daddystabz

I have used statement of intents in other games, such as L5R 1e and never cared for it. I am in agreement with KingSkin in thinking it doesn't give you enough bang for how much it slows combat even more. I'm aiming for a rules-lite game with BRP for urban fantasy. I have no need to make the combat slower and to use a lot of crunchy options that are really not necessary for the feel I'm trying to get. There are other lighter options out there like Buffy/Angel and The Dresden Files, etc. Some of you old school BRP fans are going to have to simply realize not everyone likes the same things you do and BRP can be many things to many people. It is meant to be tinkered with. That is why all the options are there and that is honestly the beauty of the system. It is a toolbox. My BRP game will not be the same as yours, etc. I'm old enough and experienced enough to know what I want in my games, having played these games for decades now. I also know what my players like and what they dislike. Your players may be different. Check out these very different 2 reviews on YouTube of BRP. The first is in multi-parts. Notice the points they make and what options Samwise decided to go with to stick to a rules-lite framework. and http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57?blend=2&ob=5#p/search/0/7FZCid7D9Ak Face it, RosenMcStern, some people disagree with you and feel they are not satisfied with initiative as handled in the BGB and that is perfectly ok. I respect your opinion and I love BRP overall. I just like my initiative handled a tad differently.

This is why I'm such a rabid fan of MRQII and I know you all are tired of hearing it but honestly.....the initiative Strike Rank system in that game works freaking brilliantly. Combat Actions are a nice thing as well. And let's not even talk about Combat Maneuvers, which are simply awesome. I honestly love BRP EXCEPT the options it has for initiative.

This is why I prefer MRQII's way to do it. No Special Success bullcrap and crits are always at 10%. Even the mathematically challenged player I play with regularly has no problem with calculating 10% of a number.

hehe

But there is nonetheless....it's in the book. The chart is there and is meant to be possibly used by players/GMs and is always rounding up while the game states you are to use normal rounding rules. Weird, isn't it? As long as a group picks one method and everyone adheres to it/sticks with it, then it isn't really an issue. If I had my way Special Successes would be eliminated altogether and crits would be 10% of skill level, how it all works basically in MRQII, but alas. Crits are not going to be a common occurrence either way, no matter how you choose as a group to do your rounding. The key is for the GM to communicate to the group as a whole how the rounding will be done and then make sure everyone adheres to it. Either use the chart or do it manually yourselves but make sure everyone is on the same page.

I haven't done the calculations to check but it seems to me the ranges for crits and special successes are a bit too liberal than if you did the exact calculation yourself for a given skill level. This is somewhat implied due to the fact the table doesn't list a single number and give its exact calculations for crit/special/fumble but rather uses ranges of numbers instead.

I'm playing in a MRQII campaign here locally with my face-to-face group currently and MRQII is working brilliantly.

Look at the chart in the book. I believe the last time I looked at it the calculations were not as precise than if you did it by calculator for special success, etc. They do indeed mention they use normal rounding in the book. The chart works off ranges of numbers. For example, let's say you have a 45 in a skill. You roll a 23 on the percentile dice. You look the result up on the chart. The chart says you score a crit on a roll of 01-03, a special success on a result of 01-09, a fumble on a result of 98-00. In this example you rolled a result of 23, thus giving you a success only.

You and are in complete agreement, KingSkin. It is the one area of BRP I've read thus far that I feel fails epically for me and for what my players want. I am probably going to import the initiative system from MRQII with Combat Actions and all at this point. MRQII simply does it way, way better. I also prefer MRQII's levels of success to BRP. Easier to work with and more intuitive.

You get no argument from me there. I don't think it is a mistake because every entry on it for Special Success is calculated this way.

Bah. Maybe I'll have to stick with Dex/Int ranks afteral or maybe import Strike Ranks and Combat Action as they are in MRQII.

Ravenloft sounds very interesting. That setting had fascinated me when it first released.

Just because I didn't use all the ideas they suggested doesn't mean I find necessarily fault with what they suggested. It just wasn't right for what my players want. I found one thing though for HeroQuest like this so it isn't like nothing came of it. My other threads at THIS forum were slightly looking for different things than this one. Read their titles.

First off, I have no idea what your issue is but I started a thread at this site and one at RPG.net hoping to gather some good ideas from BRP fans and non-BRP people alike. I haven't found a whole lot I intend to use as yet except for one supplement for HeroQuest 2. Your attitude is not appreciate nor wanted here so if you have an issue with this thread, feel free to see yourself out of it.

I don't think the chart is a typo at all of that entire column would have to be wrong. I think the chart is simply intentionally not as pinpoint accurate and a tad more generous. That is ok with me.

I have looked at the GURPS one and didn't find much I'd use honestly. I am not a Cthulu fan either and not pulling much from that as well. What I have in mind is more akin to The Dresden Files. I am trying to find resources out there I might not already be aware of to draw ideas from for a setting. It does not have to be BRP at all.

The BRP Strike Rank system is starting to grow on me as I'm reading through it. There may be hope for me yet!

Any update as to an ETA on this? I'd LOVE to play or run in a PotC style BRP game.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?578487-BRP-and-movement&p=13981589#post13981589

More tactical in terms of simulationist tropes but not more tactical than D&D 4e with its mini game/pseudo wargame like gameplay where characters work together to create bigger effects on their opponents and piggy back bonuses to one another. D&D 4e is very much like a minis wargame and very tactically deep in terms of how it plays on the battle grid. D&D is more abstract in its approach to combat in terms of realism/simulationism in comparison to RuneQuest or BRP. RuneQuest and BRP are not focused on minis but rather, are much more focused on simulationism. Strike ranks in BRP sound like a fantastic solution to my issue with Dex/Int rank based initiative and the effect movement has on them. I look forward to reading it more in-depth. I am almost at that point now.

I love the Strike Rank rules in MRQII. I am reading through the combat chapter right now in BRP and look forward to seeing how they work in BRP.

MRQII doesn't use this initiative notion and the combat works great in it, just like combat works great in D&D. The note on the sidebar about non-combat situations does NOT mean this optional rule is not meant to be used in combat at all. It can be used easily for non-combat situations but this doesn't mean it can't be used for combat as well as long as you are willing to work within its limitations. I will likely try it both ways and let the players pic which they prefer. I have an inkling though they will dislike movement effecting initiative because I know them well and their preferences.

Wrong. It is not my house rule it is an optional rule listed right in the core rulebook. Go read it yourself. See on pg 188 the sidebar on eliminating or reversing statement of intents. Btw, I have over 20 yrs of RPG experience as well in a plethora of games longer than anyone I personally know. I've been playing these games since just before the original red box D&D. I'm not trying to convince ANY of you of anything. I could care less what you all do in your own games. I'm simply explaining my reasoning for how I plan to do things in mine. I've played D&D for decades and to reiterate: Movement in D&D does NOT affect initiative whatsoever. Your point about Opportunity Attacks is utterly beside the point because none of that has anything to do with initiative at all except that in some cases a player or NPC can choose to take an Opportunity Attack if a person or NPC is disengaging from combat from them without taking a 5 ft. drop or withdrawal action, as it's called in Star Wars Saga Edition. This simply allows a PC or NPC to temporarily act of turn against a PC or NPC disengaging from combat improperly. BRP has rules for disengaging too. The point is though, despite Opportunity Attacks the respective initiative order of the combat participants is NOT affected by movement in any edition of D&D at all. About MRQII: The movement explanation I pasted here is from the official forum for the game and was made by a dev from the game, clarifying movement to players that had questions. I can paste more if you wish. In MRQII you may move 8 meters per ROUND, not per turn. You can spread this movement out per combat action however you see fit. You can move THEN attack on 1 CA but you cannot attack THEN move. You can sprint on your turn but doing so use multiple CAs and charging uses multiple CAs as well.

First off, the BRP game is a toolkit and you are expected to pick and choose the options that fit the kind of game you are trying to run with it. I am not looking for a combat tactics-heavy kind of game. I intend to run a modern day urban fantasy game/horror campaign and tactics aren't really the all encompassing focus of what I want to do. The game will be more about atmosphere and ambiance. However, your point about movement doesn't even ring true in D&D. In D&D 3e/3.5 and 4e for that matter, your initiative is NOT affected by how you decide to move when your turn comes up during combat. On your turn you may move your normal 6 squares/30 ft. of movement or choose to double move or choose to run/move all out. These use actions but do NOT affect your initiative whatsoever at all and D&D is a much more tactical game than either BRP or MRQII. In MRQII movement is handled like this: "On each CA you can move and attack (melee or ranged) so long as you don't exceed your BM for the entire round. In other words you can spread your 8 meters over all of your CA's in any combination you like, 2, 2 & 4 for example if you have 3 CA's. Or you can move your total BM on 1 CA and attack, but you can then no longer move in that ROUND. You can Sprint which usually takes your whole round, i.e. you do nothing but run." This part about MRQII is taken from my own notes from a post on the official Mongoose message boards clarifying movement for players there because there were many questions about the abstract nature of movement in the game. Notice that movement in no way affects initiative in this game either. Another thing you must keep in mind is that certain rules options will not make good sense depending on what optional rules you intend to employ in your personal game. I intend to use the optional rule where instead of having a sequence where each player declares his/her intentions and then in initiative order each player rolls those actions, in my game each player will say what he/she will do and then rolls right there and then to see if it is successful. In this context movement affecting Dex rank/initiative does not make much sense because each player would have already rolled initiative before he/she declares what his/her character will do and then rolls to see if the action(s) are successful or not. If I have each player roll initiative and then go to each player in turn to see what he/she is going to do and thus allowing each to roll for their action(s) right then and there on the spot then this deal with movement affecting the order in which you go becomes substantially less attractive and appears more cumbersome. I also intend to use the option to allow players to roll their initiative and not just allow Dex to decide automatically the order each time. I like allowing for a random element to initiative and not constantly penalizing lower Dex characters in terms of initiative, allowing them a chance to sometimes go before a higher Dex character. I have also never been a fan of sequenced combat. We even dumped sequenced combat from the MERP 2e game I play in Saturday nights online because it was unpopular with the players. I plan on using Dex ranks and Int ranks (for powers) for initiative and allowing the initiative roll to simply decide the order of events, not what weapon the character is wielding and not arbitrarily missile attacks before melee attacks, and power attacks before melee attacks, etc. Your point about realism above in terms of movement kind of cracks me up because I wonder if you think sequenced combat is more realistic? Do you think it is more realistic that missile weapons always go before melee weapons in every circumstance? What if the guy with the melee weapon is point blank in melee range on the guy with the bow? The guy with the bow still can act first. I like it better if both combatants simply roll initiative and let their stats and chance decide who get the drop on the other. Is it really more realistic for a bow armed with a short spear to ALWAYS get initiative over a guy armed with a longsword? Not really. D&D doesn't think so either.

If it refers to Initiative then I still call rubbish on it and pretty much dislike it as a rule, especially given the fact I intend to use the option where each players says what he/she will do and then rolls to do it immediately.