frogspawner

Players would keep on making shots at enemy monsters who did not take much interest in defending... With other games that have static rather than active defenses, I normally just say that the monster dodged or the attack only winged it. But with active defenses, I find the act of imagining the battle more difficult when an attacker just "misses".

There's a built-in assumption that the target is defending themselves. If these enemy monster really were not trying to defend themselves at all, I'd say that shots/attacks against them should be Easy (x2), at least. If they were just standing there, it'd probably be Automatic (though personally, I use a "Very Easy" category, which gives x10).

Well it seems like in the BRP book, attack and defense seem to be considered to be rolled at the same time, because a failed attack with a fumbled defense results in the defender still being hit (see parry fumble table).

Another downside of 'opposed rolls'. Personally, again, I don't use 'em - and I don't require unnecessary rolls (i.e. parrying/dodging missed attacks), nor do I give fumbles for parry/dodge either - that's too harsh!

I'd put "Kaplow Double D10" on my Christmas List, if only I thought Santa would know what it meant (or where to find one)...

The advantage of D20 is you roll fewer dice per skill test. For one skill test, this is insignificant. But a large fight might involve 300 attacks and parries, so the amount of extra time taken by rolling D100 becomes significant. Our fights can get pretty big, so D20 was the way to go for us.

I find it hard to believe rolling a d20 is significantly quicker than a d100 (i.e. two associated d10's). Time-savings in Fire & Sword combat come far more from elimination of strike ranks and hit locations, surely?

The disadvantage of D20 is that there really are more than 20 different levels of skill in doing anything. So a system with D20 will annoy people used to D100 for a while, because it gives a somewhat more abstract feel.

For some people, I imagine, the D&D3.x (and F&S?) style of re-rolling on a 'threatened' special/critical to see if it actually happens could feel more dramatic, and add excitement.

PenDragon could still have measley modifiers and BRP/d100 could still have manszied, reflexive ones.

Quite right. I don't bother with measly modifiers for skills in my BRP, and tend to use proper manly x2 (easy) or /2 (difficult) multipliers.

The big advantage of d100 is that (for example) a 75% chance of success is so blindingly obvious and intuitive whilst '15' is just a number.

Yes, this is the key point. The % scale is intuitive. The immediacy of knowing (i) your skills, and (ii) how well you just did, gives affinity with the character.

Very good question. I've met this problem too, and have a few tricks to help:

1) Dynamic Dodging. Anyone trying to Dodge has to shift back - just 5ft or so (or, if they've no room, go prone!).

2) Knockback/down. The spot rule lets blows be specified to knock the opponent back (or down, if aimed from above). This is only if they do more than SIZ damage (before armour etc), but should apply quite often with buffed-up weaponry (and threshold can be reduced, at GM discretion).

3) Interesting Scenery. Fights should rarely if ever be in a featureless flat plain. I especially like multi-height areas, with open stairways, balconies etc. Outside, there'd be bushes, steep banks, rabbit-holes... (This is very important, and gives 1 & 2 most of their usefulness. But I don't have a neat & non-arbitrary way of setting this up. Any ideas?)

4) Aiming for Gaps. I don't use hit locations, but let characters aim (at half chance) for where armour is less (about half value) if they wish.

I for one would be happy to hear more suggestions...

But as a finished game, BRP falls rather short of the mark. ...

So, as a reference manual for BRP game designers, the new book is excellent. ...

But as a rulebook for the end-user, it simply cannot compete with other offerings. ...

Sad, but true. The new BRP book is 'a new hope' (though, incidentally, I took the original question to mean unpopular historically) but it's clearly up to us to flesh it out, and get out there proselytizing the masses...

It's not my genre, but I don't see why everything has to have an explanation, even in a Hard SF setting. In the RW, there are plenty of scientists researching into things that are not understood - to be realistic, the same should apply in SF settings.

If a player wants to know why that river flows uphill, or that earthquake didn't happen in quite the way he thought it should, just ask him how many decades his character is going to spend researching the explanation (or how much they'll pay someone else to do so).

It's just a way of signalling "this isn't relevant to the plot". (Any old-timers remember Orange Door-Rot and Purple Jelly?)

If ANY POW vs. POW roll will do, what's to stop the PC from spending a quiet week casting Disruption (or the equivalent) on worms, squirrels and the occasional rat?

The requirement for it to be in a crisis situation. That should be enough to limit it, even if you widen it to allow POW gains for defensive resistance too.

May I suggest HP = SIZ/2 (but not dying until under -CON) ?

I use that and it keeps some players scared of how few HPs they have (though in reality, of course, they have more than standard). Major Wound type effects kick in at 0hp, which seems more natural, too.

So it does.

There's also skill modifiers for armour (and a consequent complication to exclude Armour-related Enc from the Dodge penalty, I now notice).

All a bit too fiddly for me - but at least STR is in there somewhere...

Whereas I use fixed armour and no hit locs - what a softie!

There's no penalty until the FPs go below zero and, since they start at STR + CON, your Conan does have some advantage. I agree it doesn't seem enough though.

The only Encumbrance system I can see in the new BRP is that Fatigue Points = STR + CON is reduced by Enc.

Quite simple and elegant in itself, but not applicable if you're wanting to use the "Simple Fatigue" system (roll CONx5 against being 'Fatigued' every so often), as I do, instead of counting FPs.

Personally, I'm more concerned SIZ doesn't come into it.

So I'm using a "Max Enc" limit proportional to SIZ x (STR + 10)/20 [x6 for standard Enc/kg, but I use x14 for weights in lbs]

I've used fixed armour and a Major Wound-like variant in my homebrew for a number of years with satisfactory results.

What sort of RQ did you advertise to get them interested?

If it was old-time RQ and/or the world of Glorantha, the new Mongoose RQ might not be quite the thing.

For more traditional RQ2/3 type stuff, a quick google found this ready-to-run adventure (complete with pre-gen characters):

RQ Scenario: To Kill A Monster

Could be good (and the rest of that site looks useful too - more adventures &c).

While we're on the subject, could someone please explain to me how come the "Distinctive Features" section is labelled as OGL in "Dragonlords of Melnibone" but not in the new BRP?

So, I'm at the Legendary Abilities Skin of the Bear ... The requirements are 15+ Con and Resilience of 90% or higher. Any suggestion for what to replace with Resilience requirement with?

I would be tempted to revision it as something like: STR 15, CON 15, Grapple 90%.

Grapple seems to fit pretty well, but I'd say Martial Arts (Grapple).

These abilities should be very rare and special, so perhaps base them all on Martial Arts (X). Allow 'Martial Arts' for non-combat skills too (call it 'Expertise'?) - but that creates the problem of inventing special effects for them...

PS: What is 'the Juggernaut one'?

What about losing passions?

I don't like to do it, much preferring carrot to stick, but for particularly blatant bad examples (such as, recently, a mage supposedly "Enquiring" and "Dynamic" persistently failing to look at a clue/book intruding into his dreams) I do have a mechanism:

The GM can award "anti-ticks" for grossly anti-trait actions. If not cancelled-out by a normal tick by the next time increases are checked, it must be rolled-for. Failing the 'increase' roll will cause a decrease (d6, or whatever, as per normal increase). (Making higher traits/passions harder to keep up, but relatively soft on lower ones).

Yes, I've tried it. This is what I use (a bit like SDLeary's), and it seems to work OK:

Players can choose one or two Passions/Traits for their character. They work as a percentage like any other skill (base = CHA%).

If they can convince the GM it applies in a situation (e.g. Bravery would have to be combat against something that outsized/outclassed them), they get a roll. Success gives double chance for one roll of a related skill (i.e. it becomes Easy). Failure gives no penalty. (Limiting factor: they can't roll a 'Trait-skill' which already has an increase tick).

I think this is where the RQ3 "Ki" skill concept would be useful.

Hmm. Doesn't solve the problem of armour for 'normals', though...

My own take on weapons based martial arts is probably that the "combat techniques" from RQ: AIG are probably the best way to go there.

I happened across these recently and they are good, if few in number. But maybe MA-enhanced ability to Aim/Bash/Disarm/Entangle/Slam is all that's necessary... Then add the special tactics (Feint/Flurry/(Steady?)/Disarm(Parry)/Guard/Riposte/Standfast/Counter/Evade) at greater skill, and finally (if the setting permits) advance into the realms of Ki abilities... ?

(Actually that is quite a few! You're right, they could be just the job!)

[Re: MA giving extra attacks not damage]This could be a different school of Martial Arts, that enhances speed instead of strength. It is not forbidden by the rules, just not the standard effect.

Thanks. It wouldn't really work for Fist/Foot/etc attacks, though - unless some other effect can be thought up to help get past armour. Relying on damage bonus to do that job seems against the MA ethos.

Any ideas?

Here you are wrong.

Well maybe and maybe not. But what gives the best realistic feel of MA combat? For me, it's more the flying fists/feet that MA should be about.

Having tried it for awhile now, the new BRP idea of MA doubling damage by any weapon (previously it was just natural weaponry, IIRC) seems a bit off to me. For Fist attacks, doubling damage addressed the problem of a d3 not being able to get through any sigificant armour. But having widened it to any weapon makes MA skill a bit too important (especially now most specials don't do double damage anymore).

...use Martial Art to deliver more effective blows (as is the default use in the rule) or to strike more blows.

... He will continue attacking until he fails a Martial Art skill, runs out of opponent or runs out of DEX rank.

Martial Arts giving extra attacks, rather than extra damage - I like this better. Maybe the 5 SR delay could be less for natural weapons, giving them an advantage and restoring their link with MA.

The problem of small damage not getting through armour remains, though. Maybe give the double-damage effect back to specials, in addition to the characterful weapon-type specific effects?

No! My chance for immortality - gone! And all for being equivocal... ;-(

Ok so ive gone and dug out my WFRP core book ...

I see what you mean - they are lots of fun! Thanks!

That table is ok, but its not as flavoursome as the WFRP ones. There are some great RP possibilities caused by even the minor effects on the WFRP tables, especially given the "Burn the heretic/witch" attitude of the setting.

Yeah, that table was done for utility not flavour. I don't know WFRP - could you quote a few examples?