Darkholme

I think that's pretty much the case with all rules changes, whether it be houserules for your home game, or alternate rules published in a supplement book. The rules in the existing book are already functional, in that you can run a game with them. That doesn't mean that all of the results will be to your tastes, or that some of the consequences of the rules in the existing book won't have consequences you find troublesome - whether it be a large power disparity between player characters you don't want (such as this bit here for races, or OpenQuest's style of character creation), or something you consider to be too much fiddly tracking which you don't want (such as BRP/Stormbringer style hit points and major wounds as a simplification from hit locations). So if you're already satisfied with the existing rule, you won't want to use an alternate rule designed to have different implications, and indeed such an alternate rule isn't designed for you, it's designed for the guy who doesn't like the consequences of the existing rule or doesn't want them for his next game.

I think he's using armor as in Legend, where Plate is a 6, combined with HP & Major Wounds from the BGB. But yeah; if he wants to go this route he can ignore armor on a crit, etc.

I believe what you are describing is how things work in the mongoose products, such as Legend. I don't recall them even having a success matrix.

Hmm. I would think (if counterbalancing with extra skills) the amount of extra skills you would get would correlate to the amount of skills granted by the attributes. So if there are 10 Dex/Agi Skills, then you would get something like 10 skillpoints for every +1 in dex (though I would suggest reducing it since you get to put them in whatever skills you want, including dumping them all into a single desirable skill - to perhaps 50% to 75% of the number of skills. The "Tricky part" would be determining the weights of the things besides skills. Stuff like Damage Bonus, HP, and the various special abilities like flight and darkvision. Ah, yeah, I've already tossed out random stat generation, and in the past have gone with the 80 point buy, but I could see myself using OQ2 style point buy in the future.

Sure. But if a guy is wearing plate armor, (and you're not using piecemeal armor rules) then he's wearing plate armor everywhere. If he's not wearing plate armor everywhere, then you shouldn't be giving him the points of having plate armor everywhere. If he's only wearing a chestplate and a helmet, why are you giving him AP6? If he's only wearing 2/7 of a set of armor, give him 2/7 of its armor value (or be less specific and give him 1/3 of the armor value), or perhaps disproportionately weight the locations you can die from (I can also see that making sense), or have him roll a d100, and 2/7(29%) the time he gets his plate, and the other 5/7(71%) he has no armor against the attack. If the situation in question is that he IS wearing plate everywhere, and you're talking about weak spots in the armor, that's covered by a crit. And in RQ, choosing a location wouldn't get you past his armor if all locations are armored. But you're taking two disconnected halves of two alternate subsystems, and making an attempt to mash them together to make it work. They aren't designed to work together, so if you're determined to not use either of the two supported options, you're going to have to make some houserules to connect the parts together and have them work in a way you find satisfactory. Personally, if I were trying to houserule this thing so I could have fixed armor and a pool of HP, I think I would go with either minimum damage of 1 or 2 on a successful hit (probably 1, hit points dont go that high), or look into stealing the hit location rules and single HP pool from one of the warhammer games, or make custom rolled armor rules that did what I wanted better.

If he's using fixed Armor, I would guess he means from MRQ/MRQII/Legend/RuneQuest, in which case, Plate armor is just better AP6, Chainmail is AP5 (Arms of Legend). In short, the RQ model of fixed armor isn't really set up to work with the SB model of fixed hitpoints/critical wounds, so combining them takes some doing. The "To a minimum of 1 damage" should be alright though, particularly if you use the "heroic" hitpoint pools.

The guy with daggers can't damage the guy in plate armor even after strength/size bonus? (I don't have my books in front of me). You could rule the minimum damage on a successful hit is 1. That would be pretty simple, and it would mean armor can never completely ignore damage, but it can come close. I still wouldnt want to be the guy with daggers though. You could armor up two guys in plate mail and give them both daggers, then have them fight eachother, for a whole new take on padded sumo. Or you could be cool with the fact that a child just can't hurt the fully plate armored dude with a sling bullet. That would also be pretty understandable.

Yeah, that's basically it Chaot. Well put. I think I would want to crunch some numbers to see if I could more accurately estimate what the value of a stat on skills is (based on the number of skills it adds to, or something) but that's basically what I had in mind, yes. I like that condensed statblock too. Those are always helpful.

Sometimes, I do go with pre-balanced RPGs. I still enjoy playing "Pathfinder", for instance. It's a matter of genre. If I want high-powered fantasy I go with Pathfinder (but me running Pathfinder involves 120 pages of houserules and new/converted options - Pathfinder has a lot of issues, but it has excellent adventures and settings, and I've yet to find another RPG that outdoes it in high-powered fantasy). It does what I want better than the other options I've seen/read/tried, even if it doesn't do it 100% to my satisfaction. I go for d100 when I am looking for a decent system to run historical settings, or more gritty, sword & sorcery feeling games. I like the more human power-scale instead of the ever growing scales of many other fantasy games. I would indeed like it better if it was more pre-balanced between players, but coming up with houserules for the parts of a system that don't manage to do what I want has never been a problem for me in the past though. In short, there are parts of the system I don't care for, sure; but for the games I would use it for, I have yet to find a system I like better, and it does have many aspects that I do like. Like with Pathfinder, it does what I want better than the other options I've seen/read/tried, even if it doesn't do it 100% to my satisfaction. Unlike with Pathfinder, it doesn't have nearly so much stuff that I would feel a need to houserule. I like that it's classless. I like its power scale. I like that weapons are a serious threat, even later in the game. I like that there aren't so many fiddly bits and that it's not so much an exception-based ruleset. And when I want pulpy Sci-Fi (I don't tend to run/play the highly political sci-fi games some people play), I use Edge of the Empire with custom races (built using a racial PB system I designed for it) and a bunch of custom weapons, armor, and vehicles, to allow me to use it for non-star-wars. I tried a bunch of Unisystem stuff, and I was dissatisfied with so much of it that it felt like I needed to rewrite the entire game if I was going to run it, so I don't try to play it anymore (though I do like its magic system in Buffy/Ghosts of Albion), and I like the idea of NPCs having simplified statblocks to save the GM prep-time. I tried Rolemaster, and it's not for me, even if it's critical hit tables can be highly entertaining. I have many problems with the system and it would take far too much work to fix them all. I tried D&D 2e and 4e, and again - I would require so many houserules that the result would be scarcely recognizable, even if it was compatible with the adventures. World of Darkness doesn't do the kinds of Urban Fantasy I want to play very well, it just does its own thing. I liked shadowrun, but I'm not sure I could use it for anything besides shadowrun. I didn't enjoy FATE - I find meta-mechanics and diret narrative control mechanics to be distracting, and building a whole game out of them, well, I dunno, not really my thing. Mutants and Masterminds seemed pretty neat when I was reading it and building my character, but I find it tedious in gameplay. In short, I've tried a bunch of systems, and I have yet to find one that does better for me the things d100 does for me (I also have a hard time finding any systems I like enough that I don't feel a need for any houserules or custom content). It's quite possible that eventually my 'd100 games' will be a significant departure from traditional d100 games, as I pile on houserules (and if/when that happens, I'm okay with that so long as it works for me). It's also possible that I will eventually find another system I like better. That has yet to happen, however. It's possible I'll replace Pathfinder and EotE with systems that are closer to my gaming needs in the future too, but that has also yet to happen. I've considered making a/some complete rulebook(s) for my own gaming, but that is a lot of work, but maybe some day I will. In the meantime; I like houserules better than just putting up with the things I don't care for or not gaming at all.

Yeah? Hmm. Well I will definitely need to check it out then.

I've actually been considering looking into Fantasy Hero as a system for use in Urban Fantasy games, based on other people's praise. I have not played the HERO system before, however. Aside from time-consuming but flexible character creation, how is HERO?

I don't think I would take for granted the differences that go with being overly large. as I said, you would have to adequately measure all of the factors. Not fitting into buildings and whatnot? that is a factor, just like all the others. And yes, perceived balance is (in this case) more important than real statistical equilibrium. However, being closer to statistical equilibrium can tend to make that much easier to achieve. But, seriously, you're going with: "If you would think a houserule would improve your home games in this system, screw off and go play a different gamesystem"? Even if there are parts I would like better if done differently, I like the d100 system as a whole and would like to run games with it, otherwise I wouldn't want to use it at all. Though that seems like an obvious thing. This system already has all kinds of optional mechanics for different purposes and tastes, some of which are partial or full replacements rather than additions. Why would it be so awful to have one more?

Where is the cumbersome exercise in book-keeping coming from? I could see it if you were arguing about trying to save some time for the GM, when he is making up new races - but I would say he should take the time to do it right rather than just slap some numbers on a page without giving it much thought. For the player himself? Well, if the GM has given no indication what the available power range of available races is, and the player shows up with a dragon without consulting the GM, sure, nobody is going to expect that. But really, I would expect if I show up with a Dragon as a starting PC in most RuneQuest games, without consulting the GM first, I will be told: "No. Make Another Character". As a player, the way it would work, is the GM would give me a list of acceptable races (or the most powerful race he is allowing). Each race would have a point-cost which I would have visible/available to me when building my character. For bookkeeping, If I did not choose that most-powerful option, the difference between the race I chose and the maximum powered race allowed gives me what my extra stuff budget is at character creation. Then I would simply spend those on whatever I wanted at the costs they are assigned, and I'm done. So the bookkeeping would consist of subtracting one number from another, and then allocating some additional points. Thats not that much bookkeeping at all. It adds like, 2 extra steps to character creation. Hardly "incredibly cumbersome". If I want to use a race/creature whose point total has not been calculated, then yes, someone would have to calculate that first; which would be an extra step. Punch some numbers into a calculator, possibly some pencil scratch notes on paper. But I don't see any reason the more common options couldn't be pre-calculated in the document, or why the GM couldn't take the time to calculate the point totals of the races he is allowing. I know I would be fine with providing the stats and numbers for whatever aces I intend to allow players to play as in a campaign. Is it as simple as telling the players "Only Humans" or "Any monster you like in the compendium, regardless of player power differences?" obviously not. If you don't care about such power differences, or if you want everyone to play the same species, this system wouldn't really benefit you. If instead, you actually want to have multiple options without any of them just being "better" and making those players much more likely to outshine players who took other options, well - currently there is no real option for that in any d100 variation, so you're SOL. - This is the GM that such a system would be useful to. Particularly if you are the kind of guy who wants to allow say, some or all of the basic 7 D&D races, and/or use a bunch of custom homebrewed races made up for your setting, and want none of them to be objectively worse.

I was under the impression that I had been, what with the tagging of threads with things like [General d100] and the like. That has not removed the confusion.

I can understand the frustration. Similar frustration occurs if you're trying to talk about several games or generic mechanics present in several games and everyone assumes you're referring to the BRP core book.

Hmm. Okay, Sure. I agree that tagging threads when referring to specific games would certainly be helpful in providing clarity. I think any time I've been referring to a specific game in a thread subject I have tagged the thread title. However, in the future I will make efforts to be more diligent so that nobody is unsure what I am talking about. And yes, our gaming backgrounds are quite different. I started gaming just as D&D 3.0 came out, played lots of D&D3.5 and cWoD and Trinity/Aeon/Aberant, picked up Pathfinder, played lots and lots of that, Picked up 4e, played it for about 6 months before I never wanted to play it again, and started to branch out and try other games around when Pathfinder came out, of the ones I played for any real amount of time, first it was nWoD, then Rolemaster, then Unisystem, then Shadowrun4e, then MRQII, RQ6, Mutants & Masterminds, and most recently: Edge of the Empire. I've tried out lots of other systems as well, and read more than that without having yet played them, but those are the ones I have more than a a dozen sessions of experience with.

Thanks. I came across them a couple hours ago. So far I'm liking the condensed skill list. Still digesting the rest.

Hmm. I dont feel a need for a sanity system for my games, but I am interested in hearing more about this ceremonial magic system. What makes it special?

Sure its artificial. I'm not sure I agree with you regarding it being disruptive though, and most other skill based RPGs I've seen make some attempt at it (all versions of WoD, & Warhammer 40k rpg, frex). I would argue it results in less situations where players are feeling overshadowed and less situations where some players feel they're carrying around dead weight that doesn't contribute enough. Both of those situations are unfun. You couldn't pay me to play AD&D. Its so clunky and badly designed. ugh. lol. Well. okay, not quite true. I would probably play it if you were paying me to. But the game balance discussion is off-topic for the thread, which is regarding forum renaming/creation.

It is really unfortunate that they recycled the names. What else would you have me call it though? lol. Yeah, I didn't play d100 back in the day. I started gaming around 1999-2000, and didn't start playing things other than D&D & cWoD until 2008-2009. My knowledge of the older games comes from me hunting them down on ebay/amazon/noble knight, finding them in the used bin at my FLGS, and PDF purchases. For me when it comes to d100 games, I am almost entirely looking from present releases back. I started d100 with MRQ2.

You may be right. I think allowing it to be treated like a race (zoom, not as in racism) is also not a good idea. I think I will just hand out x% or x% in dice, as well as x% for reallocating things; and notify the players at the beginning what the final power cap will be (total and per-skill) and that once that final cap has been met, they will only continue to receive the x% for reallocating things. Perhaps skill points over 100 will take multiple points each to make up for the fact that you aren't rolling and risking failure anymore to increase them beyond 100. That's fine though. Which means I will need to only allow races that I've pre-balanced out at character creation, and that I will have to come up with a way to balance them before presenting them to the players for character creation (unless they all are playing the same race).

So I'm fairly familiar with Legend/RQ5, RQ6, and MW; but I'm not at all familiar with OQ2 or Renaissance. If I've got MW and Legend and Renaissance, is there any reason for me to pick up OQ2 or Renaissance? What do OQ2 and Renaissance bring to the table? What are the major differences? What are the new mechanics and options? Would I get anything out of them? I guess to sum up: Keeping in mind that I've already got a couple d100 systems; Sell me on OQ2 and Renaissance.

Well. I've been thinking of some other cases of different rates of advancement, and I dont think I've ever seen it work out well. The guys advancing slower eventually fall behind and never catch up. If they start out ahead, it starts out in their favor, and eventually tips against them forever. If the goal is to achieve parity, they'd need a really steep penalty for the other players to catch up quickly, then that penalty would have to be removed. I think it would be very tricky. Ideally, the goal is to measure their power level from the start, so that if they're more powerful, you can advance the other characters until it evens out before the game starts, and then just continue as usual. I asked my friend, unfortunately he no longer has the spreadsheets we worked on (and I misremembered; they were for Legend, but it was around the time RQ6 came out).

Ah. I think you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting point buy for characters. I'm suggesting a point-buy system used solely for designing new races, such that the attributes and/or special abilities a race has can be meaningfully weighed and measured and compared, and the available/common player races in your campaign or setting can be tailored to a specific power level. Frequency of abilities/weaknesses should be taken into consideration just as much as power should be. Basically, a tool for the GM to use when he has new parts he wants/needs for his setting. As for how to handle/compensate for disparities between existing races, that's a different can of worms entirely. Bonus starting skills could be one approach (as mentioned above), or you could look into some other options.

Hmm. I think I agree with Chaot here, at least, in theory. I don't think different advancement rates are a good idea, and that includes the ones baked into the system (int bonus on skill improvement rolls, cha for extra skill improvement rolls). I think in the future I will either go with just handing out x% to the players to put where they want, handing out x d6%s to advance skills, or something else along those lines. People keep bringing up "Well, there are social advantages to being human since humans run the world"–That is very rarely the case in games I play. I think that may be partly an age thing, but frequently humans make up 1/8 to 1/4 of the large cities. When not running "multicultural marvels of racial equality" I'm inclined to use other different races as the dominant race more often than humans. Odds are the dominant race (if it exists) is likely to change from one campaign to the next (and in our groups, a campaign generally lasts somewhere from 4-10 months). So if this campaign is human dominant, I likely won't run another human dominant one for several years. Maybe I'll do one that's elf-dominant, with humans as a primitive minority group (or perhaps a more numerous but less powerful group). Or one that's got different empires ruled by different species, where humans have one empire out of like, 12. Or perhaps a world ruled by devils, or extraplanar beings of law and chaos. Why would I want to go with the same world premise every time? Without that social advantages you describe, humans kind of suck. So I'd like to be able to measure the things, such that I can have comparable-powered races in my games, and such that I an introduce new or different races as needed, for different campaigns. As for how to balance different races for when playing in a setting where a multi-species party isn't a travelling freakshow where the majority of the world favors the crappies race, I think in the end the best approach would involve some kind of point-buy system with prices which based on math and educated-guesswork. A point-buy system which is iterative in design–by which I mean that it's not a publish and you're done thing, but instead done as an ongoing playtest until balance problems stop cropping up. I think a friend of mine might still have a rough spreadsheet we worked on to do something like this for a RQ6 game he ran a couple years back, shortly after it was released. I'll ask him.