Typos, Errata , Corrections, and Clarifications

[p_clapham]

The 10 to 1 ratio on MP seems a bit too powerfull. I've got a few character combinations I'm stating up right now. One is going to be a straight up heroic Magic user, the other a Magic User / Superpower hybrid. I'll compare the two of them side by side.... my gut feeling is that 10mp for one power point is a little much. 5 for one seems more reasonable to me... and even then quite potent when combined with a Spellcaster.

[Jason D]

The 10 to 1 ratio on MP seems a bit too powerfull. I've got a few character combinations I'm stating up right now. One is going to be a straight up heroic Magic user, the other a Magic User / Superpower hybrid. I'll compare the two of them side by side.... my gut feeling is that 10mp for one power point is a little much. 5 for one seems more reasonable to me... and even then quite potent when combined with a Spellcaster.

From the book:

Some of these systems are not immediately compatible with one another, while others are easily used side-by-side.

It's one of those issues I'm clarifying and making explicit - the powers types are not balanced against one another.

It's stated in the text, but I'm making it front and center.

If you, as a GM, feel that two power types are unbalanced against one another, it's advised to use only one of them at a time.

It's just like equipment - a character in hide armor with a club is not balanced against a character in energy armor with a plasma rifle.

[Nightshade]

The 10 to 1 ratio on MP seems a bit too powerfull.

Unless Jason has seriously cut back on the expenditure needed for powers, anything less is not good enough; Superworld characters could burn through an enormous amount of energy very quickly in my experience. As Jason notes, not all the metaphysics systems are going to play well together, and I suspect the powers system is going to overshadow most of the others if used in combination with them.

[Jack Tar]

A quick query about the Cooperative skill rolls on pg.173.

The benefit of having someone help you is that it adds 10% to your roll (or 15/20% for special/critical success).

However, that means somone with a very low skill level, let's say 5%, who is aiding you could be adding 10% or even 20% to a score.

This seems wrong to me. Intuitively, I'd argue that someone with virtually no skill is probably a hinderance to someone with skill. "Will you stop trying to help me?! You're just getting in the way!"

Would it not be wiser to say that only someone with a reasonable amount of skill (say minimum of 10%) can potentially aid in a cooperative skill roll. If they get a critical success and add 20%, that's just a fluke that should be allowed as it will rarely happen.

[Jason D]

A quick query about the Cooperative skill rolls on pg.173.

The benefit of having someone help you is that it adds 10% to your roll (or 15/20% for special/critical success).

However, that means somone with a very low skill level, let's say 5%, who is aiding you could be adding 10% or even 20% to a score.

This seems wrong to me. Intuitively, I'd argue that someone with virtually no skill is probably a hinderance to someone with skill. "Will you stop trying to help me?! You're just getting in the way!"

Would it not be wiser to say that only someone with a reasonable amount of skill (say minimum of 10%) can potentially aid in a cooperative skill roll. If they get a critical success and add 20%, that's just a fluke that should be allowed as it will rarely happen.

The assumption is that the higher-skilled character is essentially saying to the relatively unskilled character "Okay... you don't have much skill... but here's exactly what you need to do if you want to help me."

It could also be regarded as offloading "busywork", enabling the higher-skilled character to focus on execution of the primary task at hand. For example, a master chef might ask for unskilled assistance chopping or performing some routine task while he or she works on the stuff requiring a high degree of expertise.

The low chance of a character with a skill of 10% or under successfully being able to contribute to a cooperative task is the balancing factor.

If the GM feels it's not plausible, then he or she is free to rule that a character without an appreciable skill cannot aid in a cooperative task, as is stated in the first sentence of that section.

[Atgxtg]

I would figure most things would benefit from another set of hands. Even if it is just "Hold theses screws; don't loose them", or "put pressure here."

BTW, Is there a penalty if the assistant fumbles? I could see that too.

"I thought I told you not to loose the screws"

[Jack Tar]

Thanks for the clarification Jason. That makes sense now. Elegant as ever.

[Jack Tar]

Sorry, I've spotted another thing I feel is a bit odd. I've spotted it becaue sailing ships will feature in my next campaign, and I regularly do wargaming with Napoleonic ships.

On page 179 the average movement rate for "Ship, vintage sailing" is given as 6 km/hr. That translates into about 3 knots.

"According to Admiral Beaufort, a man-of-war in this [Napoleonic] period...with all sial set...when the wind reached 4 knots...would go in smooth water 1 or 2 knots. A gentle breeze of 7 to 10 knots would give the ship 3 or 4 knots of speed, while a moderate breeze of up to 16 knots would give the ship 5 to 6 knots." Lavery, B. (1989) Nelson's Navy. Conway Maritime Press, London.

Granted this is in the period when sailing vessels arguably obtained their pinnacle, but a man-of-war is a huge, heavy ship. Although the sail set gets smaller with smaller vessels, so does the hull cross section and weight. Frigates were known to sail significantly faster. Also granted, the BRP category covers everything from cogs, through figates, through men of war, through to tea klippers. In addition, winds range from still to hurricane.

But I still can't help feeling, almost instinctively, that the speed given on page 179 is too slow. I would suggest doubling it.

Hmmm, me thinks a BRP supplement dealing with the age of sail might be worth while

[drohem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drohem

what is the relationship between Maneuver and Handling?

So with the chariot example: would the net bonus/penalty to the Drive skill check be +10% (Maneuver = -5% and Handling = 15)?

On p.216 it says to add/subtract the Handling modifer for the vehicle from the character's appropriate skill.

On p. 265, it says that this modifier is applied to your character's skill.

Why is Maneuver expressed as a percentage and Handling just a number?

Why have two vehicle attributes that serve the same function?

I am confuzzled

I would surely appreciate some incite into these vehicle attributes and there applications.

[Cowboy Duck]

This may be just a "See Page XX" error, but I wanted to make sure the reference gets fixed in the final layout:

On page 183 under "Exceeding 100% in a Skill," the text refers to the optional rules for "Skills Over 100%" as being on page 183. The option box is actually on page 175.

Thanks!

Matt

[Cowboy Duck]

In the "Common Powers" section for the High Fantasy setting on page 297, the last sentence putters out into "<<>>"

Thanks,

Matt

[Jason D]

This may be just a "See Page XX" error, but I wanted to make sure the reference gets fixed in the final layout:

On page 183 under "Exceeding 100% in a Skill," the text refers to the optional rules for "Skills Over 100%" as being on page 183. The option box is actually on page 175.

Thanks!

Matt

Edits may cause page #s to shift somewhat, so I'm letting Chaosium handle those issues.

In the "Common Powers" section for the High Fantasy setting on page 297, the last sentence putters out into "<<>>"

Thanks,

Matt

Got it!

Thanks!

[Jason D]

Why is Maneuver expressed as a percentage and Handling just a number?

Why have two vehicle attributes that serve the same function?

It's a holdover from the Call of Cthulhu vehicular system, and one I'm streamlining (into one attribute instead of two).

I'll be posting some form of errata after every last scrap of edits are submitted and integrated into the manuscript.

[drohem]

It's a holdover from the Call of Cthulhu vehicular system, and one I'm streamlining (into one attribute instead of two).

I'll be posting some form of errata after every last scrap of edits are submitted and integrated into the manuscript.

Thanks, Jason.

[frogspawner]

Sorry if I'm giving "onlie the liveliest awfullness" to this long-dead thread, but I think it's worth it. After all...

At the risk of muddying the waters still further, I do think the entire Attack / Parry / Dodge system does need to be laid out, explicitly, in one place at some point.

Here is what I have pieced together so far - <snip>

One thing I will say: having seen the farce which was MRQ's muddy and confusing portrayal of combat 18 months ago when the rules first came out - and the fact that people on the MRQ forums are *STILL* asking today how combat works, I think it's worth making sure this is CRYSTAL clear in the BRP rules! I know the BRP *rules* work fine in this respect - we just need to make sure the *wording* of those rules is completely and unambiguously clear, even at the risk of repeating things.

So right now I'm going through the whole combat chapter to ensure that it's as clearly worded as possible.

Hurrah!

I'll be posting some form of errata after every last scrap of edits are submitted and integrated into the manuscript.

Presumably that's finished now. Any chance your posting could be soon, please, Mr D?

[Jason D]

Presumably that's finished now. Any chance your posting could be soon, please, Mr D?

The edits were submitted to Chaosium some time ago, and I collated many of them into one document. I still need to clean up that document (some of the edits required edits of their own, as sometimes happen).

It's also one of those "everything in one document" edits - and ideally I'd like to break it up into one for system/mechanics and one for the minor stuff like typos, grammar, aesthetic issues, etc.

Unfortunately, it doesn't have the edits from any work done by Chaosium. I wasn't privy to their editing/proofing process, so my work may have duplicated theirs. Some of the edits such as "Where have the footnotes in the weapons tables gone?" aren't going to be of much help to anyone, either. Furthermore, any changes Charlie made to the manuscript may not be included in edits I suggested.

I'll have to check for approvals to post what I've got, but it will take a little while to assemble.

Thanks for your patience.

[frogspawner]

Understood. Thanks!

[Mithras]

It will be of great use to those who were brave enough to buy edition zero, and who will still be left with a perfectly playable editted version of that game, whether or not they puchased edition #1. So - it will be extremely well recieved Jason!!

I purchased my copy of zero a few days ago. Come to me! Fly faster cargo plane, faster I tell you!

Of course I plan to buy edition 1 also :innocent:

[Mithras]

Question: were the missing stats for the Sling spotted, on the Weapon Table?

I want a sling in my game, and it gets a mention in the book's text...

[Jason D]

Question: were the missing stats for the Sling spotted, on the Weapon Table?

I want a sling in my game, and it gets a mention in the book's text...

It's on the Primitive Missile Weapons table.

My tape-bound pre-EZ copy has it on page 248.

[Mithras]

Thanks!

Looking at the wrong table ......

[LivingTriskele]

I don't want to come off as being an ungrateful curmudgeon-- so for clarity, I've been gaming for nearly 32 years and I've never been as enthusiastic about a system as I am about BRP. I'm eating it up--really. I'm happy as hell.

But I'm wondering what the chances are of Chaosium printing a second edition (hardbound, hopefully). Now that it's out and being played and supported with relative fervor I suspect people will develop ideas and improvements that could help the game evolve.

[TheShadow]

I bought the pdf and really want a hardcopy. I'm still holding off in hopes of a hardcover. Seems like this comes up a lot...Chaosium, get your act together! From what I've seen from other companies, even small ones, it's no big deal to produce a hardcover option. Incorporate the minimal errata and it would be a sure winner.

[LivingTriskele]

If only they would support BRP with the same exuberance as Call of Cthulhu.

[NickMiddleton]

I don't want to come off as being an ungrateful curmudgeon-- so for clarity, I've been gaming for nearly 32 years and I've never been as enthusiastic about a system as I am about BRP. I'm eating it up--really. I'm happy as hell.

But I'm wondering what the chances are of Chaosium printing a second edition (hardbound, hopefully). Now that it's out and being played and supported with relative fervor I suspect people will develop ideas and improvements that could help the game evolve.

The current book was reprinted in late September I believe - which was presumably just a re-order from the printer from the same master files, so the same current text.

However, considering that the first print run was back in May/June, that's a pretty rapid need for a reprint from Chaosium, which suggests that as far as Chaosium's estimates are concerned it's selling well.

It is, bluntly, far too early for a "2nd edition" (in the sense of substantive mechanical revisions), however a revised hardback, correcting all the typos found so far and any other minor textual corrections that could be made without necessitating revising the layout would be rather nice. Charlie Krank of Chaosium has on a couple of occasions indicated that a hardback edition is possible, but has never given a time frame.

If only they would support BRP with the same exuberance as Call of Cthulhu.

Write something for them. Chaosium are a publishing house - the vast majority of their output is content created by freelancers, and in a lot of cases came about because some one pitched an idea to Chaosium. Whilst they are clearly doing what they can to get BRP material out there, the can't publish material if they don't have it.

Cheers,

Nick

Edited October 30, 2008 by NickMiddleton