Jump to content

The Strengths of BRP


Robsbot

Recommended Posts

I seem to understand that the very popular Savage Worlds (which I never read nor played) occupies a similar niche to that BRP, although it tends more to the emulation of pulp fiction than to that of "realistic" fiction.

I would agree with the assessment that Savage Worlds occupies the same space as BRP. I tend to recommend them to many of the same audiences. My own tastes run more to BRP, as I find the dice mechanics, plus the use of playing cards and other variants on randomization, to be clunky comparatively, and to have some quirks I'm not pleased with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to understand that the very popular Savage Worlds (which I never read nor played) occupies a similar niche to that BRP, although it tends more to the emulation of pulp fiction than to that of "realistic" fiction.

Yes, they aim at a very similar target. The strong points of SW are "pulpy" play and mass combat, which it does better than other systems.

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My indie gaming friends would say, so what? Why do you want realism at the expense of narration? The answer is, I don't want realism at the expense of narration--I want both.

As RosenMcStern, I fully do agree with that. It really summarizes the strength of BRP. A game which is exactly right in the middle line between extremely narrativist games and extremely realistic ones and which do both... With very simple rules!

There are more granular systems that are more realistic but that sacrifice ease of play and narration.

Yes. GURPS is one of those. GURPS rules are more realistic than BRP ones. At least, they give me that feeling. But there is so much more calculations and things to handle during play that you inevitably loose narrativism. Hard to make good descriptions when you have to make 3 or more dice rolls for each combat second...

Disadvantage: It's easy to die in BRP...

To my mind, this is not really a disadvantage. Usually, when a warrior has been injured by a good knive blow in the stomach or a bullet deeply stepped in the shoulder, he thinks that he was very lucky and immediately stops fighting. BRP rules reminds that combat reality: once you are injured, don't insist or you will die! It's time to go to hospital.

Edited by Gollum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the lethality of BRP combat is a plus to me as well. It encourages finding alternate means to solve problems, cautious approaches to potentially violent situations and running away (retreat!) as a very good alternative.

A lot more 'story' arises out of the way folks avoid combat or find ways to go into it with the upper hand... vs. just charging in the front door every time because they know the rules are heavily weighted in their favor. I've played those games and combat that isn't dangerous is just boring to me.

Not that death needs to happen every session... but I want to know that sword is hanging over my head... that it's a real consequence for not taking violence seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as wanting both realism and narratarism, it really isn't as simple as checking on yes/no for either or both. It's more a case of trade offs. For every feature that you add to an RPG there is a tradeoff - complexity. So in boils down to just what things we the game rules to cover and how much complexity we are willing to accept to get them.

And even "realism" is a relative term. The old RQ combat system with hit locations, impales and severed limbs was one of the most deadly RPG systems out there, in it's day. But it really wasn't very realistic. It's much harder to lop off a body part in combat, than it is in old RQ. And the system hasn't gone any more "realistic" since then. Probably less realistic.

But it all boils down to what features we desire and what we are willing to put up with to get them. That's also why it's hard at time to "enlighten" other gamers to the virtues of BRP - because the game system might not have the features that they desire or expect. I have some friends who play D20 who are simply terrified of the idea of fixed hit points -despite the problems that escalating hits points cause for some of the genres they want to play in. A Old West style shootout gets silly when the shootists have to stop to reload a couple of times!

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that BRP allows to use different levels of simulation within the same game: it is often possible to use precise rules if required, or to solve some situations with a mere opposite rolls. The rules can therefore been used to help the narration with the requested degree of complexity for a given scene: there is no conflict between simulation and narration if you keep this freedom. Not to say that there logic make it easy to make easy spot rules to solve any situation while keeping suspense.

Anyway, in any rpg, the GM is free to skip die rolls if he feels it brings nothing to the story.

  • Like 1

Wind on the Steppes, role playing among the steppe Nomads. The  running campaign and the blog

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, in any rpg, the GM is free to skip die rolls if he feels it brings nothing to the story.

This, a thousand times this. Way too many people claim not to like certain games because of 'too much' die rolling but if the game is guided by the skill levels in BRP games and the dice are only rolled if the action if performed under stress or a failure is interesting or meaningful then the average BRP game runs so much faster and cleaner.

  • Like 1

Nigel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This, a thousand times this. Way too many people claim not to like certain games because of 'too much' die rolling but if the game is guided by the skill levels in BRP games and the dice are only rolled if the action if performed under stress or a failure is interesting or meaningful then the average BRP game runs so much faster and cleaner.

This is absolutely true, but this rule, which is present in BRP (p. 175) is not stressed enough in the book and I suspect that many GMs overlook it. Nor does the rule say "when failure is meaningful" in the BGB, a formulation that may apply to more simulative games but is usually used in narrative ones (HeroQuest explicitly says this). This means that this particular aspect of the game is often left to GM wisdom. Which is a pity as it is quite important but it is not perceived as a distinctive feature of BRP - as it should in fact be.

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "failure is meaningful" obviously comes from playing too much FATE recently :-)

Still if the failure doesn't mean anything then why roll for the action at all. Example: Creeping up on the guard to silence him would be meaningful if failed - he shouts the alarm. If however the door to the warehouse is locked and time spent dealing with it will not bring the bad guys why roll, just tell the lockpicker, after x minutes (depending upon the level of skill) you get the door open. You can ratchet up the tension by narration rather than a failure to roll a low enough score for lock picking. If they ask you could offer a chance to speed up the lockpicking at a more difficult level and make them roll at that point.

Nigel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many games that are otherwise quite detailed in their rules have features that many GMs either read and don't remember, or read and don't really feel comfortable implementing. Even GURPS is quite explicit that when you're not under any stress, most tasks you're trying get a +10, so even a character whose skill might warrant a 10- on 3d6 has a nearly 100% chance of avoiding failure under normal circumstances. You get the same result from the "don't make them roll for something if it doesn't matter" rules that many games have anymore.

Though, to be fair, if you know it doesn't matter as a GM, you might still make them roll just to keep the tension high and avoid giving away anything you didn't intend to give away.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "failure is meaningful" obviously comes from playing too much FATE recently :-)

Still if the failure doesn't mean anything then why roll for the action at all. Example: Creeping up on the guard to silence him would be meaningful if failed - he shouts the alarm. If however the door to the warehouse is locked and time spent dealing with it will not bring the bad guys why roll, just tell the lockpicker, after x minutes (depending upon the level of skill) you get the door open. You can ratchet up the tension by narration rather than a failure to roll a low enough score for lock picking. If they ask you could offer a chance to speed up the lockpicking at a more difficult level and make them roll at that point.

Problem is that this is in tension with the improvement system which requires successful skill rolls. so you have one part of the system steering you one way (no need to roll unless it's meaningful) and another part encouraging players to roll as often as possible in order to increase in skill. That's one of the reasons I prefer RQ/Legend's improvement roll system.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is that this is in tension with the improvement system which requires successful skill rolls. so you have one part of the system steering you one way (no need to roll unless it's meaningful) and another part encouraging players to roll as often as possible in order to increase in skill. That's one of the reasons I prefer RQ/Legend's improvement roll system.

But what to do if you're also a fan of RQ3/BRPs more finely grained skill system? Just double the number of Improvement Rolls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is that this is in tension with the improvement system which requires successful skill rolls. so you have one part of the system steering you one way (no need to roll unless it's meaningful) and another part encouraging players to roll as often as possible in order to increase in skill. That's one of the reasons I prefer RQ/Legend's improvement roll system.

Well, that seems simple to me. Some players are notorious for trying to attempt skill rolls constantly, wanting to 'climb the ladder' of power as quickly and improbably as possible. Frankly I like not rolling all the time, and the limitations that puts on skill increases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that seems simple to me. Some players are notorious for trying to attempt skill rolls constantly, wanting to 'climb the ladder' of power as quickly and improbably as possible. Frankly I like not rolling all the time, and the limitations that puts on skill increases.

I guess the GM can say, you don't get a skill increase roll for performing a task that doesn't have potential negative consequences, such as climbing or jumping over the same small wall numerous times. That's well within the spirit of the rules. A task you can try to do multiple times, with no negative consequences, is the same as an Easy or Automatic task. In fact, the GM should just rule that it's Automatic, so no dice roll at all.

I've heard some players like to switch weapons multiple times in the middle of combat to get in some extra skill rolls. But delaying the end of combat might attract guards, police, predators, friends of the opponent, etc., and there's always a chance the last goblin standing will get in a critical hit while you're switching to your nth weapon. Or maybe he just throws down his sword and surrenders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard some players like to switch weapons multiple times in the middle of combat to get in some extra skill rolls. But delaying the end of combat might attract guards, police, predators, friends of the opponent, etc., and there's always a chance the last goblin standing will get in a critical hit while you're switching to your nth weapon. Or maybe he just throws down his sword and surrenders?

And I absolutely don't allow that. There is no IC reason to do such a ridiculous, and dangerous, thing. You want to have one battle with your lead Troll sneak-attack toothpick, and the next with your God Learner's razor-sharp bookmark, and the one after that with your baboon toe-claw extension, well, I guess I'd allow that. But no switching within a combat as a ploy to exploit the rules system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I absolutely don't allow that. There is no IC reason to do such a ridiculous, and dangerous, thing. You want to have one battle with your lead Troll sneak-attack toothpick, and the next with your God Learner's razor-sharp bookmark, and the one after that with your baboon toe-claw extension, well, I guess I'd allow that. But no switching within a combat as a ploy to exploit the rules system.

I agree. The GM is the final arbiter as to whether a skill is allowed to be checked off in the first place. In combat one skill check assumes the weapon is being used long enough to actually have a chance to gain actual insight into its use, not one successful swing. It could be argued that a player that switches weapons several times during a melee just to get the check, has not used any of them sufficiently to warrant the check in the first place. However in the case of a character that has had his weapon ripped from his hand and found himself having to switch to a new one, I would allow the check.

I'll admit, I'm not a fan of the RQ6/Legend skill improvement rolls system. To me the skill check system was what set BRP apart from all the other role playing games out there. I love the "use a skill to improve a skill" system. The skill improvement rolls system just turns it into another experience point game, and those are everywhere.

Join my Mythras/RuneQuest 6: Classic Fantasy Yahoo Group at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/RQCF/info

"D100 - Exactly 5 times better than D20"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many games that are otherwise quite detailed in their rules have features that many GMs either read and don't remember, or read and don't really feel comfortable implementing. Even GURPS is quite explicit that when you're not under any stress, most tasks you're trying get a +10, so even a character whose skill might warrant a 10- on 3d6 has a nearly 100% chance of avoiding failure under normal circumstances. You get the same result from the "don't make them roll for something if it doesn't matter" rules that many games have anymore.

Actually, actions without stress gives +4 rather than +10 in GURPS. But it doesn't matter. What you say here still remains true. +4 on 3d6 is really huge. You go from 10 (50% chance of succeeding) to 14 (more than 90% chance of succeeding).

Furthermore, GURPS has this rule: any ordinary task attempted in a mundane non adventuring job automatically succeeds. No roll is needed to drive into town for instance, even when you just know the skill by default (that is when you didn't spend the least point in it) and, so, just have a 5 in Driving...

So, as very well said above, most role playing games have this kind of rule.

Edited by Gollum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's well within the spirit of the rules. A task you can try to do multiple times, with no negative consequences, is the same as an Easy or Automatic task. In fact, the GM should just rule that it's Automatic, so no dice roll at all.

I disagree, this is within the letter of the rules. It is explicitly stated that you should do so. The fact that Jason remarked this explicitly in the BGB is quite important to assess the overall quality of BRP. It is a pity that many players consider this as a houserule or something left to GM common sense, as it is not.

  • Like 1

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of GMs make players roll everything, and it becomes ingrained. Quite a few rolls could and shold be dropped. At times I've gone so far as to bypass a small fight because the outcome was pretty much automatic. On one side a group of experienced PCs, on the other a single foe with combat skills at 25%. Sure, I could roll lucky and main or kill a PC, but that really wouldn't have helped advance the adventure or the campaign.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

'love the game - I'm a fairly recent convert.   Last spring, I picked up BRP as an alternative set of adventures along-side a 4E game that I'd been running for a while. After that main campaign reached a logical pause point, we just started running BRP as the 'main campaign' partly because I was developing Rel'Pek, and party because the players were enjoying the system.  Through the alternative rules that the group helped me to develop (they are very patient with changes), many of which are available on BRP Central, we managed to make it our own game. . . As one specific example - the last post I started - about initiative - resulted in our running the BRP combat rules with a 4E style round structure - which proved to be a great balance of simplicity and complexity that allows for a decent pace.  So, the modular nature of the BRP rules-set has been its greatest advantage for us.   That, and the fact that there no piles of Hit Points to slog through. As a GM, I'm still taken aback when a villain does down quickly, but then, in retrospect, i see that each time that it happened was the 'perfect' time for that bad guy to go. . . a round or two less, and they would have been too weak, and a round or three more and the fight might have settled into an uneasy attrition.  Also, the players like the grittiness that the relatively low hit points provides. . .and that's without using hit locations!

 

BRP is an intuitive, versatile system that allows for many different styles of play.  Combat takes just long enough so that the players can get to clue chasing, problem solving, and other forms of role playing.  It's much less about exploiting rules than other systems seem to encourage, and more about lively story telling mixed with gripping tactical play.  I'll end by quoting one of my players from an email trail that I started on a similar topic, "Personally I like the current mix of roleplaying, strategy & combat."

  • Like 2

If everybody in the world thought and acted like i do, then who would be the players in my Basic Role Playing game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "failure is meaningful" obviously comes from playing too much FATE recently :-)

Still if the failure doesn't mean anything then why roll for the action at all. Example: Creeping up on the guard to silence him would be meaningful if failed - he shouts the alarm. If however the door to the warehouse is locked and time spent dealing with it will not bring the bad guys why roll, just tell the lockpicker, after x minutes (depending upon the level of skill) you get the door open. You can ratchet up the tension by narration rather than a failure to roll a low enough score for lock picking. If they ask you could offer a chance to speed up the lockpicking at a more difficult level and make them roll at that point.

 

Well for one reason, so the players don't know exactly when failure is or isn't meaningful. If the players know that failure ins't meaningful then there is no tension. 

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...