Comments and suggestions thread

[SDLeary]

9 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

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.

 

Correct. In fact, this is the reason that STR cannot be increased beyond SIZ after character generation, unless using magic or superpowers. Impossible to enforce at character gen time though. 😉

14 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

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.

Yup... in fact see question below. Gravity, of course, introduces its own can of worms (we probably can't "live" in more than 2G for any length of time).

 

18 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

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.

Out of shape, and unhealthy, are (in some cases) actually proving to be different (though related) things. There are people who are overweight, though healthier than some that are ripped. This is the reason I don't intertwine things (Con at least) quite as much.

Now, somewhere I remember something (a call-out, spot rule, an article in fanzine, perhaps even a different game) that talked about a relationship of 1.5x. Rather than the current "highest of STR, SIZ, and CON", you could train STR up to 1.5 SIZ, you could raise or lower SIZ to the same multiple. CON had something in here too, though can't remember if it was subject to the same multiple. I thought it might have been Ringworld, but a glance at that reveals nothing. Does this sound familiar to you in any way?

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

55 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

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)..

They are die rolls tailored for the species. There is a special hight table for Demi-Humans, that states to treat SIZ as X lower for purposes of determining height (ex. Dwarves – Treat as 4 SIZ lower).

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Correct. In fact, this is the reason that STR cannot be increased beyond SIZ after character generation, unless using magic or superpowers. Impossible to enforce at character gen time though. 😉

Yeah but the limit is somewhat suspect.. A STR 18, SIZ 8 guy can't improve his STR but a STR 3 SIZ 18 guy can. 

2 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Yup... in fact see question below. Gravity, of course, introduces its own can of worms (we probably can't "live" in more than 2G for any length of time).

Yeah, I used it to help highlight that STR and weight/mass are intertwined, and not really independent of each other. A SIZ 18 man would need a certain amount of muscle mass just to be able to live and move his own body weight. 

I think it becomes more of an issue with creatures that roll a lot of dice, since you can get some ridiculous results, such as a STR 30 SIZ 68 elephant.  I think STR and SIZ should probably be restricted to being with 15 points or so of each other. 

 

2 hours ago, SDLeary said:

 

Now, somewhere I remember something (a call-out, spot rule, an article in fanzine, perhaps even a different game) that talked about a relationship of 1.5x. Rather than the current "highest of STR, SIZ, and CON", you could train STR up to 1.5 SIZ, you could raise or lower SIZ to the same multiple. CON had something in here too, though can't remember if it was subject to the same multiple. I thought it might have been Ringworld, but a glance at that reveals nothing. Does this sound familiar to you in any way?

Sounds like RQ3, where STR, CON and SIZ could be raised to the highest of the 3 while DEX and APP could be trained up to 1.5 time the original amount. The problem with the STR/CON/SIZ thing though is that it would prevent the species max of 21 from being obtained.  IMO the x1.5 rule makes a lot more sense, although I think a raise by fixed number of points (say 5) might be better, since attributes are on a logarithmic scale. So some giant that raises STR from 80 to 85 is getting the same 54% increase in lifting ability as a human who raises their STR from 10 to 15. 

 

Looking at weightlifting most people start off being able to  lift a weight a couple of points below their SIZ and end up increasing that original amount by 50-100%. So something like SIZ -2 or so to start and STR +4-8 at the end, depending on the type of lifting. So about a 6-10 point improvement. Probably the max is alittle more, maybe 12 points? So the max ratings could be a little bit higher than what we see in BRP.

 

[TrippyHippy]

5 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Out of shape, and unhealthy, are (in some cases) actually proving to be different (though related) things. There are people who are overweight, though healthier than some that are ripped. This is the reason I don't intertwine things (Con at least) quite as much.

I think that is the only major point I differ on. People who are overweight are generally described as such because it is unhealthy. Sure, the BMI Index is a crude measure and breaks down when it comes to high performing athletes who have a denser muscle than others, but you can still measure aspects of their constitution through blood testing and other techniques. If somebody is overweight though, then it is a compromise on their Health, ie Constitution. 

So, the example of having a character with low Strength, high Size and high Constitution could not be an overweight individual - to my mind at least. That is why I would see them as tall and lithe. Tall and Lithe can still have mechanical advantages through leverage, however. 

Having somebody who has higher Strength than Size could be because they are ripped, as you say, but if their Constitution is low then it either implies they have a very low immunity or some sort of genetic ailment which is a possibility, but also just because they happen to be short and stocky (and maybe easier to hide, for example). 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by TrippyHippy

[SDLeary]

3 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

Having somebody who has higher Strength than Size could be because they are ripped, as you say, but if their Constitution is low then it either implies they have a very low immunity or some sort of genetic ailment which is a possibility, but also just because they happen to be short and stocky (and maybe easier to hide, for example). 

Or simply someone that could be described (in an old context at least, modern medicine would mitigate this somewhat) as "sickly"; or, perhaps they don't recover or heal as quickly as "normal people". It could certainly be described as something genetic; as a GM, if someone wanted to play that, I might give them a bennie of some type to offset. 

Anyway, if we want to continue the discussion on characteristic relationship, we might want to move it to another thread.

SDLeary

Edited April 20, 2023 by SDLeary

[TrippyHippy]

6 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

Or simply someone that could be described (in an old context at least, modern medicine would mitigate this somewhat) as "sickly"; or, perhaps they don't recover or heal as quickly as "normal people". It could certainly be described as something genetic; as a GM, if someone wanted to play that, I might give them a bennie of some type to offset.

Anyway, if we want to continue the discussion on characteristic relationship, we might want to move it to another thread.

SDLeary

A ‘sickly’ person wouldn’t be physically Strong. 

I don’t really think we need a whole thread about this, but I’m happy to move on from the conversation.

 

[Bill the barbarian]

On 4/18/2023 at 10:16 AM, SunlessNick said:

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

Agreed, it is/was nice to see in the 80s that Chaosium was progressive... what is needed is a return to such headiness! Great call SunlessNick!

[Barak Shathur]

On 4/19/2023 at 12:02 AM, Atgxtg said:

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.

Interestingly, in the beginning, RQ conceived the size relationship between dwarves and humans as in other games, humans SIZ 3d6 (11) vs dwarves SIZ 2d6 (7). The original sin was when humans were enlarged to 2d6+6, in order to avoid absurdly small characters. It seems to me like an awkward solution, since suddenly the average human is now only one point away from getting damage bonus, which is not how the rules were structured originally. Of course, it's been rationalised post facto, "humans are big", but it always sounds a bit forced to me.

The same was not done for the dwarves. But how is a STR 24 SIZ 2 dwarf less absurd than a STR 18 SIZ 3 human? Presumably, RQ dwarves were overlooked because they were mostly NPCs, so it didn't seem like an issue since GMs could set whatever stats they wanted anyway. But I'm talking about BRP here, a generic system, not RQ which is more idiosyncratic, and where it has been argued dwarves can be tiny "since the Machine is broken" (more or less). BRP changed the SIZ for dwarves to 1d4+4, avoiding tiny dwarf syndrom but retaining the now outsized difference between the two species.

A couple of years ago I asked one of the original writers for the Swedish BRP clone Drakar och Demoner (1982) about the dwarf size issue, and he agreed completely with me. In fact, he said if he was to do it over he would have set dwarf SIZ at 2d6+2.

On 4/19/2023 at 12:02 AM, Atgxtg said:

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. 

Again, I would say that Tolkien is arguably the gold standard for dwarves and hobbits, that's why I think a generic fantasy system should hew close to that. Like almost all of the others did.

On 4/19/2023 at 12:02 AM, Atgxtg said:

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.

In BRP systems you have to factor in SIZ when you talk about relative strength. A high STR score without some SIZ to back it up gets you a few extra percentage points to weapon and manipulation skills, which in BRP doesn't amount to much since you can bump the skills you need to 75% anyway. Maybe a little higher carrying capacity, if you use ENC and fatigue rules. With enough SIZ however, you get damage bonus which makes all the difference in melee combat.

On 4/19/2023 at 12:02 AM, Atgxtg said:

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.

In the context of BGB, weapon and shield AP are almost meaningless since parry deflects all damage. The only exception is for slung shields, where yes, BGB shields would absorb most regular sized attacks, but again, the way it is written it is only allowed when the shield is 'not actively used in combat', so it seems to rule it out for a weapon and shield fighter who's holding the shield, but allow it for a great weapon fighter who carries it 'slung' over the locations covered. Which again obviates the purpose of learning to fight with shields. Just sling it across your arm, chest and abdomen and parry with your sword instead.

[Barak Shathur]

On 4/19/2023 at 12:14 AM, Atgxtg said:

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

You sent me your RQ -> MERP conversion system a while ago, and I like it a lot. However, I personally prefer keeping the stats as close as possible to the original BRP range. But yours is a very good take.

[Barak Shathur]

18 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

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.

Well yes. I certainly am one who has engaged in lengthy discussions over the years trying to square BRP with reality. Maybe for that reason I can feel that is sometimes goes too far. The quibbling can drag a thread down some real rabbit holes, which in themselves can be quite entertaining. But to my mind, the beauty of BRP is that it doesn't micromanage too much, it's like it regulates gross motor skills but not fine motor skills. Or something like that. Realism combined with playability, that's BRP for me. So my suggestions are about fine tuning what's already there, rather than adding realism through complexity.

[Atgxtg]

15 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

So, the example of having a character with low Strength, high Size and high Constitution could not be an overweight individual - to my mind at least. That is why I would see them as tall and lithe. Tall and Lithe can still have mechanical advantages through leverage, however. 

I think they could. Yes, being overweight is bad for you and affects your health, but it doesn't prevent you from being healthy, it just makes you less healthy than you otherwise would be. Similar to smoking or excess drinking, or medical conditions such as diabetes or asthma. They do not prevent a high CON, just reduce what CON you have.  So someone who is overweight might have a CON that is a point or two lower that it should otherwise be. 

Hmm, a case could be made for somewhat having a higher CON because of being overweight or a medical condition. Basically if they were not healthy they would have succumbed to illness due to the condition. Esepcially in cultures that lack advanced medicine. 

 

[SDLeary]

Perhaps we need a new optional Attribute then, call it Health. 

• It could have a base value of CON
• If SIZ is higher than STR by 2? or more points, -1
• If SIZ is higher than STR by 5 or more points, -2

Health would replace CON for most current resistances.

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

Well yes. I certainly am one who has engaged in lengthy discussions over the years trying to square BRP with reality. Maybe for that reason I can feel that is sometimes goes too far.

I suppose that comes down to what people want to use the game for. Some people want a more heroic style of play and there are other games that do that better; others want a more cinematic style of play and yet again there are other games the do that better as well; still others want games that are more foving of PC mistakes than BRP is, and yes there are games that do that better; BRP is more grounded in reality than most. So we either have to take it as it is or adapt to to what we want it to be. But the latter is probably more for individual groups and GMs as I doubt there is any consensus among the fanbase about what changes we'd want, and so most of us probably want it to remain mostly as it is.

5 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

The quibbling can drag a thread down some real rabbit holes, which in themselves can be quite entertaining. But to my mind, the beauty of BRP is that it doesn't micromanage too much, it's like it regulates gross motor skills but not fine motor skills. Or something like that. Realism combined with playability, that's BRP for me. So my suggestions are about fine tuning what's already there, rather than adding realism through complexity.

I think that just goes with suggesting any change. Basically you have to justify why said change is better for BRP compared to the existing rule, and why it would be better for the majority of BRP players, as opposed to being a houserule (which only has to justify the change from one GM's  own point of view).

[Atgxtg]

Just now, SDLeary said:

Perhaps we need a new optional Attribute then, call it Health. 

• It could have a base value of CON
• If SIZ is higher than STR by 2? or more points, -1
• If SIZ is higher than STR by 5 or more points, -2

Health would replace CON for most current resistances.

SDLeary

I'd rather just go with hit points, it is a stat that already exists, and mass plays a huge factor in resistance. Even if a 120 kg (265 lb) person is mostly fat, that fat will require more of a substance to work effectively. It also why you are going to need a lot more of a drug to take down a T-Rex than you would to drop a tiger. Way back some of us did up a poison table using the LD50 amount to get the quantity of a toxin required to get POT 10, and then adjusted the POT to the amount based on the SIZ table relationship.  So twice as much would be +8 POT, four times as much +16 POT and so on. 

[SDLeary]

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I'd rather just go with hit points, it is a stat that already exists, and mass plays a huge factor in resistance. Even if a 120 kg (265 lb) person is mostly fat, that fat will require more of a substance to work effectively. It also why you are going to need a lot more of a drug to take down a T-Rex than you would to drop a tiger. Way back some of us did up a poison table using the LD50 amount to get the quantity of a toxin required to get POT 10, and then adjusted the POT to the amount based on the SIZ table relationship.  So twice as much would be +8 POT, four times as much +16 POT and so on. 

Agreed. I was putting out a suggestion for those that want to use the difference as a detriment. Using HP, where Size is a benefit, really wouldn't do that.

SDLeary

[Barak Shathur]

36 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

6 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

I think that just goes with suggesting any change. Basically you have to justify why said change is better for BRP compared to the existing rule, and why it would be better for the majority of BRP players, as opposed to being a houserule (which only has to justify the change from one GM's  own point of view).

That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to do. So far I seem to have convinced exactly zero persons. 

[g33k]

10 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

Interestingly, in the beginning, RQ conceived the size relationship between dwarves and humans as in other games, humans SIZ 3d6 (11) vs dwarves SIZ 2d6 (7). The original sin was when humans were enlarged to 2d6+6, in order to avoid absurdly small characters. It seems to me like an awkward solution, since suddenly the average human is now only one point away from getting damage bonus, which is not how the rules were structured originally. Of course, it's been rationalised post facto, "humans are big", but it always sounds a bit forced to me.

...

I have long-since (in my mind, I have no books published) abandoned relying on D6's as the "only" stat-generating die.

4d4+2 (6-18) for humans?  Sure, why not?
3d3 (3-9) for Dwarves?  OK.

etc...

[Barak Shathur]

Just now, g33k said:

I have long-since (in my mind, I have no books published) abandoned relying on D6's as the "only" stat-generating die.

4d4+2 (6-18) for humans?  Sure, why not?
3d3 (3-9) for Dwarves?  OK.

etc...

One idea I’ve toyed with is switching out every d6 for 2d3. So 6d3 for all human stats, 6-18 range, 10-11 average (right?). Perfect IMO. 

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, SDLeary said:

Agreed. I was putting out a suggestion for those that want to use the difference as a detriment. Using HP, where Size is a benefit, really wouldn't do that.

SDLeary

It's not always a benefit though. A CON 18 human is probably going to do better if they don't use HP. Using hit points just tends to move things back towards the mean- unless you are dealing with large creatures. 

[g33k]

10 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

...  Again, I would say that Tolkien is arguably the gold standard for dwarves and hobbits, that's why I think a generic fantasy system should hew close to that. Like almost all of the others did ...

Much though I admire the Professor's work, I mostly disagree here.

Obviously, "Hobbits" are JRRT's invention entirely.  Any game with a "hobbit" race (even a serial-numbers-filed-off race like D&D "Halfling") should think long and hard before they implement game-mechanics that differ in any substantive way from an accurate-to-the-canon portrayal.

That said... they should take that long hard look, even if they don't want to vary from the canon.  Because in the end, they're writing a RPG... not novels.  Different criteria apply.

 

Finally -- and most important to my point -- I don't actually hold up JRRT's "Dwarves" as the "Gold Standard" for RPGs.  For example, in  Ars Magica's  Mythic Europe, the only valid "Dwarfs" would be folkloric & myth-based; and while Tolkein's were derived from the folklore ... they varied (as per what he needed for his world & his novels) too far IMO to be viable Ars Magica characters.

Glorantha has yet another take on the trope.

One could argue (with some weight) that the Tolkien-derived "D&D Dwarf" has become the de-facto "RPG Dwarf" and that BRP varies from it at their own hazard... but I'm entirely cool with such variance, if Chaosium thinks the "hazard" (if any, it's pretty darned hypothetical) is worth taking.

And it appears that the ORC license is going to allow you to publish your own BRP-variant... with Dwarves every bit as Tolkienesque as the Professor's estate permits!  (I advise you to avoid names like "Durin" and "Gimli" and "Thorin Oakenshield."  😉  )

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by g33k

[g33k]

20 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

One idea I’ve toyed with is switching out every d6 for 2d3. So 6d3 for all human stats, 6-18 range, 10-11 average (right?). Perfect IMO. 

6d3 has an average of 12, so 1.5 points higher than 3d6 average.
(1d3 average is 2; then just multiply by 6)

Edited April 20, 2023 by g33k

[TrippyHippy]

2 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Perhaps we need a new optional Attribute then, call it Health. 

• It could have a base value of CON
• If SIZ is higher than STR by 2? or more points, -1
• If SIZ is higher than STR by 5 or more points, -2

Health would replace CON for most current resistances.

SDLeary

Gawd no. No more stats! Size is one more than most other games have. (Build was a mistake too!)

[Atgxtg]

16 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Interestingly, in the beginning, RQ conceived the size relationship between dwarves and humans as in other games, humans SIZ 3d6 (11) vs dwarves SIZ 2d6 (7). The original sin was when humans were enlarged to 2d6+6, in order to avoid absurdly small characters. It seems to me like an awkward solution, since suddenly the average human is now only one point away from getting damage bonus, which is not how the rules were structured originally. Of course, it's been rationalised post facto, "humans are big", but it always sounds a bit forced to me.

Now there is the best argument I've seen for changing Dwarf SIZ yet. They probably should have shifted the db formula to account for the increase in average human SIZ. The problem is even more noticable in Pendragon. Originally humans had a SIZ of 3d6, and PIcts had -3 SIZ modfier for an average SIZ of 7-8., with the typical NPC PICt at SIZ 8. 

Over time though, PC SIZ changed from 3d6 to 2d6+6 and in KAP5.2 K&L it sits at 3d6+4. Yet the typical NPC Pict is still at SIZ 8. 

 

I think you just won me over.

 

[Atgxtg]

5 minutes ago, g33k said:

Much though I admire the Professor's work, I mostly disagree here.

Obviously, "Hobbits" are JRRT's invention entirely.  Any game with a "hobbit" race (even a serial-numbers-filed-off race like D&D "Halfling") should think long and hard before they implement game-mechanics that differ in any substantive way from an accurate-to-the-canon portrayal.

That said... they should take that long hard look, even if they don't want to vary from the canon.  Because in the end, they're writing a RPG... not novels.  Different criteria apply.

But if an RPG is placed in a specific setting them it should be true to it's source. Otherwise it won't feel like that setting.

5 minutes ago, g33k said:

 

Finally -- and most important to my point -- I don't actually hold up JRRT's "Dwarves" as the "Gold Standard" for RPGs. 

I think they are the "gold standard", not because they are the first or the most accurate to the folklore, but because most FRPGs use a pseudo-Tolkien world, with pseudo-Tolkien races. Same with elves, and why orcs are now a generic FRPG race. Also why hobgoblins are now thought of as large goblins instead of small goblins. It might not be the best way to do it, but it's what we got to deal with.

So it comes down to what version of something should be in a given game or sorucebook. As most FRPGs are pseudo-Tolkien they use pseudo-Tolkien races, as BRP and RQ came from Glorantha, they use Gloranthan takes on races, and games based on history and legend such as Ars Magica and Pendragon would use more fokloric (and region) versions. 

5 minutes ago, g33k said:

 (I advise you to avoid names like "Durin" and "Gimli" and "Thorin Oakenshield."  😉  )

 

LOL! THose would probably be the easiest things to use. Tolkien didn't invent those mnames but lifted them from Nordic legends. Most of the dwarf names dwarves from the Hobbit cam from the Norse Voluspa, which proves there is some merit to reading the Annotated Hobbit! 😁

[DreadDomain]

2 hours ago, g33k said:

I have long-since (in my mind, I have no books published) abandoned relying on D6's as the "only" stat-generating die.

4d4+2 (6-18) for humans?  Sure, why not?
3d3 (3-9) for Dwarves?  OK.

etc...

 

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

One idea I’ve toyed with is switching out every d6 for 2d3. So 6d3 for all human stats, 6-18 range, 10-11 average (right?). Perfect IMO. 

For human I prefer to roll 3d6 for all char and simply:

1. assign a lower cap (say 6 or 8), or
2. Re-roll 1's