What's up with HP for Locations

[Mechashef]

On Page 369 there is a table showing the hit points for hit locations.

I think the values for the 1/5 column are wrong. They are actually the values for the RQ 0.16 multiplier.

The last value for that column is especially wrong, and I presume that is a typo.

Are they wrong or have I just misunderstood how the values should be calculated.

Thanks

[NickMiddleton]

On Page 369 there is a table showing the hit points for hit locations.

I think the values for the 1/5 column are wrong. They are actually the values for the RQ 0.16 multiplier.

Looks likely to me. Also, since the hit point ranges in column one are fixed, the values in the subsequent columns don't always match, as even applying the "always round up rule" in a given THP range for certain specific values of THP you might get different fractional values.

The last value for that column is especially wrong, and I presume that is a typo.

Yeah, that's clearly a typo.

I've put together a table for 1 to 100 THP in NeoOffcie and exported it as a PDF - here. Looks to me like the table on 369 is simply a copy of the table from RQIII, with and added transcription error.

Cheers,

Nick

Edited February 17, 2009 by NickMiddleton
typos

[Mechashef]

I added my own take on the table.

BRP Central - Downloads - Hit Points by Location Table

Mine differs in that I've also included it with Total HP divided into groups (like on P369 of the book) and I've always followed the round up rule (as detailed on P29).

Of course I may have introduced other errors :mad:

[NickMiddleton]

I added my own take on the table.

BRP Central - Downloads - Hit Points by Location Table

Mine differs in that I've also included it with Total HP divided into groups (like on P369 of the book) and I've always followed the round up rule (as detailed on P29).

And I managed to make an embarrassingly simple error with the spread sheet...

Which I have now corrected...

Cheers,

Nick

[Jason D]

I think the values for the 1/5 column are wrong. They are actually the values for the RQ 0.16 multiplier.

The last value for that column is especially wrong, and I presume that is a typo.

Of course I may have introduced other errors :mad:

And I managed to make an embarrassingly simple error with the spread sheet...

Apparently, that table is cursed.

[Mechashef]

Apparently, that table is cursed.

Hence why BRP has fumble tables!

[Atgxtg]

Hence why BRP has fumble tables!

What do we do if someo0ne "fumbled" when writing the fumble tables? :eek:

Chaos and confusion reign!

[Mechashef]

On the topic of Location Hit Points:

On P29, the chest has 4/10 of total Hit Points.

On P368-369 the chest has 2/5 of total Hit points.

Same value, just expressed differently.

If Chaosium (imho the best name for a Gaming company I've ever seen) ever releases another edition of BRP they probably should be made consistent (2/5?).

Is there anywhere we can send the little "oddities" that we find?

[NickMiddleton]

On the topic of Location Hit Points:

On P29, the chest has 4/10 of total Hit Points.

On P368-369 the chest has 2/5 of total Hit points.

Same value, just expressed differently.

If Chaosium (imho the best name for a Gaming company I've ever seen) ever releases another edition of BRP they probably should be made consistent (2/5?).

Is there anywhere we can send the little "oddities" that we find?

A few bits are logged here but that's as close as we currently have to an offcial errata record as far as I'm aware.

Cheers,

Nick

[Mechashef]

Good resource. Thanks.

However, even though that is just a wiki entry, it still seems a bit ... official.

Perhaps a sticky thread to stage any corrections, in case anyone disagrees or has a different interpretation.

Also, somethings arguably aren't errors, just things that could be rephrased or adjusted if/when a new edition is produced.

A couple of examples to do with SIZ.

There are SIZ tables on P26 and P296. They appear to contradict each other.

On P26, SIZ 12 ranges from 46kg to 109kg, while on P296 SIZ 12 ranges from 71kg to 76kg.

I pondered this dilema for a while. Nick, Jason or others could, I'm sure, give a correct answer but I came up with three theories:

1) It is simply a mistake

2) It table was derived from a different BRP game

3) P26 is really a height table, while P296 is a mass table.

Regardless of the real reason, it is still confusing.

btw, in my opinion, considering that BRP is supposed to be metric based, I find it odd that both tables list Imperial (or US or whatever) measurements before the metric ones. P296 even mentions Short Tons.

I think I even saw feet or yards instead of metres somewhere - but could be wrong because I can't find it again!

[Jason D]

I think I even saw feet or yards instead of metres somewhere - but could be wrong because I can't find it again!

If I recall correctly, I used Imperial measurements in a section where a GM is speaking narratively, specifically in a fantasy setting where metric distances would feel out of place.

If it appears elsewhere, it's a mistake that didn't get caught during editing.

(And off the record, SIZ is one of those aspects of BRP I'd really love to see ditched in a future revision of the rules.)

[Mechashef]

If I recall correctly, I used Imperial measurements in a section where a GM is speaking narratively, specifically in a fantasy setting where metric distances would feel out of place.

I totally understand. I grew up in metric Australia and there are still some things I use Imperial for. Miles just sounds better for some things than kilometres, and babies still make more sense being born in pounds than in kgs.

(And off the record, SIZ is one of those aspects of BRP I'd really love to see ditched in a future revision of the rules.)

Please no!

I agree there are issues with SIZ, but find it really useful.

[frogspawner]

What issues do you have with SIZ then, gents ?

[Mechashef]

What issues do you have with SIZ then, gents ?

Ask and ye shall receive.

I have attached a document I wrote for RQ3 - it will probably be more detail than you will want.

The SIZ tables for RQ3 and BRP are very similar so while the exact figures in my document are not correct for BRP, they should be close, and hopefully my points are still valid.

A few complicating issues are:

The SIZ table in BRP on P296 is vague, which could be either good or bad, but makes it more difficult for me to analyze.

I also have access to far fewer BRP creatures than I do to RQ3 ones which also makes analysis difficult.

Of course there are some creatures which are in both RQ3 and BRP, but have different values for SIZ.

Enjoy

Mechashef

A Sizable Problem.pdf

[Pete Nash]

Of course there are some creatures which are in both RQ3 and BRP, but have different values for SIZ.

Your document sums up the difficulties I had when writing up creatures for Rome. Not only did the SIZ of existing animals from RQ3, CoC and BRP not match real world mass, but the number of dice created huge variance in maximum and minimum values for large beasts.

I solved it in a similar manner, by capping the maximum rolled number of dice to 4d6, which stopped the more extreme results - although 2d6 sounds even better for the larger animals. I think I tried to tie the average characteristic result to something less than the maximum real world value, thus giants of the species could still be produced, but on the whole they'd be realistic.

Not that it really matters (apart from satisfying my pedantic nature), since most GMs simply use the average species values for encounters.

[Al.]

I solved it in a similar manner, by capping the maximum rolled number of dice to 4d6, which stopped the more extreme results - although 2d6 sounds even better for the larger animals.

SNAP

I've sort of settling on 3d6+x for all characteristics for our old friend the bell curve. Although as with most housrulings I do have a tendency to change my mind each time I take another look at my doodlings.

I get the feeling (perhaps incorrectly) that the STR and SIZ rolls are an attempt to allow generation of babies, adolescents and adults in one hit and its never really worked for me.

since most GMs simply use the average species values for encounters.

Are you suggesting that we all have better things to do than roll lots of dice to make each encountered beastie semi-unique?! I like PenDragon's approach of only listing a fixed value for a beasty's characteristics. If I really want to make a weedy Dragon or super-Panther then I can add or subtract an arbitray amount anyway.

Al

[deleriad]

I solved it in a similar manner, by capping the maximum rolled number of dice to 4d6, which stopped the more extreme results - although 2d6 sounds even better for the larger animals. I think I tried to tie the average characteristic result to something less than the maximum real world value, thus giants of the species could still be produced, but on the whole they'd be realistic.

I do exactly the same though it's for MRQ rather than BRP. Basically once you get full grown adult creatures then I assume that their weight distribution is on a bell curve which means that you probably don't need a wider range than 4D6 plus a minimum value because each point of SIZ represents a higher mass.

If I were to rewrite BRP history I would not have any stat with a wider variance than around 4d6 and I would keep all stats other than STR & SIZ between around 3-24.

Obviously magic and sufficiently advanced technology may change the base parameters.

[threedeesix]

(And off the record, SIZ is one of those aspects of BRP I'd really love to see ditched in a future revision of the rules.)

I'll fight you if I have to. And you started it. >:->

I like the SIZ characteristic mainly because no one else has it. I just use in in the abstract sense and its nice to be able to say that the plate armor you just found doesn't fit you because its too small, or the bridge gives out beneath you because your too big, or you cant fin into the tunnel because its too small or...

Edited February 17, 2009 by threedeesix

[frogspawner]

Thanks for posting your document, Mechashef.

The 4 issues from there are:

1) SIZ only represents mass, and doesn't distinguish tall/thin creatures from short/fat ones.

2) The (RQ3) SIZ table doesn't extend far enough.

3) The (RQ3) weight ranges for each size point aren't logical.

4) Dice rolled to generate the SIZ of creatures don't give reasonable values.

My take on these is:

1) That's ok - height (and hence build) can be worked-out separately.

2 & 3) The BRP p296 table is better. But we should have a definitive formula.

4) People around here seem to have thought about this, so hopefully the proposed "3(-ish)d6+X" idea should be the solution.

So what's the formula behind the BRP p296 table?

In the normal human range it seems to be roughly "1 SIZ = 1 Stone", which I like. After that, it goes non-linear - which is reasonable, given that perhaps the most significant use of SIZ is to calculate Hit Points.

PS: Anyone got any more issues?

Edited February 17, 2009 by frogspawner
PS

[Jason D]

What issues do you have with SIZ then, gents ?

My problems with SIZ are mostly in the way it's applied to characters/NPCs, not physical items.

In its place, I'd use a SIZ modifier that affects HP, STR, certain skills, etc.

[RMS]

I solved it in a similar manner, by capping the maximum rolled number of dice to 4d6, which stopped the more extreme results - although 2d6 sounds even better for the larger animals. I think I tried to tie the average characteristic result to something less than the maximum real world value, thus giants of the species could still be produced, but on the whole they'd be realistic.

Not that it really matters (apart from satisfying my pedantic nature), since most GMs simply use the average species values for encounters.

I'd just note that in practice rolling lots of dice doesn't really do anything different. The odds of rolling extreme results as you increase the number of dice you roll becomes extremely small. However, I do understand why you took the approach you did. I never bothered rolling myself. I just use it as a range to base whatever creature I want off of.

[Mechashef]

Not that it really matters (apart from satisfying my pedantic nature), since most GMs simply use the average species values for encounters.

I agree.

However like you, my main concern was that I would create a creature (in my case one based on a real Australian creature such as: Demon Duck of Doom, Carnifex, Megalania or Diprotodon) and end up with SIZ results that didn't reflect the real creature's actual size. It just seems wrong to have the stats generate something wildly wrong. Even if no-one else notices, I would!

Of course there was also the problem of guessing the size variation of those creatures when they are only poorly known from the fossil record.

And of course in some cases there is the problem that the creature with the most impressive name (Demon Duck of Doom) doesn't appear to be the biggest and most impressive member of its family. Though having seen the skull of one of these at the Museum here in Canberra, I would't want to mess with one!