Zit

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.

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

This rule increases the chances to make a higher amount of damage with a better skill. Isn't it actually what special and criticals more or less already do?

It is all an interpretation of what the die roll simulates. I haven’t read the RQ6 rules, but I guess they are much like the combat maneuvres in RQII. If this is the case, it seems to me that choosing a special effect before or after rolling the dice is not an important matter: it is likely that the player anyway knows before rolling any die how he wants to defeat his opponent and which special effect he would need for that if he had the chance to (and which ones are available for his fighting style). Ex: “I have to try to disarm my opponent, I want him alive!”or “He’s at the edge of a cliff. It would be great if I managed to push him down!” –roll the dice and hope getting a better level of success than the opponent. The skill roll is in this case can be seen as creating conditions favorable to the desired special effect, not simply as an attempt to place a hit: you create the opportunity, which is what fighting is much about. If you didn’t succeed enough, well, you could only place a normal hit. Rolling the dice with penalties or requiring a better level of success are just mechanics, but at the end, both reduce the chances of placing the special effect. The RQ systems still allow placing a normal hit when the special effect is impossible, or changing one’s mind and choosing another effect : a GM finding this to easy may impose an INT roll for any effect not stated before the die roll. RQ is flexible and gives many opportunities to the player. It seems more realistic as well, corresponding the fluidity and unpredictability of a fight.

Well, selling is actualy a true job, the first difficulty being to find somebody to purchase your item, moreover when it is not new. Normaly, nobody can sell an item at its original value. So unless the PC is a merchant, I would suggets something like: - first make a Chance roll to find a buyer (difficult if you are in a remote village) - then use the above chart but shift its results: success=> -1 wealth level ; failure => -2 wealth level ; fumble => for any reason, the buyer did not pay, or with false money or whatever, the item is lost and there is no profit. Alternately, leave the chart as it is but make the roll difficult (x1/2) - alternately, or when teh chance roll is a failure, contact a merchant: the sell is insured (easy -or no- chance roll) but at fixed -2 wealth level to make it simple -you may allow a status roll to modify it according to the chart (ex: special => selling wealth level = -2+1=-1 original wealth level), player's decison.

I agree with this. The scene shall be carefully defined and limited to avoid this. In the exemple above, if the scene is the exploration of the canyon, the "just in case" syndrom will certainly be triggered. We all know our players. For the bladesharp, the GM could state instead that the scene is the actual fight, which the bladesharp is actually usefull for, not the full exploration. The "context" of bladesharp is the fight. If the the spell is cast long before and is not in use, it shall dispel after a while. I still like the "scene duration" principle, which makes things faster, easier and more logical. Is this extended to other magics ? After all, if a spirit or a god agrees in helping somebody, it shall help for the scene (ex: the merchant god for a full bargain session), not for a fixed amount of MR.

I'll probably come for a few hours to say hello: my birthday is on 27th and I'll stay with my family this week-end !

Sorry if this question has already been answered, but I haven't found any thread about this: the BGB says p. 191 : "If your character is armed with a weapon or shield that could parry an attack, he or she may roll against the relevant weapon skill to parry the blow." And p. 69 about the "melee weapon skill" : "Your character can use his or her weapon skill to parry attacks, making a skill roll to block an incoming attack." And there is the "shield" skill as well. So what is the purpose of the "parry" skill ??? Is it made for those who want to separate the attack skill from the parry skill ? In this case, does this mean that during the character creation, skill points have to be spent for both, or only once for "melee weapon" and count for both attack and parry?

Thanks guys. I know now that it has nothing to do with accessories for cats I'm getting cleverer everyday

I know I may look stupid, but what do you all mean with "sandbox" ?

I guess a dagger is a very good at perforing because of its long thin sharp size, better than a short sword: it is easier to inflict damage, even if the broader shortsword can potentialy make more damage. Therefore a better minimum damage for the dagger (3 vs. 2), but a smaller maximum damage than the short sword (6 vs.7). Just a guess. Anyway a dagger seems more efficient than a raw knife to me. Making one requires a more advanced metallurgy.

And also "Land of the Samurai", for Runequest, BRP-compatible, the pdf for 1$ on drivethru RPG (I haven't check if this special offer is still going on). With TCE + LotS, you shall get most of the weapons for far East. And for the weapons of steppe warriors (I dont know what you mean with "Orient"), just wait a bit, my setting about steppe nomads is still only a draft, although very well advanced -just taking this occasion to do some teasing

The Celestial Empire, Alephtar Games, pages 104-107. Basic Roleplaying Central - THE CELESTIAL EMPIRE - Roleplaying in Imperial China

Just an idea: since the refugees have to build a new country where old traditions and inerties may be losen, some of them may want to change the social order as well. If they have to fight and risk their life for the defense of the island, non-nobles, who are probably the majority, may want to have their share of the power and the decisions. And the trade with Corflu may create a class of rich non nobles wanting as well their share of the power. See what hapened in Rome or in Athen, or with some extend in China. It will change from the traditional western aristocratic social order and may give a long-term motivation for players. How will deal Lord Kerum with these new changes ? What will be the reactions of nobles wanting to keep their privileges ? Will the poorest ally with the rich against the nobles ? Or the rich with the nobles against the poors ? By teh way, among the Kerus, is the nobility hereditary or based on merit or on any other criterium ?

If you can read French, you may like to have a look at this amateur RPG "Légendes Tahitiennes" there : Légendes Tahitiennes - Légendes It's free, rules (a kind of d100 but with d20) and setting can be downloaded as pdf. I haven't read it, but it may be a source of inspiration for your setting.

Apparently not you I used the wrong wording: it was just a remark concerning the status as a measure of wealth, of good reputation or the necessity to create specialized status, all things which have been mentionned here and there. As Simon said, it is a matter of how complex you want to make it, but I'm more for the simple version: I think it could then even be used for The Celestial Empire. Unless I want a very diplomacy oriented campaign, I would use no more than a couple of status in a setting (even only one of possible), but instead limit what you can expect from a status roll with a foreigner (blind obedience from your followers or polite refusal from a froreigner looking at your folk with disdain). This however cannot be simulated with a skill.

My understanding of status is not exactly the same: I don't see it as a measure of the reputation, but as a rank in the society, or as the importance you have in this society, shall it be mundane or symbolic. You can be a very hated king, you're still a king : the fucntion makes the status. If you see things like this, you can simplify things a lot. A bishop, whatever his order, is still a bishop for every one: I don't see the point making a difference between the orders. And a Gael king will be certainly considered differently by the normands than a gael farmer, just because he's a king. Status can be seen as a measure of the importance of a character, which may have some negative effects: an ennemy wanting to make an exemple or to break the resistance of a tribe will preferably try to kill its king: higher status is bad is this case ! But in the other hands, killng a king or a knight or a religious leader will certainly put you in big trouble, while killng a begglar won't, wahtever their tribe/nation/order. And when negociating, you'll want to negociate with somebody having the same status in his group. for thsi reason, I think that status can be, when not universal, at least transversal and doesn't require a too big granularity. Stay simple.

I just noticed an error in the encounter table: in I22, replace "=I21+H22*100/$D$24" with "=I21+H22*100/$H$24"

Rules cannot do everything and entirely cover the reality: improvisation with good sense helps also a lot. do you know somebody who could sell me an invisibility spell potion, or befuddle, or speed...

There is no truth is this matter. It is just a question of how everyone perceives things. It is easier for Darkholme to visualize difficulties with bonus/penalties to a basic 100, and easier for Frogspanner with multipliers. I guess it is a matter of taste (a little) and of previous experience (a lot). Now how can we help Darkhome using the BRP ? The question is "is it easier for him to adapt the d100 to his perception or is it easier for him to change his perception to use the d100 ?". I think both are as easy, it is up to him to chose which one he prefers according to his sensibility: - adapt d100 by inverting the special success and fumble tables as I wrote earlier and play the "roll over 100" mechanics while keeping the same skill rating, or - adapt his perception by intuitively integrating that roll over 100 is statistically exactly the same than roll under skill, and play the d100 system. Ex: skill 60%, difficulty 20: roll over 100+20=120 with 1d100 + 60, or roll under 60-20=40 with 1d100, both 40% chances of success.

"BRP Wonder Tables" -as Excel 97 for the Open Office users- + "BRP Wonder Tables Instructions" -as pdf-. Sorry for the files' names, I had no better idea...

Done. Under Generic -> GM ressources.