Movement in BRP

[Kairos]

BRP with SR turned on calculates Power SR as DEX SR + Power Level or MP cost.

[Mankcam]

BRP with SR turned on calculates Power SR as DEX SR + Power Level or MP cost.

I knew I had read that somewhere. Not all my rules are houserules

[daddystabz]

The BRP Strike Rank system is starting to grow on me as I'm reading through it. There may be hope for me yet!

[soltakss]

There are issues with SRs, so they are not perfect.

The main one, for me, is the fact that if you are big and fast with a long weapon then you get your attacks and parries in early and sit around for the rest of the round doing nothing, which is is bit unrealistic. But, if you combine it with MRQ Combat Actions and get 3 Actions per round then you can use the 3rd action to do something else 3SRs later, just enough to fill that gap.

Another is that SIZ makes your SR smaller, presumably coping with reach, so that something big but compact has a smaller SR than something small with a long reach.

But, BRP/RQ3-style Strike ranks work better for me than MRQ Strike Ranks and BRP DEX Ranks.

[RosenMcStern]

Another problem is that the rules in the BGB (but not RQ3) allow you to swing twice, with melee weapons, if your SR is 5 or less. This is utterly and absolutely unrealistic: it means that a DEX 1 ogre with SIZ 20 and a long two-handed club will swing twice. A DEX 20 halfing under the effect of the Haste spell will swing once because of arm and weapon reach.

[NickMiddleton]

Another problem is that the rules in the BGB (but not RQ3) allow you to swing twice, with melee weapons, if your SR is 5 or less. This is utterly and absolutely unrealistic: it means that a DEX 1 ogre with SIZ 20 and a long two-handed club will swing twice. A DEX 20 halfing under the effect of the Haste spell will swing once because of arm and weapon reach.

Yes the more I think about that, the more I think it's a glitch we missed in play testing. The old RQIII "minimum 3SR separation between actions" should be re-instated at the very least: but I use RQIII SR if I'm using SR anyway...

Nick

[daddystabz]

Bah. Maybe I'll have to stick with Dex/Int ranks afteral or maybe import Strike Ranks and Combat Action as they are in MRQII.

[KingSkin]

Personally I'm not a fan of the BRP initiative system, it's the one area where I really think the rules don't work particularly well. I'm not a big fan of the SR system. At the very least I'm doing away with the declaration phase because I bloody hate extra steps like that in combat that slow things down with out adding an appreciable benefit. Combat is generally long-winded enough anyway, for something that's supposed to be lightning fast. It reminds of the hideous damage staging rules in Shadowrun.

I'm thinking I may adapt my old Action Point system to BRP, it could fit in easily enough and I've always preferred to give people more options for tactical play. That way they're more likely to think about what they're actually doing. The current initiative system almost uses AP anyway but every action is assigned a cost of 5. I'm just going to rewrite the costs to give some extra granularity and reflect the fact that it takes a lot longer to tiger crawl under a fence and snipe at someone than it does to vault a table and slot them with a rusty butter knife.

Once I get it to a state that I'm happy with I'll post it up here and let you guys pick apart and destruction test it.

[daddystabz]

You and are in complete agreement, KingSkin. It is the one area of BRP I've read thus far that I feel fails epically for me and for what my players want. I am probably going to import the initiative system from MRQII with Combat Actions and all at this point. MRQII simply does it way, way better. I also prefer MRQII's levels of success to BRP. Easier to work with and more intuitive.

[Mankcam]

Well using MRQ2 should work out okay. I currently use the AHRQ3 Strike Rank rules as that's the rule set my gaming group used the most back in the day, we just didn't dig Stormbringer as a fantasy ruleset, and only played CoC a few times on account of everyone going insane or dying horribly. One of those gamers is in my current troupe, so I went back to the AHRQ3 rules for familarity's sake rather than purchase Mongoose RQ1. Then the BRP BGB and MRQ2 books came out, and I grabbed both of them, but we were already using AHRQ3 for our long-running campaign, so I kept with that.

I've been wanting to play MRQ2, but as we still have our current campaign I haven't changed systems, although I did port over the Combat Manuvers in regards to Special and Critical Successes (I think almost everyone has at least considered this). It does seem like MRQ2 does Initiative and Srike Ranks quite well, although I wouldn't know if they are any better than AHRQ3 strike ranks until I run a few sessions with them.

Although I haven't played MRQ2 'as is' so to speak, it does give me the impression that it would run very well. Perhaps you should go with MRQ2 for a tactile or gritty ancient/medieval setting, and use BRP (core rules, few options) for pulp, modern, or sci-fi settings.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Mankcam

[daddystabz]

I'm playing in a MRQII campaign here locally with my face-to-face group currently and MRQII is working brilliantly.

[Atgxtg]

Personally I'm not a fan of the BRP initiative system, it's the one area where I really think the rules don't work particularly well. I'm not a big fan of the SR system. At the very least I'm doing away with the declaration phase because I bloody hate extra steps like that in combat that slow things down with out adding an appreciable benefit.

Some do appreciate the benefits of the delcaration phase. One big benefit to mee is that it reflects the effects of being caught off guard and having to change your actions during a round in respose to something that happens after the declaration phase. At least is does in RQ2-3 with the 5/3 SR delay.

In generate th old SR system handles things fairly nicely. It isn"t perfect. As has been pointed out earlier, the "reach" rules leave something to be desired, and the "go early, wait rest of round" thing is a bit off, but SRs do a good job of intergrating the "Four Ms" of FRPGs (Melee, Missile, Movment, Magic). It certainly beats the "I won initiative so I can draw my weapon and attack four times before anyone else can do anything" method.

I think the "fix" for most of the SR problems would be to have SR carry over from round to round (the way spellcasting does), but with some sort of add on the way missles have. The major obstacle would be dirrentiating between reach and speed.

[Kairos]

Another problem is that the rules in the BGB (but not RQ3) allow you to swing twice, with melee weapons, if your SR is 5 or less. This is utterly and absolutely unrealistic: it means that a DEX 1 ogre with SIZ 20 and a long two-handed club will swing twice. A DEX 20 halfing under the effect of the Haste spell will swing once because of arm and weapon reach.

I think this is not so bad is you deploy the Close Combat and Closing optional rules, but really it seems to me the Strike Rank system is really designed for humanoid opponents using realistic weapons. In the case of the ogre vs halfling bout, the halfling really shouldn't be able to attack the ogre at all without closing, but then again since he is not using his short weapon in that case, his SIZ Strike Rank doesn't apply. But, if the halfling closes, then the ogre can't attack with his long weapon at all.

Maybe a houserule for multiple attacks, though, should disregard SIZ strike rank.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Kairos

[Smoking Frog]

When I was crunching through the SR option, one complaint I had was simply that the SR system collapsed SIZ and length of weapon as factors of who gets to act first. To use Kairos's example of the cave troll with the long spear versus Frodo, I mean, a halfling, with a short sword: If the halfling is "faster" than the troll because of a higher DEX (or whatever you think makes him act first) it would seem that the halfling should get to "act" before the troll acts, but that would not necessarily mean he could just run up and stab the troll. Unless the halfling does something about there being a sharp point between him and the troll, he probably should not get to attack at all, rather than lamely waiving his sword 10 feet from the troll. Unless the halfling does something like jump and roll to get closer to the troll without being skewered, it would seem that the troll could just hold him off by brandishing his long spear, which I'm remembering is an option someplace. (Or maybe I dreamed it . . . )

And if the halfling is "faster" than the troll, maybe the halfling should get a chance to run away, brandishing his yellow stripe, before the troll could attack him.

The base BRP rules leave position and engagement a bit loose, and that might not be to everyone's taste. But on this sort of issue, you may just need to "pick your poison": Since you can't make the players actually try to shoot a real werewolf with a real shotgun, you have to "approximate" it with some rule system that will unavoidably have pluses and minuses. What you and your players like best, or at least can live with, may be the closest thing to "optimal." (I have a feeling something like that whenever I go into a voting booth . . . )

[Smoking Frog]

I think this is not so bad is you deploy the Close Combat and Closing optional rules, but really it seems to me the Strike Rank system is really designed for humanoid opponents using realistic weapons. In the case of the ogre vs halfling bout, the halfling really shouldn't be able to attack the ogre at all without closing, but then again since he is not using his short weapon in that case, his SIZ Strike Rank doesn't apply. But, if the halfling closes, then the ogre can't attack with his long weapon at all.

Maybe a houserule for multiple attacks, though, should disregard SIZ strike rank.

Perhaps the close combat and closing options with the ignore SIZ Strike Rank rule would address everything I was yammering about in my last post.

[Atgxtg]

When I was crunching through the SR option, one complaint I had was simply that the SR system collapsed SIZ and length of weapon as factors of who gets to act first. To use Kairos's example of the cave troll with the long spear versus Frodo, I mean, a halfling, with a short sword: If the halfling is "faster" than the troll because of a higher DEX (or whatever you think makes him act first) it would seem that the halfling should get to "act" before the troll acts, but that would not necessarily mean he could just run up and stab the troll.

The halfling can act first with SR, as long as he isn't isn't engaging in melee combat, he would act first, based on a better DEX SR.

Unless the halfling does something about there being a sharp point between him and the troll, he probably should not get to attack at all, rather than lamely waiving his sword 10 feet from the troll. Unless the halfling does something like jump and roll to get closer to the troll without being skewered, it would seem that the troll could just hold him off by brandishing his long spear, which I'm remembering is an option someplace. (Or maybe I dreamed it . . . )

There are two options available. The first is "attacking on the run", which would allow the halfling to ignore his poor SIZ SR. THe seond would be the closing rules, which would allow the troll to keep the halfling at bay as long as he could backpedal.

Now if you think there should be more of a difference than in the "collasped" stat bands in RQ3, I'd suggest using the old 12SR system from RQ2 (the real RQ2).

Now, if I were the halfling, I wouldn't think of getting in close with a Troll, and risk taking 1D10+1+2D6 damage, and instead hang back and use missle weapons, pereably boosted with Speedart and/or Multimissle.

And if the halfling is "faster" than the troll, maybe the halfling should get a chance to run away, brandishing his yellow stripe, before the troll could attack him.

If the halfling hasn"t gotten into melee range yet, he can. If he has, then he must "disengage" (just turning and running would leave him open to a spear in the back, a spear thust is must faster than turning and running)

The base BRP rules leave position and engagement a bit loose, and that might not be to everyone's taste. But on this sort of issue, you may just need to "pick your poison": Since you can't make the players actually try to shoot a real werewolf with a real shotgun, you have to "approximate" it with some rule system that will unavoidably have pluses and minuses. What you and your players like best, or at least can live with, may be the closest thing to "optimal." (I have a feeling something like that whenever I go into a voting booth . . . )

True, but probably not relevant. All rule systems are a compromise between ease of use and level of detail. "Optimal" varies from person to person, based upon what trade offs we are willing to make. Order of actions becomes more important in a RPG where one hit can decide the fight.

[KingSkin]

Some do appreciate the benefits of the delcaration phase. One big benefit to mee is that it reflects the effects of being caught off guard and having to change your actions during a round in respose to something that happens after the declaration phase. At least is does in RQ2-3 with the 5/3 SR delay...

...It certainly beats the "I won initiative so I can draw my weapon and attack four times before anyone else can do anything" method.

See, for me the declaration phase doesn't add enough benefit for the time it takes. If I was going to use the declaration system I'd do it completely differently and lose initiative altogether. I'm playing in a game using the Karma system and in that everyone declares their action and then all rolls are made at once. The GM then takes all the rolls in, applies them to what they were attempting and figures the results.

This means parries become part of your attack (two characters declaring attacks against each other are making opposed rolls) and you don't have to worry about everyone's relative speeds (which are already figured into your attack scores).

Personally I favour the AP system though. That way you start off at the highest AP and count down. When your current AP number comes up you state your action, spend the appropriate AP (it's helpful to have tracker sheets for this) and make your roll. If you want to have the delay between declaring and acting then you rule that the role doesn't take effect until your new AP score (at which point you will also declare your next action).

This means that you don't get to stab your opponent 4 times before he can act (something I also hate) unless you're really fast and going for 'snap shots' against a much slower opponent. Which makes sense. If I'm Lightning Hopkins, pumped on combat drugs and fighting a sleep deprived Octogenarian then I can probably ram my knife into him 3 or 4 times before he can react. Which is fairly realistic, all the stabbings I've seen have been over obscenely quickly. Even accounting for getting in close and then moving away again 6 seconds is a long time to be stabbing someone.

It does mean the extra legwork of assigning attack speeds to all the weapons but I think it's worth it. It's a nice balance between SR and standard actions.

Also, you can play about with the action costs for whatever game you're running. A harsh military simulator is going to make you spend AP to change from prone to kneeling whereas a pulp action game is going to make it a free part of movement.

Anyway, once I've worked my system up I'll post it here so you can have a look.

[Greville]

Personally I favour the AP system though. That way you start off at the highest AP and count down. When your current AP number comes up you state your action, spend the appropriate AP (it's helpful to have tracker sheets for this) and make your roll. If you want to have the delay between declaring and acting then you rule that the role doesn't take effect until your new AP score (at which point you will also declare your next action).

Chivalry & Sorcery 3rd Ed had two AP systems for initiative; a basic quick one and a detailed one. I loved the basic one and it seems like what you are after. The issue we had is that people then start to make characters with the most action points they can have. Mind you the current system in BRP is no better; it encourages high dex.

[KingSkin]

I'll have to have a look into that. Thanks for the tip. I was probably going to base AP either directly on DEX (on a point for point basis) or make it derived stat of DEX + something else. I'm just not sure what to use. SIZ would be good but POW seems to feel like it should be used in some way. I'm not sure why I feel that, maybe it's just a game balance issue ticking over in my back-brain, subtly trying to avoid loading all the bennies onto people that have gone for high DEX characters.

[daddystabz]

This is why I'm such a rabid fan of MRQII and I know you all are tired of hearing it but honestly.....the initiative Strike Rank system in that game works freaking brilliantly. Combat Actions are a nice thing as well. And let's not even talk about Combat Maneuvers, which are simply awesome. I honestly love BRP EXCEPT the options it has for initiative.

[RosenMcStern]

Daddystabz, but apart from repeating the thing for some dozen posts, have you actually tried to play a game with Statement of Intents and penalties for movement and non-combat actions?

[daddystabz]

I have used statement of intents in other games, such as L5R 1e and never cared for it. I am in agreement with KingSkin in thinking it doesn't give you enough bang for how much it slows combat even more. I'm aiming for a rules-lite game with BRP for urban fantasy. I have no need to make the combat slower and to use a lot of crunchy options that are really not necessary for the feel I'm trying to get. There are other lighter options out there like Buffy/Angel and The Dresden Files, etc. Some of you old school BRP fans are going to have to simply realize not everyone likes the same things you do and BRP can be many things to many people. It is meant to be tinkered with. That is why all the options are there and that is honestly the beauty of the system. It is a toolbox. My BRP game will not be the same as yours, etc. I'm old enough and experienced enough to know what I want in my games, having played these games for decades now. I also know what my players like and what they dislike. Your players may be different.

Check out these very different 2 reviews on YouTube of BRP. The first is in multi-parts. Notice the points they make and what options Samwise decided to go with to stick to a rules-lite framework.

and http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57?blend=2&ob=5#p/search/0/7FZCid7D9Ak

Face it, RosenMcStern, some people disagree with you and feel they are not satisfied with initiative as handled in the BGB and that is perfectly ok. I respect your opinion and I love BRP overall. I just like my initiative handled a tad differently.

Edited June 8, 2011 by daddystabz

[KingSkin]

...It is meant to be tinkered with. That is why all the options are there and that is honestly the beauty of the system. It is a toolbox. My BRP game will not be the same as yours, etc. I'm old enough and experienced enough to know what I want in my games, having played these games for decades now.

That's exactly it. It's a beautiful system because it's simple, clean and it works. The options are there because you're supposed to play about with it to fit it to your own playstyle and the preferences of your group.

In addition to the options they give you, it's such an easy system to understand that writing your own mods to the rules is a piece of piss and means you can totally tailor it to do exactly what you want. That's a strength and is exactly what the author's intended.

@Rosen: I'm not sure what your problem with people tinkering is? I don't doubt there are optional rules you don't use (unless you've decided to run BRP/Rifts and you've just turned everything on) but you won't hear me giving you shit over the bits you don't like but I do.

That may seem a bit more confrontational than I intend it to be but there's a fair amount of hostility floating around here which seems to be coming out the fact that people are using the system to do what was intended. I just don't get that.

[Smoking Frog]

If the halfling hasn"t gotten into melee range yet, he can. If he has, then he must "disengage" (just turning and running would leave him open to a spear in the back, a spear thust is must faster than turning and running)

. . . . Order of actions becomes more important in a RPG where one hit can decide the fight.

All excellent and helpful points. Your comments about engagement and disengagement gave me the "epiphany" that probably what I have been bothered by was the combination of the "5 m rule" and what I described as BRP's "loose" concept of engagement. On p189, under Action, the BRP rule book defines "engagement" no more precisely than "close proximity" and states that "Usually, anyone in the same fight can take actions against any other character in the same fight without penalty or requiring any movement." That combined with the discussion of the Option to use maps and miniatures on p.202, which refers to the option of actually knowing the relative positions of the combatants, makes the concept of being "engaged" look abstract enough to be sort of like the two sides are all occupying the same space and so you just pick a target and start chopping.

But the 5m movement rule (see "move" and "engage in combat" p.190) make clear that the description on p189 is ambiguous (or perhaps a bit misleading). The reality is that it, as someone above described it, you can attack anyone within 5 m." That is a much more precise statement than what p.189 says. Since I prefer combat where we know exactly where characters are, I think you absolutely have to have something like the 5m rule. (Pace, those who disagree with me on this point.) My criticism would be that 5m seems too large a distance for an I-go-you-go system, especially, as you say, where one blow can end the day.

For example, for two swordsmen facing each other, the distance between them where they can take one step and strike is going to be about 2m (so a bit less than half of the 5m rule). Even someone with a long spear will give my character a lot of time (for combat trained people; most of us would stare and be killed) to react as he rumbles forward to cover the 5m. So when you say that the engaged character can be speared faster than he can just run away, I would say I don't see that as likely, if the spear has to go 5m before it gets me. This is also a problem when BRP has a "loose" system of movement speed, so everyone sort of moves about the same speed and we can't really tell how quick my character could get away versus how quickly the enemy could close on him.

All that being said, I think you can consider the BRP way of doing things, even the way SR work, and the 5m rules as a reasonable system that "collapses" a lot of these issues. The "itch" I have about how it works is just a personal tick. I think, in fact, it would be easy enough to address the "too large" distance of 5m by making a house rule recognizing a mid-point between "engaged" (5m) and "close combat" (sort of knifing distance). Perhaps at 2m you are "proximate" or something. Of course when combatants have asymmetrical weapons (like spear versus sword) what each can do at 2m is different. And of course I have to wonder at the end of the day if you did the work needed to make that rule, would you really be enough better off that the effort was worth it.

And apropos of where this thread started, it seems that going in the opposite direction of what I've been thinking about (like you can Shazam! from one side of the room to the other without penalty and start chopping or whatever) could obviously work, but it seems a lot less satisfying to me than limiting people to some sort of movement in time and space we could relate to. Or something.

[Smoking Frog]

Hmmm. It is making me post my post twice. It must be my fault, but I can't make it stop. Someone get me off this thing.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Smoking Frog