Harshax

I ran 5 or 6 sessions of BRP&D, a fast and dirty conversion to classless d100. I loved the simplicity of size in D&D. I pretty much doubled HP for each category larger than Medium. Im not sure if I used the same progression in the reverse direction. Sure, it wasn't as granular as having an actual Size score, but no one semed to mind.

Indeed. But I intend to train my players to think differently. Being a veteran of RQ uberskilled combats, where nothing seems to happen for several rounds and then someone suddenly explodes, I'd like to layout a few tactical options that makes for more exciting combat. eg. Having trouble hitting your opponent? Trick them. Are you smarter than him? Try a trick of wits. Is your POW higher? Try a intimidation. Are you faster than him? Try a feint. Having trouble hurting your opponent? Gang up etc, etc. Not sure if the original intention of this thread was to make light of 4E, or to actually take stuff from it, but I think I'm going to start some new threads. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait for the new printing of BRP, as almost all my gaming stuff is in storage.

You are absolutely right. I'd like to add that not only does such a thing need spelling out so players and GM's see how to use the existing rules, but it also needs to be spelled out to show how tactics are not a sub-optimal choice in combat. Do I throw sand in his eyes, or attack him with my sword? Maybe I'll throw together a little tactics spot rules together after I've digested BRP0.

Haven't looked at the rules in a while, but I could dig up Tal Meta's Psionics rules if you're interested.

I'm far more upset that the work isn't titled: DBRP, like all the playtest files. For which I assumed it meant Deluxe BRP, but logic escapes having Deluxe and Basic in reference to the same thing, so it is slowly dawning on me (like a 1d2 SAN loss), that I was really playtesting Durall BRP You clever devil. You would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for those pesky kids. :thumb:

Savage Worlds is more like BRP, in the sense that you have a very clean rule set that tries to do the most with its basic elements, as opposed to tacking on more rules. eg. Tricks offer a huge variety of tactics without having to spell out rules for trip, feint, disarm, intimidate, sand in eyes, etc. That would be an entire volume if printed for D&D. I don't know the best way to implement tricks yet, but I'll probably use Characteristic vs. Characteristic. Otherwise there would be too many skills, thus defeating the point. Though, upon rereading your post, I must say I'll have to give it some thought. (Maybe broad trick skills based on Dex, Pow, and Int. With the option to use your raw Characteristic, or your skill [which can be improved only through experience])

Yeah I agree, $100 dollars for research material isn't worthwhile for a couple of ideas to translate into BRP. That said, I think there a few more gems that you can extract from the teaser material. For one, i like the concise energy types (fire, cold, radiant, necrotic). Nice concept of spell 'trappings' couple with Savage Worlds generic magic system could be a nice alternate for BRP. (actually, I'm prone to borrow from SW whose design is more like BRP than D&D - i just don't care for 'levels') I also like the advice in skill challenges (too long to post here, and writing from my pda is hell on the thunbs)

Movement around the battlefield isn't for the benefit of a PC who actively wants to move his character, it's for the movement of opponents against there will. Until 4E, I don't think I came across a game system which did not treat combatants as set pieces of the table. A moves to B, and they stay there until either decide to leave. aka: the impassable line. Sure, I've seen rules for pushing, and knocking someone down, but not for tricking them to step to the right. So yeah - one fiddly bit of several hundred pages of new rules is something I think is worthwhile to add to BRP.

I've never used the table myself, but have always been interested in it. When I run BRP, I tend to be low powered compared to most, though high fantasy. Go figure. To me, having 100% in a skill is to be taken almost literally (actually I usually use 100% + Skill Modifier). Opposed traits are rarely higher than 40. With the formula below, 1A vs. 40P has no chance while 40A vs. 1P does not result in an automatic success. Not sure if that is reasonable, or that having to look up probability is worth it, but it has always intrigued me. How exactly does MRQ's opposed rolls play out? [maybe I'll go look it up now . . .]

My name is Arthur, I've been gaming since '79 or so. Played a lot of D&D. Got my hands on RQ in '93, when I came across an unloved copy of RQ2 in a box of my friend's stuff. Quickly moved on to RQ3/Glorantha, which is the edition I played most. When those books started to get a little dog-eared, and my love of the setting waned, I moved on to HarnMaster Core, and was quite active on the harnforum. Along with RQ, HM has to be my favorite. Tried coming back to D&D with 3E, but got burned out due to prep time before games. Tried being a playtester for MRQ, and was unceremoniously booted from the list [no reason, no explanation]. I did manage to be a playtester for DBRP, for which I am very proud, simply because it is now a reality. I've played a lot of CoC, a setting that still gives me the creeps, and one for which I strictly adhere to the player's code :innocent:, never wanting to delve into the Keeper's section [no spoilers please ]. I was pretty active on the 4E forum until most recently, when I decided that I had no interest in learning a sixth edition of D&D (or 5.5 if you ask the bean counters), and now I'm here. I can't wait for the rules compendium, and putting together a new campaign for myself and my friends. I'm usually polite, though sometimes passionate. My english is often frustrating, though while it is my first language, it is not that of my spanish grandparents who rarely spoke english in the house. This looks to be a great forum, with some nice downloads, and intelligent conversation. Thanks for the welcome.

Like I said earlier, much of what 4E presents as new and interesting has already been done more succinctly and with less fanfare in BRP. While weapon skills over 100% might be a good source of inspiration, I would not like an added combat subsystem to be available only once a character hits the 100 percentile mark. As someone who enjoys 100 as a literal expression of competence, and typically plays with that cap, I'd want these options available from the word 'go'. In any case, I'm looking forward to getting my hands on BRP0 and seeing what can be easily accommodated with the core book.

And no, it didn't result in the possibility of what you described. Has anyone ever tried this table? Sampling: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 8 50% 44% 39% 35% 31% 27% 25% 9 56% 50% 45% 40% 36% 32% 29% 10 61% 55% 50% 45% 41% 37% 34% 11 65% 60% 55% 50% 46% 42% 38% 12 69% 64% 59% 54% 50% 46% 42% 13 73% 68% 63% 58% 54% 50% 46% 14 75% 71% 66% 62% 58% 54% 50%

I recall this posted somewhere . . . Crashbox, Tal Meta, the old RQ Digest. It was a mathematical formula for bell-curving the resistance table. Anybody have any idea what I'm talking about? I'm digging through old files trying to dredge it up.

BRP already has many of what 4e thinks is new: Brutal critical hits, knockback with bludgeon weapons, impales with piercing weapons. All it is missing is simple mechanics for feints, or to borrow from Savage Worlds 'Tricks'. A 'Trick' is any maneuver in combat that is meant to lower someone's defenses. It could be anything from the classic [looking over opponent's should] and saying 'Glad you finally showed up', to throwing sand in someone's face, or an intimidating shout. Tricks can be Agility tricks (feints), Psychological (POW, eg: intimidate), or Intellectual. This is resolved with opposed rolls on the resistance table. Dex vs Dex, Pow vs Pow, or Int vs Int. If successful, you lower your opponent's defense by 10% until the beginning of your next turn. Optionally, crits could lower defenses even more. Feints force your opponent to move 1m in any direction. If this would cause them to fall off a cliff or into lava, they get to make a DEX or Luck roll to fall prone. To Summarize, tricks and maneuvers offer more combat options without excessive rules. Use tricks when you cannot overwhelm your opponents defenses. Use feints to control the battlefield. Optionally, Feints could be a skill. No, BRP doesn't need feats and powers. It might be able to use a method for players to exert some narrative control through spending temporary POW, such as temporarily improving damage, skill competencies, or just damage soaking. Very minor things, IMO. For 1 pt. Temporary POW = +5% to Skill Check +1 damage Soak 1 HP Be Heroic Or something like that. You get the picture

I'd say one of the more innovative concepts in 4E is the idea that combatants tend to be pushed, pulled, shifted, or slid around the battlefield. I find this idea to be very intriguing, it makes combat more dynamic as you may be forced to give ground, or feinted into enemy ranks, or simply knocked back from the position of wedging yourself in a doorway. Could BRP use this? Yes. The idea that everyone has powers is also pretty neat, in the sense that it gives some narrative control to the players. This could easily be incorporated using a character's POW. Much like spellcasters using POW to fuel spells, combatants could use POW to capitalize on martial exploits and thereby perform a few neat tricks. Could BRP use this? Maybe? Rituals. In 4E, spells all focus on combat effects. Non-combat magic is based on rituals, and the economy of rituals is; AFAIK; based more on time and materials. BRP already has something like this, but it's still based on the economy of POW (RQ3 rituals)