Nightshade Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 First edtion SB was much worse that RQ though. THe vartiable armor tened to cut the AP in half, and the major wound rule (take 1/2 you CON/HP form a single hit) made dropping people very common. I'm not so sure; remember that prior to RQ3, armor only went from about 1-7 in RQ; and in RQ1 the impale rule was max value + rolled value. That meant that even a relatively weak impaling weapon (a self-bow, say) did an impale of 1d6+8; and RQ1 impales happened 25% of hits. So you could easily have a starting character running around in 2 points of armor who suddenly found himself taking 12 points in the head, taking off 2, and still collecting 10 from what was left. Now once you got into serious levels of Protection, that wasn't as unfortunate, but criticals happened more as you advanced, and there you could well be collecting a longspear or composite bow arrow for 1d10+12. Past your armor. If that didn't hit a limb, that was pretty much it. Toss in the extra damage die for master quality weapons, or the massive damage bonus for demon weapons (a +5D6 damage bonus was not uncommon), and anyone who wasn't wearing demon armor wasn't long for the world. Well, the demon weapons and armor were quite ugly, but then, you could well be talking by moderate levels in RQ1 someone with Bladesharp 4 or 5 and a damage bonus of 1D6. With the typical 1D10+1 bastardsword, that translated into 1d10+6+1d6. That might not be up to the demon blades, but it was more than sufficient to do someone in on a critical even without an impale. That didn't even get into the issue of involvement of exotic rune magic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Twig Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Speaking of magic. I was wondering how it played with the variable armor. Does a Protection 4 (if there is such a thing in the BRP rules) still add +4 armor? Quote The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970) 30/420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 But the warrior isn't exploiting the weakness; fate is. A defender will know where his weak spots are, and try to cover them. An attacker tries to get past that defense into the weak spot. How to tell if he succeeds? Your skill roll. How to tell if he hit a weak spot? Your damage roll. How to tell if you really exploited the chink in the armor? Did you crit? So actually, yes, RQ DOES offer the ability to target weak spots in the armor. It actually assumes that that is what you are doing, because why wouldn't you? You don't get a 50/50 shot at hitting a weakness in the armor, you get a 5% chance. Really, anyone who weakens armor is someone who is revealing that they don't use encumbrance rules. It's already there; no need to reinvent the wheel. Yes, it does tend to devolve into a contest of who gets a crit first, or who gets exhausted first, but isn't that what a combat wearing armor really is? A test of endurance? If your dagger could penetrate a breastplate, the armorer would make thicker breastplate - and not just in places - ALL OVER! That's kind of the point of armor, Right? THe problem is, that NO it's isn't what combat against someone wearing armor really is. Real world skill tends to win out over armor. However in BRP damage means that the warrior still isn't exploiting his advantage. The vast majority of results in BRP are "normal" hits that do "normal" damage. What would be more realistic would be to vary the damage result based on the quality of the skill. Crit % are just so low as to make them a fluke rather than a result of skill (at least until you hit Rune Level). But that's hard to do with D100. One thing that BRP doesn't consider is that some hits that don't damage foe CAN affect the way he fights. A flurry of three or four non penetrating hits on the helm or breastplate usually makes a foe go defensive in real combat, rather than wait for his "turn" to attack. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I'm not so sure; remember that prior to RQ3, armor only went from about 1-7 in RQ; and in RQ1 the impale rule was max value + rolled value. That meant that even a relatively weak impaling weapon (a self-bow, say) did an impale of 1d6+8; and RQ1 impales happened 25% of hits. So you could easily have a starting character running around in 2 points of armor who suddenly found himself taking 12 points in the head, taking off 2, and still collecting 10 from what was left. Now once you got into serious levels of Protection, that wasn't as unfortunate, but criticals happened more as you advanced, and there you could well be collecting a longspear or composite bow arrow for 1d10+12. Past your armor. If that didn't hit a limb, that was pretty much it. I'm sure. I ran a LOT of Stormbinrger during my RQ2 days. In RQ, most 8 point hits got lessened through armor so that they didn't drop a foe. Such hits to the limbs, weren't going to be lethal, either. In SB, a 8 point hit, even after armor, usually resulted in a Major wound, taking the foe out of the fight. Plus SB had twice the crtical chance that RQ did. Plus, even if you survived a major wound, there were usually permanent effects that tended to make you easy to kill later. In Rq you didn't have to wroyy about your STR or DEX dropping below the point where you could wield your weapon effectively, or that a loss of CON could lower your hit points or result in a delayed fatality. SB was probably the deadliest version of BRP with the exception of the Morrow Project (revised edition). Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightshade Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Speaking of magic. I was wondering how it played with the variable armor. Does a Protection 4 (if there is such a thing in the BRP rules) still add +4 armor? Its only been used, to the best of my knowledge, in versions of the game that used magic systems too different from RQ for that to be a meaningful question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightshade Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 I'm sure. I ran a LOT of Stormbinrger during my RQ2 days. In RQ, most 8 point hits got lessened through armor so that they didn't drop a foe. Such hits to the limbs, weren't going to be lethal, either. In SB, a 8 point I saw quite a few 8 point hits drop people. All you needed was a torso hit for that to take down an average character; after all, you were usually talking 3-4 point hit locations in the case of anyone but the buff, and it wasn't hard to have 3-5 points of armor. hit, even after armor, usually resulted in a Major wound, taking the foe out of the fight. Plus SB had twice the crtical chance that RQ did. Plus, even if you survived a major wound, there were usually permanent effects that tended to make you easy to kill later. In Rq you didn't have to wroyy about your STR or DEX dropping below the point where you could wield your weapon effectively, or that a loss of CON could lower your hit points or result in a delayed fatality. No, but you did have to deal with the potential for limb loss, which could be in practice as severe, or by the RQ3 period, blood loss. SB was probably the deadliest version of BRP with the exception of the Morrow Project (revised edition). Barring the demon equipment, I'm really just not seeing the huge difference here (well, that and the fact SB armor availability tended more toward the low end more frequently). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Nightshade, Look at it like this. In RQ2, if you hit someone for 5 or 6 ponts, AND got past the parry, armor took off another couple of points, as did protection (fairly common in RQ2), resulting in a minor injury. In Strombringer, once you got past the parry, the armor mght stop some of the damage (or not), and what got through might still be enough for a Major Wound, taking the foe out of the fight. The major wounds (high damage vs low armor roll) came up a lot more often than the sever or location take out results in RQ. Plus, with RQ, there was all sorts of magic to help protect or heal a combatant, so a disabled or even severed limb (heck even Death in some cases) was a recoverable injury. In Stormbringer there was no such option. A lost limb (thanks to amajor wound) stayed lost, since there was no "Healing 6" , and the injuried mostly relied on first aid and natural healing. PLus SB1 had cultural stat mods that made the game even more lethal. A human with a 2D6 Damage bonus was possible. Even the max stat limit of 100 was significantly higher than RQ2's "max+min" method. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightshade Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Nightshade, Look at it like this. In RQ2, if you hit someone for 5 or 6 ponts, AND got past the parry, armor took off another couple of points, as did protection (fairly common in RQ2), resulting in a minor injury. But that's an issue of the presence of magic in the system, not an aspect of the combat and armor systems themselves. And 5-6 points was fairly low in our experience; the expected damage was usually closer to 8, and that was assuming no impaling weapons were present. In Strombringer, once you got past the parry, the armor mght stop some of the damage (or not), and what got through might still be enough for a Major Wound, taking the foe out of the fight. On the other hand, while the roll means you could get very little protection, you could also get rather more than you got in RQ1 and 2; 6 points of armor was a fair bit, barring magic, in RQ1. In fact, it was full plate as I recall. The major wounds (high damage vs low armor roll) came up a lot more often than the sever or location take out results in RQ. I might believe it was more common than severs, but not than location take outs, which I usually saw multiple times in a given fight. Plus, with RQ, there was all sorts of magic to help protect or heal a combatant, so a disabled or even severed limb (heck even Death in some cases) was a recoverable injury. In Stormbringer there was no such option. A lost limb (thanks to amajor wound) stayed lost, since there was no "Healing 6" , and the injuried mostly relied on first aid and natural healing. I agree the magic made a difference, but that's an issue of magical availability; as I said, it doesn't have anything to do with armor or the combat system. PLus SB1 had cultural stat mods that made the game even more lethal. A human with a 2D6 Damage bonus was possible. Even the max stat limit of 100 was significantly higher than RQ2's "max+min" method. You obviously never encountered PC ogres, trolls and even great trolls in RQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMS Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The mechanic was first introduced in Stormbringer, a game where a character can start as a blind, limbless, leprous beggar from Nadsokor, or as an assassin-noble-sorcerer from Melnibone... variable armor is a perfect extension of that. I played that beggar in a SB game. He was seriously messed up before the game even started. He survived the adventure, took his cut, and settled down to a kingly (from a beggar's POV) retirement. I enjoyed the small number of sessions with him. I do agree that the variable armor does fit in very well with the whole take on SB 1-3.... I also played a Pan Tangian Sorcerer who I played for a long time. He became very powerful with extremely powerful demon armor and weapons. He died to a critical (01) from a lowly sailer on a ship one evening. Variable armor had nothing to do with his demise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMS Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 So actually, yes, RQ DOES offer the ability to target weak spots in the armor. It actually assumes that that is what you are doing, because why wouldn't you? I was anticipating this argument and it's fine. I don't even completely disagree with it, so won't waste time refuting any of it. Really, anyone who weakens armor is someone who is revealing that they don't use encumbrance rules. SB doesn't have encumbrance rules. RQ2 had excellent rules that somehow got dropped for a mess that was the RQ3 method. It's already there; no need to reinvent the wheel. Yes, it does tend to devolve into a contest of who gets a crit first, or who gets exhausted first, but isn't that what a combat wearing armor really is? A test of endurance? If your dagger could penetrate a breastplate, the armorer would make thicker breastplate - and not just in places - ALL OVER! That's kind of the point of armor, Right? Yeah, but that drags out and is extremely boring. Of course the key here is to have a warrior pumped up enough to blow through plate armor like it's not even there. My one longterm RQ character (the one time I got to play instead of GM) could easily go through a shield, plate armor, and still deal a mortal wound...unless the person on the other end had a LOT of magical protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorloc Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 THe problem is, that NO it's isn't what combat against someone wearing armor really is. Real world skill tends to win out over armor. However in BRP damage means that the warrior still isn't exploiting his advantage. The vast majority of results in BRP are "normal" hits that do "normal" damage. What would be more realistic would be to vary the damage result based on the quality of the skill. Crit % are just so low as to make them a fluke rather than a result of skill (at least until you hit Rune Level). But that's hard to do with D100. One thing that BRP doesn't consider is that some hits that don't damage foe CAN affect the way he fights. A flurry of three or four non penetrating hits on the helm or breastplate usually makes a foe go defensive in real combat, rather than wait for his "turn" to attack. Do you really think that there's some way to combine the combat systems of Rolemaster with BRP? Quote The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done." George Carlin (1937 - 2008) _____________ (92/420) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickMiddleton Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 If I was that bothered I'd prefer to see variable armour done as follows: fixed - variable 1 - 1d2 2 - 1d3 3 - 2d2 4 - 2d3 5 - 2d4 6 - 2d5 7 - 2d6 8 - 2d6+1 which a) puts the average on a par with the fixed value, and second puts all remotely substantial armour (3+) on a multiple dice roll, thus biasing the armour value significantly towards that average value. What always bothered me about some of the SB values was that they were single dice, with entirely flat distributions. Having fought steel weapon re-enactment battles in full harness, that variability flatly contradicts the subjective experience of where the variability lay in the outcomes of combat - one could, in the vast majority of circumstances, rely on the full harness (within its limitations - mostly visibility, audibility and heat retention), it was ones own skill (and ones opponents) and our mutual luck with our weapons that determined if, where and how hard we hit each other... But mostly, if I want "gritty" I use fixed AV and hit locations, if I want slightly more heroic I use variable armour and MWL, and that has always seemed to work out with my previous "lash-up" BRP, so I see no reason they won't work with the new BRP. Cheers, Nick Middleton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiGhost Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Variable armor points, like in Stormbringer, seems to be a realistic system, but I have not used it so far because of the allready long time combat takes. With hit locations gone (one roll less), I'm considering adding variable AP. Those of you who have played with this system allready, what are the weaknesses and strengths? How does it affect gameplay? SGL. The system as used in SB 5th ed runs really smoothly and works very well, also the interaction of the Variable AP rules and the severe wounds rules makes for rather unpredictable outcomes to the ends of fights. All of which is welcome IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiGhost Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 I find variable armor points to be terribly unrealistic and they are one of the reasons that I never did get into Stormbringer. Depends on what you actually mean by "realistic". I for example think they are quite realistic in their outcomes, but they are less "detailed" than say RQ2 or 3 in terms of specific results. All in all variable armour with severe wound thresholds works well and is far quicker to run than hit locations with set armour is, as always YMMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 If I was that bothered I'd prefer to see variable armour done as follows: fixed - variable 1 - 1d2 2 - 1d3 3 - 2d2 4 - 2d3 5 - 2d4 6 - 2d5 7 - 2d6 8 - 2d6+1 :thumb: I think I'd go with that too. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Do you really think that there's some way to combine the combat systems of Rolemaster with BRP? Yeah, actually I do. I used to convert ICE stuff to RQ in the past, and while it's class and level stuff is more D&Dish, the actualy numbers you use during play are farily RQ compatable. For instance, a +55 skill in RM converts fairly closely to a 55% (or maybe more like a 80%, since RQ has higher base chances) skill in RQ. For the most part you could use the Arms Law weapon tables if you wanted to, and do something like divide concussion hits by 3-5 or so to get RQ type damages (look at the max unarmored damage in RM and find the k factor to convert that to the max weapon damage in RQ). You could even just treat concusion hits as fatirue, and use crticals for HP damage (something like 3xthe letter code, or simply use the hits taken from a crit as real and divide by 3ish to get the HP result). Now, while you could do that, I don't think I'd want to. There are a few things in RM that I like (for instance armor making you easier to hit, but harder to seriously wound) but for the most part I think the RM damage tables are as much fantasy as Dwarves or Elves.Overall I find RM way to chart heavy. I still have the 6 panel, doubled sided GM screen I made for playing MERP years ago, with most of the tables I needed to run the game, and MERP is the scaled down version of RM! Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Paul Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 RMS wrote: I imply no such thing. However, there is no doubt that armor varies in strength from spot-to-spot (basic physics there) and that it only covers a portion of the body throughout most of history. You give some examples, but those are very late examples of armor. There's 3000 years of hard armors that precede those that don't cover the complete body. As late as the Norman invasion of England, there are significant portions of the body not protected by heavy armor. This is two different concerns. I have serious doubts as to the validity of your first point especially as expressed in the variable armor rule. I suspect that anything that would be expressed as a difference in a homogenous material would be far below BRP’s granularity. I don’t want to have to roll for the shot traps in a musculata cuirass catching a thrust for instance. Likewise while there may be some bad links in a hamata it certainly is not enough to warrant the kind of wide results that the present mechanic exhibits. I reject the first idea that a homogenous material has to have a weak spot relative to the rest of the material. It does not have to be any weaker in any portion of it than any other. This idea in modern peoples stems from the conceit that if it was done long ago it had to be an inferior product. There may be differences between pieces such as a helm and a vambrace but the relative thickness of material in a piece of armor has been proven effective by battle and the expected frequency with which that location will be struck. Claiming the variable armor rule simulates this is unreasonable as that mechanic makes a mockery of materials science. I don’t believe that the strength of the material varies enough to bother with representing in a game with the resolution of BRP. Hamatas, squamatas, and plumatas as well as nearly all medieval armor have very even construction to my knowledge unless they were deliberately produced as shoddy products. Second is the idea of incomplete coverage. The mechanic pimps attackers and defenders depending on which armor is used. It does a bad job of representing proportional coverage by homogenous (all one value but not in every location) and mixed value armors. For instance arms and legs make up 70% of the target area in BRP. Give someone 2 points on the limbs and 6 points elsewhere and derive the weighted average which is 3.2. So why should the random roll ever give results of more than 6 or less than three? I would be comfortable just using the weighted average knowing that it was reliably pegged to both the coverage and the effectiveness of the armor. Mentioned by others is a third idea that the variable armor represents the angle of attack of the weapon or other innumerable factors. If you strike the armor the same way each time there should be no difference in how it resists the action of the weapon. I posit that the weapon is the active factor in this and that it already has a mechanic that represents striking a material for outcomes from the best to the worst, namely the weapon’s damage roll. I do not see any reason to further penalize the attacker by making him face armor that randomly gets stronger nor the defender for the reverse. RMS writes: IMO, I never, ever think of RQ/BRP and late medieval at the same time. The two don't go together, so heavy armor should have significant open spots. Also, what you are describing is a very, very limited time period compared to the hundreds of years of armor that preceded it, so I'd consider it an outlier that should be the exception rather than used to form the rule. The plate being mentioned comes from the description of Full Plate in SB which is modeled on European armors. It is specifically covering everything but gaps at the joints. Since the random armor mechanic comes from this game I thought it meet to deal with this example and the logical inconsistencies of it. It is the example that is used to prove the rule. A different but no less pertinent example is a futuristic power armor that may not have a uniform AP but does cover everything. The idea that part of the variability is open spots is therefore negated. Regardless of our personal tastes, for BRP to fulfill its mandate of being useable for any genre it must be capable of dealing with the institutions in those genres. It cannot be limited to only doing well in a few. Re: MRQ’s rule for bypassing armor- Too low a penalty in my estimation if it doesn’t involve immobilizing the opponent. Re: MRQ’s rule for skill loss in armor- Yuck! Jason writes: “The mechanic was first introduced in Stormbringer, a game where a character can start as a blind, limbless, leprous beggar from Nadsokor, or as an assassin-noble-sorcerer from Melnibone... variable armor is a perfect extension of that.” And Stormbringer is ruled by the idea that pure random chaos infests everything. As such this mechanic fits beautifully with that theme. However it is not my cup of tea and the math doesn’t support its use as a mechanic that gives equivalent results to using hit locations and fixed values. As a mechanic that provides more tension at the table it does fine. I just don’t like getting pimped in that fashion. I agree very much with Nick Middleton’s assesment and I have very similar experiences to his. Several people have lauded the variable armor rule for speeding play. How does the fixed armor rule slow things down? Would a weighted average value help speed play? Quote __________________ Joseph Paul "Nothing partys like a rental" explains the enduring popularity of prostitution.:eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badcat Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 There seems to be a difference between 'feels realistic' and 'is realistic', a big one that I never really noticed before. Because it is a game we are talking about I will continue to go with 'feels realistic and is playable'. It works and I have seen a lot of 'is realistic' games go by and be forgotten. One puzzler to me, always, is how D&D, which is not realistic in either sense, managed to be top dog all this time...but that is a subject for another thread, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trifletraxor Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 One puzzler to me, always, is how D&D, which is not realistic in either sense, managed to be top dog all this time...but that is a subject for another thread, I guess. The old "Why isn't..." -thread! I would like to go to general hit points only to speed up play, but have some poblem with what to do with players who want to carry different armor all over their body. Variable armor points could help with that, but some good points have been made against it too. Fixed armor would not work good with something else than full suits of armor... unless locations where brought back for AP only. Hmm... would that work? [table=head]d20|location|AP 19-20|head|___ 16-18|left arm|___ 13-15|right arm|___ 10-12|chest|___ 7-9|abdom|___ 4-6|left leg|___ 1-3|right leg|___[/table] General hit points = ___-____ x1/2 hit point damage in one hit = old zero or below x1+ hit point damage in one hit = sever/full maiming (death if vital location) Unconsciousness at zero hit points, with death if not a POW x5 roll is made every round, or at - 1/2 CON hit points. All NPCs would wear full suits, and NPCs & PCs with full suits would only need to roll hit locations if major or critical hits applied. Less bookmarking with HPs. Is it an idea or am I reaching here? SGL. EDIT: One idea could also be to view the point of death as either instant or the point beyond no return (too damaged for healing to have effect) - which would give opponents some time for gurgling and spraying blood before keeling over. RQ fights had a lot of "instant" deaths. Quote Ef plest master, this mighty fine grub! 116/420. High Priest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 [font=Times New I reject the first idea that a homogenous material has to have a weak spot relative to the rest of the material. It does not have to be any weaker in any portion of it than any other. This idea in modern peoples stems from the conceit that if it was done long ago it had to be an inferior product. There may be differences between pieces such as a helm and a vambrace but the relative thickness of material in a piece of armor has been proven effective by battle and the expected frequency with which that location will be struck. Claiming the variable armor rule simulates this is unreasonable as that mechanic makes a mockery of materials science. I don’t believe that the strength of the material varies enough to bother with representing in a game with the resolution of BRP. Hamatas, squamatas, and plumatas as well as nearly all medieval armor have very even construction to my knowledge unless they were deliberately produced as shoddy products. You can reject RMS's point, but it is true. For one thing, few materlals are made to be "homogeneous" other than milk. Take a lot a modern engineering, everything has points that are stressed. Even if you went with a material that was strong, there is the fact that things like the type and angel of attack made a big difference is how effective something is in stopping an attack. Fighting materials need to balance between being hard enough to take the hit, and being soft/flexible enough to absorb the impact. And those weak points that you don't want to worrying about, trapping trusting attack and the like, were exactly what the warriors on the battlefield were worrying about. It doesn't really matter how well the plate protects if you don't have a helm on. At the local armory, one thing worth noting is how the eye slits kept getting smaller over the years. You really have tunnel vision with most medieval helms. But if you didn't, you take a sword, spearpoint, or arrow in the eye. So, a variable protection system makes sense. Especially if you are using general HP. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badcat Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Yes, it will work. I have tried just about everything suggested in this thread, and finally have come to the point where I just use SB1 major wound/variable armor. I can still put stuff like +1 armor or separate pieces in the game without breaking it...either as I have already stated or by saying the base value is body armor, and helm, greaves, etc. add bonuses of one kind or another. There are many ways to work BRP. The ones I have no patience with are the ones that complicate the rules or try to copy an entirely different system, such as GURPS (esp. ads/disads, fate points, and other 'metamechanics').That stuff is unnecessary. What you just suggested will work as well as anything. I'd say it is whatever you are comfortable with and can get your players to go along with...:thumb: But this forum is beginning to make me wonder if the new book is going to be worth my bothering with. I pretty much have all the rules I want, so I am beginning to question why I even need another copy of what are essentially the same rules I already use in one form or another. Maybe I should just crank up my computer and compile my own houserules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trifletraxor Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 But this forum is beginning to make me wonder if the new book is going to be worth my bothering with. I pretty much have all the rules I want, so I am beginning to question why I even need another copy of what are essentially the same rules I already use in one form or another. Maybe I should just crank up my computer and compile my own houserules. I don't think anyone believe the new book is going to reinvent anything. If it was only the rules, it would not be that much point in buying it, we old grognards allready have rules that we use. The main part is the supplements that will come - finally something new for BRP, our favorite system! And a generic book will also be nice, at it will provide the support needed for trying out supplements for settings we haven't tried before. It's a bit like, why would you buy RQ3 if you have RQ2? Some new good rules to use hopefully, and supporting the new era of BRP. SGL. Quote Ef plest master, this mighty fine grub! 116/420. High Priest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightshade Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 I don't think anyone believe the new book is going to reinvent anything. If it was only the rules, it would not be that much point in buying it, we old grognards allready have rules that we use. Well, truth is, the refinement and placement of them all in one place is a useful thing. I have some BRP books, but by no means all of them, because some of their topics didn't interest me. Having the useful crunchy bits available to me in one place _is_ actually what I'm pretty much looking for. I'm unlikely to use it for anything but a homebrewed setting anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Cat, IT is getting all the rules collected in one place and updated, with spot rules, suggestions and enhancements that make it worth it. Plus, like the bug said, what is to come. I've got RQ/RQ3/CoC/WoW/Superworld/5 different editions of Strombringer/etc.(I even got back up copies of some stuff). There probably isn't much RQ based RPG stuff I haven't seen if not bought. Yet having a single book that I can use to run a campaign has it's appeal. Heck, I even am working on my own BRP variant, and am just waiting for feedback from the someone who I emailed some stuff too (perhaps I should have "Yelmailoed" it instead of "Emaled" it? ) Besides, from what I sounds like, BRP seems to be turning into something similar to what you were using for your house system anyway, so you can save youself the time and trouble by forking over a few bucks to Chaosium and let them do it for you. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorloc Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 If I take a fixed-torso robot and put a _(weapon)_ in its hand, then secure a suit of armor to a post, such that the weapon always swings with the same force, and strikes the same exact spot, then it should do the exact same damage, yes? So, weapon damage should be fixed, based on the weapon, an (possibly variable) add for strength, then a reduction for armor in the location less a variable penalty based on movement of the target. God, I'm getting bored just describing this... ...I think I watch too much Mythbusters... Quote The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done." George Carlin (1937 - 2008) _____________ (92/420) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.