Non human playable races and encounter balancing

[g33k]

6 hours ago, Nozbat said:

True .. but I'm not sure what the benefit for spammers on this forum lol.. they might find an argument has developed about the Lunar or Orlanthi view of the spam .. and give up trying to spam anyone

Right now, spammers see any un-penetrated market as their open turf to exploit.
Just one sale proves "success."

With cheap/easy/automated spam tools, it costs them essentially zero to flood a forum.  That includes zero consequences to them:  they don't care if they destroy a site under a flood of crap.

I've seen some really good places get destroyed this way:  a tiny bit of spam, people laugh... a little more, people grumble... still more, people start talking about Something Should Be Done... and the tide of spam just keeps rising... and soon, the real humans start abandoning the site because filtering-out the spam becomes harder and harder to do (and because there are fewer and fewer real humans who are actually engaged in <whatever brought them to the site originally>).

Edited June 17 by g33k

[shadythedevil]

On 5/23/2024 at 9:53 AM, Atgxtg said:

Not exactly. It's a bit more complicated, BRP isn't really "balanced" like D&D is. For one thing, "balanced" in D&D really means unbalanced in favor of the PCs. It's more of a thing in D&D since level is so significant to the outcome.  In D&D a 1HD goblin has virtually no chance in a one on one fight against a 10th level fighter. Even naked and unarmed the fighter is going to mop the floor with the goblin. THat how D&D works. Yes, statistically the goblin has a chance of beating the warrior, but statistically the goblin could hit the lottery, and neither is going to happen with enough frequency to be considered a factor. So encounters are "balanced" (that is rigged) to seem just dangerous enough to give the players some sense of excitement and to keep them from becoming complacent about it. It mostly artifcal too, as things like intelligence and tactics (or lack there of) aren't factored into the CR rating for game balance.

But in BRP, with fixed hit points, things are different. A goblin with a measly 10% weapon skill could get  lucky critical or impale and drop a master warrior with a single hit. It's not likely, but it can happen a lot more often than it will in D&D. So a GM doesn't need to keep upping the  opposition like a DM does in D&D. A bunch of "low level" mooks are always going to be a threat. As a result a GM can use a set scale for skill competency, rather than a relative one. That is, if the GM introduces the  town guardsmen with Sword 50% at ths start of a campaign, they can keep them at 50% for the entire campaign, and they will still be able to post some sort of threat even to experienced PCs.

 

So balance, either in terms of encounters or even between player characters, isn't as much of a thing. A starting PC with low skills can adventure with a more experienced one in ways that don't really work in D&D.

 

SO most GMs don't worry about balance as much. Yes they will tend to try to keep the oppositions skill, gear, and numbers down to a level that they believe thier players can handle, but that amount is highly subjective.  The better the GM knows the game system and the abilities of the player characters (not to mention the players) the better they can judge just what their group is capable of.  So most adventures tend to be written with opposition that seems reasonable for that adfventure, and is not determined by the PCs,  and its often up to the players to figure ou if they are they are up to a given challenge or not (i.e. starting characters shouldn't go after dragons). 

 

Or not. This might be a bit of a shock to a new player, but GMs in old skool  RPGs might just let the PCs suffer the consequences. "Ge,e the bandit cut your characters arm off, that's rough. Too bad you didn't make the parry roll."

Most of the GMs I know (self included) do not like to fudge behavior or die rolls all that much (if at all) as the players will eventually pick up on it, and it will make the game much less enjoyable. Slaying a dragon is an accomplishment, unless you know the GM was fudging the encounter, and the PCs biggest risk was that the dragon might fall on one of then as it was dying. I've seen players start to do stupider things just to see if the GM is fudging and find out how far they will go to "save" the game. Then they will exploit that for the rest of the campaign, because well, the main game isn't all that exciting anymore, since the GM is covering for them. 

 

 

the whole discussion of balance really misses the point i am trying to make. i understand what you are saying but my main issue with there not being an amalgamation stat, like the cr, is that it risks wasting my time as well as increases opportunities for unfun situations.

i am a never fudge the rolls type of dm. the risk of death needs to be actual for increased excitement purposes. ime, after a player death, everybody is forced to waste time and usually, the death is not that fun. its just oh well, i got unlucky, shall i roll another character?

without such a stat like the CR, i am wasting time in my planning and i am wasting time when my planning was not good enough to keep the game fun without a huge stall of a player having to reroll another character. i dont think most groups will find a TPK to be very fun at all, altho there are obvious exceptions.

[shadythedevil]

On 5/23/2024 at 10:05 AM, Saki said:

Exactly what I mean by Eyeballing it.

 

Would you commit to TPKing the party because you as the GM made a mistake and made the opposition insurmountable to the party? 

imo, this is a big problem between the two systems. the cr stat lets an unfamiliar reader quickly compare without having to go through a stat block line by line for comparison. without reading any of the other d&d rules, if the CR stat is the only stat that is explained, i can flip through the monster manual and know whos cannon fodder, whos a badass, and who is godlike powerful.

i want to be able to eyeball it, but im not there yet with comfortability in the system. you know what would REALLY help me become a bit less green in the system? an amalgamation stat like the CR, lol.

[shadythedevil]

On 5/23/2024 at 10:31 AM, g33k said:

The thing is:  when "balance" isn't a thing, neither is "insurmountable."
Sometimes the odds are more in the players' favor, sometimes the odds are against them.

When I see my players (who are, at the moment, all less-experienced than I am (both as gamers in general, and with RQ in particular)) making poor tactical & strategic decisions, I try to direct them to think differently, such as with "your character would probably know..." &c.  But even with solid strategies, there's not nearly the surety there is with (for example) D&D's "CR" system.

Then there's just the "luck of the dice..."

Sometimes a single crit or fumble can swing an entire combat; and sometimes you can get multiple such, that all swing the same way.

i think this is not accurate when taken to the extremes.

for example, the main two stats i am looking at to understand how challenging a monster may be, are the armor stat, which is essentially a permanent HP bubble until it breaks, and the actual HP.

you cant tell me that brand new characters stand a chance against a giant robot (permanent 30hp bubble, 188 raw hp). without the cr like stat and without a ton of experience in the system, i have no idea when my players might be able to legitimately threaten the giant robot (its obviously late game monster, but how late?).

[shadythedevil]

On 5/23/2024 at 11:34 AM, g33k said:

I think it's just a zero-revenue product (that nevertheless costs them real $$$ in commissioned artwork, layout, etc) and so it's very-low on their to-do list.

I think all the "development" work is done (i.e. they're RAW-compliant playable PCs)... just not up to Chaosium presentational standards.
They are planned to stand alongside the pre-gen PC's from the Starter Set; so folio-style character sheet, full artwork, etc... and it's those resources they haven't gotten, yet.

would the process go faster if i plopped my money down. can i plop my money down? can i pledge or whatever? i want that product sooner than later.

[shadythedevil]

On 5/23/2024 at 11:41 AM, g33k said:

At least insofar as RQ is concerned, many non-human races are already out & playable (via the rules in the Bestiary).

My group of players was light on spirit side of things, so I used those rules to make a Trollkin shaman-apprentice.  He's a bit weak (IIRC racial-max POW & CHA are both woefully low for an aspiring Shaman), but he's just an NPC so he's meant not to stand out; however he can bolster that side of things for the players, at need.

what book is this?

in my hexcrawl, science fantasy, numenera rip off, i have settled on at least 3 additional playable races. grey aliens, alien plant guys, psionic elemental dudes made of rocks and crystal.

wondering if i can just reflavor something from the book you are talking about.

[shadythedevil]

On 5/23/2024 at 3:02 PM, Atgxtg said:

What do you think Challenge Rating is? It's all "eyeballing it", with the possible exception of Tunnels & Trolls where you can fix the combat abilities of most foes by using a simple formula..There are way to many variables with characters (and their players) for any CR system to really work, especially outside of a ridgy structured game like D&D 3-5.

 

Any competent DM can easily design a encounter that can slaughter a given party of adventures but which is supposedly at the appropriate CR for that group. But being competent .DM's they don't. 

No, but I wouldn't fudge to fix it, that is just following an mistake with an error.

If I made a mistake I'd actually tell the players that I did so and fix it. It wouldn't be the first time. I find it's much better being upfront and honest about mistakes than fudging to try and cover them up , which probably won't work anyway for an error that big. Most players notice when the dragon suddenly turns stupid and starts missing with natural 19s, or when the GM hides die rolls. Is there another reason for a GM to hide die rolls? If the players don't catch on to such fudging, well then their death probably wasn't due to the GM's mistake.

But the thing is few opponents in BRP are insurmountable, and it pretty hard to use one by accident. Note that there is also a big difference between a foe being insurmountable and a group failing to defeat one. I have no problem TKPing a party because they didn't play well, or some such. I fell bad for them if they die to to bad die rolls but it happens. It has to happen or else the die rolls become meaningless, and the players will quickly realize that they have no agency, and that everything is happening  by GM fiat.

 

I get the idea that a GM unfamiliar with a game might throw something too much for the group to handle, but that is part of the learning curve. If said GM starts fuding to fix that, then they will never really learn what the right level of opposition is for their group. 

 

If you want a quick and dirty guideline to go by:

• Start off with foes with about half the skill level, armor and magic of the PCs. Maybe a little less to start with (20% vs 10% isn't that much of an edge). You can up this later.
• You don't have to advertise the NPCs ineptness. For the most part the players won't notice that they outclass their foes they way the  would in D&D since hit points and damages don't change all that much. Ken the Incompetent can still take a PCs head off with a Scimitar, if he rolls good (and they don't).
• Keep damage dice down so that you can't inflict a major wound or take out a hit location on most PCs without a really good roll.
• Keep in mind that BRP combats are generally quick and brutal and don't try to extend it to "try and have a good fight". That will kill most groups.
• Also don't think that the players have to get injured for it to be a good fight. That will kill most groups too.
• You're not going to the same sort of attrition out of encounters that you do with class & level games. Instead of the group being slowly weakened they tend to go from having an easy fight of it to coming up short and dropping like dominoes.
• Avoid ambushing the group. While cool in D&D such things to be devastating in BRP. A good Ambush can drop most of the group before they even get ready their weapons, and most ambushes will drop (and possibly kill) at least one PC in the first round. I think I've killed more PCs with impaling arrows than anything else. 
• Avoid outnumbering the group. Overwhelming numbers usually overwhelm. A characters endurance is a fight has less to do with hit points than with their ability to defend. And few can defend well against multiple foes. 
• Don't go out of your way to target the PCs weaknesses. I don't mean the NPCs here, I mean the GM. For instance if you know the PCs have no protection against, say, Sorcery, don't throw sorcerers against them, since you know they can't handle them. But if an NPC knows a PC is vulnerable to sorcery and has a chance to exploit tit, that's another thing -assuming the GM doesn't engineer the situation. 
• Don't fudge any more that you think you need to, if at all. Players will catch on if you do,and it will erode their trust in you as a GM and their enjoyment.
• Admit to and correct you mistakes when you can. Player will respect you for it, and you will keep their trust.
• Don't be afraid of letting the players get an easy win. Nothing frustrated the players more than coming up with a solution to a problem only to have the GM fudge some sort of retcon to keep it from working because it would "spoil the adventure". This is coming from the GM who once forgot the PC could bypass most of his Star Trek adventure with this thing they call a transporter. Let the players get with win- they earned it. My Pendragon players still rave about winning a scripted battle that they were supposed to lose because they were on a roll than night and all the random events went their way (stood their ground and rallied a retreating army; beat two enemy commanders; fought their way to the enemy camp; and rolled great doing it)
• Note that a GM can bend or break most of these guidelines once they get more familiar with the rules, the PCs, and their players. But the above is a good start.

 

 

 

 

these are all great strategies and i have used many of them. however this discussion is in the spirit of balance, and altho i would really really like to keep things as "on the edge" as they can be, between a fun challenge and 'we nearly died!', in an essence is a discussion about balance, that is not my main point.

without a cr like stat, time can be wasted on multiple fronts. it can be wasted when prepping, with tedious line by line stat block comparisons. it can be time wasting when ive made an encounter deadlier than i intended, forcing a group of players to sit and wait while another rerolls due to character death.

and dont get me wrong. im not trying to keep the players alive for their feelings. i want my world to feel dangerous and if they are risky, they can easily die. i also want the ability to say

 

"that giant robot you see over there, although theres not a stat that says this in its stat block, it would be an insurmountable fight for a group of new characters and a TPK is nearly guaranteed." (i wouldnt say that, but in essence)

[shadythedevil]

On 5/23/2024 at 4:44 PM, svensson said:

About 'eyeballing it'...

Firstly, it doesn't matter what icon or label you put on it, EVERY referee is going to set a challenge for their particular table. For a novice crew, a team of roughly equal opponents that outnumber the party by three people can be a real challenge. For rules-savvy players that fight will be almost annoyingly easy. The tactics and knowledge of the players will grossly effect the 'challenge rating' of the encounter.

Secondly, BRP/CoC/RQ has a HUGE range of challenges for player to fight, from a band of trollkin bandits [almost laughlingly trivial] to the Great Cthulhu itself [you WILL die in this encounter, what matters is how good you look doing it]. It can be hard to slap a challenge rating on such a wide range in a level-less system. It can be done, but it's hard work for a rather more nebulous result.

this is great knowledge you have with experience in the system.

dont you think this knowledge should be knowable to a new gm with the system, as in.. make the damn CR stat or equivalent. it should be written and explained. "a team of roughly equal monsters, outnumbering by 3, can be a real challenge." the book needs to say this and make clear rules around understanding the system better so that new gm's can figure this out themselves without going thru the process of multiple player deaths and potential TPKs.

[shadythedevil]

On 5/24/2024 at 7:55 AM, g33k said:

Telmori are pp. 84-87 in the Bestiary; there is a (very) short-form Cult write-up included, and minor cultural notes.
They also get a mention on p.6, as one of the exemplars of "Intelligent Creatures as Adventurers"
By RQG standards, it's very minimal info for "playable PC" background; they don't even get their own "how to make a PC" sidebar (the way Dark Trolls do, and minor add-ons for Great Trolls & Trollkin, based on the Dark Troll template)...

The issue, of course (in regards the OP's ask) is that while RQ has plenty of non-humans playable, the "balance" of the species (or an adventure/encoounter) is simply not one of the issues under consideration.

i dont think its wrong to want all the players to start on a relatively equal ground. its also weird in a ttrpg, imo, to say that only humans are playable. have any of you ever ran a campaign for a group of players that all chose human? ive never encountered this. other races to play are cool and other players definitely think so too. its not unreasonable for those players to want to feel that they are on the same power level while playing as something not human.

[shadythedevil]

On 5/24/2024 at 8:17 AM, g33k said:

Let me +1 on congratulating you for finding a system you're happy with, and  +  ... well, +lots on hoping you'll share your system here.

BRP has always been more of a "toolkit" game than a playable-right-out-of-the-book game; and more tools in the toolkit is always a good thing.

how would i share it? its on an excel sheet.

[shadythedevil]

On 5/24/2024 at 10:14 AM, Atgxtg said:

Exactly. That's why "game balance" as people tend to view it is a myth. On paper something might seem to be a challenge, but that doesn't factor in for the skills of the actual players (as opposed to thier characters), the tactical situation of the encounter, or even the spells know or gear carried. D&D CRs worlk by assuming what a group of PCs will have at X level.

 

OD&D and AD&D didn't do that. It's why you see GMs grab an adventure that was supposedly for a higher level group if their players were really good.  I recall our old group beat the Slavers in  A3 (the PCs were supposed to lose) and the GM basically had to fiat that the PCs got captured so he could continue onto A4, where the PCs do a jail break. The guys got extra XP for that one.  

Yup, plus foes remain a challenge over a longer range than in D&D. That trival band of trollkin can still be pesky and somewhat dangerous to experienced adventurers in a way that they cannot be in D&D. Just ask Rurik!

i disagree entirely on the point that game balance is a myth.

i understand how a ttrpg can be infinitely complicated, which makes balance a moving target.

what im really asking for is a baseline stat comparison. a baseline could be defined in a lot of different ways. obviously, in d&d, cr factors that its a group of people, it factors in expected spells and items that a group of players might have for a particular level, and it assumes that fights are a part of an adventuring day where they rest and regain all the depleted resources at the end of the day.

i really dont need all the extra frill. i want a baseline stat comparison with a baseline being defined as, no player skill, no environmental gm complications, no extra whatever.

a player with 5 hp, that has a hit chance of 50% after factoring in opponent stats, and does 1d6 damage per round has about a 25% chance (my math is probably wrong) of winning a fight against a monster with 6hp, 50% hit chance, with 1d10 dmg per round. a simple stat comparison as ive explained, without all the extra complicating factors, is a major draw back into planning with the system. i do feel that the developers of the system are shooting themselves in the foot not having a quick reference, baseline amalgamation stat, similar to d&d cr system. im over here wasting extra time, doing work that i feel the developers should have done, in order to not waste time in the future.

[shadythedevil]

On 5/24/2024 at 12:04 PM, svensson said:

@Atgxtg One of the things I tell new RQ players goes something like this:

"RuneQuest is a deadly combat system. There are no trivial or 'warm up' fights. The only hit points you'll ever get are on your character sheet right now. Use your power up spells! Your Magic Points and Rune Points are meant to be expended, so manage those resources... don't hoard them but don't forget to spend them either. And remember, even a trollkin with a short spear has a straight up 5% of killing you every single round. Combat in this system is not to be entered into lightly, so plan, prepare, and power up."

i will have a similar disclaimer at the start of my own campaign. there will be opportunities to increase hp, but never so much as doubling your hp. dying in one round or in one hit will be very possible. you might get just a few extra hp here or there if you get really beefy from training. i think i will also be offering regular armor with the ability to repair it, as its technically more valuable than hp in order to reduce the squishyness slightly.

[shadythedevil]

On 5/24/2024 at 3:16 PM, Atgxtg said:

Sounds good. In my experience the problem is that players pick up things from other RPGs and assume that they will port over to RQ/BRP and they usually don't. But since the players are experienced in those other games, they assume the fault must be with the new game or GM, and refuse to adapt. What tell new RQ players is more like Yoda:

"You must unlearn what you have learned."

I also got my "You'll never be a Star Destroyer speech, but that was player specific."

 

 

A lot of the PCs I killed in arrows died charging the archers across an open field. In D&D'AD&D that generally works since arrows do 1D6 or 1D8, characters can close the distance pretty quickly, and most fighter types can soak up two or three hits to get into melee range where they dominate. But in RQ arrows are nasty, and some PC get impaled, and then another, and by the time someone reaches the archers it turns into a one on three or two on four type of situation, which doesn't work out so well in RQ.. 

 

if you are using the system that assigns damage to body parts and generates wounds and various penalties, its very obvious that ranged weapons have a major advantage over close combat weapons, as it happens to be in the real world. i wont be changing any of that in my game but rather strongly advise my players that a ranged weapon is almost certainly a necessity for everybody. hand weapons will be for situations where the distance has been closed and they should generally avoid that due to player squishyness. im looking forward to making up lots of pew pew laser/ plasma/ something cool type scifi shooty weapons.

[shadythedevil]

On 6/14/2024 at 6:48 AM, Videopete said:

Ah, the old argument of Balance in a BRP based game.  

First, we must ask, how are you running encounters, is it Combat as Sport or Combat as War.  In Combat as Sport the players are conditioned to think of any encounter as winnable through direct conflict, as the encounter is balanced against them.  In Combat as War, encounters are preferably engaged if one side has significant advantage over the other.  With the limited pool of HP and limited options for HP recovery depending on setting (some options restricting HP recovery to a single d3 from first aid per wound, and regaining only a small amount each week of rest), characters should be hesitant to use violence as the only option.  Hence the encouragement to have, offer and accept Ransom (cash or goods in exchange to leave the conflict and return home unmolested).

Also, most non human characters often have difficulties based on culture and physical limitations from trying to operate in an area designed for humans, and vice versa, sure a Centaur is faster and stronger than a human, but they need more food and the inn might not have accommodations for a large quadrupled.  

im sorry my dude but this whole "first we must ask how we are running encounters" is a tired, beaten to death horse.

nah. we dont need to. i just want a baseline stat comparison for prepping and non time wasting purposes.

i also dont really pick camps between the type of combat that the system is trying to simulate. i understand where the tribalism comes from but really, we are talking about hp as a fixed stat vs hp that goes up as you level. both are simulations. one has more hp than the other. the feeling of the game is different. i give you all of that, but its not the essence of what i want to complain about lol.

when the developers decided to not develop a cr like stat, they relied on the community that has experience with the system to know how to eyeball it, or they force new players like myself to waste A TON of time. its a barrier to entry that holds the system back from being more widely accepted.

[shadythedevil]

On 6/14/2024 at 7:50 AM, svensson said:

In a d100 game anybody who thinks of combat as the first choice and/or a 'sport' is seriously misinformed. Either that, or the referee hasn't given them a challenging combat encounter yet...

There are a lot of game systems out there that're pretty deadly. L5R is famous for making casual duelists seriously regret their choices. I've told players in an L5R game, "If the katana comes out, the odds are that somebody WILL die. That somebody could be you, so think carefully before you instigate anything." Every iteration of Twilight 2000 is nasty with malice and forethought. TOW missiles can and will ruin your whole day. RQ/CoC/BRP skews towards the bloodier end of that curve. All an opponent has to do is roll a critical hit to your head and you're back to character generation chapter. That's an outright 1-5% chance every single time a bad guy rolls an attack. And that's not even getting into Special success results. Impales to the three auto-kill zones is ugly!

So if players in a d100 game are treating combat as casually as d20 players do, it's time for the referee to kill a PC or close ally of the PC group to set an example. There is no such thing as a 'warm up fight' in d100.

i want to keep the fixed hp and danger of dying in a single blow being a definite possibility.

i just want to be able to plan efficiently in the name of giving my players a challenge that walks the line between challenging and 'we almost died!' i cant really do that without doing a line by line stat block comparison.

[shadythedevil]

On 6/14/2024 at 9:40 AM, Videopete said:

Absolutely, when you run combat as War, it's such a rewarding experience

is that really what it is tho?

i think the rewarding experience is exactly what ive described in previous posts. walking a very fine line between challenging and the threat of death and restarting. i want to plan for that and in doing so, find myself doing the line by line stat block comparison which is just, not fun or efficient. im not hesitant to wipe my player group and have them start over if they are making dumb ass decisions and are unlucky. it doesnt feel good to not know how challenging or deadly an encounter im planning might be. its frustrating.

[svensson]

25 minutes ago, shadythedevil said:

i want to keep the fixed hp and danger of dying in a single blow being a definite possibility.

i just want to be able to plan efficiently in the name of giving my players a challenge that walks the line between challenging and 'we almost died!' i cant really do that without doing a line by line stat block comparison.

I'm fine with someone developing a 'challenge rating' for any d100 game, but I should also point out that CoC doesn't use the hit location mechanic and in BRUGE that mechanic is optional. That significantly changes the feel of combat in all three systems [BRUGE/CoC/RQG].

As I said when you first brought this up, I respect the amount of work your putting into it and I'm interested to see what you come up with. Just because I have a fuzzy estimation in my head doesn't mean I'm 100% accurate. And for the first combat encounters with a new group it almost never is anyway.

[rsanford]

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

how would i share it? its on an excel sheet.

If you are okay with it, and it’s not too big, you could upload it to BRP Central (this site), or RPG Pub. If you use Dropbox. I could provide a shared folder link that supports a large Excel sheet. Alternatively, I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the thread viewers here could provide a similar link to a shared folder on Google drive, and I think I have a free but very limited Google drive account that might work…

[Atgxtg]

11 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

the whole discussion of balance really misses the point i am trying to make. i understand what you are saying but my main issue with there not being an amalgamation stat, like the cr, is that it risks wasting my time as well as increases opportunities for unfun situations.

i am a never fudge the rolls type of dm. the risk of death needs to be actual for increased excitement purposes. ime, after a player death, everybody is forced to waste time and usually, the death is not that fun. its just oh well, i got unlucky, shall i roll another character?

without such a stat like the CR, i am wasting time in my planning and i am wasting time when my planning was not good enough to keep the game fun without a huge stall of a player having to reroll another character. i dont think most groups will find a TPK to be very fun at all, altho there are obvious exceptions.

But the thing is CR doesn't really work. Characters are much too complex for CR to actually work. It's why D&D didn't have CR prior to 3E, and why in 3E they went to such great lengths to standardize the stats for characters and gear permitted. No number is going to make up for a GM being familiar with the game and the players, and that you only get with experience.

It just becomes a crutch to let the GM off the hook when things turn sour because the CR was right.

[Atgxtg]

9 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

when the developers decided to not develop a cr like stat, they relied on the community that has experience with the system to know how to eyeball it, or they force new players like myself to waste A TON of time. its a barrier to entry that holds the system back from being more widely accepted.

No. You are assuming that the way D&D and D&D games do things is somehow superior and that other games should follow suit. We're saying no, that's wrong, BRP doesn't have to do things like D&D does.

The "barrier" that hold BRP from being more widely accepted is that it isn't a D&D clone. This goes back to the 70s when D&D players didn't like RuneQuest because fighters could cast spells, and Glorantha wasn't a blend of the Middle Ages and Middle Earth.

 

Basically the CR thing isn't going to work because a  Trollkin (think Goblin) in BRP can one hit kill a "high Level" PC in a way they just can't in D&D. Fifty 1 hit die goblins with missile weapons wouldn't be a CR 10 encounter in D&D, but could take down a Rune Lord and his retinue in RQ, depending on circumstances and die rolls.  

 

As for "s. walking a very fine line between challenging and the threat of death and restarting" you can't do that consistently in BRP no matter what the stat lines are. That's the dead horse we keep trying to beat. A GM just can't control the encounters to the same degree as they can in D&D. Not unless they are fudging, and then the players will eventually pick up on it and defeat the purpose.

 

A good example of the difference is with BRP's stepchild, Pendragon. In Pendragon the adventures are written with little to no regard for the capabilities of the player characters. Things are on an absolute scale not a relative one. So if a particular band of Player Knights can't take down a Redcap or Dragon on whatever, well, it sucks to be the, better luck with their next characters. Now you can get some very exciting  "very fine line between challenging and the threat of death and restarting" adventures (I've had a group actually win a battle that was scripted to be a loss) but "waking the fine line" is more akin to passing a roadside sobriety test while having a blood alcohol content of 0.099 and having drunk the last of the booze when you got pulled over so you wouldn't have an open container in the car.

 

It's a fun, exhilarating wild ride, but that's just it, it is a wild ride, not a controlled one. Now if you think you can plot encounters in BRP to walk that fine line, then more power to you. But you'll be the first. At least the first to do it without fudging. 

 

I know I can't run things that fine, as I'm generally pretty good at knowing what my players can handle. But dice can do stupid things and players can be random, and vice versa, and stuff happens. I had a group completely take apart an evil sorcerer and his minions only to be overwheleved on the way back to town by a half dozen baboons. The PCs only lived because they took the dog that the sorcerer was going to sacrfice for a demon of protection with them, and I got on a phenomenal hot streak that allowed the dog to save the adventurers. Thus began the legend of "Rex the Wonder Dog."  And there is no way to reliably plan for that without rigging the game. It just...happened.

 

 

 

BTW, you might be interested in Classic Fantasy. It is/was an attempt to emulate D&D in BRP (and later Mythras). I don't have CF, as isn't the style thatI want to play, but It probably has something like CR in it. Or at least as close to it as you can get in a BRP game.  I sure someone who has it can chime in.

 

Oh, and RQ2 & RQ3 had "treasure factors", to determine the wealth of the monsters, based roughly on how tough they were, and was similar to something we used to use to balance encounters in AD&D. It's not quite the same as CR since you can have tough monsters that don't carry much treasure, but if something has a huge hoard, it probably is capable of holding onto it. 

I can dig up the table for you.  It might help to get you in the right ballpark, but it won't ensure an exciting game.

 

Edited June 18 by Atgxtg

[Saki]

12 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

what book is this?

https://www.chaosium.com/runequest-glorantha-bestiary-hardcover/

[Saki]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

It's why D&D didn't have CR prior to 3E,

It effectively did - you had Hit Dice and Number Appearing.  The average number appearing for a monster of hit dice X would be an appropriate encounter for a party finding them on level X of a dungeon.  The Referee was given guidance to increase or decrease this number for other dungeon depths than X, and to adjust within the range of number appearing for the size of their own party.

 

Similarly, there is guidelines on how many enemies to place into wilderness encounters and monster lairs.

 

The Rules Cyclopedia even includes a very detailed balancing encounter formula so that Referees could either design a balanced challenge or estimate the deadliness of a published encounter vs their own party.

[g33k]

15 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

what book is this?

...

The RQ Bestiary:
https://www.chaosium.com/runequest-glorantha-bestiary-hardcover/
https://www.chaosium.com/runequest-glorantha-bestiary-pdf/

I want to reiterate, though, that (a) it's for RQ specifically, not for BRP generic; and (b) RQ is the o.g. "Play Balance is not only not included, it's not desirable in this game"

You can see the RQ take on Elves (Aldryami; their goddess is "Aldrya") via the "preview" content Chaosium released as freebie/promo material, before the Bestiary got to market:
https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/publishers/chaosium/runequest-glorantha-bestiary-print/cha4032-runequest-glorantha-bestiary-preview-2-2018/
There will -- eventually -- be a full volume on this race (presumably with much more varied & robust character-creation options).

There was a bigger preview released:
https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/publishers/chaosium/runequest-glorantha-bestiary-print/cha4032-runequest-glorantha-bestiary-preview-1-2018/
But it has no "create an adventurer" notes, not even the short sidebar included in Preview 2.  The full Bestiary has several caracter-creation sidebars for the same content.

[shadythedevil]

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

But the thing is CR doesn't really work. Characters are much too complex for CR to actually work. It's why D&D didn't have CR prior to 3E, and why in 3E they went to such great lengths to standardize the stats for characters and gear permitted. No number is going to make up for a GM being familiar with the game and the players, and that you only get with experience.

It just becomes a crutch to let the GM off the hook when things turn sour because the CR was right.

just responding to the first statement.

cr serves the purpose i need it for. a quick glance at the stat tells me, as a baseline without a ton of other factors, how tough/ bad ass the monster is. i use the CR when planning for the next session. it allows me to keep things exciting, on the edge between "that was very challenging" and "we nearly died!" and i think thats the sweet spot.

i never used CR as a balance stat. the reason i want a cr-like stat for brp rules has to do with time and effort put into planning. i want to plan to be right on that edge i described above. its really hard to plan encounters in such a way without a cr type stat.

[shadythedevil]

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

No. You are assuming that the way D&D and D&D games do things is somehow superior and that other games should follow suit. We're saying no, that's wrong, BRP doesn't have to do things like D&D does.

The "barrier" that hold BRP from being more widely accepted is that it isn't a D&D clone. This goes back to the 70s when D&D players didn't like RuneQuest because fighters could cast spells, and Glorantha wasn't a blend of the Middle Ages and Middle Earth.

 

Basically the CR thing isn't going to work because a  Trollkin (think Goblin) in BRP can one hit kill a "high Level" PC in a way they just can't in D&D. Fifty 1 hit die goblins with missile weapons wouldn't be a CR 10 encounter in D&D, but could take down a Rune Lord and his retinue in RQ, depending on circumstances and die rolls.  

 

As for "s. walking a very fine line between challenging and the threat of death and restarting" you can't do that consistently in BRP no matter what the stat lines are. That's the dead horse we keep trying to beat. A GM just can't control the encounters to the same degree as they can in D&D. Not unless they are fudging, and then the players will eventually pick up on it and defeat the purpose.

 

A good example of the difference is with BRP's stepchild, Pendragon. In Pendragon the adventures are written with little to no regard for the capabilities of the player characters. Things are on an absolute scale not a relative one. So if a particular band of Player Knights can't take down a Redcap or Dragon on whatever, well, it sucks to be the, better luck with their next characters. Now you can get some very exciting  "very fine line between challenging and the threat of death and restarting" adventures (I've had a group actually win a battle that was scripted to be a loss) but "waking the fine line" is more akin to passing a roadside sobriety test while having a blood alcohol content of 0.099 and having drunk the last of the booze when you got pulled over so you wouldn't have an open container in the car.

 

It's a fun, exhilarating wild ride, but that's just it, it is a wild ride, not a controlled one. Now if you think you can plot encounters in BRP to walk that fine line, then more power to you. But you'll be the first. At least the first to do it without fudging. 

 

I know I can't run things that fine, as I'm generally pretty good at knowing what my players can handle. But dice can do stupid things and players can be random, and vice versa, and stuff happens. I had a group completely take apart an evil sorcerer and his minions only to be overwheleved on the way back to town by a half dozen baboons. The PCs only lived because they took the dog that the sorcerer was going to sacrfice for a demon of protection with them, and I got on a phenomenal hot streak that allowed the dog to save the adventurers. Thus began the legend of "Rex the Wonder Dog."  And there is no way to reliably plan for that without rigging the game. It just...happened.

 

 

 

BTW, you might be interested in Classic Fantasy. It is/was an attempt to emulate D&D in BRP (and later Mythras). I don't have CF, as isn't the style thatI want to play, but It probably has something like CR in it. Or at least as close to it as you can get in a BRP game.  I sure someone who has it can chime in.

 

Oh, and RQ2 & RQ3 had "treasure factors", to determine the wealth of the monsters, based roughly on how tough they were, and was similar to something we used to use to balance encounters in AD&D. It's not quite the same as CR since you can have tough monsters that don't carry much treasure, but if something has a huge hoard, it probably is capable of holding onto it. 

I can dig up the table for you.  It might help to get you in the right ballpark, but it won't ensure an exciting game.

 

i did not have the time to read your entire post and i will a bit later today. just responding to your first point.

d&d is a better system for planning for a gm for the simple fact the CR stat is included. the inclusion of a CR stat respects my time. there is a major disclaimer that the CR stat can be far from expected outcomes due to many factors, but as a baseline, if the players fought the monster in a vacuum, this is what you can expect.

without a stat like that, i am spending WAY too much time comparing monsters stat blocks line by line.

its a better system because a new dm to that system can flip through the monster manual and have a better understanding of the stats hes looking at compared to expected power level of players without a ton of extra complicating factors. the cr stat should be considered ease of access. the absence of a cr-like stat should be considered a barrier to entry. with one system, i immediately know the baseline power level by reading 3 or 4 characters. with the other system, i wont know the baseline power level without making my own system to understand it (time wasting) and i would need to a considerable amount of play testing to have an understanding, or 'a feel' for the system (also time wasting).