Atgxtg

8 hours ago, RedCrestedSlayer said:

Got it, so, my main question is if I wanted to start building from the ground up is that a way to do it for 'realistic' stats and then change it from there if these creatures don't conform to normal laws? i.e. if I make a SIZ 4 creature, they'd have something like STR 8 as an average?

Yeah, most creature will have an average STR  within 5-8 points of their SIZ- basically what Joerg just said about having a chance to lift itself. Real world creatures probably wont vary by more than 16-20 points. Now you can do whatever you want to with the writups, but you are also going to need to account for anything weird. For instance if you modify a fruit fly to have STR 50 you'll have to explain why they aren't snapping people in half, or maybe they are snapping people in half. They'd probably need a lot of calories for those muscles too. Those muscles would probably add a lot of mass (well a lot for a fly) so they probably would have to flap like a humming bird to fly.

Just what you can get away with, depends on how well you can justify things, and as Jeorg noted above, some of that depends on if you are doing a realistic or fantasy setting.  It helps if you know a little about science, animal behavior and such (a 25 ton dragon is probably going to need to eat something, probably something big or several somethings), but really, you can do just about anything, assuming you can make people believe it. 

Experiment with some existing species to see how it works out. Take a wolf, add some STR and SIZ,  give it 4 point scales and you got a decent critter for an alien planet or fantasy world. Take a cat and give it teleport, and it probably okay for the fantasy world, but needs a bit more justification for a sci-fi setting (it would probably need to be intelligent and/or have mental powers). 

Generally speaking minor changes are easy to pull off (no one will probably even notice a SIZ 4 critter with 8 STR) but more drastic changes will be more obvious and might require more/better justification (SIZ 4 creature with 16 STR) or downright impossible to get players to buy into (without laughing). Like that STR 50 fruit fly. Magic helps a lot here.

1 hour ago, David Scott said:

Played and GMed it. If you have a set of RQ3, just use that. Otherwise use BRP & The Magic Book: https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/82071/The-Magic-Book (which has the all RQ3 magic and is still available see https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/role-playing/systems-versions/ for the relationship.).

 

"He got all of that one! It's outta here!!"

The Magic Book does solve the magic system difficulties. 

I think I should point out the OP's question was if "BRP was a good fit for Land of the Ninja?", not "Can I use LotN with BRP?."

It's kinda of like using a Cthulhu Invictus scenario with BRP Rome or Mythic Rome. Sure you can do it, but obviously there is going to be Cthulhu Mythos stuff in the adventure that won't be in BRP Rome or Mythic Rome, that will only make sense if you are familiar with Cthulu Invictus and CoC. 

A lot of this will come down to just what a GM want's to use from LotN:

• Chargen , weapon stats (which you mostly don't need as BRP covers them), cult write ups,  divine, spirit and sorcery magic,  ship stats, and economics are all for RQ3 and wouldn't port over directly to BRP. 
• Names, Homelands, New Skills, Ki Skills (although some of the actual skills are different), Social Castes, Clan Structure, HON, Drinking Rules, Ninja Skills, Ninja Equipment, most creature stats, and the scenarios probably would port over directly.(except for the magic). 

1 hour ago, Zit said:

psychic combat is pretty much the same, isn't it (I don't have the rules at hand) ?

Not exactly. 

31 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

They aren't identical, but are highly compatible.  Perhaps the major difference is that Psychic Combat involves a standard 1d3 damage per attack, while RQ Spirit Combat has variable damage based on POW and CHA.  I'm sure that other differences will be cited, but the effect in play will be largely unnoticeable.  Which leads me to add...

No, in RQ the damage was 1D3 before RQG. So that part would be the same. Some of the differences would be that in RQ you can ingore spirit combat from an opponent whose POW is way below yours, that someone had to be able to go dis-corporate to initiate spirit combat, that you needed to defeat a spirit in spirit combat to learn spirit magic spells. there were all sorts of possible side effects from losing spirit combat (dominant and covert possession, curses), and a host of spells and abilities that could impact the conflict, not all of which have been ported over to BRP (Spirit Screen in particular). 

But that's the thing with BRP. It's not RuneQuest 3. It's similar but it's not the same, and so porting anything from RuneQuest (or RuneQuest 2, Call of Cthulhu, or Stormbringer , or Elric! etc.) will require some adaptation and judgement calls, and even then won't play out exactly the same. No it's not bad that it's not the same but it is different. 

35 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

My advice is to do a little side-by-side comparative reading and see what systems from the new edition of BRP work with your vision of Land of Ninja.

I agree. BRP main strength, IMO is that it collects a lot of previous stuff under one cover to serve as a toolkit, making it easier for GMs to pick and choose what they want for a given setting. For instance, BRP has a rule for multiple parries that I think would work well for a LotN campaign, and Strombringer had a rispote rule that would work well too. They would be great for games where one lone Samurai can take down several opponents. But it all comes down to what sortof Medieval Japanese setting the GM wants. 

4 minutes ago, Zit said:

I'm not sure that all the differences cited by @Atgxtg really matter.

Hence why I wrote "There are differences, just how important they are may or may not matter much to you." Much of it will come down to prefences in rulesets. Some thing will impact game play singficantly (differences in parrying rules, skill caps and POW gain for Rune Spells) but how much that matters to individual GMs and groups will vary. 

4 minutes ago, Zit said:

What is important is if you can use the statsblocks of RQ3 in a BRP game and I think it would be quite easy since they are almost same. The way they are used may differ but you actually don't really care if the experience rolls are different, skills capped in RQ and not BRP (just stop capping them) or even if attack and parry are separate (use only best of both). You may just add 50% of the armour/weapon APs and that's it.

The statblocks are basically the the same but there are some differences in actual stat values (cultural modifiers for instance). Animals seem to hanve shrunk in UGE. A BRP:UGE Tiger is SIZ 16-17 while an RQ3 Tiger was SIZ 26, so RQ3 critters and monsters will be bigger, stronger, tougher, and dealier than what people are expecting in UGE.

A bigger problem will be RQ3's magic. In RQ magic isn't limited to professional spellcasters, and pretty much everybody knows some magic.  RQ adventures pretty much suppose that just about  every experienced character knows a minor weapon enhancing spell, some defensive magic, and some healing.  The healing would be a thing, since PC won't have quite the "bounce back" ability in UGE that they would have in RQ3. 

A GM will also have to either drop a lot of the magic from the NPCs or add more magic to his campaign, or else the NPCs will wipe out the PCs pretty easily. Good Samuai Warriors with 60% skill have Bladesharp 3 (+15% attack, +3 damage) , Demoralize, and and Protection 2 (+2 armor) for magic, and that would give them a huge edge against mundane PCs. 

Now a GM can cut most of the magic out, but a lot of the spiritual stuff in RQ was tied to the magic so you loose a lot of that. Since the OP has LotN they probably got an inkling of what I mean here. You pretty much lose the entire Religion & Magic section of LotN, which plays an important part of the culture. Some familiarity with RQ really helps here. Plus if you take out the magic then the PC will tend to be underpowered and vulnerable compared to the RQ characters the scenarios were written for. 

4 minutes ago, Zit said:

(is there no strike rank option in BR:UGE ? It was in the prevous version).

Yes it does, and it's mostly the same as RQ3, but UGE doesn't have Spirit Combat, which would be important for LotN. It has most of the components (POW vs POW rolls and POW increases), it just hasn't got the Magic point losses for spirit combat.  Not that the Spirit Combat rules couldn't be ported over.

4 minutes ago, Zit said:

Magic may be trickier but I'm not even sure.

Yes, especially the sequencing. On page 80 of the UGE it states that sorcery spells take a full round (10 Strike Ranks) to cast while in RQ casting time was DEX SR+Magic Point cost of the spell. So you can't get a spell off before someone whacks you with an axe in UGE.

Now all of the difference can be death with by a GM familiar with the game system, but it will take some work.  A GM who want's to run BRP:UGE would probably do better by not porting anything over except perhaps the scenarios, and some of the monsters, and even those will need to be modified to fit the system.

Again, this could all be ported over to BRP:UGE but RQ would be a better fit. Because otherwise, what is there to use? I mean you got Japanese weapon and armor stats already in BRP, BRP uses a different chargen process than RQ, somewhat different skills, and a somewhat different magic system. So if don't use any of the RQ mechanics there isn't all that much to take from LotN. A few short scenarios.  Unless a GM has at least a passing familiarity with RQ they won't really know what they are losing, and if they are familiar with RQ then they probably have a copy and could use that instead of BRP.

29 minutes ago, conajofa said:

Oh, I really like this approach. I will see to grab Superworld when I can!

You don't really need to, at least not for that rule. Do keep in mind though that if most of the damage is fixed the cost shoots up to 1 for 1. So a dagger Kukri that does 1D4+3 would cost 7 HP, more that a battleaxe (1D8+2 cost 5 HP). 

I pretty much posted most of what went with that rule. It was just a short rule in a text box, designed mostly for Batman-type characters who make their own weapons, so that they could be on the same point value as the other characters.

Most of the superpowers from Superworld have been adapted into BRP in the "Powers" section. Soyou don't need Superworld just for that. For things like HEAT, FREEZE etc, superpowers are probably the way to go, especially since they use the same hero point mechanics as weapon damage above. You don't need Superworld for that as it is already included into BRP.

Now if you were going to run a full four color comics campaign then I think Superworld does that better than core BGB, but that's a whole different reason. 

Oh, but you might want to get a hold of BTRC's Stuff! supplement for their EABA system, or even just the free preview.  Stuff! has rules for building things, including a section on weapons , based on their size and tech era, with a host of modifiers such as if the weapon is one or two handed, bulky ammo, explosive damage, reload time, etc. All those modifiers could factor into your weapons point cost. I have a somewhat rudimentary adaptation to BRP damages for that too. It's not finished but it gives values in the right ballpark. I can probably send you a conversion of EABA points to Hero Points.

The Stuff! free preview is the first 20 something pages of the book, including the basic weapon design rules, with a "SAMPLE" watermark over them. Good enough for you to see what it is about and decide if it helps you. OOh, and you might as well grab the the free preview of EABA, called EABAlite, if you get Stufff! just to give you an overview of how things work so you know what you are converting, and will know if your numbers hold up in BRP terms. For instance, a 9mm Pistol does 2d+1 damage in EABA and 1D10 damage in BRP/CoC, (5 Hero Points). So you would know that a weapon that does 1d+2 in EABA   it should do less than 1D10 in BRP.

The old Superworld RPG had some rules for customizing weapons with Hero Poiints, the same points used to buy superpowers.

A weapon cost 1 Hero Point per 2 points of max damage, provided most of the damage was random, or 1 per point if it wasn't. So a weapon that did 1D10 damage would cost 5 Hero Points.

Weapons got the specials appropriate o thier type (mostly for impaling weapons, but it BRP you could include bleeding, crush, knockdown, etc. Assume a weapon gets one special type for no cost. Since specials occur about 20% of the time, you could assume that buying another special or selling one off is worth 20% (1/5th) of the weapons cost. So a weapon that did 1D10 damage with no special bonus would only cost 4 Hero Points. One that could choose between crush or knockdown could cost 6 points. 

Ranged weapons just got range based on the weapon type/description but you could give it a point cost. Something like 1 HP per 20m or so.

You could use that as a baseline for your system, and then apply point costs and discounts for other effects (probably based on the superpowers and limitations). 

3 hours ago, Stan Shinn said:

I have a copy of the 'Land of Ninja' box set that was published during the Runequest 3rd Edition era. It's basically the old Bushido fantasy-Japan setting but updated with d100 rules.

Is anyone familiar enough with Runequest 3rd Edition and/or Land of Ninja to help me know if the latest edition of BRP (BRUGE technically, but I still think of the old acronym) is a good fit to run Land of Ninja?

 

I probably am familiar enough with RQ3 and LotN to help here. I'd say BRP isn't a good fit. It's okay, but since LotN was written for RQ3, RQ3 is the better fit. There are differences between RQ3 and BRP UGE. Some more significant than others. It's possibly to turn the BRP rules into RQ3 with a few adjustments. It's also possible to adapt LotN to UGE, but you might need to adjust a few abilities and spells.

But any edition of RQ would be a better fit. RQ2 is fairly cheap and available, and won't bog you down with a lot of Glorathan stuff that wouldn't apply to a LotN game. It's not quite RQ3, but it would cover the spells.

3 hours ago, Stan Shinn said:

Glancing through the Land of Ninja materials it seems like BRP and using the optional hit point locations rules would do the trick. But were there any Runequest 3e rules that are materially different than BRP? Land of Ninja has it's own magic system so any quirks with Runequest 3e magic might not apply..

There are differences, just how important they are may or may not matter much to you. Here are some off the top of my head:

• RQ3 used separate Attack and Parry skills instead of one skill for both, and the two skills were governed by different category modifiers. But LotN used Kenjutsu skill to combine the pair, so this would be an easy non-fix. But its worth being aware of for how RQ treated all the other melee weapons. 
• In RQ3 weapons and shields had armor points (approximately 2/3rds the value of UGE Hit Points). When you parried, most weapons blocked damage equal to their armor points. If the AP were exceeded then the remainder went on to the target and the parrying item AP were reduced by 1 point. Most parrying weapons would do damage to the attacking weapon if they parried a failed attack. Special Success parries prevented the parrying weapon from  being damaged, and a critical success blocked all damage. Note that this meant that it was hard to completely parry powerful blows. 
• Skills were limited to 100% except for skills with a positive category modifier, which could improve whenever someone rolled over 100 for improvement.
• The Skill category modifier was added to improvement rolls. Thus if a character who had a good category modifier would tend to improve faster. 
• BRP's Sorcery was based off of RQ's Battle Magic/Spririt Magic system. Most of the spells are basically the same but with a new name and a few chaotic  tweaks  gained from Elric! Battle/Spirit Magic from any edition of RQ would be an even better fit.
• RQ3 Divine Magic was a more powerful longer lasting magic that required the sacrifice of permanent POW to acquire. Some Divine Magic was reusable, which meat you could get it back by praying at a temple, while other spells were one use, and you'd need to sacrifice more POW to require them. Again, any edition of RQ could cover this type of magic better than BRP.
• Oh, in RQ if you won a POW vs POW roll against someone with a higher (maybe equal or higher) POW score you got a chance to improve your POW score at the end of the session. You also got 1 point per year if you were in a cult and joined in the usual ceremonies. This was how you picked up the POW to spend on Rune Divivne Magic
• RQ3 made use of the Strike Rank System, and that would matter in a LotN game. Especially for Iaijutsu. If you use DEX ranks instead then you would need to give DEX rank bonuses for Iaijutsu success levels. (+5/+10+/20 sounds good off the top of my head)

1 hour ago, soltakss said:

Bear in mind that sometimes changes aren't that interesting. A lion, tiger, jaguar and leopard are basically the same creature, stats-wise, with a few tweaks in SIZ and STR, for example. 

Good point. Plus even if they are different they will all seem the same to a PC whose been pounced on. Only GMs see the actual game stats, players judge creatures (and NPCs) by what the GM tells or shows them. 

15 hours ago, RedCrestedSlayer said:

Hey all

This is my first time posting in the forum, and I'm curious about building custom creatures & races in BRP. I've got some experience DMing and playing, including in both DND and Call of Cthulhu, and I've familiarised myself with how the BRP system works from a theoretical level.

But I am wondering if there's a set method or easy way to build creatures from scratch. For example, I've been thinking on running a Warhammer Fantasy-themed game, and although the BRP creature list contains stuff like Orcs it doesn't contain goblins.

Kinda. The easiest way to is use an existing race or creature and maybe shift a couple of points around. 

For instance Goblins are similar to Orcs (possibly the same depending on which source you use) so you could start with Orc stats and reduce STR and SIZ a little and maybe boost DEX a little.

15 hours ago, RedCrestedSlayer said:

Say I know the 'narrative' aspects of a creature, like its height compared to a human, intellect/sapience and other basics, is there a good method for translating that into a stat-line? Or would it be just taking examples like for halflings and tweaking it to fit another being?

There is the cube-square law. It's what scientists use to help estimate the weight of a creature. 

The law points out that if you increase/decrease the size of a object/creature proportionally, it's surface area (and muscle area, i.e. Strength) will be affected by the square of that change, and it's mass/weight by the cube of that change. 

That measn that if you double the height/width/depth of a object/creature you will multiply it's surface area (Strength) by four and it's weight and mass by eight.

Now in BRP game therms that means that if you double the height you add 16 points of STR and 24 points of SIZ. So you can use that to scale up/down existing creature to get reasonable new ones. So for every 3 point difference if SIZ there would be a corresponding 2 point difference in STR.

For instance if you wanted to make a goblin that was 3/4th the weight of an Orc:

Per p. 229 of the UGE an ORC is SIZ 2D6+2 (9) for an average mass of 55kg, so we'd want about 40 kg for our Goblin or about SIZ 5-6 ish. If we say SIZ 6 and give it a SIZ of 2D4+1 (6). It lost 3 points of SIZ so it should lose about 2 points of STR. Orcs nave a STR of 4D6 (14) so we want about 12 STR for our Goblins. Let's say we  go with 4D4+2 (12). Now there are other options (2D8+3, 3D6+1, 2D6+5), but I just picked 4D4+2.  Now I might want to give them a little more DEX, but I decide against it.

So there is a goblin writeup STR 4D4+2 (12), SIZ 2D6+2 (9). And that is one way to do it. But there are others.

I could have just used the 'Lesser orc" stats (STR 3D6, SIZ 2D6) from p. 229 for goblins. They wouldn't have been all that different. A point weaker but a point bigger. 

15 hours ago, RedCrestedSlayer said:

Off the back of that, what do you usually consider for making a creature feel 'different' and unique?

If's it's intelligent, personality culture and habits. If's it's a creature, appearance, diet (carnivore, herbivore, omnivore), temperament (aggressive, timid, docile)  and sociability (is it a loner, a pack animal, a herd animal, etc.). Existing creatures are a good starting point. For instance, let's say that I wanted to make a arctic predator similar to a saber tooth tiger, but polar bear sized, and acting more like a wolf. 

• I'd start with Tiger, or better yet Lion stats (because the Smilodon or "saber-toothed tiger" was  closer to a lion) so in UGE STR 2D6+2 and SIZ 3D6+6.
• To make it bear sized I'd increase SIZ to 3D6+10, and add another point of STR for 2D6+3.
• I'd up it's armour to 3 points, like the bear.
• To account for the larger fangs, I'd increase the bite damage die from 1D10 for 2D6  or maybe even 2D8.
• I'd have it be a pack animal like the wolf, with a strong pack hierarchy and communal raising of cubs.
• Since I've decided on it being a carnivore predator, I'd need to decide if it is an ambush predator (like a cat) or if it it a chaser (like a wolf), and adjust it's skills based on it's hunting strategy. I'd probably go chaser so skills closer to wolf that lion.
• Then I'd consider adding some details to make the creature unique. Maybe it has cammo colored fur? Or maybe it sees in the infra-red band, and finds prey by picking up their heat signatures?  It kinda depends on if it is a fantasy creature or sci-fi one. 
• OH, and I consider just how I wanted to use the creature in a adventure or campaign. There isn't much point in creating something the PCs will never interact with or have to worry about in some way. 

If I were to do it from the ground up:

1) Treat Blood Points like/as Magic Points to power spells and keep the vampire mobile. Vampires can drain magic points/blood points from their victims.

2) Treat each disciplines as a  Spirit Magic spell, powered by blood points. So Potency would be Strength, and so on. Some disciplines, such as Protean would need to be written up. It wouldn't be quite straightforward as most disciplines have a greater effect on ability that a few points of attributes. 

3) Allow Vampires to train up their stats per the generation. A rough cap of that would be 3 points per dot+3. So 5 dots = max 18, 6 = max 21, 7= max 24, etc.

4) Add a humanity stat and track it. Port over the humanity rules. Change them to work on a percentile roll. The SANity mechanics might be a good place to start.

5) Port over any other Vampire abilities, such as spending blood points to heal, and weaknesses such as Frenzy and vulnerability to sunlight.

6) Use BRP values for weapon damages. Something like 3 points per dot seems about right for converting other, unspecified damages. So an attack that did 4 damage in Vampire would do about 2d6 in BRP.

7) Skills seem to work out at around at about +20% to the base per dot.

From there it would depend on what sort of world I was going to run. If it was a typical Vampire type campaign with just vampires then I wouldn't need to do much more. If it were to incorporate Werewolves, Magi and such then I'd need to port over their mechanics to BRP as well (tricky). Worse still, if I were to mix this in with a standard BRP setting with BRP magic, I'd have to do more work on the disciplines to differentiate them from the other magic systems. 

All that is a very rough, "How I would do it." But once I got started I'd probably try to fine tune and refine the adaptation to try and be truer to the source and to try and simplify the mechanics as much as possible. Unforeseen difficulties would arise somewhere, and I'd have to adjust things to get around any problems.  I'd also peek at GURPS Vampire as it would show how it had been adapted to another system before. 

But the above is work, and I'd need a good reason to try and adapt WoD Vampires to BRP in the first place. Not that there aren't good reasons to do so, just that whatever the reason that made me do so would influence the choices I would make while adapting it.  For instance, if I adapted it because I like BRP's open ended skill scores I would drop the cap on skills that exists in WoD. If I liked the cap then I'd limit skill scores in BRP (typically 100%).  Past BRP games have done both approaches, so it would come down to what I felt worked best for my game.

I like the top one, too. 

We just had a eclipse so the second one seems sort of "ho-hum". Now if you added a spaceship in front of the dark object (ala Forbidden Planet) it would look more Sci-FI ish.

The third one just looks like Saturn (or some other ringed gas giant) which is okay, but it seems like a typical company logo that you see on a car, photocopier or refrigerator.

Since the game is named Quasar, a quasar would seem to be the proper logo. I think if you brightened the center of the black hole, and the white light emission from the center,  it would be perfect.

13 hours ago, PauliusTheMad said:

So the idea I am operating under is that species aren't really fair in terms of stats and abilities, however they need to operate in a sociaty after a great big bloody war (think world war 1 but worse so now world is in state of rebuilding), so while big strong scary monster is well...scary, it's more that you can't solve all your problems by braking them in half. 

THe potential pitfalls, if any, to this are all out oc character stuff.Basically making sure each player feels like they can contribute, and being aware of the on hit kill potential. In game everything works out fine.  Guess who the archers shoot at, Joe Average or Godzilla?

13 hours ago, PauliusTheMad said:

So I don't mind unbalanced layout myself,

Then you're golden. My concerns were making sure that your were aware of how it will work out according to game mechanics and that you were getting the results you wanted. I've seen plenty of GMs (self included) who created something and got blindsided by how it affected gameplay. It's very east to get a TPK in BRP, especially for those more accustomed to D20 style games. 

But as long as you know how things work, go for it!

Hmm, ya know, a BRP game where everybody played Giants could be fun.  

9 hours ago, Mugen said:

Note that if you use APP and not CHA, it is meant to be a measure of one's attractiveness inside its own species. If a troll's tusk disgust you, it may be attractive to members of its own species.

That's not entirely true, as some species (ducks, orcs and cave trolls for instace) had a lower species APP.   

9 hours ago, Mugen said:

You will never be able to balance these 3d4+14 in SIZ.

Not against normal humans, no. It will be unbalanced, the question is whether or not it is okay for it to be unbalanced. It's starts aren't much different that a Dark Troll, and not as tough as a Great Troll so it within the realm of playabiliy.

9 hours ago, Mugen said:

SIZ is used in HP and damage bonus calculations, which makes it twice as valuable as STR and CON for a melee fighter.

Its drawback is that you're clumsy and hard to hide.

Which might not be a drawback if you're tough and can snap a human with just a punch (1d3+2d6 hits like a battleaxe).Your observations are all quite correct. The question is if the poster is okay with such a species, or if they'd rather something closer to human with say a couple of points higher in one stat but lower in another. 

9 hours ago, PauliusTheMad said:

So for sake of example, taking that first creature (as the lizard like critter can use mostly more random set of human stats) if I make em smaller for sake of trying to balance it?

THat depends on what you want for your game. The key thing though is to be familar enough with how the game mechanics work to know how it will play out. For instance, STR - 3d6+6,  SIZ - 3d4+14 , means an average STR+SIZ of 38 for an average damage modfier of +1d6, with +2d6 only three points away. So "Lizard Critter" is going to do a bit higher damage than a normal human, and a strong lizard creature can easily kill a man on a unparried hit, and is going to brush through parrying objects and do damage. 

Now there is nothing wrong with that (RQ Trolls are very similar), provided you are aware of it, and plan for it in your game. If not you could be very surprised when what you designed as a "tough opponent" wipes out a few PCs. 

9 hours ago, PauliusTheMad said:

Or should I give em decent stats but give em some flaws of mental nature? 

It depends on what you want. Again, there is nothing wrong with creating a powerful species, just as long as you know how the game works. A troll in BRP is more dangerous than one in D&D. A 15-20 point hit in D&D hurts and might even drop a wounded or inexperienced character. A 15-20 point in in BRP in BRP that isn't parried will probably drop or kill a character, even an experienced one. As long as you are aware of that, and okay with it, "Lizard Critter" is fine. It that wasn't what you were going for, then not so much.

But as long as you're getting the creature that you wanted to create, everything is good.

12 hours ago, PauliusTheMad said:

So as an example of idea I am working with (this was my first to try for campaign): 

I wanna go semi-modern (interwar for example level of tech), and i wanna be working with human like creatures, something akin to lizardmen and plant like larger things, I say wanna put in range of lizard things to be both smaller and bigger then humans, so perhaps I could do it by doing their size dice as lower number but higher value dice (not 3d6 but like 2d10 for example) and then play with culture and maybe mutation flaws or powers to balance them out to be weaker or stronger in one way or another?

For this sort of stuff you might want to familiarize yourself with the cube-square law. If you double the size of an object you cube it's mass and square it's STR.

Basically, if you cn somehow take an object (or creature) and make it twice as big (twice as tall/long, twice as wide, twice as deep) then it has 8 times the mass, and four times the strength (RQ giants get 8 times the strength but they are magical, and couldn't existing real life). Most animals in BRP tend to have STR roughly proportional to their SIZ. Since the SIZ table is logarithmic this means that for every doubling the creature would get +24 SIZ and +16 STR.

For example you big creature on the left is about 1.75 times the height of the one on the right, so if they were clones of the same creature,  the one of the left would weight 5.35 times as much for about +18 SIZ and +12 STR. Note that this isn't taking into account the variances between individuals (the 3D6 rolls) which explains why bigger isn't always stronger. 

I find the above very helpful when I want a creature that is   similar to an existing creature (that I have stats for) , but larger (or smaller). There are a few other tweaks, such as armor is usually tied to damage bonus in some way, larger creatures tend to have a higher damage die with natural attacks, larger creatures tend to have a lower DEX, but the cube-square law is the big takeway.

15 hours ago, g33k said:

That's entirely possible... but I hadn't heard that anyone proposed a superior core mechanic, that worked as-smoothly in play but as-reasonably / as-accurately captured the flow of combat.

There have been many attempts, over the years, to get combat to be "more accurate."  Everything that's "better" (than RQ/BRP) in this regard is dramatically worse as an at-the-table RPG  experience (with the possible exception of RQ6/Mythras, which I was unable to "sell" to my group, and thus have never gotten to see done "in-depth" at the table).
 

That's a subjective conclusion. One of the reasons why BRP isn't the most widely played RPG is because most people prefer something else. Yeah, you're kinda preaching to the choir here, but " Everything that's "better" (than RQ/BRP) in this regard is dramatically worse as an at-the-table RPG  experience" has not be objectively proven.

On 4/5/2024 at 11:16 AM, Akerbakk said:

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.

Well, then why not get rid of statement of intent?. Just count down DEX ranks and let people act on thier turn.

Or, allow for more open ended statements such as "I'll shoot my handgun," with making player declare their targets. That way they could just react to the fight as it happens. Now personally I think aiming should be an exception to this (you have to aim at someone/thing) but otherwise it works out fine

On 4/2/2024 at 8:27 AM, Saki said:

I'd allow the PC to redirect their action, but I'd probably give them a Dex rank penalty of 5 to represent needing to make a split second change to their plan

Yeah, that pretty much how old RQ used to handle it. The new attack would get delayed by 5 Strike Ranks (or 3 with the 10 SR melee rounds of RQ3).

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

And then, your new target dies in that 5 DEX range. 😆 

LOL! I saw that happen in RQ2 to a player, thrice in the same round. The player had declared a Disrupt (SR 2), but the target got drooped on SR1 with  a Sunspear; so the player switched targets (+5SR) and waits for SR7, but that target got dropped by an arrow on SR3, so they switch to a third target (+5SR more, but I think the GM started the count from SR3 for SR 8 rather than 12); impaling spear dropped the third target on SR 7; player out of targets, fight ends.  So the faster PC in the group tried to throw off the fstest battle magic spell but the fight was over before he got the chance to act!

16 hours ago, g33k said:

NB the project here isn't a campaign for his own table, I think; it's a whole RPG (for the BRP Design Challenge).

Ah, in that case it's somebody else's problem- namely the GM who runs is game.

16 hours ago, g33k said:

 

Yes, show the players (e.g. with your 747 example, above).

I think some sidebar-text or similar would handle this well.  People tend less to be "spiteful" about their character-creation when it's just RAW from the book, as opposed to GM-set limits on (for example) the wide-open anything-goes BRP:UGE ruleset.

Yes, somewhat. It seems to come down to the players understanding that they old methods and assumptions don't necessarily apply anymore. It should be easy, but I've seem that it is hard for experienced D&Ders to give up on something "they know" to be true. It does exist in other players of others RPGs, but not to the same extent. I think becuase those who play other RPGs have played multiple RPGs and have noticed how they are different from each other. 

16 hours ago, g33k said:

I had one group who explicitly made sure to coordinate a broad range of ancillary skills amongst the PC's during chargen... "Whose backstory best justifies taking Pilot(Aircraft)?  Drive(car)?  Do we need specific Science(X)" skills, or just "Science," and who's taking it (or those)?  It's investigation-heavy, do we need "Forensic Accounting" or is that something we'll go to an NPC for?" and so forth.

I had a game where nobody wanted to take first aid since they had a medical doctor, who was obviously going to be better at it than the rest of them, so why waste the points? Guess which character got injured and needed first aid? Guess what skill all the other PCs picked up ASAP? Guess which group of players made sure than they were cross trained and had a backup to cover essential skills?

The Bond RPG was great for this sort of thing. There are only about 15 skills in the game but starting PCs won't have them all, or won't be able to rely on them. So early on players learn to focus on one or two areas to excel in. THen, over time, they pick up more skills and learn to back up the other characters, because four hours into the session is a bad time to find out that the one PC who knew how to fly was the one who got shot. They learned that the hard way, trashed a plane, and burnt off a lot of hero points in the process, but at least they lived. Next mission a couple of PCs had learned a little about how to fly. 

So the players will adapt, once they see the need.It just that they don't want to do it until they see why, and then it's too late to do their characters much good.

15 hours ago, Mugen said:

Yes, and it's the reason why D&D editions after 3rd tied very strictly skills and level, as players usually maximized skill levels or just put the minimum level needed for satisfying a prestige class requirement.

Yes, the designers decided it was better to just accept that all the players would try to mini-max everything (like in Magic the Gathering) and design the game around it. It's why D&D 3+ has all sorts of "stacking" rules. It's all to ensure that X level PCs have stats within the parameters for a given level. 

15 hours ago, Mugen said:

Which lead to worlds where the difference in magical knowledge between the highest ranking wizard in the world and a peasant is just ~60%.

LOL! That is also partially due to caps combined with level limits that come with increasing escalation. I think it's more obvious with fighters than wizards, though, since "To Hit" bonuses are easier to compare with each other than spells. 

It also plays into why the players are bad in spending their points in another way. In "Class & Level" RPGs stuff like attack bonuses, hit points, saving throws, and spell-casting are mostly determined by level, rather than by what skills and feats the player picks. Even the worst 10th level fighter is going to have a Base Attack Bonus of +10 and ten hit dice. Players can only mess it up so much. But a free form skill system gives them much more of an impact on their capabilities.  

20 hours ago, LivingTriskele said:

Yeah, the moment they start starving because they can't find a job, I think the importance of being well-rounded might kick in.

That might teach them the lesson but too late for them to fix it. Once the NPC pilot get's shot, and the PCs are thirty thousand feet up in a 747, it's too late to discuss the merits of someone in the group putting a few points into Pilot (Aircraft). Idealy, you want the players to figure that bit out before they wind up as "BREAKING NEWS".

20 hours ago, LivingTriskele said:

I could do something arbitrary like require players to spend at least half their default starting points on noncombat skills. So, 250 for Normal characters would be 125. Or maybe 1/3^rd rounded down, so 83 points. That might make sense.

I think it's better to try and show them why they want to diversify thier skill set rather than force them to do it. When you force them they tend to resent it, and do a bad job of it, partially out of spite. 

Keep in mind that it's not really the players' fault. Players maximize their combat skills because other RPGs and GMs encourage and reward that behavior. Chance are, in D&D an extra +1 to hit is going to be more useful than a +1 to Play Mandolin. So that's what they pick. It's the same with tactics. Players learn stuff that works in one game, and reuse it because it does work. Then they get frustrated and angry when the play a different RPG and thier tactics don't work anymore. Typically they blame the game and or GM rather than accept that thier "great" tactics don't travel AKA why charging the arches doesn't work in BRP and Morrow Project.

To quote Yoda, your players "must unlearn what you have learned". You got to get them to see that. It's not easy, good luck.

5 hours ago, LivingTriskele said:

Truth! That's the reason why I like to throw the occasional foe at them that I know they can't beat in a strait fight. I think that they will have some extra points left over, after maxing out their main skills, for things that they’ll need to develop in game.

LOL! I recall something along those lines in a Star Trek forum. One guy was wondering why he shouldn't just dump all his points towards  maxing out his phaser and martial arts skills for his security character. My replay was "diplomatic missions." The player was used to D&D and the idea of ad adventure that wasn't solved through combat wasn't something that he had even considered. But It's better to be proactive and teach that to the players before chargen. On the plus side the replacement PCs are usually more rounded. 

But then I once watched a PC mercenary  bleed to death from a minor injury because they put all thier points into greatsword, and didn't see a reason to save any points for anything else, like, say,  First Aid.  The guy got zero sympathy from the other players.

3 hours ago, LivingTriskele said:

It does. I was considering using that approach, but I’m on the fence. I’m inclined to give my players as much freedom in character creation as possible. I think they’ll just be happier. BRP by default is more lethal than D&D (which they are all used to), so I’m hoping a little freedom in character generation will compensate for that.

That's a nice idea but the trap for D&D players is to try to put all thier eggs into one basket. Since D&D relies on "balanced" (read rigged) encounters  it has all sorts of limits on character improvement, and stacking, which encourages player to focus all their points to one area. Often, when those players play something other than D&D, they bring that tendency with them, and they tend to end up with characters who are over-focused and lacking in all other areas. 

You might need to do something to try and get that point across. 

Reminds me of RQ3 cultural skills