Shaira

Hi Jason, In the BRP rules-as-written, there doesn't seem to be any way - magical or otherwise - to heal a limb which has been severed either as a result of a major wound or the optional hit location system. Is there supposed to be a "Regrow Limb" type spell somewhere or something? I thought maybe a higher level of the Heal magic spell might be up to it, but the description there says specifically not. Cheers, Sarah

Absolutely agree. I find games annoying when they obsess about some ephemeral bogey called "game balance". BRP's occasional lethality, and the fact that seemingly innocuous encounters can sometimes go horribly wrong, are things which make the system feel more realistic to me. BRP players tend to treat the world around them with a healthy respect, not swan around like invulnerable battle machines trashing everything they see. Also, characters can easily develop specialities, and non-Rune Levels can be extremely useful in other areas. You're very unlikely to find anyone who can pick a lock or smooth talk a diplomat amongst a band of Humakti rune lords, for example... The key is to not thing of scenarios / sessions as "this scenaro is designed for a party of 7-10th level characters" (etc), but as a bunch of individuals with various abilities trying to accomplish some goal.

I can't actually think of an easier system for beginners than BRP. You can play CoC already, so basically you're playing BRP - there is no real difference. As Rurik said, a percentile based system seems to be "common sense" at first glance. It's intuitive, and once learned, it's damn hard to forget! Opposed Rolls are a storm in a teacup. Have a look at what's written in the rules, you'll feel a lot better Some people are resistant to the idea cos it changes the way they've normally played BRP - to which I'd say, play exactly however you want to, it's just a game! For me, they're simple, elegant, flexible, obviously optional, and add a nice tactical touch to parts of the core game mechanic. I certainly wouldn't judge how simple the system is from this forum! Most of us here are grognards fussing over minutiae, not a representative section of opinion at all! Is there a downside to BRP? I'd say if there is, it's the fact that it lends itself to many different styles of play, and people seem to love developing houserules here and there, which if you try and puzzle your way through them can seem bewilderingly obtuse at times (as you've noticed ). Some people may hoard experience rolls like gold, others might dish them out liberally, some may make magic low power and scarce, others may dash around tooled up to the eye-teeth like Terminator. There is certainly no One True Way to play BRP, so you do have to be able to accept other people doing things very differently - but to be honest, that's only if you participate in a forum like this. Other than that, honestly, I can't think of anything wrong with the system; on the contrary, I think it's the best system on the market. It wouldn't have kept my enthusiasm and interest for close on 30 years otherwise! Cheers, Sarah

Cool - that does make perfect sense. It's probably worth making it absolutely explicit in the rules (I can't find any mention of it, although you could deduce it from a couple of things). BTW - did you catch my three posts on p8 of this thread? In particular the one on understanding the Attack & Parry matrix? Not bugging you for an answer - just wanted to make sure you'd seen them. Cheers, Sarah

Thanks for all the info Jason! Just to clarify on the Attack vs Parry then, if both succeed, do I roll the Attack damage *anyway*, and if the damage exceeds the parrying weapon's HP, the parrying weapon breaks and any extra damage gets through to the defender? Or (as seems unlikely, but the Attack Results Table seems to suggest) does a successful Parry *completely* negate a successful Attack, regardless of how much damage the successful Attack might do? Cheers! Sarah

This one's a dumb question, but as I can't actually find an answer in the rules, maybe not so dumb! What happens when a standard attack is met by a standard parry? The Attack Results Table on p193 says "Defender blocks damage, no other result". However, the "Broken Weapons" spot rule on p215 says that a weapon will break if it is used to parry an attack which causes more damage than the parrying weapon's HP. I ended up going to the SB5 rules, as a lot of the combat clearly is adapted from that. I found the following quote (SB5 p117, "Damage from Parries"): Now I can't find any analogous wording in BRP Zero; does this rule still hold? It would make sense, but the wording of the BRP rules suggests that a successful Parry completely wards off a successful Attack, end of story - no need to roll the attacking weapon's damage to see if the weapon or shield breaks, and certainly no possibility of any extra damage "getting through" to damage the target. Counter-intuitive, I know - you could parry a brontosaur and get away with it - but I'm thinking from the POV of those who don't have the SB5 rules handy to reference... I could be missing the BRP Zero section where the SB5 "Damage from Parries" rule is mentioned, but if not, and the SB5 rule still holds, it might be worth putting it in and being really explicit here so that new players (and old dullards like me ) "get it". Cheers, Sarah

Actually Kloster you're right - it is -1% per ENC, not per ENC over the limit. My bad! That does make it a bit more meaty. :happy: Sarah

Hi Jason - me again! At the risk of opening a can of worms, I have a question about the Dodge skill... Under "System Notes" of the Dodge skill description on p55, it says This seems to imply that the Dodge roll, when used in combat, should be treated as an Opposed Skill Roll as per p173. Is this the case? If so, it's probably worth being explicit in the skill description. Also, just to avoid confusion, it might be worth rewording this along the lines of or some such. Maybe even an example to show that a Critical Dodge versus a Simple Success does not make the attacker fumble, just to be absolutely clear! Personally, I hope this is the case - it's a neat touch and nicely differentiates Parries and Dodges into tactical choices, which I was starting to wonder about! Cheers, Sarah (as if you didn't know... )

I think you may be right. I've got a question with Jason on that point at the moment - the Attack / Parry table is a little unclear. Since I posted this thread, I've found some wording in the Dodge skill description that suggests Dodge might be an opposed roll in combat - I'm going to post this on the Clarifications thread & see what Jason comes back with. It'll be the cincher for this question if it is the case. Good point - for beginning characters this is certainly a key advantage. That's now an optional rule, but works just like that. However, -1% per 1 ENC over the limit isn't much of a penalty. Dodge is also a Physical skill, rather than an Agility skill, so isn't affected by bulky armour, which might have been an interesting touch. Still trying to find out! In general, though, the rules are looking very consistent and well thought-out - just a bit different from what us old RQ or SB or CoC grognards may have been used to! Cheers, Sarah

Hi Jason, There is a difference between how Fumbles are calculated for Skills (p173) and Combat (p193). I'm not sure if this is intentional, but I'm guessing not. On p173 the "Skill Results Table" shows Fumbles going from 96-00 for low skills to 00 for high skills - pretty much the old RQ system. On p193 the "Fumble" subsection in the right-hand column gives the Fumble chance of 99-00 for weapon skills under 100%, and 00 for those over - the SB5 system. Like I say, I'm guessing this is just an oversight, but if it is intentional it's probably worth making it explicit. Cheers, Sarah

Hi all, I'm just reading through BRP Zero and toying with a few ideas. One of these is separating Weapon Skill out into two separate Attack and Parry skills, a la Old RuneQuest. The issue I see with the BRP rules is that because of the Dodge skill, it's hardly worth learning Parry as a separate skill for each weapon. Just Dodge all the time, whack up that one single skill as much as you can, and use it in all circumstances. Now, if Attack and Parry are a single, dual purpose Weapon Skill (the BRP default option), then the dilemma doesn't arise - of course you want a good Weapon skill, so the choice of whether to use that Weapon Skill to parry, or a separate Dodge skill to dodge, is largely a matter of personal preference and how much damage the BEM is likely to do. But with a separate Parry Skill - hell, then I'm just gonna Dodge, Dodge, Dodge! Can anyone see a reason, other than Colour and Good Roleplaying , why you'd ever bother to run up a separate Parry Skill when a single Dodge Skill will serve all your purposes? Cheers, Sarah

Do you mean people actually PLAYED Toon??? :eek: How? I mean, you might as well run around your yard hitting one another with rubber balloons! Erm... hang on... that was Killer, wasn't it? :shocked: Just too many drugs, man, too many drugs. "I'm a six foot rabbit with a machine gun and a jello grenade." Course you are. :eek: *I got the fear!!!* (steals pizza and runs off and hides)

Hi Jason, There are a handful of issues with the "Combat Example" (pp209-210 of the Combat Chapter), as follows: i.) As a general impression, there is very little actual combat for a combat example! There are a couple of missile attacks, then a fair bit of jumping, then lots of healing, and so on. I'd expect some to and fro melee and a few missile attacks in a combat example. ii.) In "Sixth Combat Round" and "One More Combat Round", Kallistor uses the magic spell Heal on Evard's wounds. The examples say that Heal costs 1 PP per level of spell. However, on p98 there is an inconsistency in the Heal Spell description: whilst the Power Cost Per Level is shown as "1", the first sentence of the spell description says "Each level of this spell costs 3 power points to use". Depending on which is correct (and I'd guess 3PP per level for 1D6 healing, but I'm a tight-fisted sonofabitch , so that may be too mean), the Combat Example may need rewriting. iii.) At the end of the "One More Combat Round" section, there is the sentence "Kallistor can use the Healing 1 spell again tomorrow, as well". I don't understand this sentence; even if the spell costs 3PP, after 2 uses Kallistor still has 8PP left, enough for 2 more uses. I can't find any reference to say that the Magic Spell "Heal" can only be used once per wound per day - is there a reference somewhere? I note that the Sorcery spell Heal (costs 2pp and heals 1D3 - not the one used here) can only be cast once per Wound (not per day - just once per wound) - there seems to be no such restriction for the Magic spell. Cheers! Sarah

I'm just about to head out, so I'll reply quickly if that's okay! In a sense, combat kind of already uses a similar mechanism. But no, not overtly, nowhere does it says "Combat uses the Opposed Roll rule", so you can rest easy In my view the "define what happens on a tied roll" is where you come a cropper, especially when skills get above 90%, where running races, swimming contests, fast talk, hide and seek, stealth, etc, etc, are all gonna bog down into tied rolls *most* of the time unless you have some resolution mechanic for when both sides succeed. As I said, personally I'm not gonna use the "higher roll wins" rule, I'll be using my amazing mathematical skills to subtract the roll from the skill and derive a margin of success - and the better success margin wins. This is mainly to ensure I have a consistent mechanic which will work as well for 150% skill as it does for 50%. Anyway - must dash! :thumb: Sarah

Well, if you're not careful here you're gonna get bogged down in semantics. "The Book" doesn't say anywhere you *should* be using Opposed Rolls. However, they are part of the Core Rules; there are also Optional rules which present different takes on Opposed Rules. However (again!), saying that ORs are part of the Core Rules means little; in the descriptions of skills like Hide, Listen, etc, you get wordings like "Most Hide checks are resolved as opposed skill rolls against the Spot of a guard or pursuer" or "Oppose Listen to Stealth to resolve attempts to sneak past a wary or unwary listener". So, in both cases, if you just wanted to use a single skill - roll Hide and you're hidden, roll Listen and you heard the guy - then of course you can. You just might lose some of the sublety from the system if you do (like what the Spot and Stealth rules actually mean, for example). I think it's best not to read too much into this issue. Even in old RQ our guys used to have to make a successful Spot roll to see a guy who had successfully Hidden himself - you might not call it that, but as far as I can see, that's an opposed roll. Don't take it the wrong way, but I'm not entirely sure what the problem is

I'm a bit confused by the Attack and Parry Matrix on p193, specifically the use of the word "OR" on the results "Critical vs Special", "Critical vs Success", "Critical vs Failure", "Critical vs Fumble". To be concrete, take "Critical vs. Success". The Attacker criticals, the Defender succeeds in parrying. The stated result is: The asterisk takes you to the footnote explaining what happens if attacking or parrying weapons get destroyed by this damage. Now, I don't actually understand the stated result. On the surface, it looks like I'm being offered three results. Either: i.) The attack does full damage plus normal damage bonus (and DOESN'T ignore armour any more, whereas Critical vs Failure does) OR ii.) The attack has a special result by weapon type (impale, etc) OR iii.) The parrying weapon or shield takes 2 points of damage. It doesn't sound right. How do I decide which to use? The SB5 equivalent reads "Attack slips by enough to do ordinary damage and ignores armour". I got a couple of hints from the SB5 "Special vs Success" result: SO... would I be correct in interpreting the BRP Critical vs Success result something like this? i.) The Attack does full damage plus normal damage bonus, armour protects. ii.) If the weapon type has a special result (such as bleeding), it does that AS WELL (I couldn't work out if this is AS WELL or INSTEAD!) iii.) In any case, the parrying weapon or shield takes 2 points of damage. I'm not sure whether I'm just being a bit dumb , but these results may need a bit of clarification.

I take your point - and I think the "higher roll wins, but only achieves a normal success" solves it nicely. I'll have a think just to see if there aren't any weirdo side effects, but it sounds good. Has Jason commented on this?

It strikes me everyone's getting a bit heated about a rule which is quite straightforward. OK, maybe it requires a paragraph break or an extra clarification, but to be honest when I read it through I had no doubt what it meant. Here is what it says: i.) The character that achieves the highest degree of success in an opposed roll wins the contest. Success trumps Failure, Special trumps Success, Critical trumps Special, etc. HOWEVER, if the loser also succeeded their roll, the winner is "bumped down" one level of success for every level of success of the loser. As follows: If the Loser Succeeds, Winner's Critical becomes Special, Special becomes Success. If the Loser Specials, Winner's Critical becomes Success. ii.) If both rolls achieve the same degree of success, the higher roll wins. Note that there is no mention of Bumping in example (ii). This is clear from the wording, but could definitely be made more explicit - on a casual skim through you *could* misunderstand and assume its all basically one rule instead of two. The example does make it clear what's intended, though. It looks like Jason has agreed to put a clearer wording in the full release, which clears it up nicely. It's a neat, elegant rule. I'll be using the first part unchanged; for me, I'll be calculating Success Margins (how much you make your roll by) for the second part, as I anticipate lots of 100%+ characters in time! BTW - in general, the book is really impressive. It's clear it's a proof copy, with niggles which are now being cleared up, but I've been gaming since 1980, and whilst I threw my hands up in horror at the mess that was MRQ, I see nothing here deserving anything but the highest praise. Typos and unclear bits get cleared up in proofreading - that's normal. We're just casting an expert eye and doing our bit to help. It's good stuff, guys! Sarah

Hi Jason, Apparent inconsistency in procedure for POW Gain Rolls, as follows: p186 col1 para2 "POW Gain Rolls" says you get a POW Gain Roll if i.) you are the attacker and ii.) You have a 95% OR LOWER chance to succeed - ie no POW Gain Rolls for the attacker if 96%+ success chance. However, the "Gaining POW" subsection in the Magic Powers section (p92 col2 para5) says you get a POW Gain Roll any time you overcome the magical resistance of a target of equal or greater POW. This also includes defensive resistance. It specifically states "Overcoming a target of lower POW does not provide a chance for improvement". Likewise, you have the same in the "Increasing POW" subsection in the Psychic Powers section (p112 col2 para2), and also in the "Exercising Power" paragraph of the "How to Become a Better Sorceror" subsection in the Sorcery Powers section (p127 col1 para3). [i think we hammered this out in a thread already & you confirmed that you had to overcome a POW equal to or greater than your own, in attack or defense, to get a POW Gain Roll. Just need to clarify which it is.] Cheers, Sarah

Hi Jason, Inconsistency on pp184 and 185 (Skill Training & Research sections): p184 col1 2nd para line 3: "As the student, your character does not need to make an experience roll - completion of a unit of training always allows a skill increase roll." p185 col2 4th para line 2: "Just as with training, you must make an experience roll, just as if you would if your character was learning from experience..." (I'm currently assuming the first para is correct and the 2nd is just a typo - ie delete "Just as with training" and start the sentence on "You") I've also noticed minor typos here and there - just a couple. Do you want us to catch those, or are they being dealt with elsewhere? Cheers, Sarah

Wa-hay! Just went to the postbox in a howling Normandy storm and found BRP waiting for me! All in good condition, some slight deformation at the corners probably due to the postal system, but nothing that won't iron out in a month or two. Copy 113 of 420 - those numbers are going up! For others in Europe, my copy took two weeks and 4 days to arrive - shipping email arrived on the 28th December, package turned up today. That was with the International First Class ($26) cheapest postage option, so not actually that bad. Quick flick through looks promising - quite interested to see Optional Trait Rules in there, wasn't expecting that. The cover looks nice, too - for us old guard it has good memories, and looks good also in a kind of mediaeval stained-glass window kind of way. As to whether it'll attract new players - don't know, maybe not, but I like it! OK - off to hunker down and do some reading! Cheers, Sarah

I agree absolutely. I'm "a certain age" and do not want to spend hours and hours, if not days, reading and re-reading piles of complex and varying rules just to be able to play. What I love about BRP is that it's pretty hard to even *forget* the rules in the first place, they are so straightforward, logical, and minimalist. I was looking at SB5. Out of a 300 page book, the "Game System" chapter is 12 pages, the "Combat" chapter is 9. Admittedly there are spot rules and stuff, but, dang, that's my kind of game. What I'm hoping for is similar elegance in BRP; the additional chapters can be spell system and lists, powers, equipment, critters - basically lists of stuff you need for the various genres - but I'd like to be able to read through the whole game system in an hour or so and think, "okay, I now know how to run this baby!" Naturally, if anyone builds in Design Systems (planets, vehicles, starships, etc), that's a separate deal, but they seem like excellent opportunities for optional supplements anyhow.

I haven't got my Zero Ed yet, but I'd go with your option (1) - for me that feels very BRP, and is scalable, elegant, and probably a rule you can generalise from for a number of situations. Interesting to see what Zero Ed says though.

Hi Pete, Thanks very much! Actually, English is my native language, though I do speak French, so I'll take a look anyway! French BRP has always been interesting for some of the different accents it highlights in the game. Hawkmoon in particular is very big over here, with a large number of excellent supplements, and there have been some interesting articles in Tatou magazine on Glorantha - in particular a very good map and description of Boldhome - and some stuff on the web on Esrolia and the Building Wall which I use regularly - although I must admit in the very rural area of Normandy where I live it's hard to find a decent games' store! Cheers, Sarah

Got it this time - maybe my French PC was freaking out or something! Thanks, Sarah