Another BRP / Mythras brainstorm

[Lloyd Dupont]

After trying a bit of both I realised there are subtle incompatibilities between the 2 rulesets. For example Mythras damage tables work much better with hit location hit point, but using BRP damage tables with location hit point was not a very good experience, at least for me. Also luck in Mythras is much better, a few point with big impact. Not 60 points that one could milk endlessly to never miss their 90% skill.

Also, after brainstorming about magic for a while I finally realised that Mythras version of Classic Fantasy (not the earlier BRP version) is exactly what I was looking for all along!! 😅 The class concept there is also fantastic and very open... Gotta create many original classes in my master of Orion setting, like merchant Prince or Diva!

Now, before I swing back into the Mythras camp, there are 2 issues that I had with Mythras mechanics I want to brainstorm a bit with you guys.

 

First, and it pains me to say because it looks good on paper, is a basic combat rule that is used successfully by many, but action points was a bit of a slog with my group.. Particularly with bonus defensive action from CF, we got color tokens on the table and... It was not smooth. I could go for BRP combat flow (1 action any number of reaction with cumulative malus) which was a great success. But fighters would be losing out in offensive potential here.. Never mind, got an idea, gotta introduce multi attack for chosen monsters and fighters....

 

The second issue is more tricky. It's about saves. In BRP one use the resistance table, whereas in Mythras one do opposed skill check. I don't mind a bit of skill here, but I prefer the resistance table. But in Mythras POW almost never change, so the resistance table will be endlessly frustrating for the player. And I also like characteristics that do not change much... Basically I'm conflicted here and will take any ideas! 😏

Edited November 25, 2021 by Lloyd Dupont

[lawrence.whitaker]

Quote

First, and it pains me to say because it looks good on paper, is a basic combat rule that is used successfully by many, but action points was a bit of a slog with my group.. Particularly with bonus defensive action from CF, we got color tokens on the table and... It was not smooth. I could go for BRP combat flow (1 action any number of reaction with cumulative malus) which was a great success. But fighters would be losing out in offensive potential here.. Never mind, got an idea, gotta introduce multi attack for chosen monsters and fighters....

Perhaps give all characters 2 Action Points regardless. They can then use them for attack/defence other things as per the RAW, but you're simply limiting the amount of actions. Mythras has this as an optional rule in RAW already.

Quote

The second issue is more tricky. It's about saves. In BRP one use the resistance table, whereas in Mythras one do opposed skill check. I don't mind a bit of skill here, but I prefer the resistance table. But in Mythras POW almost never change, so the resistance table will be endlessly frustrating for the player. And I also like characteristics that do not change much... Basically I'm conflicted here and will take any ideas! 😏

Mythras replaces Characteristic opposition on the Resistance Table with Opposed Skills. If you prefer the Resistance Table for opposed resolution, you could continue to use things like Willpower, Endurance and Evade, but perhaps divide them by 5 to give you a number in the range of 1-20, so that they can be compared against Characteristics at roughly the same scale. You can also separate them from the Standard Skill list and give their own grouping called 'Saves' or 'Resistances'. Retaining the % value allows for them to be increased as per Mythras RAW, but the smaller range from dividing by 5 keeps them distinct and usable with the BRP core method. So for example, a character might have:

Endurance 50% (10)

Evade 60% (12)

Willpower 36% (8)

You can take the same approach with any skill if you want to use the Resistance Table: Perception vs Stealth; Acrobatics vs Combat Style, and so on - although the Opposed Skill rules aren't that difficult to grasp and don't require any table cross-referencing, or dividing skills down to get a lower range.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

The second issue is more tricky. It's about saves. In BRP one use the resistance table, whereas in Mythras one do opposed skill check. I don't mind a bit of skill here, but I prefer the resistance table. But in Mythras POW almost never change, so the resistance table will be endlessly frustrating for the player. And I also like characteristics that do not change much... Basically I'm conflicted here and will take any ideas! 😏

Well the obvious suggestion is to pick and choose bits. Personally I prefer RQ3 game mechanics over most other versions of BRP or related games, yet I'll port something over from those other games if it fits the campaign.  Action points and multiple actions are one of the things I like least about Mythas, as it makes a 1 point diffference in DEX too important for my tastes. I'd probably use RQ3 (or RQ2) strike ranks instead.

And if you are conflicted between resilience, persisistence, etc.  and the resistance table, you could always takes a page out of FASA Star Trek and average 1/5th  the skill % with the characteristic on the table. That way someone with, say Resilience 70% and CON 10 would end up using a 12 on the resistance table. 

Edited November 25, 2021 by Atgxtg

[Mugen]

3 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

The second issue is more tricky. It's about saves. In BRP one use the resistance table, whereas in Mythras one do opposed skill check. I don't mind a bit of skill here, but I prefer the resistance table. But in Mythras POW almost never change, so the resistance table will be endlessly frustrating for the player. And I also like characteristics that do not change much... Basically I'm conflicted here and will take any ideas! 😏

You could take some inpiration from Armswrestling rules, where the character with the highest DB bonus (which is basically STR+SIZ/5) gets an edge, and his skill is increased.

IIRC, skill opposition in Mythras results in a stale when both characters fail their roll. I'd let the highest roll win in such a case.

[Lloyd Dupont]

I think I was not very clear in my explanation..... But basically I was looking for a way to use a bit of both (skill and POW) that was smooth...

And I think Mugen might have nailed it. Basically use the usual skills, but change the difficulty with a quick lookup on POW difference... (I mean, hopefully quick, we shall see...)
 

Also, Lawrence, your idea to use resistance table for any skill.. I did consider it in the past.. but I dared not.. But you make me think of it again! ^_^ 

Edited November 25, 2021 by Lloyd Dupont

[DreadDomain]

14 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

First, and it pains me to say because it looks good on paper, is a basic combat rule that is used successfully by many, but action points was a bit of a slog with my group.. Particularly with bonus defensive action from CF, we got color tokens on the table and... It was not smooth. I could go for BRP combat flow (1 action any number of reaction with cumulative malus) which was a great success. But fighters would be losing out in offensive potential here.. Never mind, got an idea, gotta introduce multi attack for chosen monsters and fighters....

 

An option could be that everyone has one attack and one parry per turn (or you prefer, like Loz says, two actions that can be attacks or parries). If you like the uncertainty or like to give an edge to higher skilled fighter, you could use two special effects only available on defensive rolls. Defensive maneuvering would allow for another defense against the same or another opponent. Create opening would allow for an immediate additional attack against the same opponent or another that is adjacent.  

Because they can only be used on defensive rolls, it avoids the potential infinite number of attacks. 

Because they are special effect, choosing an extra defense or an extra attack becomes a tactical choice. Will you choose one of them over another effect? I see that as a feature.

Note that you could choose defensive maneuvering and just waste it because none of the other opponents attack you. It goes with playing defensive. Again I see that as a feature.

Disclaimer: I have not playtested this!

Edited November 26, 2021 by DreadDomain

[Lloyd Dupont]

Yea... I made my own simplified table of effect (ahem or less simplified as it grow), it already has "riposte" on defender advantage (but it's a reaction, might incur cumulative -30% as per BRP rules), and was thinking to add disarm and..... grab weapon (might do a DEXvsDEX roll with malus depending on weapon, i.e. swords are harder to grab than spears)

[Atgxtg]

27 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I think I was not very clear in my explanation..... But basically I was looking for a way to use a bit of both (skill and POW) that was smooth...

And I think Mugen might have nailed it. Basically use the usual skills, but change the difficulty with a quick lookup on POW difference... (I mean, hopefully quick, we shall see...)

That might give POW soo much of an edge as to make the skill roll insignificant. Or, a very high skill might make the POW difference insignificant. 

 

27 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Also, Lawrence, your idea to use resistance table for any skill.. I did consider it in the past.. but I dared not.. But you make me think of it again! ^_^ 

There was a RPG printed in an article somewhere that did just that. Every skill was 1/5th what it would be in BRP and then handled with an opposed roll. SO if one character had Rapier 15 (75%)  and his opponent had Rapier 12 (60%) you'd cross reference 15 vs. 12 on the resistance table to get a 65% chance of success. 

[Lloyd Dupont]

5 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

37 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I think I was not very clear in my explanation..... But basically I was looking for a way to use a bit of both (skill and POW) that was smooth...

And I think Mugen might have nailed it. Basically use the usual skills, but change the difficulty with a quick lookup on POW difference... (I mean, hopefully quick, we shall see...)

That might give POW soo much of an edge as to make the skill roll insignificant. Or, a very high skill might make the POW difference insignificant. 

I use both easy/hard (skill x2, skill/2)(sparingly)  and bonus/malus (much more commonly). This is a case where bonus/malus is the only viable solution. Perhaps something like +/-20% per 8POW difference?

Edited November 25, 2021 by Lloyd Dupont

[Atgxtg]

2 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Yea... I made my own simplified table of effect (ahem or less simplified as it grow), it already has "riposte" on defender advantage (but it's a reaction, might incur cumulative -30% as per BRP rules), and was thinking to add disarm and..... grab weapon (might do a DEXvsDEX roll with malus depending on weapon, i.e. swords are harder to grab than spears)

I went down  a similar path with a variant that used the difference in rolls (mostly the tens die) to determine success levels rather than fractions of the skill. I gave everything a point cost  to buy with the difference. So ripostes, disarms, drive backs, trips, increased damage, etc. could all be chosen if the character had enough of an advantage to pay for it. Multiple specials could also be bought if the character had points left over. I even added a feint maneuver where a player could bank excess advantage points over to the next round so as to save up for a better special effect. The latter was risky though since the points would be lost if the character lost the next opposed roll.

 

The nice thing about using the dice was that I didn't need to track special and crtical chances, and could do everything with one opposed roll. 

[Atgxtg]

1 minute ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I use both easy/hard (skill x2, skill/2)(sparingly)  and bonus/malus (much more commonly).

On the resistance table a 5 point difference turns a 50-50% chance into a 75-25%. So one level per 5 points would seem to be the closest to the resistance table.

1 minute ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

This is a case where bonus/malus is the only viable solution. Perhaps something like +/-20% per 8POW difference?

I think that would make POW a non-factor. A sixteen point difference, about the max you'd see in play for normal humans,  would only be a +/-40% modifier. In normal BRP such a difference would be an automatic success. Since the modifier isn't reflexive (doesn't apply to both parties) like the resistance table, I'd suggest a simple +10% per point of difference. Or if you make it reflexive then +5%/-5% would keep the feel and effect of the resistance table.

[Lloyd Dupont]

7 hours ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

Perhaps give all characters 2 Action Points regardless. They can then use them for attack/defence other things as per the RAW, but you're simply limiting the amount of actions. Mythras has this as an optional rule in RAW already.

I am thinking.. and this is.. thinking in progress... to use a mix of BRP (any number of reaction with cumulative -30%  ) and sort of action as is:
0-12: 1 action, 0 free reaction
13-24: 1 action, 1 free reaction
25-36: 1 action, 2 free reaction
37-48: 2 action, 2 free reaction
....
Fighter got "feats" to go up the table. Riposte (just above, bonus reaction for better parry)  provide additional attack

[Lloyd Dupont]

7 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I went down  a similar path with a variant that used the difference in rolls (mostly the tens die) to determine success levels rather than fractions of the skill. I gave everything a point cost  to buy with the difference. So ripostes, disarms, drive backs, trips, increased damage, etc. could all be chosen if the character had enough of an advantage to pay for it. Multiple specials could also be bought if the character had points left over. I even added a feint maneuver where a player could bank excess advantage points over to the next round so as to save up for a better special effect. The latter was risky though since the points would be lost if the character lost the next opposed roll.

Interesting... I though something less daring but similar. But drop it because it would have made high skill much more potent that I'd like it too... But you're making me consider it again...

[Lloyd Dupont]

6 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Or if you make it reflexive then +5%/-5% would keep the feel and effect of the resistance table.

sounds good! 🙂

[DreadDomain]

17 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I am thinking.. and this is.. thinking in progress... to use a mix of BRP (any number of reaction with cumulative -30%  ) and sort of action as is:
0-12: 1 action, 0 free reaction
13-24: 1 action, 1 free reaction
25-36: 1 action, 2 free reaction
37-48: 2 action, 2 free reaction
....
Fighter got "feats" to go up the table. Riposte (just above, bonus reaction for better parry)  provide additional attack

I may have  misunderstood, I thought you wanted to  remove the "+1 DEX makes a big difference" effect and reduce the need to use token. In your table above, I suspect the vast majority of your player would end up in the 25-36 band (assuming you are using DEX+INT). Would it be just simpler to give everyone N action and Y free action and use "fetas" and special effects  to vary it?  

[Lloyd Dupont]

10 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

I may have  misunderstood, I thought you wanted to  remove the "+1 DEX makes a big difference" effect and reduce the need to use token. In your table above, I suspect the vast majority of your player would end up in the 25-36 band (assuming you are using DEX+INT). Would it be just simpler to give everyone N action and Y free action and use "fetas" and special effects  to vary it?  

This is exactly it... most players will be in the 0-36 band and get 1 action. I think you got me confused, care to elaborate?
(counting reaction proved no big deal, free reactions are reactions without cumulative -30% malus)

While the game still allow smoothly for faster monster or superior fighters.

 

That said... not using standard Mythras action requires me to rework Classic Fantasy spells a bit. Annoying.. 🤔

Edited November 25, 2021 by Lloyd Dupont

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Interesting... I though something less daring but similar. But drop it because it would have made high skill much more potent that I'd like it too...

I ran into a similar problem. One possible fix was to use the numbers on both die for the points. That way you get a random element of the ones die to competent  the skill die (tens die). 

Or maybe take a page from HArn and just use the ones die, with the tens die only important to determine success or failure. 

2 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

 

But you're making me consider it again...

Good luck> I never quite got it to work out. I'd get is about 75% of the way there and then find some bug in the mechanics that would tear the whole thing apart. Skill scores over 100% for instance. 

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

sounds good! 🙂

Okay. It might be a bit too much number crunching for some folk though. Not everyone likes to or can do that sort of math in their head.

BTW, it looks like you are veering fairly close to a Pendragon game mechanic. It might just simply what you are trying to do. I'm not sure how familiar you are with that particular branch of BRP.

[Lloyd Dupont]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

BTW, it looks like you are veering fairly close to a Pendragon game mechanic. It might just simply what you are trying to do. I'm not sure how familiar you are with that particular branch of BRP.

Haha you got me.. I have much D100 stuff (Revolution, Mythras, BRP, Runequest)! But.. nothing about Pendragon! 😮

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Haha you got me.. I have much D100 stuff (Revolution, Mythras, BRP, Runequest)! But.. nothing about Pendragon! 😮

Pendragon is a BRP variant game system created by Greg Stafford back i the 80s. I brought the game up because your wish to mix  the resistance table with opposed skill scores is pretty much what Pendragon does. 

Unlike most other BRP games it uses a D20 instead of D100, and handles most tasks with opposed rolls. For example, in combat both combatants would roll their skill and whoever won the opposed roll would roll damage against the loser. Oh, and if the loser's roll was under his skill then he's score a partial success and get the protection of his shield. There is a bit more to it, such as the critical rules and handling skills over 20, but the core game mechanic seems to be what you are looking for. In fact it is where I got the +5/-5 "reflexive" modifier from. 

Now if you wanted to use the difference in die rolls for specials and such, it would probably work out easier and faster than D100, too.

 

[Lloyd Dupont]

7 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

2 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Haha you got me.. I have much D100 stuff (Revolution, Mythras, BRP, Runequest)! But.. nothing about Pendragon! 😮

Pendragon is a BRP variant game system created by Greg Stafford back i the 80s. I brought the game up because your wish to mix  the resistance table with opposed skill scores is pretty much what Pendragon does. 

Unlike most other BRP games it uses a D20 instead of D100, and handles most tasks with opposed rolls. For example, in combat both combatants would roll their skill and whoever won the opposed roll would roll damage against the loser. Oh, and if the loser's roll was under his skill then he's score a partial success and get the protection of his shield. There is a bit more to it, such as the critical rules and handling skills over 20, but the core game mechanic seems to be what you are looking for. In fact it is where I got the +5/-5 "reflexive" modifier from. 

Now if you wanted to use the difference in die rolls for specials and such, it would probably work out easier and faster than D100, too.

Mmm... interesting...

The idea to use % for progression, but D20 for gameplay crossed my mind a few times, it's the method that most intuitively match our instinctive math understanding for opposed rolls... You make me think about it again... (plus it's quite familiar to the D&D crowd)

 

One thing though I am a bit curious about. What about:

10 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

oth combatants would roll their skill and whoever won the opposed roll would roll damage against the loser

So each round someone damage an opponent?
Not that it is desirable or happens much in BRP but.. is it possible to have a drawn out duel which is much like a stalemate? 

[lawrence.whitaker]

Quote

The idea to use % for progression, but D20 for gameplay crossed my mind a few times, it's the method that most intuitively match our instinctive math understanding for opposed rolls... You make me think about it again... (plus it's quite familiar to the D&D crowd)

There are a few other games taking a similar approach. Bushido, Aftermath and Daredevils, for instance, published by FGU and written by Bob Charette, employed the same mechanic quite a while before Pendragon. All three are very crunchy games, but they also have a lot of internal consistency and while the way the mechanics are presented is quite daunting, at its heart the system is pretty simple.

For opposed skills, you generate an Effect Number (which can have multiple uses and is a brilliant mechanic). The Effect Number is the difference between your Base Chance of Success on a d20, and what you actually roll. So if you have a BCS of 19 and roll a 1, then you generate an Effect Number of 18. If you have to have opposed skill rolls, using Effect Numbers as the comparison is an elegant way of determining the winner.

They're worth checking out, All three are still available from FGU.

Edited November 26, 2021 by lawrence.whitaker

[Atgxtg]

10 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Mmm... interesting...

The idea to use % for progression, but D20 for gameplay crossed my mind a few times, it's the method that most intuitively match our instinctive math understanding for opposed rolls... You make me think about it again... (plus it's quite familiar to the D&D crowd)

 

One thing though I am a bit curious about. What about:

So each round someone damage an opponent?

Sort of. The winner rolls damage on the loser, but that damage is reduced by armor and possibly shield. Depending on how much damage someone does, and how much armor the opponent has to soak it, it is possible to have a fight where no one gets hurt. For instance, a typical character does 4d6 damage, and a knight in reinforced mail has 12 points of protection, plus another 6 from his shield,  if he makes his roll. So on average the knight would take no damage on the rounds that he got a partial success (that is rolled under his skill but was beaten), and a minor (2 point) injury when he failed. A serious injury would probably require a critical success, which does double damage.

10 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Not that it is desirable or happens much in BRP but.. is it possible to have a drawn out duel which is much like a stalemate? 

Yes, if a few ways. The first and most likely is to have a tie. On a tie you get a stalemate for the round. Ties a a bit more common in Pendragon, due to the way it handles crticals and skills over 20. Basically any roll of your modified skill exactly is a critical success, and is treated as a roll of 20. If your modified skills is over 20 then you add the points over 20 to your die roll. So if you have two highly skilled combatants you can get a fight that can last awhile. In fact there is even a special rule to deal with such a long term standoff.

Another way to get a stalemate is if both combatant's fail their skill roll. 

Yet another way is when someone is fighting defensively. Doing so grants then a +10 bonus to their skill, but they do not get to roll damage if they win. 

 

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

There are a few other games taking a similar approach. Bushido, Aftermath and Daredevils, for instance, published by FGU and written by Bob Charette, employed the same mechanic quite a while before Pendragon.

Yes, but the mechanic they use isn't the same as Pendragon.  As you point out they generate an effect number (how much you make your roll by) but Pendragon uses what you roll as the result. So in Pendragon someone with skill 19 who rolls a 1 gets a result of 1 not an effect of 19. And since the actual number rolled in Pendragon only matters to determine who wins and if someone rolled a crtical, it isn't as crunchy as the Charrette-Hume method.

I think Tunnels & Trolls was the first system to use opposed "Attack" rolls as the result.  

 

Hmm, funny how all this stuff is interconnected. Bob Chareette also wrote RQ3's Land of the Ninja, and Ken St. Andre co-wrote Strombringer, Oh, and you wrote some Hawkmoon and Elric stuff.  

 

 

[lawrence.whitaker]

Quote

Yes, but the mechanic they use isn't the same as Pendragon.

I was referring to calculating chance of success as a percentage and then translating that % into a d20-based target number.