frogspawner

I'm not sure I've understood your quandary. Is your problem 'how can I prevent my players from all choosing a spell casting character?'?

No, that's not it. The problem is that plain "fighter type" characters have much more limited options (in combat, principally) than magic-using ones.

OK, they could learn dancing and/or etiquette, but that doesn't give their players more interesting things to do when a melee breaks out...

Settings like Glorantha solve this by allowing everyone to do magic. But that's not suitable for every setting, and not to everyone's taste.

Eminently reasonable. (It was just the 'desperate' rule I wasn't clear about, and I did wonder about the Easy bit).

You don't get much more official than that! Thanks, Mr D.

Thanks, that would seem sensible to me too. But I was rather hoping for the official line on what the rules (will) say...

We'll soon see. I mean I will, most of the people with the 0 edition seem pleased with the content.

Well, there is a lack of clarity over combat, especially the Attack/PArry Matrix. But Jason said he'd revisit that for 1st ed.

I do OK with a D12...

Yes, the poor old D12 needs more use. And The Last Conformist's RW missile stats seem to show the probabilities are remarkably suited to either D6 or D12...

Head / Neck - 14%

Arm / Hand - 13%

Leg / Foot - 33%

Upper Trunk - 21%

Lower Trunk - 16%

Not Specified - 3%

...but the D12 wins, because the surprisingly low incidence of Arm hits means 1 pip on the D6 should be for both arms, whereas a D12 could differentiate them, with 1 face for left and 1 for right.

OK, here's another question I can't solve by looking at my Ed.Zero...

I'm fighting two opponents and both decide to desperately disengage (i.e. turn and flee!). The first one turns away and I get a free attack on it (even if I've already attacked this round), which it can't parry or dodge. (Also, I presume, attacking it's rear would be Easy, i.e. double chance). Then the other one turns away...

Do I get another free attack against this second one? (And what if there was a third, or a fourth?)

Nit-pick alert! Saying "hybrid" would work better there than "half human - half animal". Still funny though!

And to think, all these years it's the poor old Orcs that have been reviled for fecund miscegnation...

my players object if they can't have different armor points on different hit locations.

Ah, I can sympathize with them there. But my players usually don't, reserving their objections more for the perceived slowness of d100 combat, and how few hit points they get (D&D-ers. ). So...

The location/injury tables I currently use are here. It's vaguely based on an article for Aftermath in a very old White Dwarf, with just a touch of Rolemaster criticals for good measure. It strikes me that it may actually be more useful to you than the all-in-one version I was planning to adapt from the BRP wounds chart, though there is the slight problem of having two different levels of "major" wound (i.e. serious/critical, corresponding to the D&D healing spells).

But I am thinking of using only general hit points, while still keeping the location dice.

Well you might care to try what I do, then - only rolling for location when it's a major wound* (or equivalent) - which feels fine to me, and works well (with a sub-table of wounds relevant to each location). The players seem to like it, because when I innocently ask "Location?" they know they've probably felled the monster.

(* and on rarer occasions it's significant, like net-entanglement, grappling, wildly inconsistent armour, splats of green slime... )

Well, I didn't make that one up... I just updated it.

Having now seen it, I agree the Major Wound Chart isn't much use as a hit location chart. But since you didn't invent it, I hope you won't be too offended if I come up with an alternative, that combines both functions...

Do you have a link to this?

Tables for the "En Garde!" system can be found here, the ones for combat are on page 2.

The way it works is each side initially writes down a sequence of routines which lasts for at least 12 seconds (e.g. Block, Block, Lunge, Slash, Furious Lunge = BBxLxxSLxxCxxx). Second-by-second actions are then compared by cross-referncing on Duelling Table B. I believe the higher DEX has the advantage of only having to give a 6-second sequence initially (or something like that) - thus being able to see what the other guy is doing and react accordingly. It's a system designed for Pencil-and-Paper, ideal for PBM but a bit cumbersome for FTF.

A few years ago, I tried combining it with BRP-style d100 attacks/parries/damage - but that was really cumbersome. The VBScript page I did to automate it is here. To run it, select opponents, click "?" for each of them to randomly-choose some routines, then click "Start". That'll show you my descriptions and combat resolution, and should give a fair idea of how proper En Garde! works. (If both survive the first 'round', click "?" again to add more routines to their sequence, and "Start" again.)

The most fearsome hit location table I've ever seen is...

Your own Major Wound Chart is pretty scary! :eek:

A d100 hit location table?

Because BRP is a d100 system, a non-d100 table is better if you're using the hit locations option - so you can roll your HitLoc D20/D6/D12 at the same time as your d100 attack dice, and can tell it apart. That's the way to streamline it...

Are there any rules in the new BRP book about non-round combat rounds?

Nope! BUT, if you have any, please do share!

Do you know the EnGarde combat system? I think that's a good "non-round combat rounds" method.

For those who don't know it, you specify particular manoevres like Slash, Cut, Lunge, Jump-back, Kick, etc. Each has a set sequence, including rest/recovery/preparation time, lasting a variable number of (what I presume to be) seconds. Cross-referencing the participants' actions at the moment a given move strikes home determines the exact damage.

A d6 would be simpler and might lead to faster more streamlined combat. At the same time you do lose some of usefull complexity a d20 can provide.

The Location D6 (or D12) is a cute gimmick. (What more 'useful complexity' do you think a D20 provides, though?)

But if you want simpler, faster, streamlined combat - why not just use BRP? The default, that is: no hit locations...

1) Both fixed-AP and rolled options are given.

2) Yes, both aiming for general accuracy and aiming for specific hit locations (if you're going to use that option after all) are catered for. So you can use that to avoid armour - but there's no silly "-40% to auto-critical" rule like MRQ has).

3) Could probably be made to work by a crafty GM, but it's not recommended.

4) Yes, Easy and Difficult have x2 and x1/2 multipliers respectively (so much better than absolute penalties/bonuses like +20% or whatever, which were messy and arbitrary, although I think RQ3 etc did have them).

Soz - got to run, work calls... bleuch!

Challenge accepted! But I'm busy now, and away for the weekend...

If you haven't seen it before, take a look at the Call of Cthulhu quick start rules which is a pretty good illustration of what can be done.

Where? A-ha!

What a grotesque and blasphemously cyclopean bulk! 22 pages?? I'm sure it's quality stuff (I'll read it later) but can no-one at Chaosium edit? I think 4, or 8 tops, would be more like it... Something to give away free, something to put through all the neigbourhood's letter-boxes... (ok, perhaps not Cthulhu, in that case!)

I am not saying anything.

Good - twice. The fewer words the better in this case.

I am stupefied when I see people trying to characterize D&D as an "entry-level" game.

And who's the Man to show 'em what 'entry level' should really be about? :thumb:

This is a RQ2 limitation. All other BRP variations do not suffer from it. Ever wondered why there have been three new editions of RQ (ok, one was never published, let's say two) after RQ2? Maybe some problems were solved in them.

Hang on... RQ3, RQ4/AiG(unpublished), and... oh, I get it. Nah, the other one mostly introduced problems.

RQ faults as we have been finding them

Character creation - randomly rolled stats, narrow focused and unballanced previous experinece system, little to be done to tweek the character with quirks/abilities etc.

Cults and Skills - I never noticed before how limited the number of non cult skills were available. This can limit people as much if not more than D&D classes.

Learning through experience - While this is still one of the better skill reward systems out there, it is still a bit limited that using a skill succesfully once within a week is the same as using the skill 100 times within the week.

If these really bother you, they can solved pretty easily with a few house-rules. You could import things from BRP: points-buy for stats, more balanced profession templates, fun distinctive features and maybe even a personality trait or two (though they're for NPCs, strictly). I'm sure there are more skills too. (But to my mind the worst thing about classes is they are artificial: In BRP/RQ your character is a person with skills (like the RW), but in D&D they are just a stick of rock with Ranger/Rogue/Bard/Cavalier/whatever written through the middle).

The skill-rewards thing is tricky, but having tried several variations over the years I still come back to it. Multiple ticks (sorry, experience checks) per skill lead to combat skills racing away - and non-combat should be encouraged, unless all you want to do is hack-and-slash. Maybe allow up to 2/3 ticks, but just for 2nd/3rd chances at the one increase roll (not multiple increases)? Alternatively just consider that there are a lot more rolls in combat than for Persuade, Navigate, Ride (or whatever) simply because the system for combat is a lot more detailed - players being interested in that sort of thing! Would they want combats resolved by a single Opposed Roll on one weapon skill? I doubt it.

I know i complain that i can learn how to climb ropes by beating a monster over the head with my sword when playing D&D.

Thanks for reminding me of this one! I must quote it at every opportunity...

What a marvelous idea...

You're not saying "suggest it to Dustin", so do you mean there's one already underway...?

...non-stop demos of BRP...

"What do we want?" "BRP!" "When do want it?" "NOW!!" Yes, that might get more of an audience!

:focus:

I'm hoping that I can make it to Gen Con with Chaosium's delegation.

Can we take it that means you're of the 'convert existing gamers' school?

Do you think giving beginning gamers exposure to the system would be more profitable than trying to get gamers who already have preferences and habits to use the system?

About equal, I reckon. Yes, there are quite a large number of D&D players out there due for an upgrade to BRP, but also I think there are more computer game players (whom I don't count as RPG gamers) who could be turned-on to the social pleasure of 'real' games fairly easily.

Also, like mentioned before, there is a real inertia to overcome when trying to present a new system to gamers. I even feel it myself. I don't want to play in systems other than BRP, typically. (Even with the group described above, I find myself having to play in systems that these other GMs want to run.)

Does any of this make sense?

Perfectly. I'm pretty much in the same position. Life is short - why waste time with inferior systems? And yet, I'm facing the grim prospect of having to play D&D3.5, after the BRP-like adventure I'm currently running finishes, just because one of the guys wants to run something and has played lots of 3.5 previously and isn't confident of GM-ing a d100 game...

My suggested selling point to both is that it is ‘elegant’, relatively simple and transparent, and well established and therefore robust.

I worry that the new BRP book, fine though it is, may hide the system's simplicity (and hence elegance) due to sheer size.

A short scenario could generate possible interest with new players.

Yes, definitely.

So I think an updated version of the original 16-page "Basic RolePlaying: An Introductory Guide", with bare-bones rules and a really short scenario or two could do the job. Less than 16 pages, preferably, and give it away free...

...when you find yourself compelled to point out that d10's aren't strictly platonic solids...

BRP0 has a half-page 'Spot Rule' for "Cold, Exposure, Hunger, and Thirst". Heat/cold increase FP loss rate; similarly after 1 or 2 days without water/food. After CON/2 days, any physical action requires a Stamina roll to avoid 1hp damage. After CON days all actions are Difficult and wounds heal at half rate. Each day on -ve FP lose d6hp. Maybe even lose SIZ! But at least you can stay alive for a day on 0hp. :confused:

If that's not detailed enough for your purposes, it might be good to see what 'expanded Spot' (Patch?) Rule you do come up with.

Understood. Thanks!

Sorry if I'm giving "onlie the liveliest awfullness" to this long-dead thread, but I think it's worth it. After all...

At the risk of muddying the waters still further, I do think the entire Attack / Parry / Dodge system does need to be laid out, explicitly, in one place at some point.

Here is what I have pieced together so far - <snip>

One thing I will say: having seen the farce which was MRQ's muddy and confusing portrayal of combat 18 months ago when the rules first came out - and the fact that people on the MRQ forums are *STILL* asking today how combat works, I think it's worth making sure this is CRYSTAL clear in the BRP rules! I know the BRP *rules* work fine in this respect - we just need to make sure the *wording* of those rules is completely and unambiguously clear, even at the risk of repeating things.

So right now I'm going through the whole combat chapter to ensure that it's as clearly worded as possible.

Hurrah!

I'll be posting some form of errata after every last scrap of edits are submitted and integrated into the manuscript.

Presumably that's finished now. Any chance your posting could be soon, please, Mr D?

Having said that, the scope for using Allegiance in this way is quite promising. For starters, you could say that only characters with 20+ allegiance to a deity can get divine powers from that deity - effectively defining an entry level for a priest...

Funnily enough, exactly my thought (related to a setting using magic based on the RQIII magic systems) was to have a Character's Allegiance score (if Allied to that allegiance - i.e. 20 or more greater than all other allegiances...

Was that really the exact thought? The "20+" sounds more like an absolute Allegiance percentage to me.

... AND the character has committed to the allegiance) as the source of the Characters ability to use "Divine Blessings" ( RQIII style Spirit Magic), whilst "Divine Miracles" (RQIII style Divine magic) would come from sacrificing POW as in RQIII.

Yes, that sounds good. But I'd prefer to use absolute percentages of their 'acknowledged' Allegiance (not Best minus 2nd Best, or whatever).

Previously I thought it odd to build up other allegiances opposed to your main one (e.g. a good-guy priest having Allegiance(Law) 90%, but also Allegiance(Chaos) 50%, due to dodgy deeds). But now I'm fairly happy with it - it can give rise to the classic "good priest turns evil"* scenario, flipping over to the Dark Side just by acknowledging the allegiance he has built up (spot-on for those 'Galactic Knights'!). Using the absolute values, they'd still have full powers (or more) but from the other lot - which seems more suitable (more tempting....) than having to re-start from scratch.

(* Don't seem to hear about "evil priest turns good" scenarios, though (except DV, of course!). Should it be possible that way round?)