WFRP Style Fate points in BRP?

[Enpeze]

In many ways the guns stuff is far more important story wise than the "critters' stuff. About 95% of the critters in the Old West, as anywhere else, have enough sense to stay clear of humans, and only attack when threated. I've got stats in the works for coyote's and bobcats, but they probably won't be needed much. More along the lines of sneaking onto the ranch after chickens or sheep.

Why? If you play a pulp western game, there should be hungry wolves, snakes and bears behind every second corner. No need to hide them.

I mean

preambel: riding through the town

scene 1: duel with 6 black hats (needless to say - hero wins),

interim: riding through the desert

scene 2: ambush of 6 hungry kojotes (of course hero kills them),

interim: riding to the ranch

scene 3: final shootout on the evil villains ranch (hero wins again killing 6 black hats, 1 bear hiding behind the corner plus 1 evil villain - but unfortunately hero receives a small wound from the evil villains Colt .45 Peacemaker MkIV/D7A superspecial - just to have a use for all the carefully researched gun data)

scene 4: rescue of the farmers daughter (of course she falls in love with hero)

interim: riding with girl into the sunset

[Nightshade]

No really. Historically you almost never saw someone carrying a "backup" sword. Generally weapons didn't break as opten as in RQ2. THat's why I prefer RQ3's AP ratings. Actually breaking a sword requires either a lot of abuse or a good vice.

As noted when I was arguing the other side of this, though, you can still lose it one way or another, and most people who care about that want something with a little more vigor than a dagger.

What I'm suggesting I guess is that getting into too much detail is, in practice, sort of pointless here. Among melee weapons there's at least some tradeoffs that can make people do some variation (at least once you're dealing with the whole impale/slash/bash business) but its not a coincidence that you pretty much have three sizes of sword in most versions of the game and that's it, because if you go much past that you have exactly the same problem; one or more never gets used except by the purists. With the limited number of traits that will be visible to a revolver in BRP, I'd have to assume _most_ of them would never get used.

[Atgxtg]

Why? If you play a pulp western game, there should be hungry wolves, snakes and bears behind every second corner. No need to hide them.

Depends on how puply you want to make it. Plus there is the fact that most wild animals are no real threat. In an RPG you can only have the hero run out of ammo, drop his gun down a crevass, and such a handful of times before the players have had enough.

I'm also more into running animals and foes a bit more realstically. That is, I don't run them as kamakzi squads. So after a player shoots a coyote or two the rest should probably scatter.

But I'd also say that running a western game, the weapons would be just as important. Quite a few stories about someone having a seven shooter. Plus around the 1850s the differences between differnt designs were much more radical than is the case today.

For instance, today most military pistols are 9mm self loads, with some .45 self loads. In general the round fired determines most of the characteristics of the weapon that fires it. So, since most military pistols are chambered for similar ammo, and with the same expectations, so most details are similar.

Go back to the Old West and such was not the case. Most of the major innovations in the field were under patent. Military Pistols ranged from single shot muzzle loaders, to cap & ball revolvers, to pinfire revolvers, to paper catriges revolvers, to metallic cartridge revolvers. Plus a few more, all availaibe at the same time.

Parts were not interchangable, either. Many revolvers were sold with a spare cylinder so the weapon could be "reloaded" by changing the cylinder in a battle.

Relaoding most weapons was a slow, time consuming process.

Now run one of those "band of injuns attack the settlers" type western stories and see how the characterstics of the firearms would make a big difference.

Prior to the 1870s or so the settlers are going to have a hard time keeping enough weapons loaded to fend off those "injuns".

If it is 1875 or so, and the settlers have Winchester rifles, and a colt "peacemaker" or better yet a Smith & Wesson American reloading will be a breeze and the fight more one sided.

In fact, if you look at the expansion into the west, you will see that it was technology that tamed the Old West. Between the railroads, telegraph, and firearms, order was established.

Custer probably wound have won at Little Bighorn if he had waited for his gatling guns.

[Atgxtg]

Nightshade,

Well, the point with firaems is that they do come with tradeoffs. It is just those tradeoffs haven't been addressed in BRP much. Mostly becuase, as we've mentioned before, firearms have always been something of an afterthought to the games that have them. Superworld is a suerpheor RPG, Furture Wolrd was a high tech setting, and CoC isn't about gunfights as it is about unspeakable horror.

But other stats would help, and would be useful in a setting where firearms are a major factor in the combat. I could image CON and DRAW being very important stats for an espionage setting.

I'll agree that a lot of RPGs just have people grabbing the biggest damage dooers and marching on. D20 is a prime example. But in most cases that is because those RPGs focus on lots of fighting and tend to deemphasize everything other than damage. For instance in D&D, where characters can have 50-100 hit points, getting in the first shot with a pistol that does 2d6 isn't that important.

Liekse, given the nature of most D20 games, being cvaught with a conceal weapon doesn't come up much.

But in a less combat oriented campaign, it would be important. A pocket pistol that is fairly useless in a battle can be a lifesaver around the card table. Especially if the other people don't know that you've got it.

As for blades. Most of the players I've seen tended to go with the broadsword. Those who didn't mind loosing a shield went with the greatsword. The STR min was rarely an issue. Especially since RQ yets you get around the minimums with a penalty. So most players would take a slight penalty to use the broadsword.

The shortsword was popular with two weapon users, and the bastard sword was probably my personal favorite, although it didn't catch on with most other players.

The scimitar and rapier did get used in my groups. The kurkri never did, as it was a bit to culture specific.

Realsitically if the saber and such got a bonus from horseback, like they should, they'd have gotten more use with mounted characters.

Probably the best way to try and please everybody is to do up the stats, and then take some default weapons to be the standard pistol, rifle etc. That way those who want it have the details, and those who don't have generic weapons.

For instance, in a late western era, where the "Peacemaker" was the most popular pistol it makes sense to have it as the default pistol stats. Ditto for the Winchester rifle. Add in a pocket pistol/derringer, big game rifle, and a shotgun and you got enough for generic weapons.

For those who want the extra details, like a "frontier" instead of a "Peacemaker" to match the ammo of the Winchester, or those who want a Schofield for faster reloading time, it can still be there.

[Enpeze]

Depends on how puply you want to make it. Plus there is the fact that most wild animals are no real threat. In an RPG you can only have the hero run out of ammo, drop his gun down a crevass, and such a handful of times before the players have had enough.

I always thought, pulp is non-simulationistic. Its hero-centric and the story is bended around the hero. (to enable another story with the same hero in the next magazine) He has to survive or the reader (or player) is not satisfied. Even in not-so-pulpy westerns like tombstone there are scenes where the villain is able to fire at least 20 shots with 2 pistols without reloading. In italian pulp westerns the hero (or villain) is able to kill 1 person per second with one shot. How do one want to play such impossibilities out in the BRP rules? (I dont really understand why some people want to play these pulpy hero things, thus the question of "how" is only a theoretical one)

So the solution (also for the sake of a good roleplaying game) for this dilemma is to play a mix of pulp and simulation - as you seem to suggest in your post. For me the answer is clear. 80% simulation, 20% pulp. For others it may be the reverse.

Relaoding most weapons was a slow, time consuming process.

Now run one of those "band of injuns attack the settlers" type western stories and see how the characterstics of the firearms would make a big difference.

Prior to the 1870s or so the settlers are going to have a hard time keeping enough weapons loaded to fend off those "injuns".

I am not against detailed weapon data, especially if they are researched for a scenario which is focusing on those differences in ammo etc. (and having the right ammo at the right place is a matter of live and death) But I just do not see the necessity of detailed weapon data in a typical pulpy western scenario, where it is clear that the hero kills 6 black hats in 6 seconds with head shots. (right ammo or not...)

Custer probably wound have won at Little Bighorn if he had waited for his gatling guns.

If Custer has been a pulp hero he would surely have won Little Bighorn - just with his bare fists.

[Kloster]

...

The shortsword was popular with two weapon users, and the bastard sword was probably my personal favorite, although it didn't catch on with most other players.

...

Same for us.

...

The scimitar and rapier did get used in my groups. The kurkri never did, as it was a bit to culture specific.

...

Same for scimitar and rapier (in RQIII). The kukri is considered the same as a kopi or a falchatta, and as such, saw usage.

...

Realsitically if the saber and such got a bonus from horseback, like they should, they'd have gotten more use with mounted characters.

...

Agreed.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

So we might as well dump zombies and werewolves and evil medicine men into it... to liven it up a bit!

Heretic. :shocked:

Prepare hot tar and feathers. >:->

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Atgxtg]

I always thought, pulp is non-simulationistic. Its hero-centric and the story is bended around the hero. (to enable another story with the same hero in the next magazine) He has to survive or the reader (or player) is not satisfied. Even in not-so-pulpy westerns like tombstone there are scenes where the villain is able to fire at least 20 shots with 2 pistols without reloading. In italian pulp westerns the hero (or villain) is able to kill 1 person per second with one shot. How do one want to play such impossibilities out in the BRP rules? (I dont really understand why some people want to play these pulpy hero things, thus the question of "how" is only a theoretical one)

So the solution (also for the sake of a good roleplaying game) for this dilemma is to play a mix of pulp and simulation - as you seem to suggest in your post. For me the answer is clear. 80% simulation, 20% pulp. For others it may be the reverse.

Pretty much. Ideally the GM can "dial up" whatever level of realism or pulpiness, or TV or film to suit his desires. That's why I did up most of the Western stuff as options. For instance, historically the Quick Draw was pretty much a non issue. Hip shooters and fan-firers actually do tend to shot first, but don't hit anything. It's the ability to act calmly and take the time for a good shot, while in a fight, that spelled the difference between joe average and a successful gunfighter.

But the genre stresses the quick draw. So it's in there.

Likewise gun-spinning has no real place in a fight. It looks fancy, but will get you killed. The rifle reload thing might have some use, as would a border shift, but mostly it is just a good way to shoot yourself or an innocent bystander with your own gun. But its part of the TV and film Westerns up to the 1960s.

I am not against detailed weapon data, especially if they are researched for a scenario which is focusing on those differences in ammo etc. (and having the right ammo at the right place is a matter of live and death) But I just do not see the necessity of detailed weapon data in a typical pulpy western scenario, where it is clear that the hero kills 6 black hats in 6 seconds with head shots. (right ammo or not...)

Yeah. But I don't think BRP is going to lean towards pulp. If I wanted to do a pulpy western, I'd probably go with Spirit of the Century. It's got about 90% of what is needed already, and the few things it is missing could be worked up pretty quickly.

If Custer has been a pulp hero he would surely have won Little Bighorn - just with his bare fists.

Well yeah, the people he was fighting weren't white. THe pulps were rather racist. Not so much by conviction, just because any outsider makes for a good villain.

BTW, there is a distinction between Pulp, Film, and TV Westerns. Some overlap, too. So many of the "rules of the genre" depend on what version of the West you are going after.

The "Wild West" suffered in part because it was being fictionalized before it's demise. Much of the real West was obscured by the legend.

[soltakss]

Can we pull the Wild West stuff from this thread into another thread? It's interesting but hasn't got a lot to do with Fate Points.

:focus:

[Atgxtg]

:focus:

Sounds good. We sort of got sidetracked (my fault, I used the Western stuff for an example).

[Enpeze]

Can we pull the Wild West stuff from this thread into another thread? It's interesting but hasn't got a lot to do with Fate Points.

:focus:

I think the wild west stuff has to do with the question Fate Points or not. The genre Western in its heroic and pulpy mask is not that different from other typical roleplaying genres like sword and sorcery or space opera. The approach of the story is similar, also the typical distribution of character roles etc. So if conan frees his imprisioned princess (farmers daughter) or if barbarian bran mak morn kills the evil sorcerer (or the evil rancher) at the end of every story, it does not make much difference. But the question for me is, if BRP is suited for this type of action or not. I dont think so, but other BRP fans surely do. So if I am wrong (I think I am not, but lets this assume for the discussion) it remains the question how the very essence of such a pulp hero (western, eastern, space oper or S&S) should be portrayed. Double+ PC hitpoints like I suggested or a Fate point model ala WFRP.

Another question which is important is how cinematic gaming and pulp gaming is dependent and influencing each other. Are cinematic games automatically pulp games? Are they even the same? If yes, then the BRP without Fate Points or double PC hitpoints is probably not usable for cinematic roleplaying games. (see above) the logical consequence is to use another rule system for such type games. (maybe SotC or Savage World)

[Enpeze]

Yeah. But I don't think BRP is going to lean towards pulp. If I wanted to do a pulpy western, I'd probably go with Spirit of the Century.

I totally agree with you .

[Atgxtg]

I totally agree with you .

I need to print that on a T-shirt.

I think the thing with FATE points and with the multi-genre nature of the new BRP is that we end up needing the options to tweak the BPR rules enough to make them work.

For example, if you run a BRP supers campaign, you need a way to tone down the inherent lethality of the BPR rules or after the first advenutre half the PCs will be dead and the rest wanted for manslaughter.

Even a "Street-level" supers campaign needs a little tweaking. In BRP if a half dozen thugs open fire on someone like the Batman, we are probably going to be short one superhero. Ganging up is very effective in BRP, and one or two bullets could drop the caped crusader (with a an 18 CON and at 210lbs/SIZ 15, Brucvie has 17 hp). IN BRP the laws of probability will result in the eventual impale or worse a critical hit and one dead hero. Fairly quickly, too.

That doesn't happen in the comics, not in over 65 years. So to run that sort of game we need a tweak that will help us simulate that kind of reality. Something like FATE points is certainly an option.

Same with most of you figures in heroic fantasy. With all the fighting, someone would have rolled an 01 against Conan and killed him.

Firearms sort of aggravate the problem, too, since the normal defenses aren't as effective. Maybe BRP will change the dodge rules. As it stands, Batman can't dodge a dozen bullets. So most the attacks are uncontested. BRP was really designed around the melee fight and the attack/parry mechanic. Without some sort of active defense against missile attacks we'll have problems.

[frogspawner]

Double+ PC hitpoints like I suggested or a Fate point model ala WFRP.

I don't like systems that give the PCs unfair advantages over NPCs - that makes them into bullies, not the heroes they should be. Doubling their HPs would do that - just like D&D (spit). I don't know how FPs work in WFRP, but I wouldn't be keen on allowing story-fiddles or re-rolls or 'get-out-of-death free' cards. Would the players stand for it if the NPCs did that too?

Without some sort of active defense against missile attacks we'll have problems.

Some variation on Dodge/Defence seems to me to be the way to go. It can always be ascribed to 'luck', even if 'gods' don't exist in the genre.

I currently use a skill (called 'Defence', but not working quite like the old RQ2) which is a percentage chance to avoid any damage from melee/missile/magic (or at least 10hp worth of it). And the 'skill' increases only via ticks for role-playing, so that's how PCs can get better at it than the NPCs. Obviously it's chancy and unreliable below 100%, so I'm not sure about it. But maybe that's a good thing. Any better ideas?

[Atgxtg]

Some variation on Dodge/Defence seems to me to be the way to go. It can always be ascribed to 'luck', even if 'gods' don't exist in the genre.

I currently use a skill (called 'Defence', but not working quite like the old RQ2) which is a percentage chance to avoid any damage from melee/missile/magic (or at least 10hp worth of it). And the 'skill' increases only via ticks for role-playing, so that's how PCs can get better at it than the NPCs. Obviously it's chancy and unreliable below 100%, so I'm not sure about it. But maybe that's a good thing. Any better ideas?

THe difficult lies in the "Batman scenario" I mentioned earlier. Left strictly to the dice, a hero will get overwhelmed by numbers. That is pretty much the way BRP was meant to work. That's why Rune Lords were told to bring a retinue and avoid double teams.

A Luck/Fate echanic seems to fix this for heroic characters, provided that the points are limited. Too many and the PCs get delusions of godhood. Ideally they should have just enough to do what they need to do, even slightly more, but feel like they don't quite have enough.

Sort of like gambling. The points have to be common enough to be on hand, yet rare enough so that the players will hate spending them.

There are three or four options in the book. I've got a couple of "blind" suggestions:

1) The PC needs to make a luck roll and then can mark off damage against his Magic/Luck/Power Points. If a PC is out of points, he is out of Luck. This gives character some immunity but is very limited.

2) Give players points for criticals and/or special successes. Then they can spend those point later to bump or downgrade rolls by 1 success level. So in the "Batman scenario" if "Bats" has a couple of points in the bank, he could turn the odd lucky hit into a miss, or change a critical that would kill him to a normal hit.

[frogspawner]

THe difficult lies in the "Batman scenario" I mentioned earlier. Left strictly to the dice, a hero will get overwhelmed by numbers....

1) The PC needs to make a luck roll and then can mark off damage against his Magic/Luck/Power Points....

2) Give players points for criticals and/or special successes...

Yes, sheer numbers will be overwhelming at some point. Once a character reaches 100% Defence, though, they can pretty much rely on ignoring most incoming damage. Enough to give them delusions of god-hood? I hope not - players still seem pretty nervous at that level (which I'd say is about equivalent to Rune-Lord).

I'm reluctant to give up this system unless it's proved to be broken. Thanks for the suggestions, but: #1 doesn't eliminate chanciness, adds admin and would make POW much more valuable; #2 seems to act after a hit has happened (a fine distinction, I know) but that doesn't feel quite right - and again it adds admin overhead. By all means give 'Fate Points' for critical/specials if you like - but I actually prefer to have a mechanism that rewards RP (and by not 'spending' the points when they are used, you get a tally of how much good RP you've done with that character, which I think is neat).

BTW, what are the Book options?

[Nightshade]

Yes, sheer numbers will be overwhelming at some point. Once a character reaches 100% Defence, though, they can pretty much rely on ignoring most incoming damage. Enough to give them delusions of god-hood? I hope not - players still seem pretty nervous at that level (which I'd say is about equivalent to Rune-Lord).

That depends on how Defense is handled. In most versions of BRP I'm familiar with, it had to be broken up amidst attackers in some way or another, so numbers quickly diluted it badly.

[Atgxtg]

Another way to do "Hero Points" that would not get out of hand.

Easy, each point costs a skill check. Paid at the end of the adventure. So if someone wants to use 5 or 6 points they have to uncheck 5 or 6 boxes at the end of the night.

For frogspawner,

The use affect after the hit is good with limited points. Basically the PCs will only use them when they count. What a couple of games have done is force the PC to justify the effect. Things like hitting a cigarette case, or a graze or whatever.

If you want the PCs to use the effect before the hit, then the PCs will need more points to allow for the ones that will be "wasted" on misses. You can still use option #2 or the new option #3 before the roll.

[Simlasa]

THe difficult lies in the "Batman scenario" I mentioned earlier. ...

I agree, but for different reasons...

Games that try to 're-enact' cinematic genres... Superhero comics... have the burden of trying to quantify and normalize a set of rules for something that inherently has no rules... the rules of those books/movies/comics has always been that the protaganist will have whatever power/resource/knowledge/skills he needs at the moment to make the plot progress how the author wants it too.

The only reason any hero in those sources gets defeated is because he was meant to for dramatic purposes.

Trying to mimic such stories, and still have the game be unpredictable/exciting can be a bit of a tall order and seems to often fall into just letting players live out their power-geek fantasies... basically being bullies.

[Atgxtg]

I agree, but for different reasons...

Games that try to 're-enact' cinematic genres... Superhero comics... have the burden of trying to quantify and normalize a set of rules for something that inherently has no rules... the rules of those books/movies/comics has always been that the protaganist will have whatever power/resource/knowledge/skills he needs at the moment to make the plot progress how the author wants it too.

The only reason any hero in those sources gets defeated is because he was meant to for dramatic purposes. [qOUTE]

Yup. THe hero wins because he is the hero.

Somewhat. IN essence this is just what RPGs try to do all the time. People rarely want to play accountants and cashiers. So RPGs are almost always trying to dance along this tightrope. Just how they attempt it is what makes one game different from another. Just about every RPG is biased towards the players, and with good reason. Running a group of NPCs is a non-issue.

IMO perhaps the most successful at doing cinematic style was probably the old Bond RPG. The hero points let PCs bend the rules a little, but were rare enough that the players couldn't sit back and play on "cruise control".

[Turloigh]

Easy, each point costs a skill check. Paid at the end of the adventure. So if someone wants to use 5 or 6 points they have to uncheck 5 or 6 boxes at the end of the night.

That would not be my preferred way to do it.

IME, some characters will often have more boxes checked than others, because they have most of the skills that are useful in most adventures (frex, the guy with all the high perception skills). Especially in the long run.

If Fate or Hero points are tied to the check boxes, some characters will inevitably have an advantage.

[Atgxtg]

That would not be my preferred way to do it.

Mine either. But it is a way.

IME, some characters will often have more boxes checked than others, because they have most of the skills that are useful in most adventures (frex, the guy with all the high perception skills). Especially in the long run.

If Fate or Hero points are tied to the check boxes, some characters will inevitably have an advantage.

If some characters are getting more checks than others then they inevitable will have an advantage anyway. The problem isn't with sacrificing check boxes for hero points, but with people getting significantly more checks than others.

They shouldn't. A GM should try to make all the character equally useful. Especially in the long run. Otherwise people are getting penalties if they stray from whatever "works" for a GM. For example, if most people are playing combat oriented characters and one guy plays a scholar, the GM should make sure that the scholar gets as many chases for a check mark as the fighter types.

Basically in BRP a lot of this should balance out, because as skills get higher improvement slows and the lower skilled characters can start to close the gap. THe guys with the 30% skills do get the checks and tend to go up.

[Turloigh]

If some characters are getting more checks than others then they inevitable will have an advantage anyway.

Theoretically, but it doesn't always work out that way.

The problem isn't with sacrificing check boxes for hero points, but with people getting significantly more checks than others.

IMHO, not as much as it sounds. There are plenty of other ways to reward characters. Advancement-wise, time and money for training are equally important (I come from a RQ3 background). Other characters will concentrate on acquiring spells (or powers).

They shouldn't. A GM should try to make all the character equally useful. Especially in the long run. Otherwise people are getting penalties if they stray from whatever "works" for a GM. For example, if most people are playing combat oriented characters and one guy plays a scholar, the GM should make sure that the scholar gets as many chases for a check mark as the fighter types.

I may be misunderstanding what "chases" means - but combat isn't a problem, since everyone eventually gets his or her skill check.

Basically in BRP a lot of this should balance out, because as skills get higher improvement slows and the lower skilled characters can start to close the gap. THe guys with the 30% skills do get the checks and tend to go up.

And here's the catch.

The guy with the high skills succeeds most of the time and gets most of the checks, and therefore the most hero points, although he wouldn't succeed with the experience roll. The guy with low skills doesn't get as many, but his experience rolls will most likely succeed.

And this is where, AFAICT, advancement in BRP games balances out (not with the number of skill checks). Most GMs I know are not going to worry too much if one PC increases five skills by 6% while I've failed all my experience rolls after the session. Hero points however are potential lifesavers and require close attention.

That said, I realize now I've started a rather esoteric discussion that probably few readers are interested in. And again, in theory, you are completely right.

[Atgxtg]

And here's the catch.

The guy with the high skills succeeds most of the time and gets most of the checks, and therefore the most hero points, although he wouldn't succeed with the experience roll. The guy with low skills doesn't get as many, but his experience rolls will most likely succeed.

About the catch. No not in play. The reason is that character get multiple opportunities to each checks during the night, but only get one check for any one skill. So, for instance, if a PC is firing a bow at 25% but doesn't hit until the third of fourth round, he is still getting the same number of checks as the guy with the 80% skill.

Since checks are earned for use under stress, it is also possible that a low skilled character might get a check in a situation where a high skilled character might not. For instance a flight instructor with 90% skill probably wouldn't count taking off in a Cessna with a student onboard to be stressful, but the student with a 25% skill probably would consider his tie at the controls to be stressful.

[Nightshade]

Another way to do "Hero Points" that would not get out of hand.

Easy, each point costs a skill check. Paid at the end of the adventure. So if someone wants to use 5 or 6 points they have to uncheck 5 or 6 boxes at the end of the night.

I've found that in practice games that conflate experience increases with hero point style expenditures tend to produce some potentially serious social dynamics problems.