How Could BRP Be More Popular...?

[Nightshade]

In any case, your posts all seem to amount to: "don't get your hopes up too high for BRP, kids." If that's your overall message, thanks. It seems obvious to me, but perhaps other folks find it informative.

I guess it kind of is, because when I see threads like this there always seems to be an undercurrent of "If we could just get the word out..." that never seems terribly realistic.

[Nightshade]

Well, I rather suspect that it is at least 50% about exposure - probably even more.

I'm not going to claim there's nothing to that, but I think its only true under certain circumstances. Certainly some of the abiding popularity of D&D was its advantage "first to the gate" and what's called the "network extrernalities" of how its propogated since then.

That said, its a little late in the day for that to carry the load by itself.

Businesses invest large amounts in advertising, so evidently they also think it's significant.

That's often because they're in businesses where the actual distinction between products is subtle at best, though, or where they hope advertising will trump those differences rather than reveal them.

[Nightshade]

[quote=RosenMcStern;28056. I always wondered if Steve (playing Signy Freyasdotter) is actually Steve Perrin. Nevertheless, the transcript is a recommended read!

[frogspawner]

Probably Avalon Hill's (now owned by Wizards of the Coast, which is itself owned by Hasbro).

Doing something like it wouldn't be difficult. But since the RQ3 example is obviously based on a RQ Vikings scenario, it's probably a no no.

But surely it must be Chaosium's, since they re-issued the Magic Book, another part of RQ3, as 'Basic Magic'? I guess I really mean 'who owns the IP?', since it forms a story with named characters. Does Basic Magic still contain the "Cormac's Saga" examples of the RQ3 Magic Book?

(It's so much easier to use something already written. Chaosium seem to favour that approach! And I don't see how Vikings could be off-limits.)

Edited December 10, 2009 by frogspawner

[frogspawner]

I guess it kind of is, because when I see threads like this there always seems to be an undercurrent of "If we could just get the word out..." that never seems terribly realistic.

Not just the word. But the word does need to be got out, for anything else to happen.

[Atgxtg]

But surely it must be Chaosium's, since they re-issued the Magic Book, another part of RQ3, as 'Basic Magic'? I guess I really mean 'who owns the IP?', since it forms a story with named characters. Does Basic Magic still contain the "Cormac's Saga" examples of the RQ3 Magic Book?

(It's so much easier to use something already written. Chaosium seem to favour that approach! And I don't see how Vikings could be off-limits.)

I don't think so. I don't believe that the adventures reverted to Chaosium. The system and wording were partially protected before the AH deal. Plus, as I've mentioned elsewhere, anyone can use a system. Systems cannot be protected under copyright.

I think that this specific example of play would still belong to AH. Since it, in effect, not be much different that a story.

[Jarulf]

A couple of actual plays, using some of the monographs as well as a homebrew, to show how versatile BRP can be sounds like a pretty good idea. Can't do much harm anyway.

I think they'd better be done of rpg.net than here though.

One for Classic Fantasy

One for Historical Fantasy, Val du Loup or Rome perhaps

One Sci Fi with Outpost 19 or Fractured Hopes

A modern, Berlin '61

Unfortunately, I'm not in a f2f game so I can't actually write any of them

[Redstone]

One of the best ways to get information spread is word of mouth. In other words GMs using and enjoying the system, and talking it up. From my view, there are a few problems with BRP that keeps me from loving it, and hence, 'talking it up'. The biggest problems that our gaming group has with the system are as follows:

1. lack of monsters

- obviously you can create your own, but this is time consuming and can be alot of work

2. shields are almost useless as written

- we simply dont understand the shield rules. Why use a shield when in all likelyhood you will have a better chance with your weapon parry?

3. confusion about how to incorporate weapon base into skills, especially during character creation

3a. how to handle similair skills

- do you have to purchase rifle, shock as well as rifle, stun? arent they close enough to use the same skill, and then if so, how do you factor in weapon base?

4. modifications based on difficulty (this can be done on the fly by saying "subtract 20 from your pick lock skill for this lock", but this is not addressed in the rule book, other than difficult (1/2) or easy (2x).

5. Stats have little effect on skills.

Now, there are ALOT of good things about the system, but I am trying to address the issue of system popularity, and I see these as impediments. One of the best things I have seen for BRP has been Classic Fantasy, I believe that this is the type of product needed to advance the system. If there had been a creature section and an index included it would have been darn near perfect!

I just want to reiterate that I am not trying to bash the system. In fact in our group we have bought 3 copies of the BRP book and 3 copies of Classic Fantasy. I am only giving my opinion on the shortfalls of the system that might be turning prospective GMs off.

[Atgxtg]

Redstone,

Nice to hear from a new player. You raise some very valid points. The vast majority of people here have over 20 years of familiarity with the system, so we sometimes miss certain things. Please do post and bash as you feel necessary. It gives the rest of us a chance to see things from an outsider's perspective.

About you specific problems:

1) True, there aren't many monsters listed in the core game rules. The game's "ancestors" did cover more monsters in the main rules. BRP covers this in part with additional supplements. In the past incarnation, the system tended to use more human (or humanoid) foes are not quite as many monsters.

2) Ouch! This is a problem brought over from Elric!. In the old days, before Elric! weapon attack and parry used to be different skills, and characters would put skill into weapon attack and shield parry. In BRP, this is an option. Also in the RQ era, shields used to stop more damage than most weapons. IN BRP about the only advantage of using a shield instead of a weapon to parry is that the parrying object can take damage.

What you might try doing, to help similar the advantage of a shield is to apply the points spent on a 1H weapon to a shield, reflecting how shields are used with a weapon. This will make shield's more useful, and match up a bit better with they way the should work. If so, you might want to consider making shield attack a separate skill.

3) You take the weapon skill base and then add any points spent or bonuses from stats to that. For example, Brawl starts off at 25%. So a character without any point in it has a 25% skill. A character who put 10 of his starting skill points into it has a 35% skill.

If you are using the skill category option, the category modifiers add to skills as well. So a character with DEX 15, STR 12, INT 14 would have a Combat Skill Category Modifier of +6% and would add 6% to his weapon skills (including Brawl).

3a). It depends on how the GM wants to run weapon classes and weapon specialties. On pages 257-258 each weapon class (skill) is given some specialties. A GM can either opt to allow a character to use all weapon in the same weapon class at the same skill percentage, or treat each specialty as a separate skill, or some sort of compromise -for example, allowing a character to use a related skill as if difficult (half ability).

So it would depend on which way the GM wishes to run it. The most common options are:

-use the same skill% for all weapons in the same class

-make each skill specialty a separate skill

-use the same skill% for all skills in the same class, but at a penalty to different specialties. A typical penalty would be to make the use difficult (half %).

4)Modifications like you mentioned are in the game , see circumstantial modifiers (page 177). Admittedly, this isn't quite an noticeable as it could have been. This might be partly due to the size of the book, and partly due to the degree of familiarity that the authors and play-testers had with the system. Regardless, you got the right idea.

5) You're preaching to the choir here. My suggestion is to drop the Experience Bonus, and instead add the appropriate Skill Category Modifier to the learning rolls. That way, a high start will yield a greater chance of improvement.

Hope that helps.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Atgxtg

[threedeesix]

1. lack of monsters

- obviously you can create your own, but this is time consuming and can be alot of work

This is a problem that should be remedied as more and more monograph authors design settings and supplements. I know that Classic Fantasy II is to have 4.7 oodles of new monsters, of which 2.3 oodles have been written.

2. shields are almost useless as written

- we simply dont understand the shield rules. Why use a shield when in all likelyhood you will have a better chance with your weapon parry?

This is a problem, RQ used a system where a weapon or shield could only stop an amount of damage equal to it's armor points. This could be re-adopted and would make shields superior to other weapons when parrying.

3. confusion about how to incorporate weapon base into skills, especially during character creation

Because of the previous discussion on this subject, I decided when re-editing CF to give all weapons of the same class the same base. For the most part, only swords suffered from this. If I remember right, I gave all swords a base of 15. So in this case, if you wanted your character to have skill in swords, begin with a 15% and go from there. This will be your skill in any sword.

3a. how to handle similair skills

- do you have to purchase rifle, shock as well as rifle, stun? arent they close enough to use the same skill, and then if so, how do you factor in weapon base?

One of the options is to have a skill cover an entire category. So in this case, Rifle skill of 75% would cover all rifles, and pistol skill of 65% would cover all pistols.

The other option is to have the skill cover a specific weapon, such as .44 magnum 60%. This would cover all .44 magnums. If this option is used, then other pistols default to half the skill in .44, in this case 30%. To improve this skill in play requires the character to still begin with the weapons normal base.

Personally, until you and your players get used to the system, I would use the first method.

4. modifications based on difficulty (this can be done on the fly by saying "subtract 20 from your pick lock skill for this lock", but this is not addressed in the rule book, other than difficult (1/2) or easy (2x).

You may have lost me here. I know there are numerous points in the rule book where it says +20%, -10% etc. Just so you know, you always modify the skill for Difficult or Easy before applying the -10% -20% etc. penalty. I know you didn't comment on this but thought I would throw it out there.

5. Stats have little effect on skills.

We prefer the simple Characteristic Bonus method. Adding 1/2 DEX or 1/2 INT to all relevant skills. This helps to make the fact that using the point buy method for characteristics, DEX, INT, and POW cost 3 points per point of increase.

The other thing we do is allow the skill category bonus to be used when rolling for skill improvement instead of adding 1/2 INT. This won't change the knowledge based skills, but makes sense that thieves and fighters, that use DEX more than INT for their skills of choice will tend to have a better chance to improve them. I incorporated this method in Classic Fantasy.

One of the best things I have seen for BRP has been Classic Fantasy, I believe that this is the type of product needed to advance the system. If there had been a creature section and an index included it would have been darn near perfect!

Thanks so much. Classic Fantasy was always intended to have a chapter devoted to monsters. The problem was that it was way to big for a monograph. On the order of 350 to 400 pages. So I broke it up into two smaller books. The Index situation is a sore subject.

I just want to reiterate that I am not trying to bash the system. In fact in our group we have bought 3 copies of the BRP book and 3 copies of Classic Fantasy. I am only giving my opinion on the shortfalls of the system that might be turning prospective GMs off.

Thanks for taking the time to voice your concerns.

Rodney Leary

Edited December 15, 2009 by threedeesix

[frogspawner]

...From my view, there are a few problems with BRP that keeps me from loving it, and hence, 'talking it up'. The biggest problems that our gaming group has with the system are as follows:

1. lack of monsters...

2. shields are almost useless as written...

3. confusion about how to incorporate weapon base into skills...

3a. how to handle similair skills...

4. modifications based on difficulty...

5. Stats have little effect on skills.

Now, there are ALOT of good things about the system, but I am trying to address the issue of system popularity, and I see these as impediments...

Fair points. Thanks! (Though 4 is handled, 'cos modifiers like "-10%" or whatever are in the system, but maybe not well-defined what their values should be. Similarly 3a is left for the GM to decide, which is a bit woolly). I suspect the problem is that long-time BRP-ers have all developed their own House Rules to cover these wrinkles, and others. So we don't notice them.

Personally, I...

1. Translate monsters from other systems (by various rules-of-thumb, and bodged formulae thrown together over the years);

2. Use the old RQ-style combat, so shields/weapons block damage equal to their AP (and weapons have fewer AP);

3. Use the same base for all similar skills (see 5);

4. Actually don't bother with fiddly "-10%" mods or whatever, anyway! (x2, x1/2 seems fine to me);

5. Use the ONE most relevant stat for a skill's base percentage, and coarser-grained character generation where previous experience buys you multiples of that stat to add on. (I should probably have a mechanism whereby skills vary if their parent-stat changes, too, but never felt the need).

Hopefully, as has been pointed out before, now the work has been done drawing all the disparate BRP systems together into the one book, future publications can begin to address these issues - as, it seems, is happening with Classic Fantasy...

Edited December 15, 2009 by frogspawner

[RosenMcStern]

1. lack of monsters

Buy the Creatures monograph. Download the MRQ Monsters SRD for free (it's in the MRQ Luxury SRD on this site). Here you go.

2. shields are almost useless as written

This issue is real. You may want to use the MRQ2 rules for shields when the rules become available. They are easy to adapt and very realistic.

3. confusion about how to incorporate weapon base into skills, especially during character creation

This has been discussed above. It is a small nuisance but it exists, in fact. It should not be exaggerated, though. If you give 5% more than due to a character at creation time, it is not a disaster.

3a. how to handle similair skills

The point here is that you have to decide. The rules clearly state so. The advice is to make skills very broad and give a common base value at the start of a campaign: for example "Energy rifles are all in the same category and start at 20%, while energy pistols start at 10%".

It could be useful to have a weapon class table as an errata. Maybe on the wiki? Classic Fantasy is not enough, as it will not include firearms.

4. modifications based on difficulty (this can be done on the fly by saying "subtract 20 from your pick lock skill for this lock", but this is not addressed in the rule book, other than difficult (1/2) or easy (2x).

Easy and Difficult are a better way to handle modifiers for a D100. Learn to use them instead of add/subtract values, and you will have a better game. You can use the concept of "challenge" or task difficulty in BRP, but it is faster and easier if you don't. The GM is relieved of the burden of determining "how difficult" it is to do something, he just has to decide if it _is_ difficult. KISS.

5. Stats have little effect on skills.

This is a feature of the system, not a limit. In GURPS, especially 3e, stats are more important than skills. In BRP they are not. Use the suggested alternate method of adding the category modifier instead of the intelligence modifier when rolling for experience gain, and you will see stats becoming important: a character with high stats will see his skills skyrocket beyond 100% very easily, one with low stats will improve very slowly once his skills approach 90%.

I am only giving my opinion on the shortfalls of the system that might be turning prospective GMs off.

It depends on what the GMs are looking for. I still think that a good setting would do the magic more than addressing the shield issues.

[Redstone]

A couple of comments. I have been playing rpgs for 30 years and I am able to come up with work-arounds for problems. The intent of this thread was to address the issue of BRP's popularity. RoseMcStern's response emphasizes my point! His response to my first two issues was 'go get/download another book'. Imagine how well this will go over with a person who is new to GMing. Not only are you telling him he needs another book, but its a book from another system and you will have to fudge some of the rules.

As for my third issue, once again you need to look at it from the perspective of someone who is fairly new to rpgs. When I created my first character, and I was looking at the starting percentage being capped at 75% (if I am remembering that correctly) I incorporated the base weapon chance into that 75. Now if pick up a similair weapon that has a better base do I ignore the points over 75? Do I need to develop every skill seperately? Do I develop the skill for the highest base chance weapon and then subtract if I use a different weapon? ..... The rules should clearly state how to handle this, and then give optional rules. Instead it comes across as "here are the choices, you decide". Thats fine if you are familiar with the system, but, once again, it is confusing to a new GM.

As for the difficulty modifiers, I simply missed that in the book. Atgxtg gave me the reference for that.

And RosenMcStern is right about a setting being a help. But the mechanics need to be easily understood as well. If you look at the dreaded d20 (3.5e) system, there is no setting with that. Yet it is extemely popular.

Once again I want to thank everyone for suggestions on how to handle these problems. It was not my intent to get these questions answered in this thread, but I appreciate all the help.

[rust]

The rules should clearly state how to handle this, and then give optional rules. Instead it comes across as "here are the choices, you decide". Thats fine if you are familiar with the system, but, once again, it is confusing to a new GM.

It is, especially for referees and players who are used to the newer type of

rules, which are often more like simple flowcharts with only one possible so-

lution to any problem ("When A, then do B") instead of a bunch of options

with unclear consequences ("When A, you can do B, C or D, or invent X").

What is an advantage for those roleplaying gamers who like to "tinker" with

the rules to adapt them to their style of play, setting and campaign is a real

disadvantage for those roleplaying gamers who want an "out of the box" ga-

me with clear instructions what to do and how to do it.

However, I do not see how to "heal" that problem of BRP, except perhaps with

a second, revised edition ("BRP Slim") that contains a more structured rules

system, leaving the "toolbox" with its many and often confusing options as an

expansion of the basic system for the "tinkerers" among us.

[RosenMcStern]

Not only are you telling him he needs another book, but its a book from another system and you will have to fudge some of the rules.

There is one point you should understand, though. It is absolutely impossible to put a complete bestiary in a generic RPG core book. A 80-page Fantasy Bestiary is worthless if you wish to use BRP to play sci-fi, and the Cthulhu Mythos are hardly useful if you are playing pulp. So it is perfectly understandable that you need an extra book of opponents for your setting. This is not true for Classic Fantasy, which is - ahem - Fantasy.

As for my third issue, once again you need to look at it from the perspective of someone who is fairly new to rpgs. When I created my first character, and I was looking at the starting percentage being capped at 75% (if I am remembering that correctly) I incorporated the base weapon chance into that 75. Now if pick up a similair weapon that has a better base do I ignore the points over 75?

There is an unwritten rule that all of us veterans do not need to read any longer, but that is not evident to one who has not played BRP yet. This rule is very simple: once character generation is over and game play begins, no limits are in effect any longer. This is not true in D&D for instance, as the profession (class) you chose can limit your options in play, not just at character generation time. Maybe this should be clarified in the rules. Thanks for pointing this out, it could be a good addition to a future release.

The rules should clearly state how to handle this, and then give optional rules.

Jason should have given all weapons in the same broad class the same base % to avoid confusion, and given the different percentile as an option. But again, I see this as hardly relevant. In a game, you should spend 1 hour to create your character and 50+ hours on average to play it. So the confusion affects only 2% of your game time. Decide he is something% in his skill, and use that figure from that point on. If you later discover it was not the correct one, don't bother changing it. It's not D&D, where your skill is determined by class and levels of proficiency/training you get in it. Here your skill is exactly what is written on your character sheet. Just don't bother t o"do it right", and your game will be more enjoyable.

As for rust's suggestion, I am not very in favour of straying from the path traced with the current edition. I would rather see genre-specific books that re-trace character generation using only the options that are more appropriate to that genre/setting. Classic Fantasy could be a good example. The generic ruleset should contain all the options, as there is no way to determine an "optimal minimal subset" that fits all genres.

[rust]

I would rather see genre-specific books that re-trace character generation using only the options that are more appropriate to that genre/setting. Classic Fantasy could be a good example. The generic ruleset should contain all the options, as there is no way to determine an "optimal minimal subset" that fits all genres.

I would very much prefer this approach, too, but in my view it would not sol-

ve the "newcomer confusion problem", because it could tend to create a se-

ries of (at least seemingly) incompatible BRP variants ("Fantasy BRP", "Scien-

ce Fiction BRP", "Pulp BRP" ...) with different rules (sub-) sets.

[RosenMcStern]

I would very much prefer this approach, too, but in my view it would not sol-

ve the "newcomer confusion problem", because it could tend to create a se-

ries of (at least seemingly) incompatible BRP variants ("Fantasy BRP", "Scien-

ce Fiction BRP", "Pulp BRP" ...) with different rules (sub-) sets.

Erm, it is the situation that has been in effect so far: RQ not totally compatible with CoC which was not compatible with SB, which etc. etc. And people were perfectly happy to play CoC, SB, RQ, ElfQuest etc. The point that was missing was the core book with the "cover-all-genres" ruleset, like GURPS.

[rust]

Erm, it is the situation that has been in effect so far: RQ not totally compatible with CoC which was not compatible with SB, which etc. etc. And people were perfectly happy to play CoC, SB, RQ, ElfQuest etc. The point that was missing was the core book with the "cover-all-genres" ruleset, like GURPS.

Yes, exactly, and I see the huge "bandwidth" and the "toolbox character" of

BRP as its defining "feature", not as a "bug".

However, I have to admit that this feature can be seen as confusing and can

therefore be a problem when it comes to winning newcomers for BRP.

I have no idea how this problem can be solved, and whether it can be solved

at all without turning BRP into something different (which I would dislike), I

am only playing around with possible approaches.

[RosenMcStern]

I think Redstone here wanted basically to run a Fantasy game. In this case, Classic Fantasy is the correct solution, as it is more focused and easier to understand. However, it still requires the core book to play. Basically, it is Chaosium's choice if they wish to go back to their old approach of settings as standalone games, or they will go the GURPS way and require the purchase of the core book when you want to use a setting (note that you can still use the lite version). Us poor third parties do not have this choice because we cannot make standalone games with BRP. But honestly, I would not do this even if allowed. Having people get the big book will make them wish to try BRP for different genres, and ultimately improve sales of supplements.

[Thalaba]

However, I do not see how to "heal" that problem of BRP, except perhaps with

a second, revised edition ("BRP Slim") that contains a more structured rules

system, leaving the "toolbox" with its many and often confusing options as an

expansion of the basic system for the "tinkerers" among us.

I still think some BRP genre primers (discussed earlier) could address some of these issues. They should be available for free. Also, we should keep track of these confusing issues as people present them, if only to have all these FAQ's addressed somewhere in the same place rather than looking through threads. I suppose this is what the wiki is for. More of these are bound to crop up.

[RosenMcStern]

I still think some BRP genre primers (discussed earlier) could address some of these issues. They should be available for free.

Absolutely. The problem is that "for free" means also "not in the stores". Which means that most gamers that would need them will not get them. The "Classic Fantasy" way would be better, as it attracted enough attention to be upgraded to a full supplement status.

Also, we should keep track of these confusing issues as people present them, if only to have all these FAQ's addressed somewhere in the same place rather than looking through threads. I suppose this is what the wiki is for. More of these are bound to crop up.

Superb idea. Chief Beetle Breeder, are you around? This one is for you

[frogspawner]

I have been playing rpgs for 30 years and I am able to come up with work-arounds for problems. ... It was not my intent to get these questions answered in this thread, but I appreciate all the help.

I sort-of guessed that, and hope you don't mind too much my jumping-in with suggested solutions (in hope of promoting my preferences, rather than for your benefit).

RoseMcStern's response emphasizes my point! His response to my first two issues was 'go get/download another book'.

We should probably make allowances for him, considering people buying books is what allows him to eat.

Hopefully, future BRP adventures/settings/etc will fix the "Rules Confusion" problem by recommending options, and specifying how to deal with such things. (Maybe by reprinting/referencing the FAQ page we're now going to compile?)

I still think some BRP genre primers (discussed earlier) could address some of these issues. ... I suppose this is what the wiki is for.

Would Uncounted Worlds also be a suitable place for such things? After all, it is freely available from the Chaosium site, and may reach a bigger, or at least different, audience. (Mr Middleton?)

[frogspawner]

Absolutely. The problem is that "for free" means also "not in the stores".

Unless they were "free" in such a way that allowed them to be reprinted inside other non-free publications (adventures/settings), perhaps?

Edited December 15, 2009 by frogspawner

[RosenMcStern]

We should probably make allowances for him, considering people buying books is what allows him to eat.

If I had to survive upon what Alephtar Games produces now, I would have solved all my dieting problems

Would Uncounted Worlds also be a suitable place for such things? After all, it is freely available from the Chaosium site, and may reach a bigger, or at least different, audience. (Mr Middleton?)

Both Uncounted and monographs have one problem: they do not reach the people who buy from FLGS. Those who buy Uncounted Worlds from Lulu can also get their info from our wiki, FWIW. My appreciation for the Classic Fantasy solution is due also to the fact that it will be in the shops soon!

[SDLeary]

Unless they were "free" in such a way that allowed them to be reprinted inside other non-free publications (adventures/settings), perhaps?

Or perhaps they could be posted for now, then printed as a FreeRPG Day handout the coming summer?

SDLeary