frogspawner

Nah, RQ3 was Cormac & Co. Rurik the Restless was RQ2 and he didn't die, just got captured and ransomed by, yes, trolls (well, who hasn't?). I guess he became known as "Runespear" when he was a RuneLord. (Is it him in an old Wyrms Footnotes?) Rurik Lives! (I confess - my first and best RQ character was of Yelmalio...)

Oops, I missed the "per point of damage" before. OK, so it's not super-powerful like I thought but instead it's insipid. And, without a roll involved, where's the excitement? It's just a bit too calculated, not Heroic. And all the other ways to spend PP makes it too complicated. Where would this lead? One side spending points to re-roll better hits and increase damage, the other side spending points to downgrade those hits and then (maybe) negate some damage too. So, everyone's out of PP by the second round - and then the real fight can start!?

And normally I would too. It's just I'm calling this ability Defence, and the NPC stats I was using gave had the baboons listed with "10% Defence", so... (yeah, I know it's GM laziness, not reworking the stats - I've been busy, ok? ) Good way to test the new rule, though! (Edit: I should explain I'm giving Defence x PP spent chance to avoid damage. Again - thanks for the idea, Atg!) Not seen it, but nice idea!

Phew! That was my thought - thanks for your support!

Unless the wheel has rough corners on it, like I think this one does. E.g. Expend 3 PP to avoid all damage from an attack, automatically? Can NPCs use that too? Does it have to be personal power, or can it come from storage devices, bound spirits, or what-have-you? And why is it cheaper than the other uses? (Which, incidentally, I don't like nearly so much!)

However, are they the only heroes around? Yesterday, some NPCs used (my equivalent of) Fate Points to escape damage in combat - "But we're the heroes!" the players howled. Was that 'Justice'? BTW, how do your 'heroes' earn their Tanj?

One reason: this dissatisfaction could feed back to Chaosium and actually make a response more likely, improving our chances of getting a high quality supplement for BRP. That's worth a bit of frustrated curiosity, I'd say...

But Rurik is 'Good Old Roleplaying', so he's right on-topic IMO... Pardon my ignorance - Rurik the Restless has been laid to rest? Who says? And when and where did it happen?

I think it was called "D and <something>". Can't quite remember the other letter... And yes - nice formula (good pedigree). Something about the "Dice + Adds" method appeals, too: clean and neat (my T&T background showing?). I just wondered if having big flat bonuses like "+50" (or even +20, or whatever...) would offend too many people around here. It seems not...

Hmm, that seems sort of familiar from some other system... despite that, I like it too. But would there be a problem far up the STR/SIZ scale, with +50 bonuses (or whatever)?

Sarcastic? Well of course - we had one recently in a thread started by... oh, I forget.

'Balance' is not only unrealistic but also just plain wrong - because it undermines the reason for character progress (as per Atgxtg's point about training, from the Skills Base thread, which strikes me as applicable to any way characters improve...):

Exactly. I don't know any other game that shows abilities so intuitively. As for potential difficulties, I gather the new BRP book may be a bit thick and hence possibly off-putting. But that's because it's got all sorts of different options in it. My point is, if you find some parts too hard for you or your players - don't use them. I think that's how it's designed. Even do that with 'core' mechanics at first, if you like - add extra bits later, if and when you're ready.

I see what you mean - it could be too predictable. But Specials/Failures will happen 18+10=28% of the time (on each side, which should multiply, right?). And what with modifiers (eg moving halves hide?), and other factors possibly unknown beforehand, there should be enough unpredictability to keep things interesting. I'd say a more common case would be 75% v 25% - and the 75% thief really should be assured of getting by the 25% guard, fairly reliably... (Anyone care to do the maths?)

It's a cinch - there's nothing easier or more intuitive for first-timers. But this thread is a pretty poor place to see how easy BRP really is! It's full of hard-core old-timers fighting their corners with abstruse arguments and complex mathematics*. I should start a new thread and ask again, mate! (* Previously defined as subtraction - or even worse! )

You're right, of course. (Your post sent me running to my RQ3). I guess the way it said skills "can" be used that way let me ignore it - I never really liked that mechanism either! And so, when people said the only options in the new BRP were variations of Opposed Rolls (this included), I was led to believe it was new. Thanks for putting me straight. Mr D, please excuse me! (Even so, I now prefer the 'higher-skill-wins-tied-success-levels' method! )

Phew. Ta! Wow - that's a brilliant idea! I hope you don't mind if I nick it... Actually, I think that resolves the whole "Opposed Roll" issue for me. If I want to prolong the suspense with a more extended contest, I can always define interim stages and call for re-rolls to get further. Otherwise, ties mean whoever should win, does win (though, rightly, that's not certain at the outset). Great! And, what's more, this fix means I'd only have to cross-out and replace two letters, rather than a whole line, from my new BRP Book when I get it. Thanks again! (* Only "reasonably"? Could you kindly say what niggles you found, to get me up-to-speed with it?)

Thanks for that. I guess you're right. It's just the "ii.) If both rolls achieve the same degree of success, the higher roll wins." bit that gets me. It doesn't feel right. It means you can lose when the other guy did a worse roll (to my way of thinking). Draw a line through that, define what happens on a tied roll, and everything would be hunky-dory, as far as I'm concerned. PS: I assume this mechanism isn't supposed to be used in combat, right?

Absolutely! And there's no way I'd resist the temptation to use houserules either. But this issue may make the difference between whether I call what I'm playing "houseruled BRP" or "houseruled RQ"... Please could you, or anyone, tell us when The Book says we should be using Opposed Rolls (e.g. in combat, or just for sneaking etc.)? And is there an option to not use them? Naturally! Well, that's not really true, is it? ORs could have been introduced as an option (like plenty of other rules have), or even as the default with the old ways optional (but I suspect that's not what's happening...).

The point is, not whether the Opposed Roll mechanism can work or not, but that introducing it breaks the stated design principle of using rules from previous BRP incarnations. And worse - it's not just an option, but officially the only way.

You might think that, but I reckon if they were songs he'd have to pay Mongoose a royalty! Anyway, I wonder if Mr D would care to reconcile the introduction of Opposed Rolls as the only option with what he said about BRPs parentage (in the context of shields, but as a general principle IMO): PS: ...and I'm opposed to Opposed Rolls!

Guilty.

<Time passes. It transpires frogspawner was not wrong...> Noooooo! Why does this have to be the one time I was right? Why Why? WHY? ;-( Yep, by my reckoning that's exactly what the rule-as-written says. Unfortunately. Any other interpretation is speculation. By the way, I didn't think CoC had this Opposed Roll mechanism (but I only have 2nd-ed and don't play much), so has it been imported from Elric!/Stormbringer?

Yes, that sounds pretty good. Personally, I'd tweak it to depend on just one stat, with -5/-10 modifiers for more difficult/obscure skills. Is there any option in the upcoming BRP which resembles that?

I had a worrying thought that the new default rule also included a slight amount of Opposed Roll mechanism, and all the optionals were variations of it. But I can't find the reference now, and don't have Ed.Zero. Could somebody please tell me I'm wrong?