WFRP Style Fate points in BRP?

[Enpeze]

Of course, I fully understand how people can think of them as cheating in some way, as you are rerolling dice or affecting what actually happened. But, quite a lot of the time the same people that dislike Fate/Hero Points have no problems with rolling dice secretly or fudging dice rolls. But, that's not cheating!!!

I have problems with fudging. I am against it. And I am against cheating. The gods of destiny will crush those who betrays them. (and take their stuff)

[Nightshade]

I think this is much like the 1D3+1/1D4 knife. By the rules a kill in combat is limited to small people with low CONs, unless hit location are used. Yet virtually any weapon can kill if applied properly. The OSS and British Commandos did use, and hand out a .22 caliber weapon to kill enemy soldiers (so you you take their gun). Surprise is a big factor. When you put the barrel up against the back of a guy's skull you not only got an auto head hit, but probably at least an impale.

Sure, but it happens even outside of total suprise. As you say, the problem's the same as with a lot of small weapons; its just perhaps a bit more obvious with small caliber handguns.

Like I wrote earlier. What I think we might need is some way to aim for increased damage. Something like halving your skill for an impale or maybe for a die shift (D4-D6-D8 etc).

Personally, I'd really love a Damage Class/die shift idea, with the STR/SIZ modifer shifting up the die rather than being a separate die, but I doubt that would go over well with others.

I'm thinking that as an idea for part of a critical hit system it'd be viable; the one thing I liked from the MRQ playtest was the idea of selecting crits from a set of options rather than a standardized result.

Come to think of it a die shift for range might be a good solution. Kick up the damage die at point-blank and drop if at long range. That might help all around. A pistol round at 2m has a lot more energy that it does at 200m. That would also get the 1D6 pistols up to the much more lethal 1D8 range that can kill 99% of the humans in the game.

This is a problem with a lot of ranged weapons, actually; its pretty much true with bows and (specifically) crossbows, too.

Yeah, that isn't going to happen much. I'm not sure if we can come up with a solution that will please everybody. Right now, I'm leaning towards:

Probably not; as we've noted elsewhere, non-RQ people (especially those from versions of BRP without even a major wounds system) don't much care about this, far as I can tell.

[Ars Mysteriorum]

In my mind, players characters are heroes by definition no matter the game system or setting.

I am rather fond of the grim-and-gritty style and settings myself and I can identify with your point of view. However, I still like the concept and have no problem with using this mechanic in conjuction with a grim-and-gritty setting. It just has to be mananged properly, and the benefits of the mechanic have to be carefully balanced so that it doesn't drastically alter the flow of events (i.e. spending a point mystically heals all wounds, etc.).

As a WFRP GM, I would like to add that Fate Points do not mystically heal anything. The character survives. That's it. He is most certainly down for the fight where the critical wound was dealt, and probably is missing a limb or is badly injured. He may also be captured and have all his gear taken.

Fate points allow a character to avoid deleterious effects, but not completely.

Just saying.

[Triff]

I think I'll work on a "eventually fatal" type of result for the Western Spot rules. I might as well, I've got a 14 page price list, 6 weapons lists, bestiary, professions, new skills, a alternate rule for toxins ('cuz its more fun to have you buddy rush you back 20 miles to town to see the Doc then it is to have someone drop dead on the spot). If I did a chapter on history, notable personalities, and geography I could go for a entire supplment.

Well, they are looking for 64 page supplements!

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

Well, they are looking for 64 page supplements!

SGL.

I doubt anyone would pay for a 64page price list.

64 pages of weapon stats....

The Gatling gun gets a couple of pages, the 6 and 12 pounder cannon, then the pistols rifles, shotguns, and muskets. Yeah, enough for 64 pages.

The critter book....

Might have a whole series here.

[Simlasa]

I'd rather have a good bestiary... or several... with viable ecosystems for the fantasy/SF critters... than a BIG BOOK O' GUNS...

Interesting critters support/promote story (IMHO) a lot more than nitpicky descriptions of why one 9mm handgun differs from another.

[Atgxtg]

Nope, I wouldn't have much desire for an entire supplement that was only about 'real world' weapons...

Years ago I got into a 'realism' phase and bought up all the Phoenix Command books and pored over them... even tried gaming with them... and that was what it was...

But nowadays I'm mostly interested in stuff that promotes story... having rules/ratings that describe the fine details between two handguns of the same caliber is not going to promote much story in my games.

Having a book of interesting critters, with a viable ecology tying them together would be much more useful.

That might depend on what information went with the weapons. Generally there is a lot on interesting stuff that doesn't end up on the tables that can indeed promote story. For instace, there was a reason why the slightly less powerful version of the "Peacemaker", the "Frontier" was popular, specifically because it used the same ammo as the Winchester rifle. And any big game rifle would probably benefit for notes of how they were used for hunting.

There a lot of little details there that can add to the setting and story. Also quite a bit that the setting looses without it. People tend to think of the firearms in modern terms, and frankly they weren't that good. Parts weren't interchangeable, even between "identical" models. Early revolvers, really anything prior to metallic cartridges, couldn't be reloaded in combat. That was actually the reason why many carried two guns.

Plus, unlike modern firearms, the differences between similar guns was probably more pronounced. Today we have dozens of companies producing lots of fairly similar 9mm and .45ACP pistols. But back in the old west, there were some big differences between a Colt .45 and a Smith & Wesson .45. For starters, they couldn't use the same ammo. Secondly, the S&W "broken open" and ejected the empty shell casings, making the weapon a lot easier to reload.

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.

[Simlasa]

Sounds like a good reason to carry a knife...

Those historical notes are interesting... but I don't think they'd come up in a game all that much unless you chose to focus on them.

I wasn't just referring to old West supplements though...

That kind of detail about guns, or other weapons, starts to remind me of Phoenix Command and my eyes begin to glaze over with the thought of keeping track of it all.

Mind you, I was into getting all the PC books, 'back in the day', and reading through them (even playing games a few times)... but nowadays the stuff I want to play just doesn't care about that level of 'realism' or 'historical accuracy' in regards to the weapons.

I think Leading Edge tried to some of the same detail work with melee weapons in the Morningstar Missions book... and I don't really care enough any more to need a bunch of minute variations on swords either.

Just a matter of taste though...

[Atgxtg]

Yeah, it is a matter of tastes and styles.

For instance, on one thread here some people were keen on going with a more generic light/medium/heavy pistol idea than listing identified weapons by caliber and make.

Elsewhere I was looking at a new Western RPG, and in a review of the preview they reviewer was somewhat disappointed with the generic , Light, heavy pistol thing and was glad that the full game would get into make and models.

Personally, I lead towards the details, since it is usually easier to cut them out or ignore them than it is to add them into where they aren't. But, if I was playing something like Spirit of the Century, I'd be more "fast and loose".

Phoenix Command, did sort of go overboard, with the aiming by split seconds counts and such. In some cases the information the gave wasn't entirely accurate, either. SO I think there is a big difference between that, and, say, noting that one pistol holds 7 rounds and another holds 15.

[Nightshade]

Yeah, it is a matter of tastes and styles.

For instance, on one thread here some people were keen on going with a more generic light/medium/heavy pistol idea than listing identified weapons by caliber and make.

Elsewhere I was looking at a new Western RPG, and in a review of the preview they reviewer was somewhat disappointed with the generic , Light, heavy pistol thing and was glad that the full game would get into make and models.

Personally, I lead towards the details, since it is usually easier to cut them out or ignore them than it is to add them into where they aren't. But, if I was playing something like Spirit of the Century, I'd be more "fast and loose".

Phoenix Command, did sort of go overboard, with the aiming by split seconds counts and such. In some cases the information the gave wasn't entirely accurate, either. SO I think there is a big difference between that, and, say, noting that one pistol holds 7 rounds and another holds 15.

Well, the big problem with going into detail is that the fact that the game gives you fairly precise data means you get something that's far less true in reality: the obviously winning way weapons. Now people talk a good game about carrying the weapon that's most in character and what all, but yet strangely you'll notice how often that's the mechanically best one.

In the real world, there's often a certain lack of concensus on this, in part because there's a certain lack of precision as to the actual behavior in the field (certain exceptions like the M-16A1 notwithstanding...)

[Atgxtg]

Well, the big problem with going into detail is that the fact that the game gives you fairly precise data means you get something that's far less true in reality: the obviously winning way weapons. Now people talk a good game about carrying the weapon that's most in character and what all, but yet strangely you'll notice how often that's the mechanically best one.

In the real world, there's often a certain lack of concensus on this, in part because there's a certain lack of precision as to the actual behavior in the field (certain exceptions like the M-16A1 notwithstanding...)

Yeah, there is some of that. The problem with weapons in the real world is that we simply don't have enough lab data to produce conclusive results. We don't have people volunteering to be guinea pigs for ballistics tests.

With a RPG, by it's nature, weapons have ratings that can be easily compared. Unless you gfrossly oversimplify things, you will end up with this to some extent. And if you do grossly oversimplify, you have other problems that are just as bad.

SotC, for instance, doesn't really differentiate weapon damages at all. A first or a fifty cal. do the same damage. Okay for SotC (and even SotC has dome guidelines and options to get around this), but probably not so for BRP.

THe same problem exists with primitive weapons too. In the game a broadsword is a "better" weapon than a shortsword, since it does more damage. In the real world it isn't so cut & dried.

[Atgxtg]

Sounds like a good reason to carry a knife...

(Sorry I missed this comment eariler..l.).

Actually, most people did. While the image of the Old West has Cowboys and Gunfighters packing six-guns, history is different. Not everyone carried a revolver. Just about everybody carried a knife. For every gunfight, we had dozens of knife fights.

If we wanted to be completely true to history, we should probably drop gunfighters and cowboys from the profession tables. Just too rare. It seems that at their heyday there were less than 40,000 Coybows in the Old West. That is about 1 person per 1000, at best.

[Enpeze]

(Sorry I missed this comment eariler..l.).

Actually, most people did. While the image of the Old West has Cowboys and Gunfighters packing six-guns, history is different. Not everyone carried a revolver. Just about everybody carried a knife. For every gunfight, we had dozens of knife fights.

If we wanted to be completely true to history, we should probably drop gunfighters and cowboys from the profession tables. Just too rare. It seems that at their heyday there were less than 40,000 Coybows in the Old West. That is about 1 person per 1000, at best.

This is one of the reasons why I never liked the Western genre. (too artificial, immature and hero-centric )

[Atgxtg]

This is one of the reasons why I never liked the Western genre. (too artificial, immature and hero-centric )

It's one reason why I don't like "urban" cowboys. To me they are just as silly as people walking around in Star Trek costumes. Perhaps a bit more.

As for the genre, well, fantasy probably outdoes Western in being artificial, immature, and hero-centric. Probably most of your popular settings are like that.

Probably due to the escapist nature of RPGs. Most people don't want to play in a real life setting where their actions don't really matter. We don't need to play a game for that.

[Nightshade]

Yeah, there is some of that. The problem with weapons in the real world is that we simply don't have enough lab data to produce conclusive results. We don't have people volunteering to be guinea pigs for ballistics tests.

With a RPG, by it's nature, weapons have ratings that can be easily compared. Unless you gfrossly oversimplify things, you will end up with this to some extent. And if you do grossly oversimplify, you have other problems that are just as bad.

SotC, for instance, doesn't really differentiate weapon damages at all. A first or a fifty cal. do the same damage. Okay for SotC (and even SotC has dome guidelines and options to get around this), but probably not so for BRP.

THe same problem exists with primitive weapons too. In the game a broadsword is a "better" weapon than a shortsword, since it does more damage. In the real world it isn't so cut & dried.

True. It tends to become more pronounced with guns however, as they're functions end up being bunched up a lot more than melee weapons. People will carry a shortsword as a backup if they carry a broadsword, because they don't want the encumberance of carrying two when they don't use the backup that much, or just because they lack the Strength. With handguns, they're going to migrate to the best one in terms of damage and ammo capacity (and in games that pay attention to it, accuracy) and that's about that; if there are Strength minimums they may use the best one within their Strength category, and that's about it.

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]

True. It tends to become more pronounced with guns however, as they're functions end up being bunched up a lot more than melee weapons. People will carry a shortsword as a backup if they carry a broadsword, because they don't want the encumberance of carrying two when they don't use the backup that much, or just because they lack the Strength. With handguns, they're going to migrate to the best one in terms of damage and ammo capacity (and in games that pay attention to it, accuracy) and that's about that; if there are Strength minimums they may use the best one within their Strength category, and that's about it.

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.

[soltakss]

If we wanted to be completely true to history, we should probably drop gunfighters and cowboys from the profession tables. Just too rare. It seems that at their heyday there were less than 40,000 Coybows in the Old West. That is about 1 person per 1000, at best.

Yah, boo!

Sure, there were loads of farmers, farmers' wives, shopkeepers, tailors and so on. But so what?

If you have a Wild West setting you don't want to play a shopkeeper who just keeps shop. Well, I wouldn't, anyway.

You'd want to play the farmer whose family was slaughtered by bandits, the pioneer whose sister was captured by Indians, the civil war veteran who has become a bandit, a lone gunslinger, the whore with a heart of gold, the crazy prospector, a group of bandits and so on.

People don't play the 90% of people, they prefer the 10% of the population who were exciting and interesting.

[drohem]

Exactly. If you grew up a sodbuster, then it is for background flavor only. If you're going to play an Old West campaign, then there are going to be gunfights and players are going to develop those skills.

My group created a game we called GunQuest. It was the time that the group was transitioning from RQ3 to 3rd GURPS, and it was heavily drawn from GURPS Old West. I found some old notes and details about that campaign and game. I was thinking about posting it, but there are so many gun fanatics here that I fear I would be hammered for it.

It was seriously deadly. Seriously deadly.

But it was fun as hell. We had a race and occupation roll. Eventually, it came that two groups of characters started hunting and killing each other. Our group had no problem with PvP fights. We were into roleplaying our characters. It boiled down to the fact that some characters would roll the Outlaw occupation and some would roll the Lawman occupation. Then the other players would either become outlaws in the gang or deputies of the lawmen characters.

*Disclaimer* -I used the term 'gun fanatics' in a jovial and fun manner. It was not a dig at anyone on this forum. If there is one thing in RPGs that divide players completely, it is the subjuct of guns and gun damage. Our game used simplistic gun damage based on calibur. So, for example, all .22 guns did the same damage.

[Atgxtg]

Yah, boo!

Sure, there were loads of farmers, farmers' wives, shopkeepers, tailors and so on. But so what?

If you have a Wild West setting you don't want to play a shopkeeper who just keeps shop. Well, I wouldn't, anyway.

You'd want to play the farmer whose family was slaughtered by bandits, the pioneer whose sister was captured by Indians, the civil war veteran who has become a bandit, a lone gunslinger, the whore with a heart of gold, the crazy prospector, a group of bandits and so on.

People don't play the 90% of people, they prefer the 10% of the population who were exciting and interesting.

I agree. That is why I did up rules for quick draws and gun-spinning. Realistically, neither had much bearing in the Old West. Both are staples of the genre. The old West that most people seem to want to roleplay would be more like the West of dime novels, radio, TV and film. In fact, I'd say that the western genre has probably been warped by the enterainment indusrty more than any other.

To those who want a really accurate histocial Old West, well, expect to be bored. 90% of the people were farmers, and most of thier lives consisted of working on the farm and coming into contact with the farm animals and the other family members.

Any sort of playable campaign that won't put people to sleep would require some sort of atypical situation. Practically all of the "exciting" times and places in the Old West were atypical. That's why they were remembered. The Gunfight at the O.K. Corral is remembered because it was a fairly unique occurance, not because it was a commonplace one.

A completely realistic RPG would be even duller than a completely realistic modern RPG.

BTW, THat is one reason why I don't take much stock in the "purist" who hate "Spaghetti" Westerns. The John Wayne style westerns were if anything, less authentic that the violent "Spaghetti" westerns. Basically most TV and Film westerns are an idealized 1930s-1950s USA on horseback, with six shooters. More like what Leave it to Beaver would have been like in the 19th century than what the real west was like.

[Simlasa]

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

[drohem]

Yeah, just the thought of playing the level of hygiene accurately almost makes me gag for real! :eek:

[drohem]

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

I'm totally cool with that, and that's exactly what we did. A vampire accounted for a TPK in our GunQuest campaign.

[Atgxtg]

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

Not necessarily. I think there is plenty of "life" in the genre to begin with. Zombies and such are certainly fine for alternate takes on things, but I wouldn't want to make the part of the "core" setting. Doing so just sticks people who don't want them with them.

I wouldn't mid seeing a Phantom Empire supplment, with a underground hi-tech society, or a lost valley of Dinosaurs, or Native American medicine men with a "Ghost Dance" that works. But I think it is better to keep them as separate add ons. That way the rest of the setting us more useful.

Yeah, just the thought of playing the level of hygiene accurately almost makes me gag for real! :eek:

The idea of being operated on in a era with limited anesthetics, no antibiotics, and where Doctors didn't wash their hands before operating scares me. It no wonder why the motility rates were so high. It wasn't the bullet that killed you, it was the physician who treated the bullet wound.

[Simlasa]

Not necessarily. I think there is plenty of "life" in the genre to begin with. Zombies and such are certainly fine for alternate takes on things, but I wouldn't want to make the part of the "core" setting. Doing so just sticks people who don't want them with them.

I was joking... mostly.

But the 'Phantom Empire' idea is awfully intriguing...

[Atgxtg]

I was joking... mostly.

But the 'Phantom Empire' idea is awfully intriguing...

I know. And it's now in the public domain. If I were a smart businessman instead of someone who enjoys RPGs, I'd shut up, take the Western stuff online, and work up a Phatom Empire RPG supplment. Then see about statting it up for BRP, MRQ, Spirirt of the Century, HERO and any other Pulp and/or Western RPG.

But, no I'll probably do a short Phantom Empire chapter for the Old West thing. The hard bit is probably going to work game time right so the PCs can do their radio show on time, so they don't loose the ranch.:eek: