Comments and suggestions thread

[Barak Shathur]

A thread for people to opine!

First off, beautiful job Chaosium. The pdf is gorgeous, illustrations fantastic (especially the Vitruvian header figures) and the layout pleasant. That said, if you’re doing an update, here are some things I would like looked into. I’m not going to pay a lot for this muffler if the changes are mostly cosmetic:

SIZ for dwarves and halflings: they are too small. I feel that even if SIZ doesn’t scale linearly for huge creatures like elephants, on the humanoid scale it should be proportional,. A halfling (3’) is about half the size of a human (6’), while a dwarf (4’) is two-thirds. This is standard for most mainstream fantasy RPGs (D&D, MERP/RM, HarnMaster etc). If BRP aspires to be a generic game engine, their SIZ values should reflect this better. As it stands, dwarves in BRP are on average half as big as humans (SIZ 6-7 vs SIZ 13) and halflings (SIZ 4-5) are closer to a third in terms of SIZ. This matters since it weakens halflings and dwarves inordinately. In the beginning of BRP, e.g. RQ1, dwarves had SIZ 2d6 (7) and humans 3d6 (11).That’s the correct relationship IMO. When humans were upgraded to 2d6+6 SIZ in order to avoid absurdly small human characters, dwarves were left behind so to speak. In later BRP iterations dwarves were changed to 1d4+4, but a better choice would have been 1d6+6, and many post BRP games like Legend, Mythras and OpenQuest have settled on this stat. I think it’s time for BRP to catch up.

Shields. They way the section on Slung Shields (p.178) is written, it opens up an exploit for wielders of two handed weapons to simply sling a shield on their arm or shoulder and get the shield’s protection for free. I recommend two changes. First, only allow shields to be slung on the back. If you have a shield hanging on your shoulder and arm, you can’t really use a two handed weapon effectively. Second, allow weapon and shield users to hold the shield over the ‘locations covered’ like a slung shield, if they don’t use them to parry with actively (parrying with their weapon instead). This would make shields a little more differentiated and useful for melee defense.

Weapon stats. While I like the weapons tables overall, there are some things I find incongruous and I would like to see some alterations:

Heavy mace for example. Why is it two handed? It does as much damage as one handed weapons like broadsword and battle axe, and if you want a two handed crushing weapon, maul or great hammer is a much better choice. Change it to one handed, reduce it’s weight/SIZ, but keep the high STR requirement. And while you’re at it, bump the STR requirement for battle axe.

Warhammer is another one. In BRP as it stands, it’s basically a light mace that weighs twice as much. The description says that some war hammers have a spike, “ideal for punching through armor”. If so, let this be reflected in the rules. Either allow impale as an option for such hammers, or make it armor piercing somehow (maybe it reduces AP by two?)

Scimitar. Currently, it’s a slightly fragile broadsword. If the damage is changed to 1d6+2, it becomes a bit more unique (there are no other slashing weapons that do 1d6+2) and also a bit more like a real scimitar, i.e. better at cutting through lighter armours but worse against plate.

Streamline weapon SIZ better with Range, so that Short weapons have SIZ 0.1-1, Medium weapons have SIZ 1.5-2, and Long weapons have SIZ 2.1 +. Even better, remove Range for melee weapons and use these three SIZ categories instead.

If some things like these above are looked at and fixed, I would definitely be willing to shell out for the hardcover copy.

[pansophy]

Usually shields are worn slung over the arm/shoulder or back when not being used actively in combat.

I think that sentence in the rule book is pretty clear.

Dwarfs: they are examples and stats in your setting might be different. Feel free to change them. I personally think my Xenomorphs vary greatly from the ones in the rule book, too, so I do just that. So far no police showed up at my door to tell me different.

Weapons: context is key, as always. There was a two handed Warhammer and also a one handed version. People have mixed up Warhammers, Maces, and Mauls so many times in the past, it is now pointless to come up with different stats for them. Personally, I use only categories for weapons: one handed, two handed, pole weapons and staffs. Each category has a damage value - and that’s it. Where’s the point in differentiating 1d6+1 from 1d6 anyway?! That’s a relict of the past and does not add much to a weapon at all. Qualities on the other hand distinguish them, so add the different special damages accordingly, and maybe a penetration effect, too. Or go crazy and make attacks for one weapon Easy against a certain kind of armour.

BRP is a toolbox - not a one and all game system. Use it accordingly.

 

[Barak Shathur]

I prefer games that are more functional, not less, if that can be easily achieved without adding lots of overhead and crunch. None of the points I raise require anything more than a simple fix in some spots, and I dare you or anyone to prove me wrong regarding the validity of any of them. Sure, I can house rule as much as I like, but I'd rather have a product where I have to do this as little as possible. And if I come to a game as a gamer, not GM, I would rather have a good system in place than have to be in the odious position of having to argue my points with the GM and other players. And anyway, why leave things that are half baked, when they can be tweaked to function better?

9 minutes ago, pansophy said:

Usually shields are worn slung over the arm/shoulder or back when not being used actively in combat.

I think that sentence in the rule book is pretty clear.

Exactly. The way it is written, a shield can hang passively on the arm/shoulder of a two handed sword wielder, providing half its AP as protection while not actually being used, while he/she can fight happily with no drawbacks except that of the weight of the shield. Probably worth it for around 10 extra AP. This ought to be fixed. Like I said, a good solution would be for a single weapon fighter to be able cover the locations with a shield passively, while anyone else can only sling it on the back.

14 minutes ago, pansophy said:

Dwarfs: they are examples and stats in your setting might be different. Feel free to change them. I personally think my Xenomorphs vary greatly from the ones in the rule book, too, so I do just that. So far no police showed up at my door to tell me different.

Again, if I come to a game as a player, I would prefer it if my dwarf character isn't penalised in relation to how they are supposed to function. Remember that BRP claims to be representative of various standard genres. If you want a game where dwarves are more like garden gnomes, then you should be the one who has to house rule.

15 minutes ago, pansophy said:

Weapons: context is key, as always. There was a two handed Warhammer and also a one handed version. People have mixed up Warhammers, Maces, and Mauls so many times in the past, it is now pointless to come up with different stats for them. Personally, I use only categories for weapons: one handed, two handed, pole weapons and staffs. Each category has a damage value - and that’s it. Where’s the point in differentiating 1d6+1 from 1d6 anyway?! That’s a relict of the past and does not add much to a weapon at all. Qualities on the other hand distinguish them, so add the different special damages accordingly, and maybe a penetration effect, too. Or go crazy and make attacks for one weapon Easy against a certain kind of armour.

 

So you don't use the weapon stats as written at all, of course it doesn't matter to you if they are off. That's hardly an argument against my proposals, and not a valid dismissal of them. One extra point of damage makes a huge difference where limbs have 3-5 HP and are incapacitated at zero. It's not a relic of the past at all, it's the most up to date version of BRP we're talking about here. I don't want to go crazy house ruling, I want functional rules (and most of the solutions I propose already exist in other games in the BRP family and are thus proven to work, and can be easily incorporated here too).

 

20 minutes ago, pansophy said:

BRP is a toolbox - not a one and all game system. Use it accordingly.

I'd rather have a toolbox full of useful tools than ones I have to fix myself. That said, most of the tools in BRP are excellent. It's just these that don't work so well IMO.

[Barak Shathur]

Here’s another one: longsword. A weaker broadsword and a rather pointless weapon (no pun intended). If it’s long and slender, why not give it impale as a special effect instead of bleeding?

Btw, I just want to add that 90% of the GMs I have played with go strictly by the book and are very loathe to house rule anything. 

[pansophy]

On 4/11/2023 at 6:19 PM, Barak Shathur said:

Here’s another one: longsword. A weaker broadsword and a rather pointless weapon (no pun intended). If it’s long and slender, why not give it impale as a special effect instead of bleeding?

Because you still would use it mostly as a slashing weapon in combat and only in certain situations as a thrusting weapon. Depends on how your enemy is armoured.

Also, the Broadsword was around in the 6th century, while the Longsword was invented in the 11th century. Context. You are pulling weapons from different backgrounds together without context. While it is true there 6th century weapons were still around in the 11th century, this is also context - and yes, you might see not a lot of difference between the two weapons on paper; and the weapon table reflects this.

If anything, the weapon table is wrong in the regard to handedness: the Longsword was used double-handed, the Broadsword was used single-handed.

In regards to slung shields: have you ever tried to fight with a sword or staff while having something strapped to your back?! It is nearly impossible to win a fight, so I would rule that any character with a passive load attached to their body will have a Difficult time when resolving actions. And this is not a house rule, this is RAW (as I can hand out modifiers as a GM as I see fit). Here, again, context is key. Yes, you can use a slung shield to protect your back or side, but you cannot actively fight effectively. Same as you cannot use a long- / broad sword in a confined environment AKA room or corridor. This is where you need to use a spear or short sword.

 

On 4/11/2023 at 6:19 PM, Barak Shathur said:

Btw, I just want to add that 90% of the GMs I have played with go strictly by the book and are very loathe to house rule anything. 

If you are talking about real world simulation, then please do not forget context - without it, every discussion is pointless. RAW or not.

 

Dwarfs: maybe in your world this is how you see it, in my world Dwarfs are just little critters who live in the gardens - and they are weak but cruel. Not everybody loves Tolkien-style fantasy.

 

On 4/11/2023 at 12:18 AM, Barak Shathur said:

I'd rather have a toolbox full of useful tools than ones I have to fix myself. That said, most of the tools in BRP are excellent. It's just these that don't work so well IMO.

If the rules as written do not reflect the ideas you have in mind, then you need to change them - but you cannot blame an open-ended rule system for not reflecting them out of the box. As long as the rule system is in itself consistent, then it is sound. It might not be to your taste, though.

 

In general: I don't think that most of the weapon issues you address are an actual problem in a game, but that depends of course on you gaming style. The issues you raise are valid points, but they are not unique to BRP: a lot of other systems went down the rabbit hole of distinguishing weapons to a granular detail, and they all fail IMHO. In the end it is actually a problem of the HitPoint system, but that is a completely different can of worms (why does a character who is overweight and eats unhealthy have more hit points than an average healthy, agile person?).

In the end the rule system is there to provide a baseline and to add some consistency in a game that everybody agrees on. It does not matter if it is not perfect, as the imperfectness is also valid for the opposition. This way is balances itself, but only if the GM uses the same rules for both sides.

[NurgleHH]

I plan a 18th century campaign in the style of Lex Occultum. When I read the rules for muskets and old pistols I think they need a modification for reloading. But maybe i only understand it wrong: You can also shot this old weapons every round with a chance of 1/5 or you take the round shown in the Att-column, right? I think this is a not so good compromise. Muskets and all these flintstone-weapons are very slow and should stay so slow. Shooting every round is very powerful and makes it a kind of more 20th century.

[g33k]

41 minutes ago, NurgleHH said:

I plan a 18th century campaign in the style of Lex Occultum. When I read the rules for muskets and old pistols I think they need a modification for reloading. But maybe i only understand it wrong: You can also shot this old weapons every round with a chance of 1/5 or you take the round shown in the Att-column, right? I think this is a not so good compromise. Muskets and all these flintstone-weapons are very slow and should stay so slow. Shooting every round is very powerful and makes it a kind of more 20th century.

I believe missile weapons marked "1/5" may only make 1 shot every 5 rounds; "1/2" weapons shoot every other round; etc.

[Barak Shathur]

14 hours ago, pansophy said:

Because you still would use it mostly as a slashing weapon in combat and only in certain situations as a thrusting weapon. Depends on how your enemy is armoured.

I'm coming at it from a somewhat gamist perspective in this case. What you say here is also true of what in BRP is called Broadsword. However, unlike in e.g. RQ, weapons have only a single special effect, so it makes sense to me to give something described as a more slender sword Impale, both in order to differentiate it from Broadsword and to turn it into something more interesting than simply an inferior broadsword. 

14 hours ago, pansophy said:

Also, the Broadsword was around in the 6th century, while the Longsword was invented in the 11th century.

No, what was literally called a "Broadsword" seems to have appeared sometime in the 16th century. Neither e.g. the Roman Spatha, the Iron age "Viking sword", nor the Medieval Arming sword were contemporaneously known under this term, although it seems early RPGs like AD&D applied it to all of these sword types, and that has stuck. AFAIK "Longsword" historically refers to what in BRP and other RPGs is called "Bastard Sword" and originated in the 15th century. But I'm fine with BRP's categorizations, it's what's conventional for most RPGs.

15 hours ago, pansophy said:

You are pulling weapons from different backgrounds together without context.

But this is exactly what the Historic Melee Weapons table attempts to do! It tries to represent weapons from, say 1200 BCE to approximately 1800 AD.

15 hours ago, pansophy said:

If anything, the weapon table is wrong in the regard to handedness: the Longsword was used double-handed, the Broadsword was used single-handed.

Again, BRP's Bastard Sword corresponds better to the historic "Longsword" you're referring to here. But if, as you seem to suggest, we are to have BRP's Longsword align with the historic Longsword, it should also certainly do more damage, not less, than a broadsword, at least when wielded two handed. 

15 hours ago, pansophy said:

In regards to slung shields: have you ever tried to fight with a sword or staff while having something strapped to your back?! It is nearly impossible to win a fight, so I would rule that any character with a passive load attached to their body will have a Difficult time when resolving actions.

This is all highly subjective. During my SCA fighting days, I never fought with a shield strapped to my back, but there are representations of historic warriors fighting with e.g. battle axes with round shields on their backs. So I don't think its as hard as you suggest if it is strapped correctly. But if in your world it is, I'm fine with you house ruling this.

15 hours ago, pansophy said:

And this is not a house rule, this is RAW (as I can hand out modifiers as a GM as I see fit).

That turns the whole concept of Rules-as-Written on its head and makes it utterly meaningless. RAW means playing strictly according to the rules as written for all situations to which they apply, and while as a GM you have every right to alter the rules as you see fit, that is certainly not RAW.

15 hours ago, pansophy said:

Dwarfs: maybe in your world this is how you see it, in my world Dwarfs are just little critters who live in the gardens - and they are weak but cruel. Not everybody loves Tolkien-style fantasy.

I daresay that the Tolkienesque dwarves are pretty much the conventional kind of dwarf you find in most standard fantasy RPGs (D&D, MERP/RM, WFRP, Palladium, Drakar och Demoner etc). Your interpretation makes me wonder why you would even use the term "dwarf" for that creature, since it is so far removed from what is usually meant by that word. Maybe 'gnome' or 'gremlin' would be more suitable, I dunno. And since BRP presents itself as a generic game system that should be easily adaptable to a wide range of RPG settings, it makes sense to me that the standard creatures it comes with are as similar to the average representation of them as possible. And also, please explain to me why most games subsequently derived from the BRP family, like OpenQuest, Legend, Mythras, and others, have changed dwarves' SIZ to 1d6+6, while retaining most of their other attributes and not altering humans at all.

15 hours ago, pansophy said:

In general: I don't think that most of the weapon issues you address are an actual problem in a game, but that depends of course on you gaming style. The issues you raise are valid points, but they are not unique to BRP: a lot of other systems went down the rabbit hole of distinguishing weapons to a granular detail, and they all fail IMHO. In the end it is actually a problem of the HitPoint system, but that is a completely different can of worms (why does a character who is overweight and eats unhealthy have more hit points than an average healthy, agile person?).

In the end the rule system is there to provide a baseline and to add some consistency in a game that everybody agrees on. It does not matter if it is not perfect, as the imperfectness is also valid for the opposition. This way is balances itself, but only if the GM uses the same rules for both sides.

I agree with most of this, and I want to emphasize that the points I raise are wrinkles that it would be nice if they could be ironed out, but they don't make or break the game in any way. I would argue that they have some objectivity to them, but it's no great matter. BRP as a whole is fantastic, it's probably the most playable of my favourite games, and I'm more than pleased that it's getting an update. And it doesn't hurt that it's so easy on the eye, too.

[NurgleHH]

On 4/15/2023 at 6:54 PM, g33k said:

I believe missile weapons marked "1/5" may only make 1 shot every 5 rounds; "1/2" weapons shoot every other round; etc.

After reading and comparing with the old version I think you are right. Thank you

[SunlessNick]

I've seen several people (and agreed with them) that they would like the female Vitruvian figure as a variant cover.

[AndreJarosch]

24 minutes ago, SunlessNick said:

I've seen several people (and agreed with them) that they would like the female Vitruvian figure as a variant cover.

The cover has both, male, female, etc as one figure. 

[Atgxtg]

On 4/10/2023 at 8:35 AM, Barak Shathur said:

 

SIZ for dwarves and halflings: they are too small. I feel that even if SIZ doesn’t scale linearly for huge creatures like elephants, on the humanoid scale it should be proportional,. A halfling (3’) is about half the size of a human (6’), while a dwarf (4’) is two-thirds.

Those proportions are height, but SIZ is more analogous to weight/mass. By that reasoning the cube square law would apply, meaning that x2 height is x8 mass, and that is just what the original authors did when the worked out the SIZ stats back in the 80s. 

The problem with doing things proportional by height is that SIZ would rapidly expand for larger creatures, and we'd wind up with animals that would have hundreds of hit points, and do lots more damage than they do now.

 

Yes fantasy beings can bend these rules a bit but even then a linear approach would cause more problems than it would fix. For instance STR and SIZ are tied to each other and put on the same scale, so altering one would neccitate alterting the other to match. In The Lord of the Rings it's noted that men have several times the strength of hobbits (real world cube square law again) and a linear scale would require making hobbits much smaller and weaker than they are currently, and likewise inflate the stats of larger creatures. 

 

On 4/10/2023 at 8:35 AM, Barak Shathur said:

Shields. They way the section on Slung Shields (p.178) is written, it opens up an exploit for wielders of two handed weapons to simply sling a shield on their arm or shoulder and get the shield’s protection for free.

That so called "exploit" is basically reality. In the past slug shield with two handed pole-arm was a real thing. Various pikemen, hoplites, phalaxes, etc. did just that. Furthermore the protection isn't for free- the wielder only gets half value and only on a limited number of hit locations rather that the full benefits that go with normal shield use and the parry. 

Edited April 18, 2023 by Atgxtg

[Barak Shathur]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Those proportions are height, but SIZ is more analogous to weight/mass. By that reasoning the cube square law would apply, meaning that x2 height is x8 mass, and that is just what the original authors did when the worked out the SIZ stats back in the 80s. 

I actually think mass is more relevant than height, since it is primarily used to calculate HP and DB. Given that dwarves are in most games described as being of heavier build than most humans, I believe my position is supported even further by this. Since BRP is supposed to be a generic system that is relatively applicable to what's already out there, as I understand it, let's take a few examples from some classic games. Dwarves in MERP 2nd Edition clock in at 4'9", 150 lbs on average. A bit large, maybe. BECMI D&D has them at 4' and 150 lbs, quite extreme! I think Rolemaster gets it more or less right with 4'5", 130 lbs. I think these are representative of the genre as a whole, and we see dwarves weighing from around 2/3 to 3/4 of a human. In BRP (and RQIII+), they're at 1/2, which makes them much weaker here relative to other relevant games.

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

The problem with doing things proportional by height is that SIZ would rapidly expand for larger creatures, and we'd wind up with animals that would have hundreds of hit points, and do lots more damage than they do now.

 

On 4/10/2023 at 2:35 PM, Barak Shathur said:

I feel that even if SIZ doesn’t scale linearly for huge creatures like elephants, on the humanoid scale it should be proportional

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

That so called "exploit" is basically reality. In the past slug shield with two handed pole-arm was a real thing. Various pikemen, hoplites, phalaxes, etc. did just that. Furthermore the protection isn't for free- the wielder only gets half value and only on a limited number of hit locations rather that the full benefits that go with normal shield use and the parry. 

In the context of BRP's parry rules, it is not reality. The way the system is written, using a slung shield with a two handed weapon is a no brainer if you're so inclined, and one handed weapons used with shields is not a particularly effective combination, comparatively. In reality, a hand weapon with a shield should be the most defensive option in most ancient/medieval settings, which is one reason why it was so widespread. And wielders of polearms with shields tended to use rather smaller shields (compare the hoplites of Iphicrates with the earlier, 'classical' hoplites, not to mention the Macedonian phalangites). But zweihänder wielding landsknechtes no, and vikings or saxons with longaxes might have had a kite shield on their backs, since otherwise would have interfered greatly with their weapons. No way it would protect the arm or torso from the front (at least not without a hefty penalty).

 

[TrippyHippy]

Mass doesn’t denote volume however, which is really what Size is about. 

Mass is literally a measure of inertia - how hard it is for something to be moved. It is related to density in most materials - so it is quite possible to have a high mass without occupying much space.

In the case of a person with high muscle mass, a good indication of Strength, they may be packing a lot of poundage into a relatively small frame. 

Height isn’t a perfect indication of Size either, but my reading of somebody with a high Size but low Strength is that they are either quite overweight and unfit or tall and uncoordinated. If they have a low Size and high Strength, then that indicates to me that they are short and stocky. 

 

[Barak Shathur]

1 hour ago, TrippyHippy said:

Mass doesn’t denote volume however, which is really what Size is about. 

Mass is literally a measure of inertia - how hard it is for something to be moved. It is related to density in most materials - so it is quite possible to have a high mass without occupying much space.

In the case of a person with high muscle mass, a good indication of Strength, they may be packing a lot of poundage into a relatively small frame. 

Height isn’t a perfect indication of Size either, but my reading of somebody with a high Size but low Strength is that they are either quite overweight and unfit or tall and uncoordinated. If they have a low Size and high Strength, then that indicates to me that they are short and stocky. 

 

In my reading SIZ is all about mass and not at all about volume. How could volume have any impact on things like damage bonus and hit points? In BRP, it’s all about greater mass having greater ability to generate and resist force.

ADDED: Look, we can quibble about physics all day, after a certain point it gets pretty tedious. At the end of the day it boils down to how the system plays out in practice. Do we want a generic system where dwarves are considerably weaker warriors than humans? I don't. I think they should be more or less equal in combat ability, but with more HP and lower DEX. In the BRP family, Legend does it best IMO. Do we want shields to be mostly an aesthetic choice, and two handed weapons to be all round the best weapons? I want shields to provide better defense, and two handed weapons to be more offensive but less good at defense, because it's both more realistic and it allows players to make more meaningful choices.

Edited April 18, 2023 by Barak Shathur

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, TrippyHippy said:

Mass doesn’t denote volume however, which is really what Size is about. 

Actually it (mostly) does. Most living creatures have a mass about the same as water, or about 1 ton per cubic meter. SO you can get a good idea of the volume based on the mass. 

 

1 hour ago, TrippyHippy said:

Mass is literally a measure of inertia - how hard it is for something to be moved. It is related to density in most materials - so it is quite possible to have a high mass without occupying much space.

Yes, but for a living creature it's hard to vary all that much from the norm. That's why stuff like BMI (Body Mass Index) works.

Now for creatures made out of material other than flesh and blood, such as gargoyles, animated statures and such, mass could end up much higher than volume, but we'd probably need to track the Mass as a SIZE figure too in case the characters have to move said creature or object.

For instance, a full size stature of a an average man (77kg, SIZ 13) made out of gold (sg 19.3) would still be SIZ 13 by volume but would have a mass of  1486 kg and be about SIZ 47 for purposes of lifting or moving it. INMO the best approach for that is to just list it as SIZ 13 (47)

1 hour ago, TrippyHippy said:

In the case of a person with high muscle mass, a good indication of Strength, they may be packing a lot of poundage into a relatively small frame. 

But probably not much more than 25% or so more than the norm, or about 3 more points of STR than SIZ. Yes, in BRP we generate STR independent of SIZ, and have a modifier to weight for body frame allowing for some extreme variance between the two, but we really wouldn't see a lot of variance in the density of bone, and tissue between humans, or between most memebers of any given species for that matter. 

Yeah, fansty creatures might be an exception to that, but magic can do that. It's why giant insects and even giant humans are possible in a fantasy world.  

1 hour ago, TrippyHippy said:

Height isn’t a perfect indication of Size either, but my reading of somebody with a high Size but low Strength is that they are either quite overweight and unfit or tall and uncoordinated. If they have a low Size and high Strength, then that indicates to me that they are short and stocky. 

Yeah, RQ2 actually noted that it used both and that people might was to split it between height and weight, with height affecting SR and weight affecting damage bonus and hit points.  But most BRP creatures and objects from SIZ 8 to SIZ 88 tend to use mass for SIZ going back to the old Superworld boxed set. Altering the relationship would require restating all of that to fit with whatever the new approach would be.

[Atgxtg]

30 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

In my reading SIZ is all about mass and not at all about volume. How could volume have any impact on things like damage bonus and hit points? In BRP, it’s all about greater mass having greater ability to generate and resist force.

Not all. The font of wisdom that is the RQ2 Appendix (p.110-110 RQ Classic Edition), noted that SIZ could be broken down into Height and Weight, and that Strike Rank, Defense, Parry and Stealth modifiers were dependent on height, while Damage Bonus and Stealth (again) were tied to weight. 

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

I actually think mass is more relevant than height, since it is primarily used to calculate HP and DB. Given that dwarves are in most games described as being of heavier build than most humans, I believe my position is supported even further by this.

It might, if dwarves were based on Tolkien Dwarves instead of Glorathan Dwarves. Keep in mind that most of the feantasy races in BRP were ported over from RuneQuest, as opposed to being inspired by the works of Tolkien as in D&D and most other FRPGs.

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

Since BRP is supposed to be a generic system that is relatively applicable to what's already out there, as I understand it, let's take a few examples from some classic games. Dwarves in MERP 2nd Edition clock in at 4'9", 150 lbs on average. A bit large, maybe. BECMI D&D has them at 4' and 150 lbs, quite extreme! I think Rolemaster gets it more or less right with 4'5", 130 lbs. I think these are representative of the genre as a whole, and we see dwarves weighing from around 2/3 to 3/4 of a human. In BRP (and RQIII+), they're at 1/2,

Yes, but most other RPGs make Dwarves and hobbit much stronger compared to humans that they should be according to their source, i.e. the works of Tolkien. In fact in MERP Dwarves have the same STR modifier as men, and Hobbits are much weaker compared to men than they are in D&D. And most RPGs don't even include the 'high men", who would be much larger than the common men. 

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

which makes them much weaker here relative to other relevant games.

Yes, but that doesn't mean those other games got it right. D&D intepreted and reinterpreted the various races from Tolkien and most other FRPGs pattenered thier races off of D&D. 

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

In the context of BRP's parry rules, it is not reality.

In the context of BRPs higher AP ratings! In old RQ shield AP vailes were about 60% of what they are in BRP. So a Slugh 16 point shield would protect 8 points, good but not nearly as good as the 13 points of protection in BRP.

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

The way the system is written, using a slung shield with a two handed weapon is a no brainer if you're so inclined, and one handed weapons used with shields is not a particularly effective combination, comparatively.

 

In reality, a hand weapon with a shield should be the most defensive option in most ancient/medieval settings, which is one reason why it was so widespread. And wielders of polearms with shields tended to use rather smaller shields (compare the hoplites of Iphicrates with the earlier, 'classical' hoplites, not to mention the Macedonian phalangites).

In reality I suspect some sort of shield wall, with thrusting weapons (1H or 2H) was probably the most defensive option. That's why it held sway in the ancient world for so long

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

But zweihänder wielding landsknechtes no, and vikings or saxons with longaxes might have had a kite shield on their backs, since otherwise would have interfered greatly with their weapons. No way it would protect the arm or torso from the front (at least not without a hefty penalty).

I can't argue with you there. The way it was done was for the shield to be hung around the neck and the shield strap on the weapon arm so it would move with the weapon, but that was for long spears, not for axes and greatswords., not without impeding their use. MAybe the fix would be for the rules as written to apply only to thrusting/implaing weapons, and limiting shields to the back of anyone weilding a slashing or crushing weapon? 

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

I actually think mass is more relevant than height, since it is primarily used to calculate HP and DB. Given that dwarves are in most games described as being of heavier build than most humans, I believe my position is supported even further by this. Since BRP is supposed to be a generic system that is relatively applicable to what's already out there, as I understand it, let's take a few examples from some classic games. Dwarves in MERP 2nd Edition clock in at 4'9", 150 lbs on average. A bit large, maybe. BECMI D&D has them at 4' and 150 lbs, quite extreme! I think Rolemaster gets it more or less right with 4'5", 130 lbs. I think these are representative of the genre as a whole, and we see dwarves weighing from around 2/3 to 3/4 of a human. In BRP (and RQIII+), they're at 1/2, which makes them much weaker here relative to other relevant games.

BTW, since you brought up MERP, I looked at the Dwarf stats I used for my RQ MERP campaign, from way back. You might like the stats for houseruling:

STR 2d6+7

CON 2d6+9

SIZ  2D6+4

INT 2D6+6

POW 2D6+3

DEX 3D6

APP 2D4+2

[Mark Mohrfield]

I posted this twice on the corrections thread, and it was taken down both times without any comment. Perhaps its more appropriate for this thread?

From page 171. “Loaded Revolvers The chamber directly under a revolver's hammer is often left empty against an accidental discharge. If this practice is followed, lower the ammunition capacity by 1. To emphasize the danger of carrying a fully-loaded revolver, your gamemaster may require your character to make a successful Luck roll to avoid an accidental discharge if your character falls or is jostled roughly enough to potentially trigger the weapon. If the Luck roll succeeds, the revolver does not go off. If it fails, the revolver goes off, and your character and everyone around your character must make a Luck roll to avoid being hit by the stray bullet. Your gamemaster should determine who the friendly fire strikes. If the initial Luck roll is a fumble, the bullet strikes your character and does normal damage.”

This should only apply to early revolvers, and those from about the late 19th century onwards should be safe with all chambers loaded.

[Atgxtg]

3 minutes ago, Mark Mohrfield said:

This should only apply to early revolvers, and those from about the late 19th century onwards should be safe with all chambers loaded.

Yup, that's basically true, modern revolvers usually have a transfer bar or hammer block which takes care of the matter. although I think it is still an issue with some single action revolvers such as the Colt Single Action Army, or Ruger Blackhawk (although there is a transfer bar upgrade that fixes this for the Ruger). I think the text came from a  CoC book set in the 1890s or 1920s when it was much more relevant, as many revolvers were still older (1850s-1880s) designs that had remained  in production for decades.

[TrippyHippy]

18 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

In my reading SIZ is all about mass and not at all about volume. How could volume have any impact on things like damage bonus and hit points? In BRP, it’s all about greater mass having greater ability to generate and resist force.

It is about frame and leverage also, and is also significant when using Size to determine situations where somebody is claiming through a hole, etc.

18 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

ADDED: Look, we can quibble about physics all day, after a certain point it gets pretty tedious. At the end of the day it boils down to how the system plays out in practice. Do we want a generic system where dwarves are considerably weaker warriors than humans? I don't. I think they should be more or less equal in combat ability, but with more HP and lower DEX. In the BRP family, Legend does it best IMO. Do we want shields to be mostly an aesthetic choice, and two handed weapons to be all round the best weapons? I want shields to provide better defense, and two handed weapons to be more offensive but less good at defense, because it's both more realistic and it allows players to make more meaningful choices.

The thing is that the BRP system is based on the notion of trying to get a physical representation of reality. That is why they have Size in the first place, when other games don’t bother. It is a system built on quibble. Of course, you could just ditch the Size score entirely as other BRP spinoff game systems have done. In game terms, you are right - what Size does is act as a buffer score of sorts when determining HP and Damage bonus. I just take note that the height component is actually stated as relevant in the score.

17 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Actually it (mostly) does. Most living creatures have a mass about the same as water, or about 1 ton per cubic meter. SO you can get a good idea of the volume based on the mass. 

Yes, but for a living creature it's hard to vary all that much from the norm. That's why stuff like BMI (Body Mass Index) works.

Well, that is a very broad stroke generalisation of mass to volume, while most professional athletes don’t use BMI as a useful reflection of their own physical health as their muscle mass density is usually far greater than the BMI scale allows. The same is true in more extremes when considering the span of all life on Earth. 

17 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Now for creatures made out of material other than flesh and blood, such as gargoyles, animated statures and such, mass could end up much higher than volume, but we'd probably need to track the Mass as a SIZE figure too in case the characters have to move said creature or object.

For instance, a full size stature of a an average man (77kg, SIZ 13) made out of gold (sg 19.3) would still be SIZ 13 by volume but would have a mass of  1486 kg and be about SIZ 47 for purposes of lifting or moving it. INMO the best approach for that is to just list it as SIZ 13 (47)

But probably not much more than 25% or so more than the norm, or about 3 more points of STR than SIZ. Yes, in BRP we generate STR independent of SIZ, and have a modifier to weight for body frame allowing for some extreme variance between the two, but we really wouldn't see a lot of variance in the density of bone, and tissue between humans, or between most memebers of any given species for that matter. 

Yeah, fansty creatures might be an exception to that, but magic can do that. It's why giant insects and even giant humans are possible in a fantasy world.  

Yeah, RQ2 actually noted that it used both and that people might was to split it between height and weight, with height affecting SR and weight affecting damage bonus and hit points.  But most BRP creatures and objects from SIZ 8 to SIZ 88 tend to use mass for SIZ going back to the old Superworld boxed set. Altering the relationship would require restating all of that to fit with whatever the new approach would be.

The main point is that Size has a contextual relationship with both Strength and Constitution. You read all three to get a sense of how a character is built. As I say, if you get a high Strength to low Size ratio then it tends to denote short and stocky to me. Like a Dwarf. However, short limbs also mean lack of leverage which can mean less applied force (DB) and a smaller frame (less HP unless Constitution is very high by contrast). A Size that outstrips Strength but maintaining a high Constitution would imply, to me, tall and lithe with a increased capacity for leverage (DB) and a bigger frame (more HP). 

[SDLeary]

2 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

The main point is that Size has a contextual relationship with both Strength and Constitution. You read all three to get a sense of how a character is built. As I say, if you get a high Strength to low Size ratio then it tends to denote short and stocky to me. Like a Dwarf. However, short limbs also mean lack of leverage which can mean less applied force (DB) and a smaller frame (less HP unless Constitution is very high by contrast). A Size that outstrips Strength but maintaining a high Constitution would imply, to me, tall and lithe with a increased capacity for leverage (DB) and a bigger frame (more HP). 

Odd. For me, high Strength and low Size would denote to me someone bing quite ripped, with less "fat" as Size goes lower. I would only see Dwarf, which is more about distribution of the Strength and Size, if that was actually used as a descriptor. Same with Elf, which would also have a different distribution of said characteristics.

Size that outstrips Strength would simply mean to me less muscle mass, as Strength declines the person becomes more... pudgy (assuming a given Size). It implies (to me) nothing of distribution of the characteristics.

Constitution would only show, physically, as something along the lines of endurance (running distance, load carrying, and so on), or (perhaps)skin issues? Otherwise, Constitution is all internal; ability to absorb damage, heal, resist chemical and bio- toxins, and so on.

SDLeary

Edited April 19, 2023 by SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

Well, that is a very broad stroke generalisation of mass to volume, while most professional athletes don’t use BMI as a useful reflection of their own physical health as their muscle mass density is usually far greater than the BMI scale allows. The same is true in more extremes when considering the span of all life on Earth. 

Yes it is a very borad stroke, but SIZ is a rather coarse statistic. By that I mean any given creature is only going to have so much muscle mass for a given body mass, and creatures have a mass range they will fall into. You are not going to find a human with a density similar to iron. So for a human of a given volume there will be a given mass range. 

2 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

The main point is that Size has a contextual relationship with both Strength and Constitution.

It does with Strength. So much so that Strength should probably be at last partially derived from SIZ. As for Constitution, I don't think being larger makes a creature any healthier but it does all it to absorb more punishment or tolerate a greater amount of toxins. I think the easiest way to handle that is to use hit points. For instance using hit points to resist poison instead of CON. That way it will take a larger dose to tranquilize a horse or bear than a human.

2 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

 

You read all three to get a sense of how a character is built. As I say, if you get a high Strength to low Size ratio then it tends to denote short and stocky to me. Like a Dwarf. However, short limbs also mean lack of leverage which can mean less applied force (DB) and a smaller frame (less HP unless Constitution is very high by contrast). A Size that outstrips Strength but maintaining a high Constitution would imply, to me, tall and lithe with a increased capacity for leverage (DB) and a bigger frame (more HP). 

Possibly. A lot of that is open to interpretation. Plus the training rules allow STR and CON to be raised up to SIZ makes sheer body mass important. But the point is that SIZ is tied more closely to mass than anything else, and most of the stats and rules reflect this. 

The OP's point was that we should change the stats for dwarves, halfings and such to closer match those of other RPGs. I don't think we should. That is something that should be left to authors and GMs who are world building based on what they want for their settings.  Glorantha has its "elves", "dwarves" and "trolls" and they are not that same as the Tolkien based elves, dwarves and trolls we see in most FRPGs- and that's perfectly fine. If a GM wants bigger dwarves with different stats for a particular setting they can write up new stats, like I did above. We shouldn't have to change RQ/BRP stats to reflect how something is done in D&D, Harn, MERP or whatever. Otherwise well end up changing other stats and other rules to match those other game systems too.

Oh, and n=on that note does anyone know what the racial stats look like in Classic Fantasy? Are they like BRP, do they have different stats, or do they just use modifiers like +2 STR, +2 CON, -2 SIZ like D&D does (Early edtions of Stormbringer did that as well)..

 

[Atgxtg]

1 minute ago, SDLeary said:

Odd. For me, high Strength and low Size would denote to me someone bing quite ripped, with less "fat" as Size goes lower. I would only see Dwarf, which is more about distribution of the Strength and Size, if that was actually used as a descriptor. Same with Elf, which would also have a different distribution of said characteristics.

The thing is fat weights less than muscle. 

In the real world the thing is that only so much of a person's body mass can be muscle; if someone weights 98 pounds, they can't have 150 pounds of muscle. Since muscles are what provide physical strength, Strength can only vary so much from a person's Size. STR 18 SIZ 18 is far more likely to happen in the real world than  STR 18 SIZ 8, although both are just as likely to happen in chargen.

 

1 minute ago, SDLeary said:

Size that outstrips Strength would simply mean to me less muscle mass, as Strength declines the person becomes more... pudgy (assuming a given Size). It implies (to me) nothing of distribution of the characteristics.

Yes, SIZ that outstrips Strength would mean less muscle mass. Although there would be a minimum amount of muscle mass needed for a creature to be able to move and such.  THe same would be true for a normal person of a high gravity world. Say you had someone who had STR 10, SIZ 13. Put them on a planet with 4G of gravity and their weight would be four times that of normal for an effect SIZ of 29, which would make it much harder for the person to move about, or even breathe.

1 minute ago, SDLeary said:

Constitution would only show, physically, as something along the lines of endurance (running distance, load carrying, and so on), or (perhaps)skin issues? Otherwise, Constitution is all internal; ability to absorb damage, heal, resist chemical and bio- toxins, and so on.

 

Yes, but the thinking is that someone who has a high SIZ and low STR is probably out of shape and thus their Health (and thus COnsitution) isn't what it could be. It's probably true, to a point, but most RPGs don't require PCs to work out to stay is shape, so it is probably moot.