frogspawner

What ran through my mind when I read that line was: "Wow, that is going to rub some people the wrong way."

What annoys me about it (though I'm not really angry, just peeved) is it shows the way the Chaosium guys are thinking: "There's a problem - we don't make enough money on BRP books - the solution is people need to spend more on them or we don't print them!". Because while they're thinking like that, they won't think: "There's a problem - we don't make enough money on BRP books - we need to find a different way of working...". Maybe like Alephtar do it - presumably that way does make money?

The end of the world is not near... it is tomorrow :shocked:

Darn. I should've gone for the PDF instead, then...

Thanks for your comments, gents. It seems I'm not so out of line objecting to this. I'm not angry about it, just a bit sad. All those Projects Dustin goes on to mention, all the Monographs everyone is working on - it seems likely that, for me, their P&P will be prohibitive (if they ever get actually printed at all). ;-(

I find myself hoping those products won't go to Chaosium, but to RosenMcstern's Alephtar Games instead and hopefully Lulu - just like Rome... which, btw, was actually just £4.75 postage.

"If you want to see additional BRP releases buy a PDF now and a physical copy later. It's the best way to ensure BRP releases are profitable enough for us to print." - Dustin "O'Chaosium" Wright (here)

Is it just me, or does anyone else object to this?

What's the use of a publisher who won't print stuff?

With the acclaimed Rome available via Lulu, printed and delivered for only an extra £5.50, why won't Chaosium do the same?

Yes but are one on every 216 adult humans 2'7"? Far from it. The rolls are supposed to represent 'normal' human range. Tom Thumb and Goliath exist outside of normal human range.

Also, D&D, the 3d6 all Characteristics system innoventer against which BRP is being judged doesn't assign characteristics to Animals or Monsters. A rabbit in D&D does not have characteristics, just a hid die (or 1 hp) and a damage value and an Xp value and a treasure value. In BRP, where all creatures have the same characteristics as humans, there needed to be range bigger than 1 or 2 for creatures that fall below the range for 'normal' human SIZ and INT.

Do SIZ 3 and INT 3 Humans exist? Certainly, but they are 1 in thousands if not millions, not one in 216. In game terms such humans are not generated randomly, but by design as needed by the game.

Apparently less than 1% have IQ 30-50 (according to this IQ Site). Just 5% are under 75 (7 INT?) just as only 5% are above 125 (12 INT?).

But that fits the way I view it: Characters (PC or significant NPC) are, or have the capacity to be, exceptional. Most 'ordinary' people's stats I'd roll on 3 average dice (i.e. ones where 6's and 1's are replaced with extra 4's and 3's respectively) - those I don't just assign as 10's, that is! Rolling 3d6 (or 4d6 best 3) lets PCs be Tom Thumb or Goliath - if they want to be.

(Also,these days D&D creatures do get full sets of stats, I believe.)

I'm not quite sure why the this thread has focused on player characters, advantages or not. ... Where's the problem with that? :confused:

The problem is that the 3d6 scale appears to be a better fit to human INT/SIZ than the 2d6+6 scale - because of the well-known 1 INT = 10 IQ and 1 SIZ = 1 Stone rules-of-thumb (and the worlds shortest man being quoted as 2'7", slap in the BRP SIZ 3 height range). This leaves the main argument in favour of 2d6+6 for these stats as the "playability" of the characters produced - hence the focus on player characters.

However, theres a part of me that thinks only 10 Magic skills may mean lots of Master Mages in fairly short order.

You could say the Magic skills are harder and, instead of the normal +d6% per increase, only give them +d4% (or maybe less, like a straight +1%).

What is a surprise is the hostility that this thread has generated.

Yes, I've been rather taken aback by that too.

Quoted for emphasis, with boldness added for more emphasis... <etc, snipped>

Please give the guy a break! He advertised it as a "Rant" in the title, but I don't think it's necessary to respond in kind. Let this thread stay dead.

Mr D said quite early on that 3d6 for all would be Perfectly All Right, so there really shouldn't be a problem with it, for those that want to.

However, I find your continued arguments in the latter part of the thread weak and I think you are being deliberately obtuse for the purpose of baiting people...

Oh I don't think that's true. I thought a couple of points in Harwel's last posting were really quite compelling - and actual hard evidence, not 'baiting'. Namely:

SIZ 3 is (according to RQ2, last major game that used a 3-18 SIZ that I know of) is 70-100cm and 10-20kg. World's smallest man meets woman with world's longest legs - Telegraph The world smallest man came in at 2'5". That would be 73.7cm.

...

Someone mentioned a scale of 1 INT = 10 IQ. That's fair, and I've seen it lots of places before. I've used it as a rule of thumb myself for 30+ years of gaming. The average IQ of a person these days is between 85 and 114. IQ Scores - Average IQ Score at IQ Test Center That would put an average human squarely in the 10 INT range.

In new BRP, SIZ 3 is 25-36" (61-90cm) and 21-60lbs (10-30kg). So that still holds, supporting the 3d6 range.

The rules are not the setting.

True. But I like a setting where characters are a bit more closely tied to their professions than usual for BRP, and spells are only available to specialists. That's ok, isn't it?

Am I the only one who "houserules" this away? It's never made any sense at all to me, and I have never seen what I consider a good explanation for it.

No, you're not. I prefer and use the 3d6 scale too. (For INT anyway, I'm not so bothered about SIZ, which I regard as a secondary/seventh stat).

It's nice to roll the traditional "4d6 best 3", 'cos it's both easier to swap (towards your preferred character concept, if any) and to get inspiration (if you've no idea what character you want, including race)!

The change from 3d6 to 2d6+6 came in with the change from RQ2 to RQ3.

The RQ3 "What's in this Box?" gave the following conversion table:

[B][U] 3d6 [/U][/B]   [B][U]2d6+6[/U][/B]

 3-4      8

 5-6      9

   7     10

   8     11

   9     12

10-11    13

  12     14

  13     15

  14     16

15-16    17

17-18    18

No explanation though. I suspect the INT may be to discourage stupid play. The SIZ was probably to preserve the quite neat "1 SIZ = 1 Stone" rule-of-thumb, without making too many midgets.

Not to knock any game system, but I don't see the rationale behind this. It would seem to me that if one wanted to have the "D&D experience" one could just play D&D.

Well, if I couldn't knock the D&D game system, I wouldn't have any reason! But I do rate D&D as inferior - RQ/BRP is better. Why? For me, the most important reasons are...

- Ticks-for-Skills (D&D's "XP-for-Killing" makes for bad RP: NPCs tend to be just faceless XP fodder.)

- Limited Hit Points (D&D's increasing HPs creates bullies, not heroes. Combat is too safe & easy, with race-stereotype hordes as fuel.)

Preserving the character of a D&D-style campaign with the classic magic/spells and class-like professions needn't compromise either of those principles (or any other good things about BRP, such as rules-simplicity, character-individuality, etc).

Alternatively, if you look at it as rules to create a particular type of setting for BRP, does that help?

This whole thread has me scratching my head. Since I've been on these boards, BRP enthusiasts have persistently proclaimed that they enjoy Runequest, et. al., because "it's NOT Brand X." So why would you want to make your beloved game system more like the one you ditched when you saw the light and abandoned d20s for d10s? :shocked:

Can't speak for others, but for me it was to wean my 'Brand X'-playing friends onto a better system. I couldn't live with myself (well, I couldn't bring myself to keep on GMing) if I gave them an inferior RPG experience. Not wanting to change the feel of my (albeit vanilla fantasy) campaign too much, or force the players to bin their characters, I have 'evolved' it and them over the years, while keeping the class-type restrictions and old familiar spells. (But I have run Gloranthan RQ2 from time to time, too.) This way, I've managed to bring them with me. Even the d100-phobe, and the guy who still always says he'll "never play RuneQuest"...

That's what I'll be doing, IF I ever need it.

OK, but would you be happy with Spot 40% v Hide 90% = 0% (i.e. no chance!), though?

All this talk about "opposed rolls" confuses the hell out of me.

Exactly why I suggest not using them - or, at least, having an alternative for those of us that feel the same.

Or maybe this, which is similar to what I've mentioned before (I use something different for Dodging, but this is "by-the-book" and may be better for most folks):

ATTACK (as per the BRP book, "Resolution", p192)

Critical Hit does Maximum damage, bypass armour.

Special Hit does Special Effect by weapon type (Bleed/Crush/Impale/etc).

Normal Hit does Normal damage.

Fumble: Roll on appropriate Attack Fumble table

Then...

PARRY (ok, this bit I made up, but it should also be familiar to longtime BRPers)

Critical Parry blocks damage completely (attacking weapon may be damaged*)

Special Parry blocks damage up to full parrying weapon HPs (excess damage affects parrying weapon and target**)

Normal Parry blocks damage equal to half parrying weapon HPs ( " )

Fumble: Roll on appropriate Parry Fumble table (damage affects target)

(* & ** rules for these TBD!)

...Or...

DODGE (as per the BRP book, "Dodge", p55)

Critical Dodge reduces normal/special/critical hit to a miss

Special Dodge reduces normal/special hit to a miss, critical to normal hit

Normal Dodge reduces normal hit to a miss, special to normal, critical to special

Fumble: Roll on Natural Weapon Attack & Parry Fumble table

...And any remaining damage is applied to the defender, reduced for armour if not a critical hit.

Yes, I posted a pretty similar suggestion a while back...

So I wonder if my "Patent Scalable Resistance Table ", as seen over in the Resistance Table thread, might be pressed into service for this too?

I'm no fan of "blackjack rolling" either, or any Opposed Rolling in fact. This has been discussed over in Islan's "a complaint" thread for the last few days. There it has been established that ORs favour high-skill or low-skill differently, depending whether you say "higher roller wins" or "lower roller wins", respectively. That's yet another reason for finding (or, in fact, returning to!) a better way of doing things, IMHO.

So, to save you re-reading the whole thread, here's a selection of solutions worthy of consideration:

Do we need to have a consistent approach every time this (opposed rolls that are both equal successes) comes up?

I usually interpret the results based on what is most dramatic. If a Sneaker is successful in Sneak, and the Guard is successful in Spot (or Scan), I:

* If time is of the essence and this will increase tension, I 'push' the result for a round. The Sneaker has to wait while the Guard is staring right at him. Roll the next round. Someone eventually fails, or time is running out so they try something else.

* If it's unimportant to the plot, I arm wave it (usually in favor of the players)

* If it's important that we resolve it in one roll, I either adjudicate that the high skill wins or the one who was most under his skill wins. Maybe I'll change that to the canon (higher roll wins).

Steve

My houserule of the stealth vs. perception issue:

Stealth roll:

fumble: something really bad (and funny ) happens.

failure: no effect - normal perception roll will detect the character.

success: all perception rolls to detect character is difficult (at half percent).

special: all perception rolls to detect character is very difficult (perception rolls shifted one level down - e.g. need a special or better perception roll to detect character).

critical: all perception rolls to detect character is impossible (automatic failure).

First roll stealth, then perception.

(Stealth rolls may be easy (at double percent) if no one is paying attention.)

Usually I use the closest to their skill score wins. Also depending on the situation I may contest the play a little more. If a player nearly misses a roll, I will allow a second roll.with a midiefr, like 10%. The game logic is "did I really hear something"?

My preferred method for handling skill contests is to have intermediate results. If a both search & sneak succeed, the watcher has heard or seen something, but it is not exactly sure what and where. If both fail, something humorous seems in order.

The difference between the roll and the skill% can be used to break ties and adjucate detailed results.

And...

Of course, back in the RQ2 days I always just went with degree of success and "tie goes to the defender or perception" and it worked fine. If it was necessary to go beyond that (very rare), my tie-breaker was "who succeeded by more", or just good old "what would be more fun or interesting".

PS: I'd prefer something like that, a return to the traditional mechanism used in RQ2 as you say (and also RQ3, CoC and SB (pre v5?) in the Glory Days of BRP) but with contests extended somehow to avoid the excessive "chanciness" of single-rolls.

What was this thread about again?

I have yet to see a single decent contested-roll system in any officially printed material.

Finding a decent, less-confusing system than the current Opposed Rolls, amongst other things...

There's no shame. It's just the OR complications go deeper than most people realize. So is it worthy of an addition into the "Opposed Skill Roll" codification document, perhaps?

The odds are different, and low roll wins is weighted more towards the lower skill, while high roll wins is weighted more towards the higher skill.

Many thanks to Vagabond & Rurik for drawing this to our attention. It's not all bad news though - it's cheered me up a lot!

That has been the challenge thus far. Do I want an authentic D&D experience, or a better one?

Well, being BRP-based it's going to be streets better than 'authentic D&D' either way. So this probably just depends on your players. Mine were dyed-in-the-wool D&Ders, so leaving them with the familiar '4d6 best 3' gave 'em some consolation! It's not really so important that it needed changing. If your players are coming from a BRP background, the same principle leads to the opposite result.

The physical penalty for armor is doubly applied to spell casting. Elves suffer half this penalty. Elven armor (mithril) halves this penalty, or for elves, nullifies it completely.

Hmm, are you sure you could live with Magic-Users in Ring Mail & Heavy Padding (7AP) (+Heavy Helmet, is that another 2?) for only a -30% penalty (or elves -15%)?

I use a different idea, which you might like to consider: the armour penalty adds to the fumble chance for (non-divine) spell-casting. Coupled with an 'amusing' magic fumble table, I find that does the job...

I'd say, for that authentic D&D experience, you should do all stats as '4d6 best 3, strict order', then add modifiers for race etc.

Arcane Magic and Armor

Go on then, tell us - what's your take on this? And can Elves cast in armour or not?

As and when the BRP core book is revised the opposed skills section certainly needs clarifying: but dropping the opposed skill rules would be a hugely retrograde step IMO.

If people don't like the rule they can chose not to use it. Other people dislike hit locations, finding them unrealistic and awkward - should we drop those entirely as well?

Hit locations are an option. People are free to use them or not as they see fit. (As it happens, for the most part I find them an unnecessary complication and only use them for significant wounds).

Opposed Rolling is the only mechanism given for combat in the new BRP core book. That's BAD. Officially, people can't choose not to use it. (Oddly unlike most other rules - why??)

I agree with you that the Opposed Roll rules are unclear. However, I think that's an intrinsic problem with the mechanism's complexity, not a fault of the writer or the reader's capacity to understand. IMO, dropping the simpler Independent Roll mechanic and showing potential new players no alternative but the complex, controversial and mathematically uncertain Opposed Rolls has been BRP's "hugely retrograde step".

The question now is, what's the best way to undo that damage?

I'm sure you're right.

This madness is caused by Opposed Rolls - and you don't need them!

It's precisely because they confuse people like this that I recommend they be dropped.

Or alternative mechanisms you might consider to address these two issues (which I use) are:

1) Limiting number of ticks to INT. (Not such an admin overhead as you might think, because it only needs to be assessed at the time gain-rolls are done).

2) Having one essential skill characterizing each 'profession', which are restricted (due to guild politics or whatever): Martial Arts; Magic; Allegiance; and (enhanced) Sleight.

That way, there's no need for go so far towards D&D by defining every skill's availability to each class, or using XPs. And I suggest it's easier. But then you might prefer that for the "essential D&D experience"!