Zit

Yes, we DO care about what the range is, otherwise we woudln't have range stats at all. And the 1/2 db for bows is a terrible rule. It doesn't matter how strong the archer is if he isn't using a bow of the proper draw weight. Overboweing a light bow is going to ruin the bow-especially a wooden bow. Every time you overdraw such a bow you weaken it. It it doesn't break from the strain, it will gradually lose power.

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.

I did read somewhere that a Mongolian archer typically had four bows for different

uses, like using them on foot or from horseback, for hunting or for war, and also a

variety of different arrows for the different bows and tasks. I could well imagine

that this is true, it would make sense.

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 glass golem can't swim (he's too dense) but might be able to walk across the bottom of a body of water as long as he doesn't get mired in mud or quicksand.

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.

We shall write "D100 system" or "Basic System" above all the titles of the games using it.

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.

IMO, Chaosium should take advantage of the popularity of Call of Cthulhu, the "killer app," to bring players in. Then advertise BRP to them as, "Hey, you like this system? How about playing it for fantasy and science fiction? <insert product examples> AND we have this BGB toolset so you can emulate your favorite genre!"

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.

I'm thinking about using the big yellow book, as that's the only book I have apart from CoC 6. What would a monster stat block look like distilled down to it's bare minimum requirements to serve as a combat challenge to the player characters?

Oh, I'm probably going to play with all the options turned off. No hit locations etc.

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...)

getting a 404, anyone else?

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.

Really? Why did samurai stop using them? They fought hand to hand, and they stopped used shields long before they adopted gunpowder for their militiamen. If shields were so effective, why did the Japanese drop them?

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.

I think Atgytg means the 3rd edition from AH in the mid-80's.

I'm missing the old "defence" rule of RQ2. Actually not: I'm still playing with RQ2 . No dodge skill, just a penalty to the attacker simulating the difficullty to hit the target, and is disconnected from parrying. And if you wanted to dive out of range of an attack, then a DEX roll - but no other action was then possible. It was clear, simple and there was no conflict with the parry rolls. I don't know why they changed it.

That’s an idea. Vendors and GM bring newbies to the game. But I would propose more than a single 4-pages pdf: I would propose a 4-6 pages introductory pdf for each (or at least the main ones) BRP supplement, usable with the Quick Start. Or a few very simple stereotyped settings (medieval –or ancient- fantastic, super heroes, Mecha, Harry Potter). 3 pages setting, 3 pages scenario, no options, free downloadable. During conventions, print 1-2 of them + BRP Quick Start to give to the visitors who played a game (or not). Add a catalog of all the published BRP or BRP based games.

Gollum mentioned the French Cassus Belli: they published the Basic + 1 or 2 settings and scenarios as a section of an issue of the magazine. Can be used as an exemple.

What if all the BRP related games publishers unite their effort and share the promotion costs (well perhaps it’s already the case, I don’t know). What about a “BRP promotion society”, involving publishers, authors and fans (who are often the same people…) with the only goal to promote the BRP-based games? Authors and publishers could put a part of their gains into a common pot.

For the visibility: it is quite difficult to understand who makes what. We shall gather the different supplements into families, perhaps even across the different editors. For example, all the historical settings could belong to a “Fantastic Earth” series.

The question is: who has the time to do it…but may be if everybody gives a small part of his time. It could work? Or am I dreaming?

Anyway, no channel shall be neglected: buying a game on internet does not mean having been aware of it through internet, and conversely. Are there any marketing studies or surveys about how buyers went to a game?

BTW, does anybody have a good scenario to send to Peter Jackson ?

Some Gauls were charging naked with a sword, just to show that did not fear death. Bow and crossbows were dispised by knights, who found close combat more prestigious. Sword is in many culture a symbol of higher social class and were held even not at war, reserved to free men or nobles, like during Ancien regime in Europe. I guess that it was not only more expensive, hence more prestigious than an axe that a forester could possess at well, but also the only big weapon 1- carriable at the belt at any time (to show off) and 2- easy to pull out (in case of an aggression or in a battle when breaking or droping the lance) : prestige alone was probably not hte only reaon of the spreaing of swords, but has been one of it.

In Elric!/SB5 weapons are prone to breaking if hit hard enough whereas shields are nice and sturdy. I thought that made it over into the BGB, but I don't have my books with me.

p. 207 “Shields”: an attacker can try to destroy the shield or the parrying weapon. Although the parrying weapon is mentioned only once in the text and then only “shield”, I guess this rule is valid for both. Shields absorb damage with their AP, while weapons don’t since they don’t have AP but only HP. Against a high skilled foe parrying every blow, or when trying to make a prisoner, it is a good option to try to break the weapon: it would be much more difficult to break a shield.

IMO this rule has to be amended: I’m not sure a spear will make as much damage as an axe, and when parried with a weapon probably not at all, since only the shaft will be touched by the parrying weapon –but it is another debate (old RQ2 and 3 stated that shafted weapons did no damage at all to parrying weapons).

Some other advantages of shields beyond missile fire are indeed not simulated by the rules, e.g.:

- in compact drill formations like the roman legion

- when charging, no time to hit and parry with one weapon, or even to parry at all: armour and shield are the only protections against pikes.

Nothing much to add to what Gollum said, just some precisions to make it clear:

- quantified size is necessary for using the resistance roll (e.g. STR vs. SIZ), wich is one of the ground principles of the BRP-based systems and allows quickly solving many situations which are otherwise not detailed in the rules -or to detailed. It is also used for the Encumbrance rule. This quantifying makes also it easy to compare with the STR necessary to move or carry something.

- the SIZ has a kind of logarithmic growth, something like +15 = three times as much weight (as a rule of thumb...). The SIZ 72 Brontosaur would then weight about 18 tons, which is about the estimated weight of such a creature. Even the heaviest armoured warrior would dye if a brontosaur stamps on it