Basic Roleplaying Universal Game Engine 2023 - Corrections Thread

[MOB]

** IMPORTANT NOTE: we have updated the PDF with further feedback. Please ensure the PDF you review is the current version - V1.03.**

With the PDF release of Basic Roleplaying Universal Game Engine, this thread is to catch any typos or errors spotted. Please note them here, quoting page number, the error, and the suggested correction. We will update the PDF and any subsequent printings of the book.

We will delete reported items as we review them, so if your post gets deleted it's because we've dealt with it. Please read this initial post to see what has already been reported.

NOTE: this is not a thread for questions or discussion of the rules, we are specifically looking for errors and typos only. Please take any discussions you may have to another thread.

Edited Tuesday at 02:19 AM by MOB

[Jason D]

Thank you all for your copious and careful feedback. 

I've reviewed each and every suggestion for an edit and implemented many of them. When we've assembled a new .pdf we'll make it available immediately, but it might be a short time while we verify and confirm the new version is a good as we can make it. 

[MOB]

The updated file with all current corrections is now available to download. It is V1.02.

Thank you to everyone who provided feedback!

[Jason D]

Hey all - 

Thank you for your diligent error-catching. I'm working on a new version of the .pdf for a new print run, and will be incorporating many, if not all, of these corrections and we'll be releasing an errata document shortly. 

Best,

Jason

 

[Jason D]

I'm going to draw a line here and note that everything prior to this post has been considered for implementation or after much thought, rejected. 

A new .pdf is being prepared soon. Like any work of this size and scope, it is bound to have some errors still, but it is a much cleaner and error-free document than it was upon release. 

Thank you all for your contributions! 

 

 

[Ian Ollmann]

Version 1.03 feedback (1):
 

Spells:Light

...object that has had Dark **previdously** cast upon it, canceling both spells...

 

SuperPowers:Powers and Success Levels:PowerCost

The actual superpowers descriptions do not use the term "Power Cost". They use "Character Point Cost". 
(p93, right column, "Power Cost: The cost per level" following "Each power in this section is described in the following manner:") vs. header for the Absorption power almost immediately following it.

 

SuperPowers:Powers and Success Levels:Energy Projection

Pedantic: The naming convention for this set of superpowers is inconsistent with other powers such as absorption or energy control, and wont alphabetize well in context with other powers. This should probably use "Energy Projection (flavor)" like everything else.

 

SuperPowers:Powers and Success Levels:Resistance

 

This is quite vague about which ability score should be used with each energy type. CON seems like a good choice for many, but maybe STR might be appropriate for Kinetic and Gravity. It wasn't obvious to me how to choose what to use as a player or GM.

 

SuperPowers:Powers and Success Levels:Super Movement

Pedantic: Does not specify a naming convention for variants like other powers do

 

Weapons

What? No atlatl?  No bayonet?

 

Weapons:Weapons Descriptions:Javelin

 

The description says it is for 1H, 2H or throwing. However, there is no entry in the primitive weapons table for a melee javelin.

 

Weapons:Weapons Descriptions:Sword, Vibro

 

Sword, Vibro does not have a hyphen after it in weapon descriptions. All the vibro weapons have a hyphen in the advanced weapons table and everything else does in the descriptions.

 

Weapons:Weapons Descriptions:Assault Armor (Heavy), Powered

 

Pedantic: The progression from "Assault Armor, Light" to "Assault Armor, Standard" to "Assault Armor (Heavy), Powered" seems inconsistent. Would it be better as "Assault Armor, Heavy (Powered)"? Same for "Assault Armor (Light), Powered"

 

Weapons:Weapons Descriptions:Musket

 

Pedantic: The description claims it is a rifle, but muskets are smooth bore weapons. Consequently, you may have also rated it to be more accurate than it deserves to be. The ball leaves the gun with a spin caused by last contact with the barrel perpendicular to the direction of the shot, which imparts projectile behavior similar to a curveball or golfing slice. Muzzle loading causes problems for rifling because the powder collects in the rifling grooves eventually requiring the barrel to be thoroughly cleaned out before it can be used.

 

Weapons:Weapons Descriptions:Sawn-off

The description calls it Sawed-off. The table calls it sawn-off.

 

Weapons:Weapons Descriptions:Sword, Bastard

Missing space in "single-or"

 

Weapons:Weapons Descriptions:Sword, Monofilament

 

"An sophisticated weapon..."   An -> A

 

Weapons:Weapons Properties:Brass Knuckles

 

A base of "brawl" in the table is inconsistent with other brawling weapons like fist or cestus which typically have a rating like 25. It would be better for computer implementations if this was a number -- less needless variation to try to cover. See also Taser, Contact.

The damage at +2 is awkward and more work than it needs to be. 1D3+2+dm as per cestus seems easier to work with and more consistent.

 

Weapons:Weapons Properties:Chainsaw

This should probably be able to parry.  

 

Weapons:Weapons Properties:Knife

 

Pedantic: A Historic knife is inexpensive, but a historic throwing knife is cheap? The throwing knife is far more specialized.

 

Weapons:Weapons Properties:Knife, Butcher

Knife, Butcher should be able to parry if a historic knife can.

 

Weapons:Weapons Properties:Pistol, Laser

 

A laser pistol has a shorter range than a plasma pistol. A laser rifle has a longer range than a plasma rifle. Since lasers are columnated light, we should expect near zero spread and very long range except in smoky conditions. (We should expect that a well designed combat laser would operate at frequencies at which water vapor does not absorb, except for use in space.)  Lasers are used to measure the distance to the moon. Plasma on the other hand should be expected to cool off due to radiant energy as it travels so should have a more restricted range. TL;DR: the ranges for laser pistol and plasma pistol are probably swapped.

 

Weapons:Weapons Properties:Rifle, Blaster

The rifle has the same SIZ/Enc as the blaster Pistol. None of the other rifles do.

 

Weapons:Weapons Properties:Scythe

 

Is this really impaling? Embedding it in a body sounds like a good way to break a scythe, given the curved blade and off center handle leverage. They are used as curved slashing/cutting tools more like scimitar or katana (if those were tools). I feel like a skilled agricultural Scythe user would be habitually looking to slice off feet (and in rare cases heads if you hold it upside down and swing it backward), not stab someone.

 

Weapons:Weapons Properties:Switch Blade

A switch blade does the same damage as a dagger? See also pocket knife.

 

Weapons:Weapons Properties:Sword, Vibro-

Is +dm missing from the damage for this weapon?

 

Weapons:Weapons Properties:Trident

 

Trident and Short Sword have the same damage. A simple spear does quite a bit more. Perhaps the trident was copy pasted from short sword immediately before it and the damage never updated.

 

Weapons:Weapons Properties:Taser, Contact

This is listed as expensive. You can get these things for $10 on Amazon. e.g. "VIPERTEK VTS-880 Mini Stun Gun for Self Defense Rechargeable with LED Flashlight"

 

Weapons:Weapons Properties:Whip

 

Damage may be missing +dm. This is probably intended, but thought I'd double check. That is a large strength requirement for something that has no damage modifier.

 

Advanced Melee Weapons Table, footnote 2

 

> "Reduce the target’s armor value by ½ (round up) versus this weapon."

Ambiguous: The rules as written literally say:

    Effective AV = AV - RoundUp(AV/2)

Since for all integer armor values, this is the same as:

    Effective AV = RoundDown(AV/2)

...one suspects that the rules as written interpretation is not what you meant. It would be clearer to just say "The effective armor value vs this weapon is halved (round up)" or "Reduce the target’s armor value to ½ (round up) versus this weapon."

 

Armor:Helmet

Has no description text

 

Helmets vs Regular Armor

The rules here are a bit confusing when it comes to armor vs helmets. For standard (non-random) AV rules, it looks like the most armor covers all locations: per the Helmet, Heavy or Light description (the regular Helmet description is missing):

Quote

Helmet, Heavy or Light: Almost all these armor types have helmets. Full suits of armor usually include helmets. If a helmet is not worn, reduce the armor value by –1 for a light helmet...

How now to interpret this:

• No hit locations
  Here I assume that the Hide armor covers the entire body, including the head, because it says "All locations" in the Primitive Armor chart on p175. By above rules, if the player takes off his included hide armor helmet from his head, by removing his "helmet" then his entire AV drops to 0, since the Hide armor gives him 1 AV and removing the helm is supposed to remove 1 AV — maybe. (The description for the primitive helmet is missing.)  Is a ZERO AV for the entire body really that the expected outcome of removing a hide helm?  See also: heavy clothing and soft leather, which are similarly described as coving all locations, give 1 AV and for which the light helmet is contemporary. If we supposed soft leather came with a heavy helm, we could even end up with a negative AV! 
• Using hit locations
  (Edit) I found the alternate rules for this on p 177, so this part looks okay. The spot rules for attack by hit locations are scattered through the document, so parts can be hard to find.

To fix that up we might start to believe that, no, in fact hide and most medieval armor has some integrated head armor with it like a cowl or a hood, and you can wear a helmet in addition to it. However, this pretty clearly counter to the Helmet, Heavy or Light description text quoted above.

Then we notice that four of the armor types in Modern and Advanced armor have footnotes attached (1,4,5) that specifically call out that they have a helmet, so apparently the other ones don't?  Why do they say "All" in the locations column in the table, then? Certainly other contemporary armors are described as "All but head"

In summary, I think what we have is two different systems operating at the same time assuming helmets either generally do come as part of armor or do not.  Maybe some edit wasn't complete. It would be good to provide some better clarity here.

 

<to be continued...>

 

 

 

Edited May 6 by Ian Ollmann
corrections for misspelling and miscomprehension of rules

[Ian Ollmann]

Version 1.03 feedback (2):

 

Modern Armor table: Riot Gear

The AV value needs to have footnote 1 added to it to help the reader understand "12/6".

 

Description: Helmet, Heavy or Light

The modifiers in the description might be accurate for the Medieval era, but the they are too small for Modern or advanced era, where it also appears. The protection of the modern helmet is much better than the Advanced helmet which indicates a performance regression over time.

 

Armor Descriptions : Adaptive Mesh

This high-tech cloth hardens and reacts to im**w**pacts, but remains pliant and comfortable the rest of the time...

 

Armor Descriptions : Assault Armor (Light), Powered

This is called "Powered Assault Armor, Light" in the table. See also discrepancy for heavy variant.

 

Shield Attributes descriptions

The list of shield attributes above the primitive shields table on page 178 is missing a description for Attk.

 

Combat Round Phases

"Statements of intent are handled in order of the DEX rank for everyone involved. Those with high DEX ranks make their statements of intent _______ those with low DEX ranks."

Missing word: before?

 

Edited May 6 by Ian Ollmann

[Ian Ollmann]

Version 1.03 feedback (3):

Combat Round Phases

"Statements of intent are handled in order of the DEX rank for everyone involved. Those with high DEX ranks make their statements of intent ______ those with low DEX ranks."

Missing word(s): "before" or maybe "to mock"?

 

Critical Success (p126)

"The best possible roll! A D100 result _______ equal to 1/20 of your character’s skill rating. A critical attack means that the weapon does the maximum..."

Missing words:  "less than or" or maybe "within the range". Clearly we don't mean the single 1% equal to 1/20 of your character's skill rating.

Does not describe how to round skill/20.  Frustratingly all the examples use skill percentages that are evenly divisible by 20, so we can't infer anything from them with regards to rounding.

 

Special Success (p126)

"An exceptional roll. A D100 result ______ equal to 1/5 of your character’s skill rating. Often, a special attack means that the weapon does normal damage in addition to a special result based on the weapon’s type."

Missing words:  "less than or" or maybe "within the range"

Does not describe how to round skill/5.

 

Fumble (p127)

"A disastrous roll! A result of the highest 1/20 of the chance of failure, usually ranging from 96–100 for lower skill levels to a roll of 100 when character skill levels are over 100%."

Does not describe how to round skill/20.

 

Attack and Defense Matrix (p127) : table rows 6, 11, 12

These are cases where the attack might normally hit except the parry/dodge roll got a better outcome. For all such cases, the result says, "Defender parries or dodges attack; no other result."
Table row 6 goes on to say, "If attack is parried, attacking weapon takes 1 point of damage.", which apparently includes missile weapons fired at range? Table rows 11 & 12 say instead, "If parried in melee combat, attacker’s weapon takes {1,2} points of damage." So these outcomes seem inconsistent. Probably table row 6 should be updated to match table row 12.

After all three results, we find a footnote*, which says: 

Quote

*If the parrying weapon or shield is destroyed during the parry attempt, roll the attacking weapon’s normal damage and subtract the points of damage used in destroying the parrying weapon or shield. The remaining damage penetrates the parry attempt to damage the defender (armor still protects). If the attacking weapon is destroyed during a successful attack, damage is still inflicted on the defender and the weapon is broken at that moment.

Obviously, the first part doesn't apply in rows 6,11,12 because the attacking weapon is taking damage, not the parrying weapon -- unless it is intended that there should be special rules when the target parries with a weapon that is somehow destroyed when taking no damage.  That part is for table rows 2,3,8.  However, the second part also doesn't apply to 6,11,12 because 6,11,12 are not successful attacks. Recall, the result for these cases, "Defender parries or dodges attack; no other result." -- no damage, no bleeding/impaling/whatever.  Is it intended that a successfully parried attack would do no damage unless the attackers weapon breaks and then it does almost full damage? Because, that is what it says.  If that is not intended, it appears that no footnote is appropriate for rows 6,11,12, and this second part (in bold) is not used by any part of the table and so can be deleted. 

Now let's suppose we have the outcome on table line 1 --  Critical attack roll and Special parry. According to the table, this resolves to a regular success. We roll normal damage and subtract the defenders AV. The parrying weapon takes 2 points of damage.  Now, suppose the parrying weapon only had 1 HP left. According to the first part of the above footnote, we should take one less point of damage because one point went into breaking the parry weapon.  Sanity check:  Does it make sense that in this situation we should roll damage normally for our limited success, unless the parry weapon breaks and then we get less damage?  It seems like we should get more damage.  Is the phrase "subtract the points of damage..." ambiguous. It seems like you are subtracting points from the overall damage before it is applied. Does it instead mean subtract the points of damage that should have been done to the shield from the target instead?  This needs cleanup.

Edited May 8 by Ian Ollmann
Add more Attack and Defense Matrix report

[Ian Ollmann]

Attack and Defense Matrix (p127) : table row 4

Quote

Attack achieves a critical success. Attack does full damage† plus...

This footnote mark after "damage" doesn't refer to anything, and probably should be a ** instead.

[Ian Ollmann]

Damage Modifier Table (p20) : table row 7

Quote

...
41–56     +2D6
57-72     +2D6
...

57-72 looks like it should instead be +3D6

 

Opposed Skill Rolls Using the Resistance Table

"Actions involving two opposing skills can be resolved using the resistance table. Divide the attacking and defending skill ratings by 5 (rounding normally) and resolve it as a single roll contest on the resistance table."

I can find nowhere in the spec where it defines what normal rounding is.  All other uses of "rounding" are followed by "up" or "down".  I'm left to guess maybe you mean the grade school method of round to the nearest integer, ties away from zero, but it is the only place I can find that in the document. 

Personally, I find the espoused method to calculate opposed skill rolls to be error prone (as in, noisy). We could have skill levels 4% apart that round to the same value and skill levels 1% apart that can round to different values. To avoid introducing this quantization noise, you want to instead subtract skills first to preserve these small differences, then round.  In Ian-land (where I get to make all the rules) I would just subtract the unmodified skills, and then divide the difference by 5, rounding to the nearest integer, then go use the table which would solve this problem -- though of course the table isn't set up for that. I'd also refactor the table to consume a similar subtraction (of characteristics, this time) and then have a 1-D table rather than a 2-D table because there sure is a lot of redundant information in that table that makes it harder to index.  

I'm not sure what the best fix is in the more difficult universe where other people get to make the rules as there is prior art to consider and people can become confused by polarity of negative numbers.  I might start though with defining rounding in the Introduction:Terms, Introduction:Dice or at the start of the System chapter, along with how to calculate the result of rounding up, rounding down and rounding normally with words like "the nearest integer greater than or equal to the infinitely precise value" or "the nearest integer to the infinitely precise value; for cases that lie half way between two integers, use the one farther from zero."   For examples of scholarly math-nerd language about rounding modes for computation, you can look up IEEE-754-2008, chapter 4.

I

Edited May 10 by Ian Ollmann
remove earlier comment

[Ian Ollmann]

Opposed Skill Rolls p 113

Quote

When two skills are opposed, both characters roll against their respective skills. The character that achieves the highest degree of success wins the contest. However, if the loser’s skill roll was successful, they modify the winner’s degree of success, shifting it downward one degree for every degree of success they achieve above failure. If both parties achieve the same degree of success, the higher die roll wins the contest, giving the advantage to characters with higher skill ratings.

This does not say what happens in the case that there is a true tie, when both the degree of success and die rolls match.