frogspawner

Well, I like the simple old "whack - clang" mechanism. And (call me an old fashioned C man if you will) I still say that a simpler solution is a better one (and certainly better than two different solutions).

If as you say higher-skilled fighters learn how to deflect, rather than intercept, I'd say that's a good reason to introduce a "Deflection" ability at, say, 100%+ (like Splitting Attacks). That could give the 'sorry but your hit actually missed' effect in some way, without the complexity of opposed rolls in combat.

The idea of this sort of extra (perhaps less-than-Legendary) Ability (dare I say 'Feat'?) was mooted in another thread recently.

Don't flame me, I ain't flamin' you! Yes, it's nice and civilized here - I haven't been to that Other Place for ages...

I'm not interested in roasting anyone, just finding the best system. You may well be right that it won't be very near the intuitively-correct 50% mark, though it's probably less clear-cut for lower skills. Time permitting, I'll do some calculations on those odds (but if anyone else would care to, please feel free!).

The simpler the system, the better. (Surely as a C man you can appreciate that). One mechanic would be better than two. Would you care to tell us about the unopposed roll mechanic you use for weapons v shields?

"Opposed Rolls... higher skill wins ties."

Simple but awfully unrealistic. A 91% guardsman spots a 90% sneaker 90% of the times.

That's not accurate, since one or other can special/critical/fail when the other doesn't. This statistic appears to assume they both have the same 'DoS' at the same time, which ain't necessarily so. If you examine the odds properly I think you'll find it's similar to the contentious MRQ method.

DoS (Degree of Success) mechanics means that whenever you have an opposed roll and both succeed, one of the successes is downgraded by one or more to achieve a simpler result. This is in BRP 0, as Nick explained above (simple Dodge downgrades Critical attack to Special), and is in the MRQ player's update, albeit reversed (attack with higher roll downgrades simple parry or roll to failure, parry or dodge with higher roll downgrades successful attack to miss).

Not as simple as it could/should be, and awfully unrealistic too. A parried hit is not simply a miss - it's a different event in it's own right, and could/should have different effects.

I didn't know there were other creation methods (for skills) in BRP that weren't point buy.

Anyway, in theory, yes, this is true. The question is the specifics. How valuable is 4d6 in a stat versus 3d6?

The default system is random rolls for characteristics. But since there is a point-buy system for these stats, the BRP rules do have an answer to that question. (A complex one though, since some stats are worth more points than others. Either 3.5 or 10.5, I guess, on average).

With the points-buy system, non-human stats could be a non-problem if you ignore the suggestion that the GM "should adjust your starting points and/or initial characteristics appropriately" (or just decree that it's appropriate to give nothing extra). Then the only advantage they get is higher/lower racial limits to buy up/down to.

So, what would be wrong with giving humans an advantage or extra Hero Points?

In principle, nothing. But, to be fair, shouldn't other races also get that option if they're willing to forego some stats or skills?

The opposed roll for combat ... is the only real advancement, in combat, of MRQ over previous RQs.

Then, since I don't like Opposed Rolls, you can see one good reason I don't like MRQ! (Although I can live with ORs for non-combat contests, like Hide v Spot, when used with a variation suggested by Nickmiddleton IIRC, i.e. higher skill wins ties).

It is the cross-indexing of opposed rolls with combat matrices / tables / whatsoever, instead of adopting the DoS mechanics, that makes the system a bit clumsy.

Yes, combat matrices are clumsy, and 'get in the way'. So please tell, what are the "DoS mechanics"?

Yeah, but I don't think any of the BRP0 options for combat is free of the 'Opposed Roll' taint. I don't like to think about that - it makes me queasy. But Jason said he'd be revising the combat chapter wording for 1st Ed, so there's always hope...

If you're interested in balance, you'll probably be using some sort of points-buy system (though maybe only for skills). So to balance the races as well, just make them also cost some of those points, proportional to the benefits of the race. Easy, right?

As you questioned a WoW player, try and think of a way to attract his attention to the beauty of BRP instead of just explaining the mechanics in a competent fashion. ...

Good points, thanks. And yes, making space for pictures would be good.

I think the key thing is to provide something that can be used immediately, and that demonstrates the range the rule set is capable of.

Being just a fantasy RP-er, I'm not sure I'm qualified to do even generic examples from other settings, but I'm sure you're right that it'd benefit from that. I think I'll probably just shelve this idea for now.

So, once you think your BRP introduction is ready, could you please let me know whether I can use it for this purpose ?

Ah, well, I think you'd have to ask the Chaosium guys about that, because it's basically a severely cut-down version of their introductory BRP booklet from 20+ years ago. Not wanting to tread on their toes, I should probably remove it. It's served it's purpose, of proving the 4-page principle and drawing-out constructive comments.

Mmm, nice setting! Almost makes me want to use it with BRP...

Yes, I was aiming for 4 A4 sides, so it'd fit on 1 double-sided A3 sheet. (Glad to see theirs was 5 sides too!)

Are compelling settings the key? The original BRP guide seemed to be aiming for the player to feel involved straight away, by creating a character of their own. I don't know which approach is best, but don't know the upcoming settings well enough to do one in that style, so may persevere with the old one. Anyone else care to give it a go...?

Thanks, and thank you for taking the time to have a look at it.

I see the problem with the heading (it just says "BRP BasicRolePlaying BRP" in Batavia font - the closest I had to the Hobo used in Ed.Zero - and it's all Greek to me now I'm on this laptop instead!), but that's just cosmetic. (Solved in pdf?)

Other feedback I have had (from a randomly-selected member of it's target audience, my son the WoW player!) is that it's "a lot of text" (and the fight with the Bear is tough!). So it might be better cut down even more drastically (though lack of a character sheet is a problem).

But, would something like this be useful as an "advertising flyer" to give away free?

D&D and AD&D always seemed like they were about "might equals right" to me, anyway... However, looking at the BRP line... it seems that the game makers for this system cater heavily to the heroic fantasy role playing crowd.

Absolutely. This difference in attitude is fundamental to the systems and is clear from the way they handle experience and, particularly, hit points.

As I often say when players complain about how few HPs they get: Do you want to be a Bully or Hero?

One of the way I get over this is by limiting the number of skill/experience rolls the PCs get.

Same here, by simply imposing a limit of INT ticks (experience checks).

The one character that practiced sorcery and was a primary fighter rarely cast spells in combat and spent much of his training time on combat skills so quickly lagged behind the primary spell casters in magical skills. Really it worked fairly well.

So would you say such limits are unnecessary?

And not everyone likes Adobe/pdf's. Anyone who doesn't have Word might like to download the Word Viewer, free.

4 pages for a system? That's just not do-able. Even 16 is short. :cool:

BRP - A Brief Introduction

Ok, how's this? A boiled-down (and updated) version of the original BRP pamphlet. It's 5 pages, not 4, but close enough to establish the principle, I hope. And not all the shrinkage is due to using a smaller point-size!

Just thought I'd put this out there for comments before putting any more work in. And is it even a worthwhile exercise? Making it smaller still is possible, but will be harder...

Yeah, Chaosium's site still says it's due for release "early next year" - I hope that's just not been updated since '07, but maybe they mean it...

Fate Points let you spend them to achieve a maximum damage result with a weapon damage roll...

That can also be done with Fate Points, or as the Armor super power. ...

A function of the Martial Arts super power. ...

The Super Skill super power handles that.

Since the use of Fate Points and/or Powers are options, the GM has total control over whether they are used in his/her campaign - right?

So a GM could put conditions on their use. (Surely it doesn't have to be a simple "Yes/No"...?)

So, under the Rules As Written, a GM would be perfectly entitled to say, for examples:

1) If you have a weapon skill of 100%+, you can spend FP to maximize Damage with that specific type of weapon

2) If you have a weapon skill of 150%+, you can spend FP to activate an Ability to negate some armor

3) If you have 100%+ Dodge, you can spend FP to activate an Ability to 'roll with a blow' (i.e. innate armor)

etc...

True?

I'm just a pessimist by nature...

Pessimism is generally accurate, I find. (Look, I don't want to say too much, but haven't you guys heard of tempting fate?)

Don't have the book yet as its not out in the UK, so that doesn't help much.

Wouldn't you pay 30-odd quid for it? With the dollar as it is, that's the price including postage to order it direct off Chaosium - and you'd have it in two weeks. But there's less than a hundred Ed.Zero's left...

The point is that the author of RQ:AiGwas falsely accused of heinous crimes.

Well it's a good job our Jason is whiter-than-white, perfectly pure in thought and deed! That's right, isn't it Mr D?

(Not sure about that Sam bloke, though... )

Inevitably, several (not too few, but not too many) years down the line, BRP Revised (or BRP2) will address all of these issues and will be met with equal regard and disregard.

Another release date to look forward to. Yay.

If the default is heretical, why not?

But the default is the standard dogma, so it can't be heresy. And SR/HitLoc/etc are permissible options, so they're not heretical either.

Awkwardnesses might arise when translating between options, but I don't think that'll happen very often.

...I dropped the more complex (unnecessarily) RQ hit points and strike ranks.

Same here. So Mr D's BRP pleases me, at least!

It's sensible to have the simplest version as the core, and the various complications as optional extras. If anyone asks "where's the Advanced RolePlaying?" to go with the Basic - we can say it's the same book, if you use the options.

I find Divine Interventions perfectly plausible, given a magic-rich world with deities actively supporting their followers, and quite limited in scope ("Save me!", "Get us home!", "Enchant my armour!"). Plot bending gives the same power to the players, which is too much IMHO - because they can fast-talk to justify anything. But perhaps you could summarize Mr G's example for us (I've no intention of making the investment, y'see).

Heretic!! :innocent:

Thank you! But is that the way it's going to be - using the BRP defaults is heretical?

Several years ago, we tried to replace the combat turn of En Garde! by one inspired from Flashing Blades...

I don't know Flashing Blades. How does it work?

However, what I strongly suggest is rather adopting the mechanics for plot bending, that is explained in both MRQ and Mythic Russia (better in Mythic Russia). This is more useful, and encourages good roleplaying.

Or is it just institutionalized cheating? Tastes vary.