Zit

This is more or less what I'm doing for low-scale mass combat, let's say <100 of each side. Each party has a cohesion between 10 and 20. Most of the time, the ennemy party has a higher one: no danger, no fun. I make a cohesion vs. cohesion roll like for spirit combat, each party loosing points, with the exception that for each big ennemy killed (leader, monster, ...), or for each 2 to 5 smaller ennemies (like average Broos or warriors), the party loses one extra cohesion point. Could be 2 or more for an ennemy champion (his men flee the battle at once). When a party reaches 0, it disagregates, the massacre can start. This way, the players realy feel like having a true influence on the battle -or I hope so. I add some very basic "random encounters", since you don't always chose whom you're going to fight in a melee. It is quite simple.

This something which is missing in the BRP. A magic system with more flexibility would be nice, in addition to those already existing.

Mistake:( Don't ask why. No idea. May be I shall clean my spectacles. Or a rest of tiredness RQ1. It is so much impregnated in my mind, you know, after 30 years... But in principle, it does not change what I wrote. By experience, 80m seems to be a bit long. But it is a rather short experience. It was only a false tarnslation from me: I was indeed speaking about these "dogled bow staves", rigid reflex extremities which ar not bend and they have a leverage effect while keeping a big angle between bow and string: both combined have a comparable effect as the long bow.

Were did you find this ? I’ve only seen the DEX/3 rule p. 206 for short range, which is absolutely not tailored for bows, and the skill penalty for medium range (twice the effective range at 1/2 skill) and the long range (4 times effective range at 1/4 skill) Now that I understood your rule, I find it quite interesting. We only have to adjust the values. A bowyer in Germany proposes among others play tool self bows for 3+ year old children, 7-12lbs (STR 01 ?) or self bows for bigger children or beginners 12-40lbs (STR 5 ?). So a 40-60lbs bow would be in the STR 09 range. I made a self bow with this guy (of rattan), about 25 lbs (STR 05), the extreme maximum range was about 80m. With a better wood, we could reach may be 100m? With twice as much draw, let’s say 200m, 240m maximum. I would therefore stay by the BRP’s 60m effective range for a STR 09. Let’s compare your suggestion and the BRP: Self bow Your rule: range 80m, STR 9, 1d6+1 BRP Rule: range 60m, STR9, 1d6+1 Composite bow Yours: range 120m, STR12 (=13-1), 1d8+1 BRP’s: range 120m, STR13, 1d8+1+1/2db (which is often 1d2 at STR13) = more damage than in your rule Long Bow: Yours: range 120m, STR11 (=13-2), 1d8+1 BRP’s: range 100m, STR11, 1d8+1 Self and long bows are getting better with your rule, while the composite loses its range and damage advantage and is made less efficient than the long bow. Of course, it can be used on horseback. I would still increase the STR bonus for composite at least to the level of the long bow: composite bows had curved stiffeners (”siyah”) which brought the same advantage as the “inclined plane thing we did at school” . I will therefore introduce the composite with stiffeners (STR -2, from the 3rd century in central Asia) and without stiffeners (STR -1 for the Scythian or Egyptian composite bows). This is quite a nice system, with only one single stat block for all the bows allowing to design one’s own bow. Every kind of bow would be then written this way: Name, STR bonus … and that’s it Self Bow, none Long Bow, -2 Composite bow, -1 Composite bow with stiffeners, -2 Compound bow, x1/2 (or -5 may be more consistent) For a single bow, since the STR class is equivalent to the damage class, I would simply write Name, damage class, required STR Ex: Horse composite bow with stiffeners, 1d8+1 (we know this corresponds to a STR 13 bow), STR11 Foot composite bow with stiffeners, 1d10+1, STR15 Children composite bow with stiffeners, 1d6+1, STR 7 or 1d4+1, STR 3 Children self bow, 1d4+1, STR 5 All this is of course valid for human-sized bows: a self bow would be a long bow for a hobbit, btu it shall not have the advantages of teh long bow just because it is used by a Hobbit !

But a composite bow (at least in its central aisan form) has a better efficiency than a long bow, and you will pull less than 100 lbs to get the same power: I never tried one, but all the comments I've read point out how easier and more comfortable it is to use a composite bow compared to the other designs. Anyway, there is the theory (a self bow could be as strong as a composite), and the reality, where composite and long bows have always been seen as deadlier as self bows. There are many reasons for this, including technical, which limit the maximum achievable power from a single design. So I’m not sure I would allow a self bow to make 1d10+1 damage, even if it is in theory possible: you won’t probably find the right wood, the thickness of the bow may be too big for a human hand, the shock in the arm to brutal… Anyway, the maximum doable with a composite shall be greater than the maximum doable with a self bow. Do you mean: a self bow usable for a STR 9-12 makes 1D6+1 damage (or a self bow requires a STR 9-12 for 1d6+1), while a long bow made for STR 7-10 does as much damage (or a long bow requires a STR 7-10 for 1D6+1 damage) ? So if you have a STR 08 and want to make 1d6+1 damage, you need to build a long or composite bow ? If this is the case, we could instead keep the same fix basic damage as it is in the rules, one for each kind of bow, as per all the weapons in brp, replace your STR adjustment with 1/2db and keep the STR categories unchanged: we stick more to the rules for a comparable effect. Ex: a self bow made for a STR 9-12 archer and used by its owner range makes 1d6+1. A long bow made for the STR 5-8 makes 1d8+1 (long bow)-1d2 (low STR), which is almost the same as 1d6+1. So, I need less STR for the same damage. And for the same STR range, the long bow makes more damage (1d8+1 vs. 1d6+1). It is just like what you suggested, only calculated the other way but keeping some consistency with the weapon rules. It implies however other ranges of STR as the ones you suggested. Whatever the version, we don’t need the minimal STR requirement anymore, or am I wrong? One can build a long bow for a low STR. So the only modification to the rules would be to replace the minimum STR with the STR range it has been made for (in my example, long bow, 1d8+1, STR 05-08). The standard rules mechanics will make the adjustment by themselves (1d8+1-1d2). Correct ? I think the SIZ shall be considered as well, since the power of a bow is defined by its strength per inch: a strong Dwarf cannot fully pull the string of a bow made for a human simply because he’s too small. Now, what if the archer has the wrong SIZ and the wrong STR? To be continued…

I didn't mean that we don't care about range, only that we do not care about knowing it so acurately, within a few meters. As I said, long/normal/short is most of the time far enough. Anyway no archer can tell the distance with 1m acuracy. Regarding the light bow and the 1/2db rule -which I found terrible as well at first- the limited draw is simulated by the basic damage: a Self Bow makes 1d6+1 while a Composite Bow makes 1d8+1. This is the intrinsec power of the average bow. Now, as we both said, there are several sizes and strength for each kind of bow: no two self bows are exactly the same. I presume that the rule assumes that every archer uses the most optimized bow for his size ans strength, and the 1/2 db rule works: a stronger bowman uses a stronger bow and makes the arrow flight faster. The rule is also tailored for human beings. Of course if a giant with 3d6 db draws the string, it should break instead of providing 3d3 db (if he can even properly hold the bow). Except if the self bow was make for him from a big trunk... No rule is perfect and can realy simulate the complexity of real life, but were the rule fails, good sense helps.

It is true. This is the reason why I think it is not necessary to go too far in the simulation of the physics of archery: bows are anyway practically not used up to their maximum performances. Bows of the same kind are also never exactly the same, except may be compounds. OK, a composite bow can send an arrow beyond 400m, but which archer would like to do it? It is practically impossible to hit anyway and the arrow would be wasted -an lost: target too small, arrow too slow to do much damage, flight deviated by wind, distance too difficult to estimate… if you can see the target at all! OK, a stronger bow will shoot at longer distance and have a straighter flight at short distance, but not if you can’t pull it properly. The ranges given by the rules are the practically usable –and practically used- ranges, not the extreme ranges. There are some differences which are enough to simulate the different performances of bows. Moreover, a rule is made to run a game: either you make a bow simulator, which is a game in itself, or you run a RPG: do we really care if a target is at 120m, 135m or 83.65m? “Within range”, “out of range”, “at close range” are mostly enough for RPG. Add the ½ db to simulate the different strengths –a strong guy can pull a strong bow but still can't better aim -, and that’s enough. Of course, it is possible to add some finesse: I allowed 3 kinds of arrows with different bonus/penalties in ranges and damage and 2 settings with different ranges for the composite bows, and I think this is a good compromise between simulation and playability. More would have been unplayable. So, back to the compound bow, a few ideas: - make it easier to aim - replace the 1/2db with a +2 instead (the strength of the user is not as important as with traditional bows) - Regarding the range, we shall consider until which range the light arrow of the compound bow does much damage: this will be the useful range. Shall not be above 120m, probably not even beyond the 100m of the long bow. Those who have one may try to see how much the arrow penetrates the target at 50/80/100/120m and tell us. You may also like to decrease the damage level when at long range (1d10 -> 1d8 -> 1D6…).

These are the kind of questions I had to struggle with to write my BRP steppe nomads supplement (to be published hopefuly some time, it is almost done). It is a rather complex question and I've read and heard so many things, often contradictory, that at last, I decided to make it simple. I think that trying to acurately simulate bows is a too complex thing. Not only the bow, its quality, the kind of arrows or the skill and strength of the archer, but also the use it has been made for (acurate firing, volley, mounted archery, life-time...) have to be taken into account. It is all about an optimal combination archer/bow/arrow/use/conditions. Almost every bow is the best for for of these combinations. My short experience in archery did not help much finding the magical formula. You may have been trained with a coumpound bow, but if using it in stress or in movement during a battle or while trying to escape, it may not be much more efficient than a self bow, at least as long as acuracy is concerned. But for contests like for Ulysse or Robin Hood, where you have time to aim, a compound will surely help. Since the training of the archer is the first criteria, I'd not give a bonus but instead grant a higher basic score. Or may be only for aimed shots. If you play with the fatigue option, you may give some advantage as well. It would probably have no true advantage for instinctive shooting, which is actually what is understood under the Bow skill. Such a bow would be seen as magical by primitive cultures with no understanding of mechanics, but has a kind of secret technics for high developped medieval cultures like the Chinese or the Muslims kingdoms.

the very close refracting indices of water and glass make the Glass Golem very difficult to be seen underwater, almost invisible. If naked of course.

Glass is very hard and very breakable: it is like either it holds, or totally breaks apart. If using the hit location option, there is a way to simulate this by changing the hit points in each location into "structural" armour points, alocating 0 HP: any hit below it have no effect, any damage above it destroys the location. If not using hit locations in your campaign, you may give one general armour amount for the whole body use the hit location for this character only and only of the damage exceeds the AP.

are you speaking about edited professional supplements, or any work, incl. amateur supplements available on the web or on demand ?

I’m playing a lot PbP, using RQ2 (the old one). For combat, I ask the players for their global tactics and their first intent. Then, as long as the tactics are applicable to the situation, I play both the NPCs and the PCs, trying to be logical and consistent with the characters and the global tactics. Sometimes, I even make an INT roll for a character to have an initiative. When the situation changes and the tactics are obviously not adapted anymore, or when a player has to take a crucial decision, like continue to fight or heal his friend, or start an action which may lead to death, I stop and ask. Most of the time, I ask every 2-3 rounds, sometime even more.

This what the mordern RQ does. I remember a post on this forum about skill category modifiers, where the question was that they were only useful when starting and did not change the progression rate in the skills: after all, if somebody is gifted, he should learn faster. We came to the point that using the modifiers as DICE modifiers instead of SKILL modifiers would reduce this issue. A 40% guy with 10% dice bonus would have the same 50% chance of success as a 50% guy without bonus, but better learning rates through experience, since those would base on his 40% rating.

There was a post about wealth and values, but I can't remember which one. Fact is, that the value of objects depends highly on the time, the place, culture and mode. There is no exact rule, all depends on your setting. An sword in Chinese steel was probably less expensive in China than somewjere else. For your example, I would at least double the price for each superior value level, with no limit for the priceless. Then minima of 2-3 cheap items for an inexpensive one, 4-6 for an average, 8-12 for an expensive and 20+ for a priceless. Then in your example, you need at least 2 +5% sword for one +15% sword, but I would even pay 3 or 4 +5% sword for the +15%-one.

Do we already ? Hoooo. May be we shall write it bigger Or use a logo But it is not on CoC, RQ, Legend, Clockwork & Chivalry, D101 (well almost not...), etc.

I agree with this, and this is one of the forces of BRP. Switching for the one to the other or mix them is easy. Why does Windows have much more success than Mac or Unix ? Why did the VHS-system beat the Betamax ? Because -among others- of the higher choice in application/films/software/whatever you call it. WotC understood this with the D20 open license. I agree that the communication of the D100-ists is not good enough. We shall write "D100 sysrtem" or "Basic System" above all the titles of the games using it. Of course, all this depends also on the tastes of players: monomaniacs do not care about having a big choice fo games, they want a single big setting -CoC or Glorantha are such. Or does the new generation of players like to jump from a setting to another, like they do with video games (Playstation) ? I have no idea. Question: do players -and even more newbies- prefer to purchase a full rule + setting game rather than the BGB, which is made for games designers and has no setting in it, and spend some more money for a setting ? I think they do. BGP is acquired by fanatic like us, who want to design their own games. How are the sales of pure BRP settings without rules included, compared to full games ? Shall the authors write all the extentions with the rules, or at least will all the extra rules not contained in the free Quick Start ? Another strength of the BRP is that it is a coherent logical system based on very few intuitive concept: it makes it easy to understand, but also to create quick spot tules on the fly, without breaking the rythm looking for rules in a book.

See my previous post: hit points DEX Armour points Weapons % (incl. shield) Weapon damage incl. bonus Weapon HO/AP Dodge Ex: hoplite with full cumbersome plate armour HP 13, AP 8, db +1D4 Spear 50% 1d6+1+1d4 HP15 Shield 50% HP 26 Shortsword 40% 1d6+1+1d4 HP15 Dodge 5% If using magic, add POW. If you need knockback (unlikely), just use SIZ=STR= [hit points +20% for big creatures and -20% for small ones]. i'm not sure you even need the weapons HP.

For "cannon fodder" and if not playing hit locations, you actually only need HP, armour, DEX, main weapons %, damages and AP. Add POW for resistance to spells. Should you exceptionally need more, then write only the one you need (like APP if you know that the NPC will try to charm the PCs). If necessary, 1 or 2 skills which are to be used when interacting with the PCs (like a "first aid" and "medicine" for a healer), possibly instead of weapons. Key NPCs require of course some more details, at least a few skills.

The european expansion in the 18th century is ibdeed a huge source of exotic and adventurous settings, with possibility to play from many different points of vue: european colonial countries like France or England, the Netherlands or the decreasing colonial powers of Spain and Portugal, or why not Russia expending in central Asia. Not sepaking about the Ottoman Empire expending in the Balkans. It is easy for players to start playing in exotic countries like India, North America, Japan, West African kingdoms, Australia, Pacific Isles... without needing to read pages of background: they only need their prejudices and superficial knowledge of these overseas coutries, like the Europeans use to have at this time (and still have for too many of them today...)

Do you mean, an old Peugeot ?

By the way, can somebody explain to me why a defender can chose not to parry when the attacker missed his attack ? After all, when your opponent starts trying to place a blow, you decide to parry before you know if he succeeded or not. I always considered that the player shall decide before the attack roll if he parries or not, giving him a chance to fumble: isn't it more logical?

Citation of old RQ2 about rules: "If you are an experienced FRP gamer, take those portions you can use and ignore the rest. Like any FRP system, these can only be guidelines. Use them as you will" RQ2 was such a great game.

btw, what do you all mean with "Blackjack" ? I only know the Belotte and, thanks Gianni, the Scopa .

Let's see... two 40%-level opponents fight each other. They can have only a maximum of 40 difference, i.e. 2 levels of success. Two guys at 80%, they can have up to 4 levels of success difference = twice as much as the 40% guys. This means that it is forbiden for a 40% guy to have more that 40 difference with whatever opponent, even against the dullest beginner with 05% skill rating, while two experienced fighters can win against each other with 80 difference. I'm not sure this realy takes into account how both opponents are relatively skilled.

May be because they used 2-handed weapons ? Or 2 wepons at once ? These rules looks a bit like the old RQ2, except the DAR. But I agree with frogspawner: it's too harsh for 2-H weapons. How do our samourais? I slightly modified the RQ2 rules allowing one parry and one attack if using but a single weapon: position, quickness, way to use a weapon is not the same if single-handed with a second parrying tool (shield or weapon) or with a single weapon -I tried. This is anyway allowed for 2H spear in the very first BRP. I think the rules of Axe-Elf are worthing at least trying and refining. The idea is not bad.