drohem Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 We created a modified STR bonus chart for RQ3 because we felt the STR bonus damage as written was too crazy in steps up. This the chart we came up with: DAMAGE BONUS CHART STR + SIZ Damage Bonus 01-04 -1d4 05-08 -1d3 09-12 -1d2 13-16 -1 17-20 +0 21-24 +1 25-28 +1d2 29-32 +1d3 33-36 +1d4 37-40 +1d5 41-44 +1d6 45-48 +1d7 49-52 +1d8 53-56 +1d9 57-60 +1d10 etc… etc… It worked well for us and we used it for years while we played RQ3 and our modified systems based off RQ. Quote BRP Ze 32/420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triff Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Yes the RQ fumble tables were drawn from the authors' experience with fighting in the SCA. Those experiences are 30 years old and that table could probably use some updating.I am with the camp that says fumbles happen too often. It is because of this- Murphy's Rules, "Cutting mistakes": In a thirty minute Runequest battle (Chaosium) involving 6000 armored, experienced warriors using Great Axes, more than 150 men will decapitate themselves and another 600 will chop off their own arms or legs.Now I haven't replicated the math for this but it sounds plausible given the rules for RQ. And that tells me that something is wrong. I may have to dig out "Innumeracy" for the math.Joseph Paul Does that calculation assume 6000 men fighting constantly for 30 minutes (150 melee rounds)? That would never happen in a RQ battle, no fight lasts for 150 MR. It would probably not happen in a real world battle either, as quite some time would be used moving and not fighting. So I think that calculation is flawed. Sverre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simlasa Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 But most people don't take a system and hack it into shape if it has what seems like a signficant failing to them; they just move on to another system. That's funny, I've never played in a game that didn't have at least some house rules.. even if that just means ignoring some of the ones in the rulebook. I think, however, that ignoring the ways RQ doesn't match the general tastes of the hobby is burying your head in the sand, and its all too common a habit in the hobby, especially among fans of older systems. What are we 'ignoring'? I am completely aware that SOME people like fate points and ads disads and other stuff... but I don't, I want the OTHER game, the one without those things. Choice is good, right? Though I guess, as a fan of an 'older system', I'm obviously unable to discern good rules from bad... If we go by the 'general tastes' of the hobby we'd also have to throw in levels and classes and alignments... the stuff RQ was such a revolution against in the first place. Whereas I think that's a false dichotomy. I think trying to assume its _only_ exposure or _only_ system is lying to one's self. Who said anything about 'only'... I'm just saying that trying to market the game better and get the word out... maybe set up a 'house setting' or two that would feel familiar to people... wouldn't be a bad step towards getting more players for the rules AS THEY ARE. Trying to change the rules to suit people, when there are already a lot of happy players just doesn't seem as likely to work out. It could easily alienate folks like me and not draw in any new blood at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simlasa Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Nevermind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Paul Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Does that calculation assume 6000 men fighting constantly for 30 minutes (150 melee rounds)? That would never happen in a RQ battle, no fight lasts for 150 MR. It would probably not happen in a real world battle either, as quite some time would be used moving and not fighting. So I think that calculation is flawed. Sverre. Doesn't matter to the Lords of Chance. Each blow is a fresh chance to fumble. Stretch it out over several hours for the movement but still have 150 MR of actual blows and you get the same results. Track 6000 of the Sun Dome Militia through 150 MR of battle collected over years and the results will be the same. That is the basis for the objection. It really is just the law of large numbers at work. A blow per MR x150 x 6000=900000 blows. The Murphy's rules part of this is that killing yourself is felt to be a one in a million sort of thing and here it actually is! Which turns out to be a lot more often than people think meet.. Jason has informed us that BRPCore will have a 2% fumble mechanic. So only 54 men will lose their heads to their own hands! 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...
Joseph Paul Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Drohem what are you using for a d7 and a d9? 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...
drohem Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Drohem what are you using for a d7 and a d9? Well prior to the advent of dice rollers, we just rolled either a d8 or d10 and ingored a result of '8' or '10.' However, these days there are some pretty slick dice rollers that allow you to roll odd dice like those. One of the best free dice rollers out there, and the one I downloaded and use, is the dice roller on the WotC (Wizards of the Coast) website. It is one of the one dice roller that I have found that allow you to add/subract large numbers. Most dice rollers I have encounter usually have a cap on the number to be added or subtracted from a roll. Quote BRP Ze 32/420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 After seeing dhorma damage bonus table, I'm reminded of the one from SPQR. (d2/d4/d6/etc.) Personally, I7m all for updating the damage bonus and spreading it out a little instead of just lumps of d6. Going from 1d6 to 2d6 is a big step. 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...
drohem Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 hehe...that's why we affectionately called the RQ rules as written as MainQuest, lol. Someone strong enough could kill with just one punch. Although this is certainly possible in the RL, it is not a sure thing whereas in game mechanics it was almost certain against 'normals.' Also, a strong person with a weapon was like a ginsu knife in combat. If they fumbled on themself, it was usually very bad. Again, agruements could be made for the 'realism' or that the STR damage bonus is good and realistic. However, myself and my group felt it silly and adjusted as needed. Seriously, when role-playing a hero do you want him to be killed by a punch? Or that he is so strong that he maims or kills himself with a fumble? Quote BRP Ze 32/420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I've seen a couple of good fixes to this. 1) Cap off the damage bonus equal to that of the weapon. So you can't have a troll getting a full 2d6 db with a dagger. Makes sense, but not quite right. 2) Damage beyond the weapon AP counts as damage to the weapon. The idea being that the weapon just wasn't built to habndle that sort of force. Probably the more sensible and realistic option. MEans that trolls and such would need heavier stronger weapons to pull off the massive damage results. 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 October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Trying to change the rules to suit people, when there are already a lot of happy players just doesn't seem as likely to work out. It could easily alienate folks like me and not draw in any new blood at all. They've already made a RuneQuest to try to suit everybody... "I don't know the secret to success, but the secret to failure is trying to please everybody" -- Bill Cosby ==================================== killing yourself is felt to be a one in a million sort of thing and here it actually is! Which turns out to be a lot more often than people think meet.. Jason has informed us that BRPCore will have a 2% fumble mechanic. So only 54 men will lose their heads to their own hands! Rolemaster has a neat mechanic where the fumble range is based on the weapon. Short, fixed weapons like clubs and shortswords have fumble ranges of 3%-5%, longer weapons have ranges of 3%-7%, depending on how many hands you have on it and its awkwardness, flexible weapons like flails and whips have ranges of 6%-9%. Natural weapons and really short weapons have a 2% fumble. It does make sense to me that some weapons are more susceptible to fumbling than others - even for firearms, some are less reliable than others. I would support a fumble range based on the weapon or weapon type, or a modifier due to the weapon. ============================= hehe...that's why we affectionately called the RQ rules as written as MainQuest, lol. Someone strong enough could kill with just one punch. Although this is certainly possible in the RL, it is not a sure thing whereas in game mechanics it was almost certain against 'normals.' Also, a strong person with a weapon was like a ginsu knife in combat. If they fumbled on themself, it was usually very bad. Again, agruements could be made for the 'realism' or that the STR damage bonus is good and realistic. However, myself and my group felt it silly and adjusted as needed. Seriously, when role-playing a hero do you want him to be killed by a punch? Or that he is so strong that he maims or kills himself with a fumble? We use subdual damage for certain attacks - one of 2 methods - 1) as in Champions, a max result on any die is 1 point of damage, but the total counts against your total HP and CON (for stun). 2) if damage exceeds 2x location HP (1x location HP for head, 2x total HP), you're knocked out, but not dead or maimed. I never thought about the damage modifier, but I'm not much for 'monster mayhem'... I do see the point, though. Perhaps damage from the damage mod roll over weapon AP goes against the weapon as damage to the weapon, but the total damage should still be used when calculating knockback. 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...
Trifletraxor Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 "Why is BRP not that popular?" is the biggest thread here on the forum, but most of the topics in the thread is not directly related to the original topic. Time to open some new threads? (Looks like we're only bitching about d&d being bigger than brp. ) SGL. Quote Ef plest master, this mighty fine grub! 116/420. High Priest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drohem Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Those are some great ideas. After years of play, we heavily modified the rules. Our damage bonus modification was used in conjuction with other modifications that fall in line with those suggestions. We used a modified healing rate system. We used a modified weapon breakage rules. We modified the multiplier of damage necessary to severe or main a hit location based up weapon type. After years of play, we felt that our modified damage bonus system was very workable. I mean high STR creatures still owned and were extremely dangerous. If you got bitten by a dragon, then you were more than likely to have something severed, LOL. That is the beauty of the RQ and BRP systems- they were extremely robust and flexible. It was a great framework upon which you could reasonably add layers of detail if you so desired. I also liked the Rolemaster and MERP varying critical chance based upon weapon type. Ahh, the good old days of chart-based role-playing, LOL! Rolemaster and MERP systems were the pinnacle of that era and style of role-playing. Quote BRP Ze 32/420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightshade Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 No the frequency of the severity is the problem. That sort of thing is so very rare even for weekend warriors that it makes for apocryphal tales. Joseph Paul In regards to missile weaponry at least, I wish that was only true, but "friendly fire" exists as a term for a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightshade Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Does that calculation assume 6000 men fighting constantly for 30 minutes (150 melee rounds)? That would never happen in a RQ battle, no fight lasts for 150 MR. It would probably not happen in a real world battle either, as quite some time would be used moving and not fighting. So I think that calculation is flawed. Sverre. One of the most noticeable flaws almost all games have is that they don't represent the reality of extended battles well; there's almost no reason to pause, manuever (often pointlessly) and do other things that are a constant element of real battles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightshade Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 That's funny, I've never played in a game that didn't have at least some house rules.. even if that just means ignoring some of the ones in the rulebook. I did not use the word "significant" accidentally. To people who are bothered by such, introducing a hero point type mechanic into a game that doesn't have one is beyond what they'll often want to do with house rules. What are we 'ignoring'? I am completely aware that SOME people like fate points and ads disads and other stuff... but I don't, I want the OTHER game, the one without those things. Choice is good, right? You probably aren't, but some people in this thread have acted like this _isn't_ one of the reasons its not a popular system, and I think they _are_ ignoring it, or trying to. Though I guess, as a fan of an 'older system', I'm obviously unable to discern good rules from bad... Please. Lose the chip. If we go by the 'general tastes' of the hobby we'd also have to throw in levels and classes and alignments... the stuff RQ was such a revolution against in the first place. Actually, unless _all_ you look at is WOTC and Palladium, there's little sign that's a general taste of the hobby. You have to look good and hard to find any other game made in the last 20 years that uses them. Who said anything about 'only'... I'm just saying that trying to market the \ Again, you probably aren't; I'm just suggesting that people who think that exposure will magically increase the popularity of BRP games dramatically are likely living in a dream world. Trying to change the rules to suit people, when there are already a lot of happy players just doesn't seem as likely to work out. It could easily alienate folks like me and not draw in any new blood at all. That's always a risk, but the question you have to ask is if meeting halfway is worth it to you. If it isn't, it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simlasa Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 'Meeting halfway', to me, is having options... which I'm fine with. There was an interesting discussion of 'Drama Points' on RPG.net: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=357641&highlight=drama+points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simlasa Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Please. Lose the chip. I thought I was just chucking your chip back at ya... heh 'Meeting halfway', to me, is having options... which I'm fine with. There was an interesting discussion of 'Drama Points' on RPG.net: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=357641&highlight=drama+points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightshade Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I thought I was just chucking your chip back at ya... heh I'd suggest I'm not the one acting like having something like Drama Points is contaminating BRP; I won't say you've done that, but I'd take a look at Badcat's posts on the topic before you suggest I'm pulling it out of thin air. 'Meeting halfway', to me, is having options... which I'm fine with. As am I. Again, I'm just suggesting that blowing off people who have problems with some aspects of the rules is not productive. There was an interesting discussion of 'Drama Points' on RPG.net: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=357641&highlight=drama+points I actually participated in that thread toward the very end. I do agree for some styles of play that hero point mechanics can sometimes be jarring; but then, immersive players are often the most bothered by unexpected character death or maiming, so its a trade-off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badcat Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Infested with trolls, already. How appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightshade Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Infested with trolls, already. How appropriate. Pot, kettle. I'm not the one who's gone out of my way to mention how much disdain I hold for people with styles that don't match my own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simlasa Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I don't think I've seen any trolls here... yet. After reading through that RPG.net thread on drama points again, I am reminded that there were a lot of good ideas in there about how, when, and when not to use them... and I realized that the thing I specifically don't like about some manifestations of them is re-rolls and revisionist manipulation of the setting by players ('Oh look, I found a clue!'). But there are lots of ways to use them without crossing over into that sort of thing... I'd still prefer them to remain optional though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badcat Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I think I have, unfortunately. Of course, I have a liberal definition of 'troll'. And less tolerance. Hope I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trifletraxor Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 What's the big discussion about really? Hero points will not be part of the default system, which should satisfy the grognards like me, but it's included as an optional system, as a lot of people like to use them. Hero points have been included in many peoples houserules for BRP allready, so I don't see any problem with that. It all depends on what type of game you like to play. No need to call names. Now, time to break up the thread! :cool: SGL. Quote Ef plest master, this mighty fine grub! 116/420. High Priest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enpeze Posted October 20, 2007 Author Share Posted October 20, 2007 I think I have, unfortunately. Of course, I have a liberal definition of 'troll'. And less tolerance. Hope I'm wrong. I found one too. Trifletraxor. But dont tell him please. (/staring fearfully at T`s 2H mace). Quote 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.