How do you define BRP?

[Chaot]

Two things jump out to me as pretty iconic; the attack parry matrix and the Resistance Table. Other things would be the way the Stats and Skills are split and the use of D00. Another thing that jumps at me are the names Chaosium and Avalon Hill (also Perrin and Stafford). But do these things define BRP?

I'll put Pendragon with BRP. I'll put RuneQuest with BRP even though it's more like the system on which BRP was based. I'll put MRQ with BRP. I'd probably put GORE with BRP (I haven't had a chance to read it yet).

I wouldn't put RoleMaster with BRP despite it's similarities.

Thoughts?

[badcat]

A straight-forward, roll-under percentile role playing game published by Chaosium. I don't consider MRQ to be anything other than a badly thought out homebrew.

There is at least one other game published that was probably started off as RQ and published as a separate game, and it's pretty good, IMO. It has a game screen that could actually be used with RQ, it is so similar. Ever heard of Fifth Cycle? It uses everything you mentioned except the resistance table.

[Monteblanco]

I don't even consider the Resistance Table to be part of BRP as the numbers are easily calculated. However, I wouldn't call a game BRP if it lacks the characteristic roll over method of improving skills and the reduced or absent influence of abilities over skills.

[badcat]

The experience system, yeah I can see that. However the early editions of Stormbringer and RQ used bonuses that could impact the characters' skills pretty heavily.

[Enpeze]

BRP? Wots dat?

Well lets see:

-roll under 1d100

-scaleable skills and attributes

-SIZ (without it, no BRP)

-deadly and realistic

-multigenre (from cyberpunk to fantasy)

-modular

-resistance table

-CoC kick 1d6 damage :eek:

-melts with background

-very simple

-no levels and XP

Dats BRP (at least for me).

[Trifletraxor]

To me BRP is Chaosium's d100 systems, together with other systems that have copied enough from Chaosium to maintain the BRP "feel". Because MRQ have taken the d100 system so far towards the D&D market, I do not consider it BRP. GORE on the other hand, would qualify. :cool:

Sverre.

[Enpeze]

I would say MRQ is a kind of homebrewn BRP like andak...err... badcat already mentioned. I have played it several times and it is playable. But it lacks some fundamental BRP aspects, so I would rate it rather as a mediocre and not very well tested version of BRP.

It seems that Matt of Mongoose was a little bit too overconfident in his own design skills. Obviously he is also very influenced by D20. Nontheless I hope it will be successful as a product on its own because converting MRQ material to the only and true BRP is easy. As far as I heard some of the new MRQ source books are very good and I think the more material is out there the better.

Gore on the other hand is pure BRP. I like it but is it legal?

[Lord Twig]

For me BRP would have to be...

Roll under on d100.

No class and levels.

No assigned experience points of checks, you improve what you use.

Quick and deadly combat with fixed HPs.

Armor that absorbs damage.

Size stat.

[badcat]

It is interesting to me that several of you put emphasis on the experience check system. In my homebrew I did away with that and used an 'increase for experience point cost' system like Fifth Cycle. The SIZ stat has always been a sort of mixed blessing to me, as well. Unless there is some houserule to control it (like the use of a default value) it can result in very strange characters from time to time. Midget warriors, Herculean wizards, etc.

[Lord Twig]

So how do you determine how much Experience Points the characters get? How do you prevent it from just being arbitrary? The standard "get an experience check with successful use of the skill" system removes the need to guesstimate experience points.

As for the Size stat, I realize it is not always the best, just like the resistance table, but it wouldn't feel like BRP without it. It would be like D&D without Armor Class or levels. The game might be better, but is it still D&D at that point?

This is the main thing with MRQ. I think they tried to pull what Wizards of the Coast did with D&D3.x and make a new RQ that different, but still RQ. But in this case they kept the wrong stuff, or they kept the right stuff but changed it so that in didn't work well. They failed miserably in my opinion.

[badcat]

I am completely with you on your second and third points. SIZ is useful, in spite of those little aberrations from time to time, and indeed it is one of the things that sets BRP apart. I use it, I was just commenting on the less-than-great results I have gotten from time to time. It's easy to fix. MRQs combat system is several steps backwards, no way I would ever think of running it like it is. The only improvements the game introduced are the chargen and maybe the encumbrance system, for some of us. The rest of it? I can honestly say I have downloaded better BRP houserules free off the internet.

About the experience thing. When I use it (as I did mostly when I ran the game where I got it, Fifth Cycle) there are certain amounts of experience given for this or that. Like any other game that uses such a system. Usually between 10 and 40 points per session. The skills all have increasing costs per 'rank' (+5%), with eight ranks. Like broadsword costs 9/14/23/36/72 etc., with the cost modified by the skills' controlling stats (two each).

It works well for this particular game and would probably work for a regular BRP game just fine. Any one of the versions that use 5% increments, like RQ2. All the skills have their own progression tables. It is faster and easier than it looks, and when I did use it for one campaign, my BRP veteran players did not have a problem with it. It works OK in 'regular' BRP games, it's just different. Some of us liked it better, some didn't. The ones who liked it better said they had more control over how their character developed. Personally it just depends on what kind of game I am running. I guess I would rather have it as the exp. cost way if I were playing, myself. No accounting for taste.

[Sorloc]

It is interesting to me that several of you put emphasis on the experience check system. In my homebrew I did away with that and used an 'increase for experience point cost' system like Fifth Cycle. The SIZ stat has always been a sort of mixed blessing to me, as well. Unless there is some houserule to control it (like the use of a default value) it can result in very strange characters from time to time. Midget warriors, Herculean wizards, etc.

BRP:

¤ d100

¤ SIZ stat (that integrates with armor, encumberance, damage, knockback...)

¤ experience check system

¤ forces roleplaying to develop characters

¤ hit points based on stats, no power creep

¤ armor absorbs damage

¤ shields are weapons too - parry with anything

¤ no levels

¤ no classes

¤ impales, knockback, attacking a weapon, long reach weapons, area effect weapons and attacks, Strike Ranks, in & out damage, lots of small wounds can take you out, the whole combat system is the best I've ever used.

RE: above:

What's wrong with midget warriors? Do midget societies have to hire warriors from other races? What's wrong with big wizards? The growth gland impedes magic or something?

As to the experience system, There is already a system in place to gain skills you did not use recently. It's called roleplaying. What you do is this: IN CHARACTER, you look for someone who can teach the skill or spell you want to learn or improve. You convince them to teach you. You train with your teacher for a certain amount of time (yes, IN-GAME), and then, >pouf< you now have some more ability in that skill.

I'm sorry if I sound nasty, please assume I used whatever combination of smileys are necessary for you to accept that I'm not trying to belittle or degrade you personally, it's just that I have heard this a lot, and I don't get it. I actually have instituted RQ3 experience into my Rolemaster game - you can't put points into swimming if you've never learned (you don't just suddenly know how to swim just because you killed a beholder), nor can you gain ANY spell, *without a teacher*.

[badcat]

:)Don't be so serious. As I pointed out above, these are very minor things to me. BRP is my game. Sometimes I see things from other games I like to try out; dont you?

There is no reason the experience system I described won't work alongside 'role-playing' and/or BRP specifically. I know, because I used it once or twice and there was no collateral damage and the players thought it was fine. No substantive difference, no substantive improvement either.

You don't sound particularly nasty, in fact I smiled because you are kind of preaching to the choir. I was commenting that I never particularly considered the experience system or SIZ to be defining elements of BRP (and so was a little surprised many of the rest of you do), and that I have run successful houseruled games without one or both. Don't worry about it.

Besides, there was more to it than I described. Eight 5% ranks make 40%(where is the rest of the skill % to make it viable?), so the system as a whole is basically BRP, but with some twists...some twists that make it fun in its own right. Even though I remain convinced the game started out as RQ2. It is certainly as much fun.

And the SIZ thing. I usually just assign modifiers per race in the game. It's funny what ranges you can come up with if you use straight 3D6 rolls, is all. Some days my dice just don't cooperate. And my favorite BRP rpg, Stormbringer, was definitely wildly unbalanced in more ways than that. Where else could you roll up a midget beggar with 18 STR and no arms, anyway?

[Enpeze]

I actually have instituted RQ3 experience into my Rolemaster game - you can't put points into swimming if you've never learned (you don't just suddenly know how to swim just because you killed a beholder), nor can you gain ANY spell, *without a teacher*.

yepp. The key in a rpg should be authenticity. I dont like the experience approach of most other rpg systems and therefore I never fully understood the philosophy behind XP. BRP feels extremely organic in its rules for experience. There are just 2 ways to gain more and better skills. Learning and practicicing. Of course its also what certain players would call "imbalanced", because one player if lucky can gain more skill than another, but that feels very realistic and like life itsself.

[badcat]

That's a whole other argument. Experience systems can be quite 'organic' feeling as long as they are relatively open ended. The experience system in BRP can be changed with no harm to the game play, therefore it is not a defining facet of the system. IMO.

[Trifletraxor]

That's a whole other argument. Experience systems can be quite 'organic' feeling as long as they are relatively open ended. The experience system in BRP can be changed with no harm to the game play, therefore it is not a defining facet of the system. IMO.

But do you limit experience gains to skills that have actually been used during play, or some other reason can be given to why they've increased?

To me the tick-system is also part of what defines BRP to me, but that's not to say other systems won't work too.

(I once played AD&D (I was desperate), and played a dwarf noble travelling with a party through a dessert. I mostly sat in my wagon and drank. At the end of the journey he became a skilled swimmer... And none of the other players found that strange at all! )

Sverre.

[golden wheel dancer]

The BRP exp system, in which a character learns from experience rather than as a result of player whim, is a defining feature of BRPs realism for me. The fact that it can be dropped without affecting the system is another defining feature of BRP: the system is rock solid so it can be battered with house rules and hold itself together.

[badcat]

Yes, when I used the experience system from Fifth Cycle I had the players note what they were 'working on' on the character sheet and describe when and how. No biggie.

And I agree that the ability to change the experience system and other parts of the game system without breaking it is one of the defining aspects, probably more so than the check system itself...but I usually use the check system myself. I have run many BRP games and only used the Fifth Cycle system once.

[Atgxtg]

badcat,

Put me down for another who considers the "check to improve" XP system a core part of RQ/BRP.

Firth Cycles XP system is, IMO more along the lines of DragonQuest than RuneQuest.

One thing that made RQ easier to run, and went over well with the D&D players was how fast/easy it was to handle experience. Rather than spending time adding up and dividing XP, things only took a couple of minutes to roll over some skills. Plus the gradual improvement gave a strong feeling of character growth. Experience ends up being a byproduct of adventuring or the goal of actual study, rather than a reward for spending time at the table or killing monsters.

[badcat]

That's OK. I seem to be outvoted on that one for sure.

[Atgxtg]

That's OK. I seem to be outvoted on that one for sure.

Hey cat,

The cool thing is, this isn't a vote. Just how "we" define BRP. That makes it entirely subjective. THat means we could pick anything from "serif fonts" to "Steve Perrin's name in the credits".

IF we wanted to look at things logically, the I'd say we would have to go with picking those rules that have been every RQ/BRP game system. That would leave us with the attributes (if you count PENDRAGON drop INT), skill based task resolution, common die roll for conducting actions, and so forth (i.e. rsistance table, base skill percentages, classless, and oh yeah, skill checks ). PENDRAGON does a few things differently, such as D20 instead of D100, and no resistance chart (but an opposed resolution system that mirrors the resitance chart to some degree, and in some ways improves upon it).

[badcat]

Check. Weird, now that you mention Pendragon, I loved King Arthur when I was growing up but never liked the rpg. It just never looked like a game I would enjoy playing, or it never seemed like any sort of cousin to BRP...

My own criteria for defining BRP was stated back at the beginning of this thread, anyway. Short and sweet.

[Guest Sverre]

PENDRAGON does a few things differently, such as D20 instead of D100, and no resistance chart (but an opposed resolution system that mirrors the resitance chart to some degree, and in some ways improves upon it).

Pendragon uses a d20 for skill resolution? It's a d20 game? What makes it count in with BRP then? (d20 should only be used for hit locations!!! and maybe some badass club wielded by a huge great-troll! :eek:)

Triff.

[Enpeze]

I agree to some extent. BRP without d100? Well maybe we can say that Pendragon is a game with many BRP elements, but not BRP as such.

I am also not sure about the litte subgames in Pendragon. Like the passions or the province building rules. This is hardly BRP. But I dont know it for sure because I never played it (high Fantasy is not interesting enough for me). Was not G. Stafford the author?

[Atgxtg]

And now for something completely different, or the Pendragon threadjack.

Badcat,

You should give Pendragon a look. It is actually a vey good game, and has a few nice tweaks to the RQ system. I ran the game for years, to the point where I sort of had to beg the group to let me run something else. One really neat thing about the game was the time scale. With an average of one year per adventure, you got to play your character's sons as the campaign went on. It was sort of nice to know that when your character died, his magic sword would pass on to his son.

The game plays very BRPish. Combat is probably closer to Stormbringer than RQ, with major wounds and such. Damage isn't based on weapon but by STR+SIZ and then modifed by weapon (sort of reverse RQ). Each character has a damage stat (in d6) equal to (STR+SIZ)/6. Then you add in the special effects for weapon type. Daggers do 1d6 less damage, greatswords +1d6 more, axes offset shields somewhat, and so on.

If you like King Arthur, then definitely check out the Great Pendragon Campaign book. An over 400 page supplement for Pendragon that covers the timeline and gives you enough material to run a campaign.

Sverre

Pendragon uses a d20, but is not a d20 game in the "d20" sense. Although much of the design of d20 skill system was inspired" (swiped) by Pendragon and RQ (look at Jon Tweet comments about RuneQuest).

Basically think RQ2, with it' s 5% skill increments. That is sort of the basis for Pendragon. Roll d20 under your skill and see if you succeed or not. The game even had check boxes to improve skills like RQ.

Where Pendragon differs is in how it handles opposed rolls and criticals. Rather than a resistance chart, it is roll against ability. If both succeed, high roll wins. Combat is handled this way too, with the winner inflicting damage on the loser (the loser gets his shield protection if he rolled under his skill).

Criticals were handled by rolling your skill exactly. A critical was considered to be a result of "20" and so wold beat a non critical. Very high scores (over 20) would add the amount over 20 to the roll, thereby greatly increasing the chances of a critical.

Very different from D20, AC, levels and all that.

Enpeze,

I don't consider Pendragon to be BRP, but definitely BRP related. IMO closer to BRP than MRQ. But that's my slant.

The Personality traits and Passion rules are also BRP related, but you have to hunt for the link. It hadl appeared in other RQ products, such as Thieves World, but using D100 instead of D20.

Pendragon is most definitely Greg's baby. So much so that he just wrote a new edition last year. The Great Pendragon Campaign book is a fantastic supplement (think RQ campaign pack, but set to run for over 75 game years). In fact, this book was my RPG pick me up after MRQ. My local RPG shop owner was pleased that I liked it (I was quite happy forking over the $50 for this puppy. As a read alone is is something. Dozens of characters, scenarios, maps, history, equipment, cotes of arms, you name it).

Okay, threadjack complete......(???)