Q&A's with the new BRP author version 2.0

[Trifletraxor]

OK, then, I assume it is now supposed to be the accepted way to do things. My disinclination to join in grows.

The opposed roll is not much of a problem, as it's not that often used, and there's nothing stopping you from using your preferred method, unless you really don't like houseruling. Personally, I'll either go with the RQ:AiG-like method or maybe the highest roll (though I think maybe my players would complain about that one).

Jason,

Since there are core defaults for BRP mechanics do you have an idea of what the standard for supplements will be, particularly in regards to NPCs?

For example if the combat default is general HP and uses the major wound table is Chaosium going to want to see that in an adventure rather than Hit locations?

This is a good and important question. If general hit points only appears in the supplements, the GM will have to do a lot of work if using hit locations. I'm also interested in hearing how you handle Interplanetary in this respect.

SGL:

[Shaira]

My gut feeling on producing supplements, adventures, etc, for BRP is that they should take into account some of the optional rules for usability, but in general they should stick to the core rules for brevity - I still remember with a bit of a shiver the pages and pages of creature statistics all with marginally different hit location stats... oooohhh... :shocked: Pity the poor trees! ;-(

So, for example: in an adventure, opponent stats would be presented in line without hit location / strike rank / etc stats. However, if a new creature was being presented (ie a "new creature description" rather than a simple stat block for an inline monster), then hit location should be addressed. Note that this could simply say something like "Hit locations are figured as for a standard quadruped"; you'd only need to point out the actual hit locations if the body form of the creature was not included in the BRP rules (9 legged 2-headed chaos monster, anyone?) Strike ranks aren't so crucial - GMs can always derive these from the existing rules.

Benchmarking starts to get a bit more tricky when you get to magic. Which system to you use? Again, my gut feeling is that magic systems for fantasy supplements will default to "setting specific" (so my own Chronicles of Future Earth campaign uses a modified MagicWorld system, and scenarios for it therefore assume that system), whereas "generic" fantasy adventures or critter sourcebooks will probably settle on a consensus, which IMHO may well end up being the MagicWorld-derived system due to its similarity to "other magic systems" out there. >:->

Fundamentally, though, regarding the Core Powers systems, etc, I see nothing wrong with a brief paragraph at the start of any supplement or adventure just stating the assumed rules conventions - Traveller used to do something pretty similar in the early days, when Basic Traveller, Mercenary, High Guard, and Striker all coexisted. Referees will usually chop and change what they don't like anyway!

Sarah

[threedeesix]

I think generic adventures should for the most part use the core system with very little optional rules but, in the "Settings" chapter, it lists all the optional rules suggested to capture the feel of a particular genre. I think anyone designing adventures for a specific setting/genre should include as many of those as possible to maintain a consistent "feel" from one persons adventure to another.

For instance, the pulp setting suggests Total Hit Points (CON+SIZ), skills over 100%, fate points etc. If everyone writing pulp adventures stick with those then all pulp adventures will be compatible.

But the final decision should rest with each writer.

Rod

[Joseph Paul]

I think generic adventures should for the most part use the core system with very little optional rules but, in the "Settings" chapter, it lists all the optional rules suggested to capture the feel of a particular genre. I think anyone designing adventures for a specific setting/genre should include as many of those as possible to maintain a consistent "feel" from one persons adventure to another.

For instance, the pulp setting suggests Total Hit Points (CON+SIZ), skills over 100%, fate points etc. If everyone writing pulp adventures stick with those then all pulp adventures will be compatible.

But the final decision should rest with each writer.

Rod

Rod, I feel very differently. I feel that rules should be used to evoke the genre. Ignoring them or tacking them on a list as an afterthought doesn't help with showing how the author expects the rules to be used in his setting. I can't really condone that. I can condone listing rules that should -not- be used whether they are innappropriate or are genre-busters. If the GM still wants to, so be it.

What you are describing are the guidelines for submissions for particular genres. The final decision about what is right and proper (either for everything BRP or by genre) will be set by Chaosium. That decision may very well include allowing the writer to do as he wishes or it may not but it most definitely rests with the publisher. Since Jason has (or will have) experience with that from his work with Interplanetary I hoped to find out if I was in for a load of having to fill in all the blanks with every Chaosium product. That would be a turn off for me as I like complex, elegant rules and want to use nearly all of them (as appropriate to genre) to get the most verisimilitude that I can. It is much easier and consumes nearly no time to ignore the stats that refer to rules that a GM is not using while it is very time consuming to add those to each and every stat block in an adventure book.

I think that it would be damaging to BRP to allow many different levels of complexity within a particular genre. Compatability would definitely suffer and I would not fancy having to sort out simplistic Pulp action books from ones that used more of the rules. How would that be articulated to the potential buyer quickly and easliy?

Joseph Paul

[Trifletraxor]

Okay guys, :focus:!

Only questions directed to Jason here (I know I sinned a bit too back there ), lets try to get back on track. There's always the "New Thread" button!

SGL.

[Jason D]

Since there are core defaults for BRP mechanics do you have an idea of what the standard for supplements will be, particularly in regards to NPCs?

That'll fall to Chaosium's hands, as they're the editors of any future supplements.

Personally, I'd imagine that each supplement will deal with optional rules on a case-by-case basis, with only the default rules assumed. Each book might also introduce new optional rules.

It's sort of loose right now, but I suspect Chaosium will be putting together a writers guidelines for the BRP line before too long.

How are you handling Interplanetary right now?

I'm including a section at the beginning saying "Here are the optional rules I'm assuming throughout this sourcebook" and the text will use the default rules as the default.

If Charlie and Lynn don't like that approach, they'll let me know and I'll make changes as appropriate.

[SDLeary]

Jason,

Started putting this in the Corrections thread, luckily caught myself.

Correction? Possibly... more of a nit, but thought I'd bring it up anyway.

Melee Weapon (Various): Fencing (p69)

Should this be under Melee Weapon, or under Martial Arts? It seems to me that Rapiers (earlier ones anyway) and Sabres would fall under swords, and Fencing would be a technique.. ala Kenjitsu.

SDLeary

[Jason D]

Jason,

Started putting this in the Corrections thread, luckily caught myself.

Correction? Possibly... more of a nit, but thought I'd bring it up anyway.

Melee Weapon (Various): Fencing (p69)

Should this be under Melee Weapon, or under Martial Arts? It seems to me that Rapiers (earlier ones anyway) and Sabres would fall under swords, and Fencing would be a technique.. ala Kenjitsu.

SDLeary

I'm revising the skill descriptions for Melee Weapons, Missile Weapons, etc. to default to Weapon Classes section in Chapter Eight (saving some space and ensuring consistency).

So it'll be just "Swords" unless the GM wants to break it down into sub-skills.

[Atgxtg]

Jason,

I know you said you were working on this, just "pinging" to see if there;'s been any decision.

Are Maneuver and Handling going to end up as a single ability, or will one apply to chases and the other for non chase situations or some such?

[Jason D]

Jason,

I know you said you were working on this, just "pinging" to see if there;'s been any decision.

Are Maneuver and Handling going to end up as a single ability, or will one apply to chases and the other for non chase situations or some such?

Still examining it.

I'm working my way front-to-back through the book combing for errors, typos, and other inconsistencies, and I haven't gotten that far yet.

The holiday season was complicated by a severe cold, followed by a bout of intense allergies (it is cedar season in Texas) so I'm depressingly muddle-minded and edits are going a bit slower than I'd like.

[Atgxtg]

Still examining it.

I'm working my way front-to-back through the book combing for errors, typos, and other inconsistencies, and I haven't gotten that far yet.

The holiday season was complicated by a severe cold, followed by a bout of intense allergies (it is cedar season in Texas) so I'm depressingly muddle-minded and edits are going a bit slower than I'd like.

No prob. I was just curious. I mean it's not like the game has even been released yet.

[Atgxtg]

Jason,

I was wondering about spaceship. I know there is a starfighter in the BRP zero book. BUt your comment on the "big missile table" being mising has me wondering what sort of damage are starship weapons being ensvsioned as doing.

For instance that Starfighter has 18APs and 150HPs. Even an energy cannon (4d10+4) is going to take over a dozen hits to destroy one.

I take it there are some more devastating weapons for ships in a Sci-Fi setting?