WFRP Style Fate points in BRP?

[Simlasa]

Yes, I also worry about the lethality of BRP/RQ outside fantasy settings - i.e. without Divine Intervention, magical Healing/Resurrection etc.

So I have tried a sort-of Fate Points system, giving characters 1% Dodge per FP (that's all - they can't spend 'em on anything, so no re-rolls, resurrections or story-fiddling). I'm not entirely happy with it, but some mechanism like that (which doesn't refer to Holy/Magic powers - just "Luck") might help make such settings playable. Something like RQ2 Defence, perhaps?

This sounds to be in the realm of doable to me... it's not revisionist and merely addresses the fact that anyone who behaves that way and doesn't get dead must be a bit charmed in terms of luck.

And it leaves in place the possibility that you might still be heading for Boot Hill every time you reach for your gun.

Exactly, if you want a "Heroic" with a capital H game then Hero points are a good option to use. The clue is in the mechanic name

Which is why I still say it's a matter of taste. If I don't want 'Heroic' I can ignore the Hero points option...

I kinda don't give a crap about nitpicking historical accuracy either... I've chased my own tail over that sort of snark hunt too many times already.

Something in the general ball park is good enough for me.

[Enpeze]

I think it also has to do with the setting you are gaming in. For instance, some of us have been discussing using BRP for an Old West game. Problem is, weapon damagfes are high (actually too high) and there is no armor. So most fights will endup with someone dying after the second of third shot, with little in the way the can do for defense (Dodge is both low and limited).

A Hero Point option is one way around that. Otherwise the setting really isn't playable. You will simply end up loosing too many PCs.

I think BRP is not the right system for a Western game if you play it out of the box. At least not if this western game should be along the lines of some unrealistic genre movies. For such games I would suggest to double hitpoints for PCs. Should improve their survival rate. (not that I would be ever interested to play in such a heresy )

[Enpeze]

Not really. Even with a low amount of gunfighting, the results don't change, just the frequency. Sooner or later weapons will be used, at least somewhat. Once that happens it is simply a case of mathematics. With no armor to speak of an no parry, and limited dodging, the casualty rate will be high. Much higher than it was historically.

You are right. The casuality rate was not high. But rather because there have not been many situations with duellists and gunfighting in high noon. The whole bloodthirsty genre is an invention of cheesy pulp mags and some clever Italians. So if you play a "western game" then you just copy cheap movies and comics but not how it really was to live in the 19th wild west.

[Atgxtg]

You are right. The casuality rate was not high. But rather because there have not been many situations with duellists and gunfighting in high noon. The whole bloodthirsty genre is an invention of cheesy pulp mags and some clever Italians. So if you play a "western game" then you just copy cheap movies and comics but not how it really was to live in the 19th wild west.

I grant you that the "shootout at noon" os mostly fiction. But at for the moetality rates of gunsdhots, that is also a fiction caused by the pulps, Hollywood, TV, etc.

THe information avaiable from real world shootings, both in the Old West and in the modrn era show that very few gunshots actually kill someone right away. Instant kills are limited to within the crtical hit % and most other deaths occur later. THat is actually one of the problems with shootouts. Unless you can severe the guys spine, he is going to have at least 10 seconds of so to act before he passes out from blood lost. And that is the "best case" scenario.

So if you want to play "how it really was" then you need to reduce the instant kill rates.

[Enpeze]

So if you want to play "how it really was" then you need to reduce the instant kill rates.

Well if playing with hitlocations, instant kills are not that often. Except you hit a vital location, you dont die with one pistol shot. And if you hit a vital location there is a good chance that you dont die and only be out of action.

Another story is if play it without locations of course.

[Atgxtg]

Well if playing with hitlocations, instant kills are not that often. Except you hit a vital location, you dont die with one pistol shot. And if you hit a vital location there is a good chance that you dont die and only be out of action.

Another story is if play it without locations of course.

Yup. That's why I was in the "hit locations make BRP Less deadly" camp. Even if someone is "gonna die" they usually have a few rounds where they can be saved through First Aid.

Of course Major Wounds will do the same sort of thing for BRP.

[Simlasa]

yeah, the number of instant kills for guns (outside of assasination/execution type situations) oughtta be low... with an aftermath of having to deal with the non-deadly wounds that might turn deadly if not tended to.

I'm cool with hit locations for helping that along... rather than blocking the blows with fate points.

[Enpeze]

Yup. That's why I was in the "hit locations make BRP Less deadly" camp. Even if someone is "gonna die" they usually have a few rounds where they can be saved through First Aid.

Of course Major Wounds will do the same sort of thing for BRP.

But my argumentation is based on the assumption that in order to play a cinematic western game you probably only need to double the amount of hitpoints for PCs to achieve the effect you want and not to introduce fate points while letting the hitpoints as they are.

Your argument was that lethality rate in wild west was historically not so high (indirectly saying the BRP is too deadly to be historically accurate) and that fate points would correct this problem. Which led me make the comment that this true but only because there have been not many duels in history and that the "western games" which your improvement suggestion is adressed to, are purely pulp and cinematic and thus not much historical. (indirectly saying that I think your assumption that a "western game" should be historically accurate by reducing the lethality of BRP is not right)

[Nightshade]

But my argumentation is based on the assumption that in order to play a cinematic western game you probably only need to double the amount of hitpoints for PCs to achieve the effect you want and not to introduce fate points while letting the hitpoints as they are.

The problem is that solution creates its own problems, and doesn't address the fact that even in a _non_ cinematic game there's problems here; almost any Western game is going to expect a shootout a time or two unless its completely noncombat oriented, and as I've noted in the past, BRP either is overly forgiving or unforgiving; there's not a lot of middle ground. Without either hit locations or some type of major wound system, its overly forgiving to single strikes/shots, which are often simply incapable of killing someone; with them, a single bit of bad luck and you're done. The lack of armor and paranormal healing in a setting inflates the latter enormously.

So unless people are really prepared for sudden death any time a combat starts with firearms (in fact, unless they expect it) this is going to be a problem even in avowedly non-cinematic games.

[Atgxtg]

But my argumentation is based on the assumption that in order to play a cinematic western game you probably only need to double the amount of hitpoints for PCs to achieve the effect you want and not to introduce fate points while letting the hitpoints as they are.

Your argument was that lethality rate in wild west was historically not so high (indirectly saying the BRP is too deadly to be historically accurate) and that fate points would correct this problem. Which led me make the comment that this true but only because there have been not many duels in history and that the "western games" which your improvement suggestion is adressed to, are purely pulp and cinematic and thus not much historical. (indirectly saying that I think your assumption that a "western game" should be historically accurate by reducing the lethality of BRP is not right)

It isn't that BRP is too deadly to be historically accurate, it is that BRP is killing people too quickly to be historically accurate. The majority of people who have died in battle, actually died after the battle. Relatively few drop dead on the spot.

And while there weren't that many "Western Shootouts" (the best count I've seen was 16, and there were some duels but they were a bit different), there is plenty of data available from the Civil War. Technically speaking gangrene killed more soldier than gunfire.

In BRP once a wound has been inflicted, damage rolled, and the effects applied that particular "injury" is over. The player doesn't have to worry about it coming back to haunt him. There is little chance for a delayed fatality. Basically in BRP if you can get someone to a Doctor, the wound wasn't lethal in the first place. There is a bunch of info on terminal wound ballistics and it all points to dispelling the myth that guns usually kill right away.

Based on real world data, especially with pistols. Instant kills are within the critical hit chance. Delayed kills, on the other hand are over 90%. That is, nearly any wound will kill you if you don't get it treated properly, the variable is really how long it takes to do so.

[Atgxtg]

yeah, the number of instant kills for guns (outside of assasination/execution type situations) oughtta be low... with an aftermath of having to deal with the non-deadly wounds that might turn deadly if not tended to.

I'm cool with hit locations for helping that along... rather than blocking the blows with fate points.

THat would be my favored way of handling it. I did something like that a few months back for a home brew BRP variant. I do not if others would like it though.

What I did was for wounded characters roll to see how long they had before the wound did them in. The roll was 1D100+CON, and the time was dependent on severity of the wound. Minor wounds could be days, more serious wounds, hours, and then minutes. Proper treatment could prevent the fatality.

[Enpeze]

It isn't that BRP is too deadly to be historically accurate, it is that BRP is killing people too quickly to be historically accurate.

Sorry my fault. I meant exactly this. I used just the wrong words which gave the opposite impression. Maybe I should better proofread my posts before sending.

In BRP once a wound has been inflicted, damage rolled, and the effects applied that particular "injury" is over. The player doesn't have to worry about it coming back to haunt him. There is little chance for a delayed fatality. Basically in BRP if you can get someone to a Doctor, the wound wasn't lethal in the first place. There is a bunch of info on terminal wound ballistics and it all points to dispelling the myth that guns usually kill right away.

This is correct. But I see BRP rather as skeleton and not as "world simulator" capable to simulate every situation. (like IMO the makers of Gurps see their 500p rulemonster)

No, BRP provides the rule tools to simulate many situations but it does not prevent the players from time to time to use common sense for solving a problem and making house rules or adhoc rules. And I think that problems like "haunting injuries", gangrene etc. are falling in this cathegory. Only because they are not adressed yet in the BRP rules, this means not that they should not be part of a BRP game, especially a non-cinematic.

[Atgxtg]

Sorry my fault. I meant exactly this. I used just the wrong words which gave the opposite impression. Maybe I should better proofread my posts before sending.

Ah. That is one thing about the net. Sometimes two people say the same thing differently and it takes time for them to notice.

G. & D. Cook & Company

This is correct. But I see BRP rather as skeleton and not as "world simulator" capable to simulate every situation. (like IMO the makers of Gurps see their 500p rulemonster)

No, BRP provides the rule tools to simulate many situations but it does not prevent the players from time to time to use common sense for solving a problem and making house rules or adhoc rules. And I think that problems like "haunting injuries", gangrene etc. are falling in this cathegory. Only because they are not adressed yet in the BRP rules, this means not that they should not be part of a BRP game, especially a non-cinematic.

[Enpeze]

The problem is that solution creates its own problems, and doesn't address the fact that even in a _non_ cinematic game there's problems here; almost any Western game is going to expect a shootout a time or two unless its completely noncombat oriented, and as I've noted in the past, BRP either is overly forgiving or unforgiving; there's not a lot of middle ground. Without either hit locations or some type of major wound system, its overly forgiving to single strikes/shots, which are often simply incapable of killing someone; with them, a single bit of bad luck and you're done. The lack of armor and paranormal healing in a setting inflates the latter enormously.

Forgiving without hitlocations? Do you mean that its not easy to kill a person with a single shot? Hm. its a little bit more difficult I agree (not regarding impales which are often deadly), but isnt this like in reality, where the most victims of pistol shootings survive a single hit ?(only to die of gangrene) Another story is a rifle, of course. But rifles seem also in BRP very deadly. Eg. 2d8 assault rifle are often enough capable to kill with a single hit a 12 HP person. I am not a wound specialist, but this seems not unplausible.

So unless people are really prepared for sudden death any time a combat starts with firearms (in fact, unless they expect it) this is going to be a problem even in avowedly non-cinematic games.

For cinematic games I agree - never seen Bruce Willis dying suddenly during a fire combat. (only John Travolta but this another story) So I assume not do die in such a miserable way belongs to a real cinematic game.

But why should sudden death be a problem in non-cinematic environments (aka reality)? Or do you want to introduce a third type of game called "reality without sudden PC death"?

[Atgxtg]

Forgiving without hitlocations? Do you mean that its not easy to kill a person with a single shot? Hm. its a little bit more difficult I agree (not regarding impales which are often deadly), but isnt this like in reality, where the most victims of pistol shootings survive a single hit ?(only to die of gangrene) Another story is a rifle, of course. But rifles seem also in BRP very deadly. Eg. 2d8 assault rifle are often enough capable to kill with a single hit a 12 HP person. I am not a wound specialist, but this seems not unplausible.

Enpeze,

I think I agree with him. Without either a hit location system or a major wound system the chances of dropping someone with a light pistol are close to nil. Even CoC5's "Shock" roll makes a big difference.

I think a lot of these system disputes boil down to a gap between which derivative of RQ people have preferred over the years. Depending upon what game and which edition people play really determines what you rules say. Overall I think we are all just playing with different rulebooks.

For instance, in CoC5, a guy with 15 hit points can risk shock by taking 8 or more points in one hit, so a 8 point hit is needed to be able to "Stop" someone, a 13 point hit needed for an auto-unconscious result (2 hp), and 15 points is needed for a kill. CoC1 doesn't have the "Stun" rule so 13 is the magic number. In RQ3, you can take someone out of the fight (for the most part) with a 5 point hit to the head or abdome or a 6 point hit to the chest. You can kill then with twice that.

So, you can drop someone with 15hp in RQ3 with a 5 point hit, someone in CoC1 with a 13 point hit, and someone in CoC5 with a 8 point hit. To kill then you must do 15 points in CoC1 and COC5, but only 10 points in RQ.

So RQ is potentially 50% more lethal than CoC. That's a big difference.

I'm starting to think that the disputes over damage values comes down to this. THose who are RQ3 fans (c'est moi) are looking at the damages from a RQ perspective, while those coming from general HP/major wound games like SB ans CoC see the higher value.

soltakss actually picked up on this awhile back, mentioning how he liked the two damage values (CoC and persumably RQ)that I gave the Peacemaker. THat wasn't my intention, but he was right.

It is probably one reason why Badcat and I don't see eye to eye on firearm damages.

For cinematic games I agree - never seen Bruce Willis dying suddenly during a fire combat. (only John Travolta but this another story) So I assume not do die in such a miserable way belongs to a real cinematic game.

But why should sudden death be a problem in non-cinematic environments (aka reality)? Or do you want to introduce a third type of game called "reality without sudden PC death"?

It depends on the frequency of sudden death. Again I'm pointing to the difference in systems. For a guy with 12 hp the "instant death threshold" with hit locations is only 8 as opposed to 12 in CoC. For a guy with 18 hp the "IDT" is 12 as opposed to 18.

Maybe the two sets of western damages is the right way to go, after all. Or some sort of damage class/sliding scale. So a 1D6 firearm in RQ could be a 1D10 in CoC or some such.

[Nightshade]

Based on real world data, especially with pistols. Instant kills are within the critical hit chance. Delayed kills, on the other hand are over 90%. That is, nearly any wound will kill you if you don't get it treated properly, the variable is really how long it takes to do so.

Of course that isn't a unique problem here; there are a lot of thrusting wounds that almost certainly land in the same category, for much the same reasons.

[Nightshade]

Enpeze,

I think I agree with him. Without either a hit location system or a major wound system the chances of dropping someone with a light pistol are close to nil. Even CoC5's "Shock" roll makes a big difference.

He wasn't the only one to have an incoherent post. I'm actually with a leg on both sides here: without a hit location or major wounds system, some guns are simply _too harmless_. The classic is things like derringers, which used very small caliber bullets. Even with an impale, its way too easy with just a big pool of hit points for it not to be possible to kill someone outright with the gun (the possible exception is with some forms of the crit system which double against unarmored targets, but I tend to have issues with that approach by itself as it produces wierd artifacts where someone with a really trivial level of armor suddenly has a _massive_ advantage over someone without). Even impales don't show any sort of reliable lethality with many lighter pistol rounds.

On the other end, once you do get into hit locations or major wounds, it can be rather too _easy_ to die outright (this is aside your issue of deaths from repeated shots, by the by; I'm just talking on a shot by shot basis) for the good of a campaign. Part of this, as you note, is that BRP doesn't address eventual lethality at all, so a hit is either immediately lethal or it isn't.

So RQ is potentially 50% more lethal than CoC. That's a big difference.

Yeah. But of course I tend to want my cake and eat it too here; I want the basic system to be quasi-realistic, but I also know that having too much PC fatality is usually not a good thing for most campaigns.

[Atgxtg]

Of course that isn't a unique problem here; there are a lot of thrusting wounds that almost certainly land in the same category, for much the same reasons.

Quite true. About the only real reason why casualty rates were higher in the Ancient and Medieval world was that wholesale slaughter and massacres were more common. Any weapon can have a 100% mortality rate if you work at it.

A spear thrust might even be more lethal than a .38 bullet. It makes a bigger wound and causes more bleeding.

The same is true with the 50% difference in what it takes to drop someone due to hit locations.

The main reason why I am adressing it now is that with more archaic weaponry the combat dynamic allows for defense in the form of a parry or dodge, with armor soaking up some of the damage. With firearms we have no body armor to speak of (okay, there were two companies that make flak vests during the Civil War, and a couple of improve stove-plate situations), and Dodge is usually of limited effect if any, depending on what BRP game you are running.

Since "bang-your dead" isn't much fun to play. Especially when a player might not be able to do anything about it (like when the other guy has a higher DEX and Dodge doesn't work against bullets).

[soltakss]

soltakss actually picked up on this awhile back, mentioning how he liked the two damage values (CoC and persumably RQ)that I gave the Peacemaker. THat wasn't my intention, but he was right.

With Hit Locations and Without Hit Locations. Not necessarily RQ and CoC but close enough historically.

The "How can I kill an elephant in one shot?" problem in CoC is due to CoC not having Hit Locations and an elephant having bucketloads of Hit Points. Give it Hit Locations and it becomes killable, although it is still difficult and requires a good shot. Hit Locations are Good. Everyone should use Hit Locations. Look deep into my eyes :shocked:. Everyone should use Hit Locations ...

As a matter of interest, what was your intention? Just to show the CoC stats and a different damage for BRP?

[soltakss]

:focus:

Of course, being easy to kill is the least of the reasons to have Fate Points/Hero Points/Whatever-They-are-Called-In-BRP-Points.

Using them as Plot Points is one of my favourite reasons - Damn, we've been caught by the City Guard and locked up in a prison. But, wait, look, isn't that guard the very same one we rescued from bandits last month? (1 Plot Point) Isn't that guard the brother of the person we rescued from bandits last month? (2 Plot Points) Don't you remember when we rescued those people from bandits last month, isn't that guard one of them? (Never actually did it but seems like a reasonable backstory event - 4 Plot Points) Isn't that a nasty storm? What if a lightning bolt came and smashed the wall down for us? (8 Plot Points)

Rerolling a really bad or unfortunate roll to help gameplay in crisis situations is also another useful way of using them. I even allow them to be used when rolling for Experience - it makes the players happy and soaks them up quite nicely.

Of course, I fully understand how people can think of them as cheating in some way, as you are rerolling dice or affecting what actually happened. But, quite a lot of the time the same people that dislike Fate/Hero Points have no problems with rolling dice secretly or fudging dice rolls. But, that's not cheating!!!

[Atgxtg]

With Hit Locations and Without Hit Locations. Not necessarily RQ and CoC but close enough historically.

The "How can I kill an elephant in one shot?" problem in CoC is due to CoC not having Hit Locations and an elephant having bucketloads of Hit Points. Give it Hit Locations and it becomes killable, although it is still difficult and requires a good shot. Hit Locations are Good. Everyone should use Hit Locations. Look deep into my eyes :shocked:. Everyone should use Hit Locations ...

Elephant are barely killable without hit locations. You just need an impale and a 3D6+4 elephant gun.

I think the difficult with firearms is that BRP sort of glosses over the most significant factor in firearm damage. Shot placement. We do have differernt levels of success but since only 20% of success are specials or better it isn't something that a character can control.

One idea I was thinking of was to allow a character who tooke the called shot penalty to boost his damage. Instead of just shooting the elephant, aiming for the heart. THe same who be useful for something like a pocket pistol. Maybe rolling at half ability for aiming but getting an impale.

As a matter of interest, what was your intention? Just to show the CoC stats and a different damage for BRP?

NO, to show why there seems to be a split over firearm damage ratings. What can stop someone with hit locations and what can stop someone without are really too different things.

From some of the posts I've been reading I starting to see that the RQ players and the CoC/Eleric players are really playing two different games, and I think that is partially responsible for some of the friction.

[Atgxtg]

He wasn't the only one to have an incoherent post. I'm actually with a leg on both sides here: without a hit location or major wounds system, some guns are simply _too harmless_. The classic is things like derringers, which used very small caliber bullets. Even with an impale, its way too easy with just a big pool of hit points for it not to be possible to kill someone outright with the gun (the possible exception is with some forms of the crit system which double against unarmored targets, but I tend to have issues with that approach by itself as it produces wierd artifacts where someone with a really trivial level of armor suddenly has a _massive_ advantage over someone without). Even impales don't show any sort of reliable lethality with many lighter pistol rounds.

Interestingly enough that isn't entirely unrealistic. Pocket pistols and derringers has a well deserved reputation for being almost equally dangerous to those on either end. Killing someone with one usually takes a very lucky shot, a severed blood vessel, and time.

The hard thing about BRP though is that because it has hit points, there is a numerical rating that must be reached to kill a character, and a weapon that doesn't hit that rating just can't kill with one shot. Realistically, killing someone with a .25 or .32 caliber pistol with one shot is very very rare, but remotely possible. That isn't always the case in a game though.

On the other end, once you do get into hit locations or major wounds, it can be rather too _easy_ to die outright (this is aside your issue of deaths from repeated shots, by the by; I'm just talking on a shot by shot basis) for the good of a campaign. Part of this, as you note, is that BRP doesn't address eventual lethality at all, so a hit is either immediately lethal or it isn't.

Somewhat. IMO hit locations tend to reduce lethality. Killing someone with one hit tends to happen with attacks that would have killed the guy anyway (critical hits with impaling weapons). Characters tend to get taken out of the fight before they get killed.

I think I'll work on a "eventually fatal" type of result for the Western Spot rules. I might as well, I've got a 14 page price list, 6 weapons lists, bestiary, professions, new skills, a alternate rule for toxins ('cuz its more fun to have you buddy rush you back 20 miles to town to see the Doc then it is to have someone drop dead on the spot). If I did a chapter on history, notable personalities, and geography I could go for a entire supplment.

Yeah. But of course I tend to want my cake and eat it too here; I want the basic system to be quasi-realistic, but I also know that having too much PC fatality is usually not a good thing for most campaigns.

Amen. That is the tightrope that game designers must walk. Everyone sees the rope in a different spot, too. However, the thing is, I think the damages in BRP thanks to instant kills might be even more deadly than real life.

One thing that I liked about Timelords and CORPS was that a character could take a hit that might kill then in a couple of hours, but would be okay if it were treated. Something like that might not be a bad solution for some of us with BRP. It would be a potentially fatal wound so the lethality and danger factor is still there there, but can be treated, so the PC survivability factor is still acceptable.

Even a really simple would deterioration idea like:

Damage from one hit <=1/4hp= loose 1 hp/day

" " >1/4hp=1hp/hour

" " >1/2hp=1hp/min

" " >3/4hp=1hp/MR

might do it.

[Nightshade]

Quite true. About the only real reason why casualty rates were higher in the Ancient and Medieval world was that wholesale slaughter and massacres were more common. Any weapon can have a 100% mortality rate if you work at it.

A spear thrust might even be more lethal than a .38 bullet. It makes a bigger wound and causes more bleeding.

I actually suspect on a hit per hit basis, that most serious melee weapons are more lethal than most handgun rounds honestly; the big advantage to guns is a combination of penetration and rate of fire until you get to rifles.

Since "bang-your dead" isn't much fun to play. Especially when a player might not be able to do anything about it (like when the other guy has a higher DEX and Dodge doesn't work against bullets).

Yeah. If anything, BRP tends to suffer from the fact here it tends to somewhat _overstate_ the accuracy of ranged weapons outside of the range or situation when aiming takes place.

[Nightshade]

Interestingly enough that isn't entirely unrealistic. Pocket pistols and derringers has a well deserved reputation for being almost equally dangerous to those on either end. Killing someone with one usually takes a very lucky shot, a severed blood vessel, and time.

Note the commonest gun used in execution killings, even those where the target is semi-aware and resisting are .22's. At short enough ranges, they still have enough penetration on unarmored targets to do the job.

Somewhat. IMO hit locations tend to reduce lethality. Killing someone with

But not on single shot kills. It reduces it because people fold up when disabled, but it increases the ability to be killed by the shot in the first place because it simply doesn't need as massive a hit.

As noted, in RQ a single 8 point hit to the head will kill a lot of characters; in BRP games without either wounding thresholds or hit location, that isn't going to happen except against a very frail character.

Amen. That is the tightrope that game designers must walk. Everyone sees the rope in a different spot, too. However, the thing is, I think the damages in BRP thanks to instant kills might be even more deadly than real life.

[Atgxtg]

Note the commonest gun used in execution killings, even those where the target is semi-aware and resisting are .22's. At short enough ranges, they still have enough penetration on unarmored targets to do the job.

I think this is much like the 1D3+1/1D4 knife. By the rules a kill in combat is limited to small people with low CONs, unless hit location are used. Yet virtually any weapon can kill if applied properly. The OSS and British Commandos did use, and hand out a .22 caliber weapon to kill enemy soldiers (so you you take their gun). Surprise is a big factor. When you put the barrel up against the back of a guy's skull you not only got an auto head hit, but probably at least an impale.

Like I wrote earlier. What I think we might need is some way to aim for increased damage. Something like halving your skill for an impale or maybe for a die shift (D4-D6-D8 etc).

Personally, I'd really love a Damage Class/die shift idea, with the STR/SIZ modifer shifting up the die rather than being a separate die, but I doubt that would go over well with others.

For firearms though, the ability to aim and bounce up a die by one or even two steps could really make small pistols useful in expert hands. It might much up armor though. While I could see carefully aiming a .25 Beretta to avoid the kevlar vest, I can't see carefully aiming it to avoid the the 12 AP steel bulkhead that otherwise would have stopped the bullet cold.

Come to think of it a die shift for range might be a good solution. Kick up the damage die at point-blank and drop if at long range. That might help all around. A pistol round at 2m has a lot more energy that it does at 200m. That would also get the 1D6 pistols up to the much more lethal 1D8 range that can kill 99% of the humans in the game.

As noted, in RQ a single 8 point hit to the head will kill a lot of characters; in BRP games without either wounding thresholds or hit location, that isn't going to happen except against a very frail character.

Yeah, that isn't going to happen much. I'm not sure if we can come up with a solution that will please everybody. Right now, I'm leaning towards:

1) shifting up the die a step at Point Blank (DEX) range. So a 1D6 pistol does 1D8, a 1D10 pistol does 2D6, and so forth. The we could drop the damage die at longer ranges. So a .32APC with a 15m base range would do 1D4 at 60m, and 1D2 at 120m.

2) Allow a character to take an aimed shot at half ability, but bump up any success by one grade. So if a character with a 60% pistol skill did a called shot, he would shoot at 30% but get an impale if he hit, and have a 6% critical chance.

I think I'll put those in the next draft of the Western "spot rules". Could make a pocket pistol kinda useful.