Akerbakk

I think it all depends on how granular/ gritty/realistic you want your combat to be!

For me, penalizing a character for changing plans against their statement of intent feels pedantic. As a caveat, I tend to run more on the cinematic side of things.

Were I to run something that is more tactical I may consider a DEX or INT penalty to action.

On 10/24/2023 at 12:22 AM, rsanford said:

You might check out Heinrich's Call of Cthulhu Guide to Character Creation - https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/385321/Heinrichs-Call-of-Cthulhu-Guide-to-Character-Creation

I only recently found out about it, but its rapidly ascending to the top of my must buy list...

PS - Also see here -> https://basicroleplaying.net/basic-roleplaying-workshop/basic-roleplaying-additions-supplements/life-path-character-generation-brp-zero/

 

I own Heinrich's and it is fantastic.

Yup, round 1: Fire!

Round 2: reload!

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

IDK if you play Rune Quest, but in the RQG main rules pages 57-59 there are rules for how different stats affect skills in RQ/  They are called Skill Category modifiers.  This means that in RQ base skills are higher.  It might be worth a look.  I have considered including this in my CoC games.

I also have a couple of house rules you might enjoy...

(1) If players have forgotten something their character would probably remember, they get to roll Idea to recall it.  This is handy for people with busy lives.

(2) A common knowledge fact that characters would know about a period like the 1920s that players might not know can default to an EDU roll.

I considered the Skill Bonuses from the BRP BGB, which is similar! I want to try to keep CoC nice and lean... we'll see.

Useful info for the Idea and Know rolls. Thank you 🙂

2 hours ago, Mike M said:

I don't think you necessarily need to make a new rule for this. If a player is using a social skill like Charm, Fast Talk, or Persuade, and says they are using their "winning" APP to help - and you deem it appropriate / they make a good roleplaying effort - you can simply award them a bonus die or reduce the difficulty of the roll. Equally, an investigator with low APP, might use their "less winning" APP when rolling Intimidate, and gain a bonus die, or something like that. 

 

Maybe it is that easy...thanks!

I'm pondering a possible houserule for my table and would love some feedback, or ideas from the crowd.

I would love to figure out a way to link Characteristics to skills. I looked in the BRP Big Gold Book and although I like the Skill Category Bonuses optional rule (p. 31), this feels a bit crunchy for the way CoC 7e runs. I am considering something simpler like "Spend a point of Luck to add a Bonus Die to any skill under 50% if you can explain how your Characteristic (over 75%) will help you."

Thanks all :)

I think the intent behind an improvement roll each adventure is good: it is a moment for a character to reflect on significant actions and ponder their way ahead, or drill in those new lessons learned. I like doing checks at the beginning of each session. It's a great lead in from the last session, doesn't break the flow of the game, and can easily be done during "pre-game" when players are arriving, you're getting organized, food is on its way, etc.

If the implementation as written doesn't suit you then I would absolutely change it. I would not go so far as an experience check every round. Combat skills would greatly outpace non-combat. I think immersion would suffer as well with constant mechanical breaks from the action.

Based on what you are saying here, I might try an experience check after an encounter/ scene (you guys mount your steeds after clearing the dungeon/ bed down for dinner after playing politics at the dinner party - EXP check!) and see if that gets your people where you want them. Aim for 3 to 5 checks a session after major plot points or side quests in your game, when there is a natural pause in the action for someone to realistically think to themselves "how did x go for me? You could even limit combat skill checks saying that improvement comes from sustained practice under stressful conditions and let them pick 1 weapon per encounter to improve.

I mean, come on. Realistically can you expect to get better with your axe when you only pull it once per fight for one wild swing in to hopefully get an experience check? No. Swing, parry, feint, swing again, hack, hack, hack, pry, hack again, coup de grace. Turn at next corner. Repeat. Only when you, victorious in your departure, covered in the gore of your enemies, a path of viscous fluids trailing you, your axe singing sweetly as it is holstered amidst the percussion of dripping enemy entrails do you have the opportunity to say to yourself "man, that went well." EXP!

On 10/29/2016 at 4:09 PM, Ely said:

On the other hand I like a lot the feat system presented with the D20 system. ¿Is there something similar on the BRP line? I don´t mean an advantages/disadvantages system; I mean something like special skills or traits to make the characters more epic.

I like that kind of stuff too, it really helps to differentiate characters. I have used/ adapted the Stunts from the Blood Tide supplement in a BRP Star Wars game I ran a few months back. My players and I were pleased with the results, as we were able to model a Mandalorian and 2 separate Jedi with distinct fighting styles.

Many of the stunts can be used as written, just renamed. I'd recommend adding new stunts to fit the weapons for the setting.

13 hours ago, Mankcam said:

I think RQ may be be a little harder than CoC 7E to make a generic ruleset in regards to things like char gen. It regards to combat , RQ may not be the best fit either, although melee combat certainly does shine. 

On the other hand, the CoC 7E engine probably has wider applications. Its practically all there already.

In regards to nuts n bolts, the CoC 7E engine is as simple as the BGB rules were, except with one extra success level.

Pity about the stat block disparity with expressing Characteristics as %, but the rest is pretty reasonable I think.

As far as char gen goes, the skill pts are calculated using different Characteristics for each Profession. Between the Professions listed in CoC 7E and Cthuhlu Thru The Ages you have covered Professions from Jazz Era, Victorian Era, Dark Ages , Vikings, Ancient Rome, and Post Apoclytic Future. It would be simple to either cherry pick those or make generic era versions.

Hit Locations are not default, but are presented as an option in CoC 7E. 

As far as weapons go, CoC 7E covers firearms and Cthulhu Thru The Ages covers Ancient/ Medieval weaponry and rules associated with such. 

Skill mods are Bonus/Penalty dice as opposed to numerical modifiers, and that's about all that would need to port over. Stuff like Push rules, Luck rules, Mythos Magic etc would probably not be in BRPE.

But looking at this, its plain to see that Chaosium ALREADY has a freshened-up generic engine based on the CoC 7E mechanics. 

They are obiviously just trying to work out whether to run with this, or go with CRQ4 as the core BRPE.

I suspect that if they hadn't chosen Mythic Iceland to be the first BRPE release then they would have automatically gone with the CoC 7E engine.

Personally I love RQ so I'm happy either way, and if BRPE is cherry picked between the two then I can live with that.

However its logical that BRPE could easily use the CoC 7E engine, considering the profile and popularity of CoC 7E. All the game mechanics are already in place. 

Trimming down the core mechanics chapters from CoC7E and adding it to material from Cthulhu Thru The Ages would be a Sunday drive compared to what Jeff is doing with updating the new RQ rules. 

The path of least resistance is usually the one that wins out...

 

I agree. I think you and @Gollum have made enough arguments for me to change my vote. I reread the CoC7 quick start this  past weekend and was leaning that way to begin with - to the point that I am changing my house system to incorporate more CoC elements.

Would love to see something new be put out from an official source on the topic of BRPE...

On 10/12/2016 at 9:27 AM, ColinBrett said:

I know this has been discussed at length but would it be possible for the essentials to include "generic powers", rather than specifics (magic, sorcery, mutations) in an Essentials book? After all, a "Magic Missile" spell can have the same effect as "Laser Vision" but listed in the rules as "Focussed Energy Attack" (which is distinct from a "Fireball" spell versus "Power Blast", described as an "Area Energy Attack"). The players can choose a power and a suitably descriptive name.

Savage Worlds does this sort of thing but I truly don't know how well it works in-game and between different genres. It just seem to me that a "generic assault rifle" is just as Essential as a generic "Multi-shot Energy Attack" power.

All that slurred (hic), I'll still have the BGB as my go-to system.

Colin 

I agree. That's why I wrote up Unified Powers. Check out the doc and see if it helps.

I've had success with storytelling elements in my games. Admittedly those additions are "light" - Fate points allow the best of 3 rolls for a test if declared before the roll, or 1 reroll if used afterwards. They may also be used for minor tweaks to the scene. All must be in line with the character backstory and I have veto power.

I run cinematic games with mook rules, powers, and stunts. It works for me and my group. I would rethink Fate points if I ever ran something with a grittier tone.

Since BRP is a tool kit I don't think it ever hurts to add options. Storytelling elements are just one "slider" to scratch an itch, much like mini scales or hit location tables do for strategists and simulationists, respectively. It will probably be a matter of page count and scope of options afforded for whether they should be published in BRP Essentials.

I created a "BRP for New Players" doc that is about a half-page long detailing a lot of these bits. It's ripped right out of the BGB on pg. 390 and altered with my houserules.

Basic RolePlaying has only a few principles to keep in mind. Once you know these, you should be able to play:

·         Characteristics are usually rated 3-18 (the higher the better). Human average is 10-11.

·         Attributes and Skills have percentile ratings, from 01% to 100%+. You will roll a d100 (two 10-sided die) any time a rating is tested, with the goal of rolling at or under your character’s rating to succeed at the test. The higher your rating is, the better your character’s chance of success.

o    A roll result where the ‘tens’ and ‘ones’ match (ie: 77%) is a noteworthy result, upgrading a success to an advantage (best possible result) and downgrading a failure to a fumble (dramatic setback).

o    Bonuses or penalties may be applied to your rating depending on the test difficulty, conditions, or circumstances. These values are always in multiples of 10% and rarely exceed +/- 50% for extremely favorable (or unfavorable) circumstances.

·         When you run out of hit points, you run the risk of death.

·         Most powers use power points for fuel. When these run out, you fall unconscious.

·         Qualities are the crux of what makes your character and his story unique, and are powered by Fate points. They can be used to empower your character for success or a bit of good fortune (allow extra rolls), or bring some trouble his way (act in-line with the Quality or lose a Fate point).

Everything else can be determined during the course of play, or explained as required.

On 5/17/2016 at 5:15 AM, Mugen said:

Isn't Blast really overpriced when compared to Energy Control ? I mean, the second basically allows you to cast an effect similar to Blast at will during POW Minutes, at no cost. Sure, Blast has "enhancements", and it can create energy out of thin air, while Energy Control can't, but is it worth 3 MP/d6 ?

By the way, it seems to me your page references are all wrong.

Blast has a range advantage over Energy Control. I think that was my justification. I struggled over that very issue when I started compiling this project. I'm open to suggestions to fix. I'd like to avoid reducing PP cost to keep in line with other offensive powers.

Thanks for the catch on the page numbers. I'll upload a corrected version today.

13 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

...whereas the differences in BRP are mainly arbitrary mechanical differences that we, as players, then invent narrative reasons for separation.  There are lots of ways that magic systems can be done, but for me it's a design flaw in BRP core that it's so disparately pick and mix. I'd prefer a more integrated holistic approach to powers in the core rules, generally, with more alternative options in supplements and specific settings. This may be just me of course. 

Well said! That is what inspired me to work out BRP Unified Powers in the first place. That, and to reduce the amount of literature to sift through when creating and powering a character.

I've successfully used UP in Star Wars, Vampire the Requiem, and Iron Kingdoms adaptations to BRP. In each, minor tweaks were needed to get the flavor of each setting...about a page for each defining HOW powers work within the setting (usually hodgepodged from existing origins- for example, Jedi are Psis with bits of the Divine Magic rules slotted in) with a list of powers available to the characters. Pretty easy prep in my book.

Hey all, I just dropped v1.2

For those of you interested in rolling on random charts for gaining super powers, you can now find them in BRP UP. Hope this makes gaming more fun at your table.

13 hours ago, Armandrik said:

Hello,

         I'm warning you..I speak french. So, I'll do my best in English :-)

I'm pretty new to the BRP system. I love it. But for MAGIC, there is a lot of spells in a lot of document. Is there a document where we can have all the spells that exist in the BRP system? All spells in one document? I found, in this forum, that a GRIMOIRE MONAGRAPH was a finished project...but I did not find it. I would like to make easier the searching for all those different kind of magic system for my player...espacially those who want to play a a character with the Magic skill.

 

Thank yoy for your help :-)

I wrote a Unified Powers document a few months back. Unfortunately, it has only what is in the BGB with a few essentials from other game systems. It may be of limited use to you.

I prefer real numbers in game, though I rarely track expenses except when characters are poor or wealth matters in game. I never really grasped Credit Rating as a skill... It feels like something that is more background oriented than anything. It's too easy to keep equipment lists with actual prices.

Of course, abstract wealth really require bookkeeping at all...maybe I will give it a try.

On 3/26/2016 at 1:15 PM, sladethesniper said:

What is the degree of skill complexity that you, as a player and/or GM prefer?

[CUT]

 

This is a great topic, and one that I have wrestled with as a GM while refining BRP to my tastes through my house rules.

I prefer systems that emphasize the importance of Attributes without making them necessarily equal to points/ levels invested into skills. I think OpenQuest/ Legend/ Revolution do it best, with Attributes determining a modest base rating (very modest for some more difficult skills in OQ) and skill points being necessary to raise skills to a usable level. I think Savage Worlds and World of Darkness do it well too - each in their own way rewarding characters with better skill ratings or skill access with matching higher attributes while not pushing characters to only increase attributes. I dislike systems that ignore Attributes impacting skills, and shy away from systems that put Attributes and Skills on an equal footing. Despite my penchant for more cinematic gaming, I always feel there must be that element of realism with the Attribute/ Skill relationship.

In spite of my initial gaming background of Palladium and GURPS, I am drawn to games with a moderate list of available skills. GURPS, especially its 4th edition, just wracks the character generation process and forces players to overspecialize. OTOH, games like Savage Worlds and D20 can feel like the skill lists are too broad for my tastes. To that end I like to see skill lists somewhere between "Large Swaths" to "More Specialized" from @sladethesniper's discussion above...around two to three dozen skills seems about right for me.

A couple of fiddly tenets I have tried to purvey with skill generation/ management: 

1.  I HATE "skills" that aren't skills. Abilities that aren't the result of sustained study or practice. Skills like Lift, Persistence, Resilience, or the like seem like they should be handled by another mechanic, like Characteristic Rolls in BRP.

2.  I like sub-specialties, but it’s tough to find the right balance between allowing a player to determine a character's niche of being a Private Investigator vs. over-specializing a character so they can only shoot S&W Model 36 .38 revolvers, look up information in two-story New Jersey libraries, or seduce 28-year old seamstress widows. I can easily see how to sub-categorize with weapons; In my games I allow Firearms (Energy Weapons, Heavy Weapons, or Small Arms) and Melee (Blade or Blunt Weapons). I have yet to figure out the perfect way to specialize skills like Knowledge, Drive, Repair, Craft, or Technology. About three sub-categories feels right for me, but again I run into the issues of over-generalizing, especially with Knowledge. To date, I've just hand-waved specialties to fit the character concept and it works okay (ie: a Spacer would have Repair: Star Drive and Repair Structural and be able to fix anything on a ship). It's not perfect, I can't fit everything onto a list, but it works for now.

I wonder if anyone else has found themselves pondering these issues?

5 hours ago, sladethesniper said:

Well, it is only one player that acts that way, and frankly is the only player I have ever had that acts that way   Unfortunately, he IS a good roleplayer when he is not spazzing out about "almost dying" (when he took 1 HP of damage and ran away, while other players died as a result) or angry that when the reputation he spent so much time crafting in game boasting about his exploits came back to bite him when he was attacked from ambush while alone (which I assumed smart opponents would do, as did the rest of the group, but not him).  The other 99% of the time, he is great...

-STS

Yes, I have had similar experiences with some players past and present. These instances have shown me that 'natural' consequences from the GM coupled with fellow players saying, "yeah dude, what were you thinking?" tend to set spaz players straight, especially if they play it right the majority of the time. Stuff you are already doing.

I had another thought to share: Sandboxes are hard for me to run. I tend to get so into reacting to what the players do that I forget about my plot. If I do that too much then the players can lose focus (Oh yeah! We were supposed to investigate something about that manor on the north side of town...). They lose interest in the game, despite the fact that I have a good story-line ready to go, I simply hadn't been emphasizing the beats of the plot. If this happens for you, my advice is to balance creating an immersive, living world for players to interact with while also keeping them moving forward with the story you are sharing. Hopefully you are better at it than I!

That's my 0.02 USD.

Greetings fellow BRPers!

When I first began gaming with Basic Roleplaying, I used the optional rule of "Step Six (Personality)" on pg. 21 to give player characters some extra oomph. As time went on, I tweaked the rule to allow greater player input and variation:

Background
  A profession that fits your character's "pre-career" training, a secondary or former job, schooling, or other such description adhering to the character concept is considered your character's Background. Choose a fitting profession and add 20% to each skill.

For Example: One character was a 'Maverick' type Military Officer. Rather than choosing Outsmart an Opponent as the Personality, the player chose a Background of "Pilot" reflecting his earlier years in the military (gaining a one-time 20% bonus to 10 selected skills), then the profession of "Soldier" which he invests his professional skill points into.

Now, I am considering another change. Rather than giving players a full profession's worth of skill bonuses, I propose offering five skills from a profession, and flatly raising the skills to 50%. Effectively, this change gives players deeper bonuses in a fewer range of skills, and reducing math at chargen. I feel it also distinguishes the "backgrounder" from the "professional" with a handful of skills starting at a moderate level as opposed to an array of skills with a decent rating.

I'm curious if any of you have experience with the Personality skills rule, or variations thereof. Furthermore, which of my Background skills rulings make more sense or present more pitfalls (10 skills with a 20% bonus, or 5 skills raised to 50%)? Perhaps there is a better option that a more creative soul can suggest?

11 hours ago, sladethesniper said:

[Cut]

I think I might have some “power level” issues during game play (1 power gamer, 2 teen agers, one method actor), but if that happens, I can always have a random magical effect occur due to the nature of them gaining their powers to give a power or take one away or weaken it (if absolutely necessary for the one min-maxing power gamer in my group).

 

Anyone have any pointers on running this type of game?

 

-STS

 

It sounds like you've done a lot of the legwork to ensure an outstanding sandbox supers game. Your bit about the handouts is what I think will really drive immersion and exploration of your setting.

The one suggestion that I will make is one that you should weigh against the maturity and dynamics of your group: don't worry too much about game balance. It sounds like there could easily be something bigger and badder than the PCs just around the corner, based on the world you described. You may not need to concern yourself too much with inter-player balance either... My experience has shown that as long as every player gets some time in the spotlight, they don't care that their buddy Rick can crush a planet with his jaw.

Hope your game goes well, wish I could join!

On March 17, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Atgxtg said:

I did up a non-BRP RPG for a friends kid awhile back, it was very simple. I could port it over to BRP. The stuff I did to simplify game play[...]

Top-notch advice here. I am going to put this bit into a .txt file for a few years down the road once my kids grow up. My daughter is showing strong creativity and verbal skills, I think it will take but a nudge to get her to buy in.

As for the setting... Does anyone remember the Quest for Glory series, by Sierra for mid-90s VGA computer gaming? QFG1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_Glory:_So_You_Want_to_Be_a_Hero was a formative gaming experience for me, and the basic premise (new hero in town, find the Baron's missing daughter, defeat a bandit gang, foil an evil witch) could easily be ported over to the tabletop.

Nostalgia. So much fun!!

Hey all - I uploaded a new version of BRP UP.

No huge and sweeping changes - just clarifications, a few added powers, some revisions here and there, and I updated all of it to support the d100 homebrew I use, which is an amalgam of OQ & BRP with some FATE elements thrown in.

Cheers!

It can be found here: 

3 hours ago, Mugen said:

The problem with doubles is that it doesn't scale at all with skills above 100%.

Whether you have 115% or 250% in your skill, you'll never have more than 9% chances to do a critical success.

Plus, you need at least 11% chance of success to score crits - but this can be viewed as a feature and not a bug...

Absolutely true. But the advantage is that if you use flat modifiers (as I do) it sort of works out because the highly skilled toons maintain their ability to crit.

I love reading about the ways folks handle specials and crits. While my method isn't without flaws, it keeps things very easy to arbitrate in gameplay, which is my priority.

I've implemented 'numeric matches' in my games to determine dramatic success/ failure. If you suceed and roll matches (11, 22, 33, etc.) it's a critical. Do the same on a failing result, and it's a fumble. '00' is always a fumble, '01' is always a normal success.

I've run numerous individual play tests and  actual plays and everything has gone swiftly. This ruling really helps keep the system in the background.

Before I used the match system I used special and criticals (though it was 1/2 and 1/10, respectively.) It took a while for players to get the hang of the calculations. Matches are much faster.

Good luck, hope you find what works for your table!