the trollkin in the Personalities - Rurik story (which lies within a section of the site called "Eurmal's Bag of Tricks", btw). If you dismiss the possibilty of his returning to life then, of the two tales, it is the story of his death that we must reject as unreliable. But both could be true - that is the beauty of Glorantha, after all. The death-story merely poses the question of whether a Goldentongue should be believed - yet the same source says of that other famous Goldentongue, Joh Mith, that "most outsiders take his word as fact". And remember that the fateful mission of 1612 was said to be co-led by Rurik's rival Jonathan Trollsbane. There can be little doubt he would have lived up to his name, rescued Rurik's body, and taken it post-haste to the Healers, Friendly to Yelmalio, for Resurrection. For certain he would not pass up the chance to ever-after tease Rurik about his ignominious death to a mere trollkin...

Fine. Likewise, I'm just sayin' the more common view around here: BRP is best.

Plain old Resurrection from a friendly Chalana Arroy Healer would do the trick. No need for any Fate Points or similar story-bending machinations. Anyway, he was clearly very much alive and kicking again in 1614/15 (The Travels of Biturian Varosh). No need for any such desperate measures, either (MRQ is poo, after all). Better by far to optionize (or tweak) the BRP Rules to suit your taste.

Can't say I'm keen. The concept of "Trash NPCs" probably being the worst aspect.

Odd that you should leave out the rest of that story. The self-same source says... Well I prefer to trust that word, rather than believe the forked tongue of a dragonewt! Rurik Lives! :happy:

Just don't forget there are alternatives to giving PCs extra HPs (if you find that too unfair/D&D-like) and/or Fate Points (if you find them too intrusive/meta-gamey).

Which is exactly why I simplify it even further: Skill% Stat* x 5% (*sometimes modified as noted - which makes it identical to the resistance table) (And certainly no opposed rolls, which throw simplicity out the window!)

I don't use the Resistance Table at all - just STATx5 rolls instead, because that's so much simpler. Though frequently 'modifiers' apply to the Stat, typically: +/1 per Point the opposing STAT/POW/POT is under/over 10.

Absolutely. Me neither. Hmm - Players may be happy with a system to fiddle the story in their favour, but I'm not sure they'd like it letting the GM openly fiddle things against them... ... or, when the Serious Roleplayer's character is reduced to a nasty red stain by an unlucky die roll shortly after the Power Gamer used-up the last three Fate Dice to bargain a better price for his armour without a second thought, they might exchange something else - like blows!

Fair enough. it's just they feel too meta-game for me. Normally not much, but the extra layer of Dodge/Defence makes it very much so at 100%+. Not really, since I don't play they go unconscious at 0 (or even 1hp). When they pass out isn't strictly defined (another potential advantage to heroic PCs!) but generally they only pass out if they go 0- from a head-hit, or a very serious wound elsewhere. Ah, but the players wouldn't feel more vulnerable that way, since they'd know they had normal HPs, plus the -MW safety buffer too. That mechanic also doesn't give the subtle "licence to flee"-effect of 0hp until much later, when it may be too late... Yes, inspired by RQ2 Defence, blended with RQ3 Dodge. I think there's a difference between 'mook rules' and characters just having different values for skills. But how "mookish" the NPCs are is up to how the GM plays them at the time, not built-in to the system. They have to be playing Brave (or whatever) to qualify for a roll. And if they RP the trait exceptionally well, but don't make a roll, the GM could award a tick anyway. It's no more 'accountancy' than the rest of the skills system, which we're stuck with anyway. The OP asked for any suggestions, so I felt obliged to outline the system I use, since it is quite different from the usual Hero/Fate point mechanisms and offers a real alternative.

Thanks for that. I would have thought a GM should usually allow fun like that anyway though, without a tally limiting the number of times they can. And I still don't get the RP connection, I'm afraid. OK, the player has to do a bit of justified storytelling for their +X bonus (good to note it is just a bonus, btw, so they can't rely on getting out of trouble), but that still doesn't mean they're in-character, which is what I call role-playing. I like to think my trait-skill mechanism does encourage them to act according to their chosen personality, as much of the time as they can, so they can justify any bonus-roll they may need. The GM should create situations where the players think their characters face genuine risk. PC-only advantages detract from that, because the players know the system is on their side. To be truly heroic players need to know the risk, feel the fear - and do it anyway. And we both know which is best, don't we?

In that they apply equally to PCs and NPCs, not player-only. (Yes, including "give HP= SIZ/2", "characters don't die until -CON HP"). Do you mean role-playing? Roll-playing is a bad thing - that's what I'm saying. But I don't see how Fate Points encourage RP. Can you explain? The Art of the GM is making the players feel like heroes. But if the odds are stacked in their favour by the Science of the Rules, then they'll know in their hearts they are not. My rules-suggestions above are even-handed - but in how much of a simulationist/storytelling way to apply them is up to the GM. (PS: I guess I should have mentioned that I do in fact limit the Personality Trait-Skill bonuses to one successful use per session.)

Fate/Hero/Action points (just like lots of extra HP), where players can completely rely on their 'luck' until it's all spent, are unrealistic (i.e. unbelievable) and un-heroic. It's less like adventuring, and more like... accountancy. Similarly 'mook'-style rules, where the PCs have big advantages over (nearly)everyone else, turn it from heroic adventure into contemptible bullying. (Of course that's all IMO. But I feel it quite strongly). So, bearing in mind those two principles, what can be done for PC survivability? What I do is give HP= SIZ/2, actually less than usual... BUT say characters don't die until -CON HP. This has several advantages: 1) It feels more dangerous; 2) it's a bit safer as they have 50% more HP than normal; 3) it's politically OK to run away on 0hp (and hence survive), whereas on half-hp they'd be expected to fight on (and hence die). (This also has the beneficial side-effect of Major Wounds occuring at a more intuitive 0hp, rather than at an artificial-seeming half-hp). What I also do is allow Dodge to be used in addition to Parry on any hit. This is unreliable (so not accountancy), and everybody can get it (so not bullying) - which improves survival-chance quite a lot. (I also make Dodge a special skill that improves only via role-playing (or is GM-assigned for NPCs, obviously, but usually low or zero) - so PCs can earn this big heroic advantage). One other edge which primarily favours PCs, though, is personality traits. They can have one or two, rated as skills (e.g. Bravery 25%, Stubborn 30%). Doing something in that manner gives that chance of a x2 bonus on the action they are attempting. (NPCs also have these trait-skills, but the GM doesn't have to bother using them, unless for dramatic effect). This way, any advantages to the players are gained through their own wit and role-playing. Neat, huh?

Jason gave his reasoning behind the current BRP ones in another thread, quite a while ago. Something like "would resistance be harder if you were tired" differentiating between POW & PP contests, IIRC.

That's why I use the Java/txt-file method I mentioned - so the 'master' versions can be published on-line, and printed/referred to as-and-when. (e.g. Dranlen the Bard)

Your suggestion is a replacement for the standard BRP special/critical effects, rather than an addition, right? If so, then it's actually simpler than the usual, rather than adding complexity. That's good. I can see a drawback though - it may work fine for human-size (and shape) opponents, but the effects from the HARP crit chart (I don't know it, please correct me if I'm wrong) may be unrealistically lethal on bigger creatures, and may need customizing for winged, multi-limbed and/or other wacky-shaped things.

If there's something fairly similar to the look you want, I'd suggest scanning it in and tweaking it with Photoshop and/or Paint. Personally, I have written a Java applet that draws everything, and fills in the details with data read from a .txt file for each character (working out critical/special/fumble chances and encumbrance/move rate automatically). But that's probably a bit over-the-top for what you want...

Harsh - but fair! I'm not sure even Chaosium know the difference. Is BRP Adventures really a monograph? It's by multiple authors (so not 'mono'), Chaosium arranged the layout (I assume) and Chaosium commissioned it in the first place. I reckon they've just got into the habit of calling everything they actually publish "a monograph"...

Basically, rules to convert MRQ-statted characters so they can be used in BRP campaigns. That shouldn't be hard, should it? If Resilience/Persistence can just be crossed out (and POWvPOW used instead), then that's a great start!