So, how flawed is BRP ... ?

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Not at all, I doubt if Jason's choices for "best" would have been coincident with mine at all. What I mean is that I thought Deluxe BRP would bring a tightly defined, possibly tweaked version of the system to the table. What actually happened, as we know, is that the BGB collated almost all previous versions of the game as a comprehensive, option-rich package.

The reason I think I would have preferred the former is that I expect he would have come up with a spiffy new book of rules that I would not have thought of. Of course it's possible I would not have liked it. I'm speculating here.

[LivingTriskele]

Just my two cents. I've spent the last three years trying to find the best generic RPG system out there (best for me, that is). I’ve tried GURPS, Hero System, Mutants & Masterminds (I’ve tried other systems too, specific to certain genres). Regarding BRP I think there are a lot of things that should be fixed, extrapolated on, expanded or clarified. That being said, it is the one system that I consistently have the most fun GMing.

[pansophy]

I found out using the GORE rules for clarifications from time to time helps very much. In fact they are very easy written and contain a lot of the BGB. Not too bad for a free product.

For a pulp and easy system I still do prefer the Barbarians of Lemuria game system over the BRP. But that's a completely different story ...

[Smoking Frog]

There's obviously a big difference between the question "what's wrong with BRP?" and "what's wrong with the BGB?"

For me, the slightly "annoying" problem with the BGB is that it seems in places to be something of a "rough cut." I've seen posts here that are a variation of "this rule (or table or whatever) doesn't make any sense (or is inconsistent)," and someone who has been playing BRP for 30 years will chime in with "that rule is a verbatim cut and past of RQ3 and needs to be updated" or something like it. Chaosium seems to be hoping to use the BGB to get new people into the BRP system (hence, sections like "what is roleplaying" and "introduction to the basic roleplaying system"), and I assume the "rough edges" would be a hurdle to someone not particularly fluent in the system.

Is there an errata document for the BGB? If not, is someone at Chaosium collecting the identified "bugs"?

[Kairos]

This nifty little essay (pdf) has really helped me think about how certain assumptions about GMing and playing are built into RPG design and how those assumptions have changed over the umpteen years I've been a gamer. I think it's off-the-mark to think of BRP or the BGB as broken; it's more productive, I think, to consider one's own expectations about what the game is supposed to do and how it is supposed to be played, and how these expectations jive with the assumptions with which the game was designed.

I want to pause here and disclaim any appeals to the sort of facile and unhelpful subjectivism in which RPG discussions can get mired in. To wit, "That's your opinion; this is my opinion." This essay, I think, helps break up that sort of log-jam. I'm assuming here that BRP is a solid old-school game.

For example, BRP's design assumes GMs will use their judgement and not bound and dependent on clearly-defined rules for all situations. "Most of the time in old-style gaming, you don’t use a rule; you make a ruling....Rules are a resource for the referee, not for the players. Players use observation and description as their tools and resources: rules are for the referee only" (2). So, if BRP lacks a rule, it's not that it's broken; it's that the design of the game expects that a GM will step in and use his or her judgement. In fact, in places the rules pretty much spell out where they expect the GM to make a judgement.

I could go on, but I think the essay speaks for itself. What do you all think?

[rust]

In my view BRP is a kind of mixed bag in this regard - sometimes the decision is

left to the referee, sometimes there is a detailed (and not always convincing) ru-

le. I think the system is showing its age this way, what started as a simulationist

old school system added bits of a more detailed system here and there, and the

result is a not always consistent mix of approaches, more rules heavy than a true

old school system, but not as elaborate as one of the "modern" generic systems.

[Atgxtg]

I think rust is right.

The orignal game system was not designed to do all the things it has been adapted to. That it help up as well as it did is testament to how good a system is is. But each of the various mods and spinoffs done were to adapt the system to a spefic genre or seting. None of it was really built for mixing and matching.

Also, over the years, various authors have "shifted" the emphasis of the system. Orginally RQ was simulationist and a bit "crunchy." Then it gone simplfied into BRP, and Worlds of Wonder. After that, CoC trimmed the rules down even further, andbecame the model for Chaoisum post RQ2.

So the game doesn't fit toghet the way it would if it had been designed as a genric RPG from the group up. There are a lot of options, variants and alternate rules culled from various ancestors that don't quite work well together. Some things do work well together, and some others come close, but not all of it.

And yeah, he system is showing it's age. In part becuase nothing really innovative has been done with the system in the last 25 years.

[Smoking Frog]

"Most of the time in old-style gaming, you don’t use a rule; you make a ruling....Rules are a resource for the referee, not for the players. Players use observation and description as their tools and resources: rules are for the referee only". So, if BRP lacks a rule, it's not that it's broken; it's that the design of the game expects that a GM will step in and use his or her judgement. In fact, in places the rules pretty much spell out where they expect the GM to make a judgement.

I don't necessarily disagree with your general point, but that quote from the essay is pretty silly. Players generate the character they want by using the rules to understand the benefits and drawbacks, in game terms, of their choices. During the game they make choices based on their understanding of what, in game terms, is likely to happen. It's pretty silly to think this is a good option:

GM: You come to a 10 foot wide chasm that you can't see the bottom of.

Player: I if make a running start, what are my chances of getting across?

GM: The rules are for me, not for you, just tell me what you're doing.

Player: Uh, okay, I guess I'll run and try to jump across.

GM: Hahahahaha. You fail miserably and fall to your death. You never realized you only had an 19% chance of making it.

Player: Okay. That sure was a fun game.

[Kairos]

I don't necessarily disagree with your general point, but that quote from the essay is pretty silly. Players generate the character they want by using the rules to understand the benefits and drawbacks, in game terms, of their choices. During the game they make choices based on their understanding of what, in game terms, is likely to happen. It's pretty silly to think this is a good option:

GM: You come to a 10 foot wide chasm that you can't see the bottom of.

Player: I if make a running start, what are my chances of getting across?

GM: The rules are for me, not for you, just tell me what you're doing.

Player: Uh, okay, I guess I'll run and try to jump across.

GM: Hahahahaha. You fail miserably and fall to your death. You never realized you only had an 19% chance of making it.

Player: Okay. That sure was a fun game.

I don't think that's quite what the author is getting at (although I did get a chuckle out of that scenario). Have a look at the article -- he actually includes scenario examples of what he means.

[trechriron]

Pg. 216 - 217 has solid chase rules. Similar to rules in Savage Worlds and Pathfinder. It's abstract, fast, and detailed enough covering a variety of situations. I personally wouldn't need anything more complicated for a chase.

It would be fun to see a Vehicle Creation system with real world relative numbers, that didn't involve complex formulas or calculations. Vehicles have a total of 12 or so "characteristics". Toss in a system to determine optional components (things the vehicle can do or hold) and a way to extrapolate those 12 characteristics and I think it would be more than adequate for most gamers needs regarding vehicles.

Maybe a unified "thing" creation system like EABA's Stuff but on a less complex scale could be fun. Creating everything from robots, vehicles to bases, gadgets, weapons, etc.

I wish there was a unified power system (not necessarily "effects based").

I also wish there was a "special ability" system that created custom "traits" for specific applications or genres. I don't need a full blown advantage/disadvantage system, but a way to create heroic archetypes, or specialized abilities for a setting would be nifty.

Overall, I think it has the right blend of fast and fiddly for my tastes...

[pansophy]

Is there an errata document for the BGB? If not, is someone at Chaosium collecting the identified "bugs"?

there's only the official and unofficial Errata in the WiKi ...

[Simlasa]

And yeah, he system is showing it's age. In part becuase nothing really innovative has been done with the system in the last 25 years.

I always find it bogus when RPGs are called out as 'dated' or 'showing its age'... "Oh, this game is getting old, it doesn't work any more... I can't even roll up a character with it!"

One man's 'innovation' is another man's 'gimmick' when it comes to games... what you really mean is it doesn't look like the 'hot new thing' over on RPGnet... that in a few months will show itself as having just as many (probably more) flaws than BRP.

People here seem awfully insecure about a system they supposedly like.

[rust]

... what you really mean is it doesn't look like the 'hot new thing' over on RPGnet... that in a few months will show itself as having just as many (probably more) flaws than BRP.

Since Atgxtg quoted me with the remark that "BRP is showing its age": No, what

I mean is that BRP obviously consists of an old core with layers upon layers of

bits and pieces added over time, taken from all the various BRP based games de-

veloped since the original Runequest core was published.

For example, there are the Sanity rules from Call of Cthulhu, the Personality rules

from Pendragon, and so on and on. Not all of these pieces fit together well, and

so BRP is quite different from a consistent generic system designed "in one go".

Edited June 22, 2011 by rust

[pansophy]

I do not think BRP is an old and really flawed system. But I do think it is showing a bit of its age in so far as it has not been streamlined as a whole. For example Movement. RQ, CoC and BRP all have different Movement ranges for the same species. Same is true for Attributes. I like the fact the Laundry and most of the monographs use the newer Movement rates and stats from the BGB. That keeps it in line.

What I do not like is all the different rules and adaptations and new rules and different rules for different settings. I would prefere a basic set of rules which all settings are using and where the settin adds detail, instead of throwing away some rules and replace them with new ones.

Same is true for the Skills. A basic list with settings adding details. Not a detailed list that is changed by every Monograph to suit the setting better.

But anyway, I do not like Skills at all, as they limit the characters in play. I do prefere profession lists as they give the players more options and keep the character sheets clean and small. But that's just me. Currently I am working on a professions system that does work well with BRP. problem here is, it would make use of the Resistance Table a lot more for other task checks ...

[Guest Vile Traveller]

What I do not like is all the different rules and adaptations and new rules and different rules for different settings. I would prefere a basic set of rules which all settings are using and where the settin adds detail, instead of throwing away some rules and replace them with new ones.

Thanks for being much more tidy about articulating what I feel about the BGB. I understand it meets its brief very well, to collect all the various BRP options which have appeared over the years, But I would have preferred a bit more "forging" to make it really one system with fully interchangeable rules.

I'm happy enough with the good old brick brick in the meantime, though, because BRP is very forgiving of add-ons and shoe-ins.

[pansophy]

BRP is very forgiving of add-ons and shoe-ins.

it is indeed, that's one of the strengths. And for my own settings it is not a problem as I do refer to one rule set as the 'way to go' while pointing out all the necessary options.

Using Monographs is sometimes a bit of a hassle, but since they are PDFs it is simple enough to create own settings via cut&paste easily enough. For home use, of course.

[seneschal]

Since Atgxtg quoted me with the remark that "BRP is showing its age": No, what

I mean is that BRP obviously consists of an old core with layers upon layers of

bits and pieces added over time, taken from all the various BRP based games de-

veloped since the original Runequest core was published.

For example, there are the Sanity rules from Call of Cthulhu, the Personality rules

from Pendragon, and so on and on. Not all of these pieces fit together well, and

so BRP is quite different from a consistent generic system designed "in one go".

To be fair, Basic Roleplaying isn't the only long-lasting system that has faced these issues. HERO System began as a superhero game, began adapting to other genres during its 3rd edition, and finally got a unified set of rules in the 4th edition. It, too, has lots of options that can be used or ignored depending on the setting the GM wants to create. Unlike BRP, however, its editors reworked everything to fit together. Fans didn't always like the changes, but the system is consistent regardless of genre. The Big Gold Book is to BRP what 4th edition was to Champions, but it perhaps needs some additional polishing, as HERO System got in 5th edition.

Of course, HERO System has had complete vehicle rules since 3rd edition. I haven't always liked them, but they are consistent with the rest of the game.

[rust]

Of course, HERO System has had complete vehicle rules since 3rd edition. I haven't always liked them, but they are consistent with the rest of the game.

A vehicle system with stats for mass and volume/dimensions would indeed be

most welcome, SIZ may work well for creatures, but SIZ for vehicles is one of

my personal BRP bugbears, and the rules do not help at all.

For example, there is this „Space Vehicle, Transport" on page 271 of the BGB.

According to the stat block it can transport a cargo of SIZ 48. On page 272

under „Cargo" it mentions that 1 SIZ is the equivalent of 1 ENC, and on page

180 it mentions that 1 ENC is the equivalent of 1 kg. As a spaceship should be

able to transport a little more than 48 kg, this is unconvincing. On page 27,

„Object SIZ Examples", an automobile has a SIZ of 50, so we have at least an

approximate dimension of the spaceship's cargo hold.

However, we still do not have a mass, and for remotely realistic spaceships with

reaction drives the mass is important, because the performance of an empty ship

is different from that of a loaded ship, and there is a mass limit to the ability of

the drive to lift the ship from a planet's surface and out of the planet's gravity

well. With „SIZ 48" all one can do is guess, since that volume of grain has a very

much different mass from the same volume of machine parts.

Ah, well ...

[ioticus]

Yeah, BRP's whole SIZ, ENC, weight, fatigue relationship is all messed up.

[Agentorange]

The SIZ stat bothers me, I like the idea of a SIZ stat just not the way done, but I've banged on about that often enough before so I'll shut up now.

[icebrand]

The SIZ stat bothers me, I like the idea of a SIZ stat just not the way done, but I've banged on about that often enough before so I'll shut up now.

+1, i like "scale" more than siz "cat/midget/human/troll/horse/rhyno/elephant/blue whale" scale works MUCH better for me than "siz 1-3 (whats a cats siz anyway?)", siz 6, siz 13, siz 35, siz 60, siz 120, siz 250 (and i probably got the last 3 wrong).

[rust]

... and i probably got the last 3 wrong.

Not much, your whale is only a little bigger than a battleship.

[icebrand]

Not much, your whale is only a little bigger than a battleship.

Actually, if the average human is SIZ 13 at 75 kg, the average blue whale should be size 31200 at 180 metric tons or, going at 6 enc = 1 siz , size 30k.

If we go by body length, the same siz 13 175cm human has an average blue whale counterpart of 222 siz , but then again, a blue whale is WAY more bulky than a human the same size, so id add a 50% more size for a grand total of 333.

So, make your pick: 222, 333, 30000 or 31200 =)

[rust]

So, make your pick: 222, 333, 30000 or 31200 =)

Well, we could take the average of those numbers, arriving at about 15,500 ...

Reminds me of "statistical death". If you fire your gun at someone and first miss

1 meter to the left and then 1 meter to the right, he is statistically dead.

[Smoking Frog]

At some point, it seems that you would benefit from ignoring SIZ and just assessing things by dimension and mass. So your cargo bay has dimensions and your space ship has a limit on how much mass it can carry. When you know the density of any item you want to take with you, you can figure out how much of it your ship can either hold (dimensions) or lift (mass). Along the same lines, it seems you should just go with a blue whale's dimensions and mass. Then you can easily decide whether he fits somewhere or if he can be lifted by something.

SIZ seems to be an easy short hand from some purposes and for some sizes, but as we've clearly identified, there are places where SIZ just mucks things up, and short circuiting it is so much easier.