Enpeze

I've only briefly looked over the sorcery rules for creating demons, and their entry in the creatures section.

Does anyone think it plausible to create demon abilities using the Super Powers rules? Should it be a straight 1 POW for 1 Level of a Super Power?

Any comments?

Alternatively you could instead use the SB5 rules for demon creation. I am sure they are perfectly suited to the BRP sorcery rules. Why re-inventing the wheel?

Hi Bobcat,

There's nothing wrong if you find any of this material dark and not of your taste. What's inportant is creating and playing in a fantasy realm that you enjoy. However, is this day and age where there's so much saturation in the gaming market that it's inportant for game companies to stay original and true to their roots, as when you boil it down, the companies that have done well over the years are known for a perticular genre; Steve Jackson Games has the whole GURPS multiverse, WhiteWolf has their Vampie the Masquerade, Games Workshop for their Dark Medievalism, and TSR for the McDonalds style fantasy that too many people just love to eat up (even if they hate it). What Chaosium has is their reputation for putting out classy "Adult" based roleplaying games be it Lovecraftian horror or high fantasy Moorcockian kingdoms. You could even say that's one of the reasons why the D20 Elric book did so well.

IMHO, Clark Ashton Smith is one of the last literary beacons of classic 20''s and 30's fantasy that nobody has really touched yet that could make a great RPG setting. Heck, even Jason agrees with me :cool:

Maybe Zothique would suit fine for the Chaosium line of CoC products because of its "dark content". But is this all, BRP can do? Delievering another "dark" setting beside CoC? I dont think so. IMO the majority of people dont like it too dark (me included) and a whole setting full of necromancers and a "dying earth" theme would not be very successful. If done well, maybe such a setting could get a honor medal for beeing "exotic" but nothing more. I would love to invest my money in a "planetary romance" setting, a "mythical history" setting or maybe even in a "the Green" setting. But not in depressing zothique.

And I dont think that Stormbringer is as dark as Zotique (at least not for my taste). SB has alot of colourful and open positive content - like the Mio Spheres, Tanelorn as a city of heroes of the balance etc.

I second this. Normally conversion into BRP dont make much sense IMO. I would rather recommend to see what the intention of the designer is and in what context I want to have it.

Eg. In system xy there is a standand swords fighter with average game values. (In D&D maybe a 2nd level guard) Its easily transported to a BRP standard sword fighter with STR12, DEX11 and Sword 50%.

But is it the same? I am not sure. The problem is that the average 2nd level guard is not that much of a danger. But an average BRP sword fighter can be a deadly foe for any other BRP fighter regardless of its skill. He can kill him outright.

So what I mean is that the most adventures out there which rely on heavy combat are not really good translated to BRP on a formularic or 1:1 base except you dont have any problem that your PCs die like flies.

Better would be to look at the intention of the setting and then make an equivalent BRP situation.

Additionally even BRP has no hardcoded values. It depends on the rule set. So in SB1 even elric has only 112%. In SB5 it is not unusual that a good fighter has 150% or more. (let alone elric with his 880% sword)

Yeah, Zothique is too depressing for me. IMO its also too far away from the vanilla genre to have any chance to become really popular.

I'm really looking forward to Jason's planetary romance game... if that's handled right I think it could really take off 'cause it mixes together a lot of elements that seem 'popular' to me. It's a genre that doesn't seem to see much attention but should be instantly recognizeable to anyone.

I can see all sorts of reasons for pulpy 'lost civilization' type adventures... lots of 'dungeon crawls'... lots of flamboyant sword fights and dueling blaster weapons... but it could get really wierd and scary as well.

I think it has a better chance of standing out on store shelves than another run-of-the-mill Eurocentric Tolkienesque fantasy setting.

Oh yes. This could also be very good. I hope they feed it with modules too. Or maybe a campaign?

I'll ease off on 4e now, for one simple reason...I posted for a BRP group on one of the local meetup groups and got two firm bites almost immediately. There is some interest in the new rulebook around here after all, it seems. Maybe it was the way I was wording the ads. As long as I can get a game of BRP going I don't care about 4e. Oh, the bait is rebuilding a fallen empire and trying to get rich in the process. Swords and sorcery, Howard type stuff.

On a side note, to give you all an idea of just how prevalent WOTC is around here, the gamestore owner, Tim, informed me he sold 700 copies of the 4e Players' Handbook the FIRST BUSINESS DAY it was available. At this one store...800 pound gorilla, indeed.

Anyway, my :deadhorse: is done with.

4e is really nice. I makes fun to play. But you are right, its not much of a roleplaying game anymore. Not that the previous editions have been a rpg, but 4e is even less one. They write "roleplaying game" on the cover but I think thats just a kind of WotC insider joke.

But it has good rules for bashing monsters and collecting treasure...yeah! Additionally it has the advantage that you can just sit down and play without spending much preparation time. The new h1 module is a ready to play adventure with a great optical layout, coloured battlemaps and with not more than 1h prep time or so. This results in 20 combat encounters and 2 (so called) "roleplaying" encounter. :thumb:

My fear is that it seems as if Chaosium is relying almost entirely on outside submissions for settings book. Part of me thinks this great, as there is a lot of exciting stuff on the horizon. Unfortunately I doubt I will be able to buy it all, and knowing myself I will undoubtedly read less of it than I actually buy.

I have always held that despite the fantastic system, RQ 1/2 became so popular because of the excellent supplements that were released for it.

I'm afraid there will be kind of shotgun effect, many different 1-2 sourcebook supplements and no one flagship setting.

Playing D&D in Ebberon (which I have never opened a book for btw) it is a safe bet that you can find a game group in a setting you are familiar with just about anywhere you go. Already it is hard enough to find a BRP group, but if you do, what is the likelihood they play the same setting you do?

What is needed to grow the brp fanbase is one good setting (or at least one per major genre) that will be produced by Chaosium that receives continuing support and will sit next to the BRP rulebook on store shelves across the country.

I emphasised the word grow because we here are all pretty much diehards and in tune with every minor release coming out and excited about all of them. What would really help the game grow with new users is if for example Paul in Boston could tell Derek in LA: "I just played this new (sic) game, BRP, and it rocks. 'The Green' is awesome." and the next time Derek is in a game store in LA he sees BRP on the shelf, and sitting right next to it is The Green.

Much like the conversations that happened so many years ago: "I just played this new game, RuneQuest, and it it Rocks. Griffin Mountain is awesome!"

I think you are abolutely right. I see it similar. To have a real success with BRP Chaosium should create a main setting. Some hours ago I had a similar discussion on the Gurps board. They said to me that Gurps is a "generic" system and thus cannot and should not concentrate on some main settings and ergo on any adventure modules. Is BRP in a similar one-way market niche? I dont have this opinion. I think that focusing on a setting is good for business and winning new gamers. At the moment they have CoC. But this is not enough. I think focusing with BRP on a fantasy setting should be the goal. Maybe the Green is right, I dont know. I have heard something about this setting. Maybe its good, but I would rather prefer if Chaosium fleshes out "historical fantasy" settings like Mythical Iceland or Myhtical Rome.

oops sorry double post.

Yes, both of those items make sense; they also add more steps. Remember, I am going for fast and dirty, to one of the simplest forms of BRP. Just taking it far enough so I can bolt the concept onto the system, and play...but for a more complete conversion those are good points. SB1 didn't even have a move characteristic, per se, and higher POW will add to the Perception bonus.

Thrall, male

6' 8" 300 lbs. INT -3, WIL +2, STR +4, DEX +2, CON +4, SPD +1

16 hit points, immune fear, inability to comprehend magic

This is all you need for the actual conversion. On the SB1 height/weight chart the male Thrall falls into the SIZ 17 category. Assuming that is average, he gets +6 to the SIZ roll. The INT gets him a -1d4, relatively small since his mental failing applies to magic primarily and a disinterest in much of anything except fighting. He is not stupid, just not intellectually inclined. His WIL of +2 gets a POW bonus of +1d6 because he is not only inable to even comprehend magic but also was likely designed to be resistant to it in a world where magic is often used in combat. STR +4 gets 2d4 in BRP, because the weapon of choice is the greatsword. Maybe a Thrall too weak to use a greatsword would be left in the swamp, so he needs a minimum 11. Probably, I would make that a min. default as well. CON +4 will get 1d8. DEX +2 and SPD +1 gets at least a +1d8, and a default of 13 for the same reason as the STR. In fact, reverse the STR and DEX bonus dice, because the stats for a greatsword are 11 and 13, respectively.

The skills. Thralls would mostly be warriors, with a few merchants and craftsmen, maybe farmers and hunters.

The base archetype is almost identical to the SB1 warrior already. Three weapon skills and ride. Add brawl, good to go. And 1d6+2 misc. skills, to have some combat or military application.

So, my BRP Thrall:

STR +1d8

CON +1D8

SIZ +6

INT -1d4

POW +1d6

DEX +2d4

CHA --

On a base of 3d6 in order. Average Thrall;

STR 15

CON 15

SIZ 16-17

INT 8

POW 14

DEX 15-16

CHA 10-11

Hit points 17-18

Damage bonus +1d6/1d4

Good bonuses. Positive numbers except Knowledge. Very good melee fighter, naturally.

Opinions?

Perfectly. This is like I would do it.

Now that people are seeing the finished product of BRP (and I can't get it for a little while as my personal computer doesn't have internet access, and needs some repairs), I would like to ask about the damage rules. Do the rules allow for doing splatterpunk well?

why not? BRP with its hitlocations offers the possiblity to cut off heads and arms as much as you like.

So, I was in the gamestore this morning. There were a bunch of...fans...of D&D extolling the 'virtues' of 4e, as if it were the only game out there (yes, I still refuse to call it a role playing game, but that is another story). I have to admit that I am wondering if BRP is going to be dead on arrival, now that it has been delayed until after the shiny, arty new 4e books come out. I am frankly wondering right now if trying to stay the course and start a group with BRP is pointless, if my involvement with the hobby is just dead if I don't join in the mindless habit that is D&D. Has Chaosium waited too long to launch BRP? Are we doomed to WOTC mediocrity for the forseeable future?;-(

How about that? First luring new players into your roleplaying base with the newest shiny module of 4e in front of their nose and after playing through it attack them with BRP!

Just looking at the summary at the start of this thread, it looks as though:

- assume the role of a fictional character: Clearly this is a major part of the game

- collaboratively create or follow stories: This is clearly possible as scenarios don't seem to be completely closed

- use rules to decide the success of actions: No problem here

- improvise freely within the rules: Probably as much as any game - you can play BRP very rigidly and not allow improvisation and you can play D&D and allow improvisation

- shape the direction and outcome of the game: Simply by their actions they can shape the way the campaign/hame goes

So, I honestly can't see how it cannot be a RPG.

Perhaps this is the classic BRP vs D&D (or the old RQ vs D&D) revisited.

Absolutely not. I am not caring about D&D 1-3.5 as roleplaying game. It have no interest to discuss previous editions of D&D. My opinion about them is that they are roleplaying games (of course very weak ones, but still rpgs). No, I am interested in discussing 4e only. 4e is a break with previous D&D editions and rpg traditions in general. And this makes it interesting.

I know some D&D players who would be very put out if you said they didn't play a RPG. I can't see that changing in D&D4. D&D isn't my cup of tea, I like RQ too much, but it has a lot going for it.

just because some wikipedia authors think the above points are enough to define a roleplaying game it does not mean that it is, no? Or do you think that Wikipedia is the definitve source about this matter? According to the above criterias Advanced Heroquest is a roleplaying game too. Do you think this?

And again before you think that you can compare 4e with the previous editions of D&D you should read the core books, then decide, not before. I am wondering that the most "pro D&D4e" people here didnt even read the 4e books. But they claim to know something about it. But this opinion is not more than a prejudice resulting from what they know from previous editions.

Maybe I should wait some weeks, when the official version is out and the peeps here can take a look at them. This probably make the discussion more interesting.

One thing to learn from D&D is the giving of rewards for RolePlaying. IMO this is A Good Thing. In 3.5 there were extra XP for RP - still a crude mechanism, but better than nothing (which is what by-the-book BRP has, even now).

Mind you, is that bonus going to survive into 4E? Perhaps it'll be improved... :innocent:

(Let's get that record... )

No. They took it out in 4e (you know why...)

Rest assured that I did take a close look at what has been published until

now. I will definitely neither buy nor play it, as mentioned "upthread", but

I will also not give it a dishonourable discharge from the ranks of RPGs.

D&D was never a very honourable rpg so a final discharge is not that extreme. On the other hand, now it finds its proper place as a rising star in the boardgame genre .

Since we aren't debating Gamist-Simulationist-Narrativist styles of play, and last time I checked, BRP still fell in the GS camp rather than the N camp, the only thing missing from 4E currently (and even that is debatable) is a detailed setting to use the rules in.

Not really true. In the DMG there is a valley and a city description. Additionally a 4e forgotten realms sourcebook and module is coming up later this year. Next year will be Eberron the focus.

Now, let us take a look at a common (Wikipedia) definition of roleplaying ga-

mes:

A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the

participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively cre-

ate or follow stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters

based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to

a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players can improvi-

se freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

Can one do all this with D&D 4.0 ?

- assume the role of a fictional character: yes

- collaboratively create or follow stories: yes

- use rules to decide the success of actions: oh, yes

- improvise freely within the rules: well, yes

- shape the direction and outcome of the game: yes

Is D&D 4.0 a roleplaying game, according to this definition ?

Obviously, yes.

Do we need another, more narrow definition of what an RPG is ?

Not in my opinion, I have no idea what it could be good for.

So, could we let it stand there, please ?

I think you should first take a look at the 4e books before answering your own questions with "yes".

Thanks for that - most informative, though it is bitter-sweet to have one's worst suspicions proved right.

This is not just an "I hate DnD" thread, for me at least - I am genuinely looking for things to learn from 4E. The trouble is there's precious little that's good - mostly it's teaching us what not to do in an RPG.

Yes, RPG - it is still an RPG. As I said before, anything can be RP-ed. So you could have "Noughts and Crosses - the Role-Playing Game" (with the exact-same rules as we all already know) and it would be an RPG. Sadly, though, 4E appears to be trying to twist what "role" means: to just combat function instead of character personality.

This focus on "what is important" is perfectly suited to a skirmish game. And for this D&D 4 is great. I play 4e since several weeks as skirmish game and our group loves it. Its a much better designed game than 3.5 or earlier versions.

WotC seem to have succumbed to the classic GM temptation, becoming controlling instead of enabling (like GS's Glorantha?). And their reasons are obviou$.

Well controlling the things the players do from 1st level heroic path dungeon crawl to 30th level destiny path crawl is an old trick for achieving an integrated game experience which has a similar quality for everybody. Many good boardgames do this. For example Talisman ends when you get the crown of the country after going through 3 tiers of difficulty. D&D 4e ends when you reach your destiny after going through 3 tears of difficulty (heroic, paragon and epic). Nothing special except that the quality of 21st century D&D4e rules have improved dramatically in comparision to AD&D of the 90ties. They are not more complex than previous editions but are offering you more possibilities (for example with the help of predefined keywords, eg if a monster gets the keyword "dazed" because beeing target of one of your powers it means that you and others in your team gets "combat advantage" with +2 to hit)

Basically, BRP will probably never be seen on the shelves of my FLGS, because more and more people are going for miniatures games;-(

No, please dont confuse it. Miniature Games like D&D4e ARE roleplaying games. At least according to Wizards of the Coast and some participants of this thread.

And next year WotC is producing a MONOPOLY variant with some castles for houses, dragonlair for jail and gold pieces included and label it at the front cover as "Dungeonopoly - the new 3D roleplaying experience". I am sure some people will love this game for its potential for roleplaying. The rules of this game would be not that important, as long as you can play you character between movement from hotel- ahem- castle to lair and vice versa. I mean hey why not? Its Wizards of the Coast. They know what a rpg is, no? If they are putting their rpg label at the front of game box/book, it IS one!

Other examples of this exceptional tolerant view what a rpg is, are WoW, Everquest, Advanced Heroquest, Warhammer Mordheim, Fighting Fantasy Books, this thread and of course Talisman. (at least I heard from people who used to play out their Talisman characters ingame and with a game master)

I don't think you can really judge whether a Role-Playing Game is a Role-Playing Game based solely on whether or not you can role-play while playing it. I role-play while playing Talisman, but that doesn't make it a Role-Playing Game.

While the definition of what a Role-Playing Game is will always be a bit fuzzy, I think the best that can be said about D&D 4th Edition is that it has elements of a Role-Playing Game in it. It really is just a tactical miniatures skirmish game with persistent characters and a bit of story tacked on to give you are reason to keep playing.

It does have persistent characters, character growth and things like that.

Maybe we can just call it a Miniature Combat Role-Playing Game?

It is kind of a sub-set of Role-Playing Games like Compute Role-playing Games or Massively Multi-player Online Role-Playing Games.

Perfectly said. This is true in every aspect. The thing that most people dont seem to realize is that 4e is not just "another" D&D version. Its a holistic experience with all its computer assisted content and premade battlemaps and minis, a revolutionary concept and it goes in a different direction than traditional rpgs.

Anyways, I thought 3.5 quashed roleplaying as it was, but 4th seems to be going out of its way to show, "No... THIS is how you quash roleplaying!"

Agreed. On the other hand if you ignore the ridiculous fact that it still labels itself "rpg", D&D4e is a great and extremely clever designed combat system as such. I really like the rule mechanics for my weekly wargame session.

For me 100% is a high skill but of course not the cap. Not many PCs or NPCs had ever over 100% in any of my games. But I like it gritty and not "heroic" or cinematic. So beeing comfortable with 100%+ or not is a matter of playing style IMO.

Regarding the rule mechanic for experience: For me it was always the question too, how often anybody has to roll experience dice to go ever over 95% or higjer. So if a single samurai (perfect fighting style or not) has 150%, how did he get it? Mechanical wise he has maybe to fight (and survive the deadly BRP rules) hundred times in order to have such a high skill. I am always laughing at SB5 NPCs which are just 25 years old and have skills over 100%. How hand waving.

So if anybody allows high skills and wants to play in a "believeable" environment and not in a movie, then he should adapt the given experience rules of BRP or requiring the high skill PCs to be very old.

I'd just like to add my voice to the chorus of people who don't think D&D is an RPG. I'd classify it more as a tactical/strategy game with social mechanics. When I say "social mechanics," I'm referring to skills like "Bluff" and "Diplomacy," not players interacting under the guise of a persona. Also, I think the use of props that can potentially enhance the idea that the character is NOT the player (having a miniature represent the character rather than the player himself), this further distances the connection between the player and playing the role of his character.

For me, the system is so intensely gamist as to render the attention to mechanics as paramount rather than actually playing a role in the sense of taking on a persona.

You speak mainly from 3rd edition, no? I agree this is a rather cumbersome and not easy to use game. But its still a kind of roleplaying game for many people. 4e does not maintain this. They changed the 3e rules extremely. Its not more a rpg than say Advanced Heroquest or Heroscape or Warhammer Mordheim. Eg not using Miniatures and battlemaps is not intended, its a must. I would say playing it is a mix between a mmorpg computer game and board game. And DDI (D&D Interactive) the new subscribable online service of Wizards contributes to this feeling

That said, I like D&D for what it does: offer a strategy/tactical fantasy game of epic power levels. I like to attempt to play a character, but most people I play with have been turned off by such concepts. I've even had a player respond, "Oh... you do it THAT way... that's all right." As in, he didn't want to act out a role in his roleplaying game. Very, very odd.

Yes I observed similar things. The D&D crowd is sometimes a strange kind of roleplayer.

I've roleplayed using the D&D rules without a problem. Sure, you are shoehorned into various roles, but that doesn't really matter. You can have as much fun with D&D as with any other roleplaying game. My old RQ group used to play very high-level D&D and they had great fun with it, including spending 5 game-years researching the "Turn Stone into Blamanche" and turning an opponent's castle into a wobbling block of blamanche.

Well your experience is from previous editions of D&D. They are not very good for me, but have a limited value as rpg system, so I agree that you can have fun with it.

This changed with 4e. Its not the same D&D as you know it. It plays more like a board version of mmorpgs with elite monsters, boss fights, autohealing, DOTs, HOTs etc. (if you know what I mean)

Of course for wargamer the change is not bad and its reveals a phantastic tactical skirmish gaming, much better than Advanced Heroquest.

So was Runequest.

Runequest was designed with focus on miniatures use originally? This is new to me. If this true, then I am glad, that they dont stress this anymore in the newer incarnations of the game.

Yet you can still do so, and I doubt seriously it'll be impossible with 4e, either.

No sorry, you cant. Remember I am playing the game. You could rather play Monopoly without hotels.

Given the number of posts I see by people trying for niche protection in other games, however, I fail to see how a defined role in combat makes roleplaying impossible.

Maybe not totally impossible but really hard.

People assume just as strange a things for genre emulation reasons in any number of games and I fail to see how that interferes with their roleplaying. I think you're conflating world-consistency issues with roleplaying ones here.

Well both is normally connected to each other. E.g. if there is a rule system where no injury for PCs exists, only dead, beeing "fatigued" or at full strength you cannot play all the fear and suffering of receiving serious wounds in combat, no? So rules and roleplaying emotions have an intense connection. Rules backup emotions and give truth to them if the rules are good.

But in D&D4e a typical conversation between 2 players could be: "well I have just 2 Hitpoints left and this means am really tired now. You too, Sir Lance-a-lot? Lets bash the monsters in 5min after the break, when we have back our full hitpoints." (and this is no exaggeration!)

This I mean D&D4 will be extremely difficult to play as a serious roleplaying game. Of course you can play it satirical. Or as a boardgame - as we do.

Another example is that D&D4e is designed from the beginning as a game with map and minis. In D&D3 you had the choice to play with or without board. Not in 4e anymore. They closed the obvious gap and every combat encounter (24 in the first adventure module!) you play is designed for using the tabletop rules and boards the company provides. You can use 90% of the powers of monsters or PCs only in conjunction with a exact positioning and pushing around minis.

A third example is that each class has a defined role on the board. There are tanks, strikers, AoE and Leaders (healers) like in my beloved WoW MMorpg. Btw. I play WoW also not as a roleplaying game.

So I would say that D&D4 is not more rpg than say Advanced Heroquest. If AHQ is one for you, then go for D&D4 and use it as rpg.