Non human playable races and encounter balancing

[Kloster]

Hello M @Shadythedevil,

Let's clear a few things. I am not a BRP fanboy (although I am a Runequest fan, as a game system) and I try to be not hostile. I have played (and GMed) most, if not all, BRP iterations: Runequest, Magic World (from Worlds of Wonder box), Superworld (boxed set), Elfquest, Call of Cthulhu (v2,5 , 5.5, 6), Stormbringer v1,2.5, 5), Hawkmoon v1, 2.5), Ringworld,  French BaSic, Nephilim,... And BRP is neither my favorite, nor my most played game system (from my mind, Aquelarre and Drakkar och Demonen are missing). But I am playing BRP games since more than 40 years. I love Runequest, liked Ringworld and Superworld, disliked Coc and hate Stormbringer and all it's derivative. And I am speaking of the game system, not of the game world or context.

Let's now get to your points:

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

its simply not true.

I just think it is true. You have the right to think differently, but I think the dices will tell you that you are wrong. I sincerely wish you to be right.

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

thats not a problem with me, its a problem with the system. (and also the vehement defenders of the system).

No, YOU think it is a problem with the system. We just don''t feel the same.

2 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

i get it, you dont feel like time was wasted.

Correct (at least for me).

2 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

you have straight up never acknowledge that there is a quantified difference in the total amount of characters being compared. you think thats great and a feature of the system, i think its dumb and keeps the system away from mass consumption.

I dont' think it is a feature, and neither that it is great, I told you I think it is not a problem for me, nothing more.

2 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

im over here like "ehhh, not so much. there is a lot of room for improvement."

On this, you are right. And the last Runequest brought a lot of new improvements ( and quite a few things I will never call improvements, but it is personal feelings).

 

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

we are talking about rules for a fantasy game my dude.

No, BRP is not a fantasy game. Runequest is. Elfquest, Stormbringer and Magic World were. All other BRP games were not fantasy. BRP is a system on which games ar built, wether fantasy or not.

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

my style of play is whatever style of play i want it to be.

On this, you are perfectly right, as I am right to have different tastes.

 

[shadythedevil]

you are all mad that i reject your help because its not actually the help i was looking for.

stop trying to reframe shit so you can have the conversation you want lol. i was really trying to avoid all of this.

[g33k]

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

you are all mad that i reject your help because its not actually the help i was looking for.

stop trying to reframe shit so you can have the conversation you want lol. i was really trying to avoid all of this.

Take just a moment to consider a hypothetical case...

What if the community here is right?  JUST  hypothetically, mind!
Consider it.

What if the collective game-playing experience -- many more hours than you've got, in many more different systems than you've played -- actually has some opinions that (however little you like them) actually have a basis in fact?

You speak angrily to us about how you feel condescended-to... in utter blindness, it seems, to your own condescension toward the folks here, your "I know better than any of the experts here:  yer all just dinosaurs stuck in the 40-year-old timewarp" attitude.

This despite the fact that (for example) @Atgxtg gave you a good math-based breakdown of the issues that a CR system will have running under BRP.


Honestly:  I'd love it if you could come up with a viable CR-like system for BRP.  You are correct that it'd be a useful tool in the GM's toolbox.

But -- based on our experience -- we expect any such "CR" to be inadequate to our needs as GM's; at this point, the onus is on you to demonstrate a viable CR system.

[g33k]

One idea that has come to me for a CR system: 

Base it on a WBRM chit; or something derived from that; or reverse-engineered from "character statblock" back towards that simple chit.

That'd mean it's not one single number; but it might provide a decent sort of quick-ref for how challenging a foe is gonna be.

Still up to the GM to understand the party of PC's in similar "CR-chit" terms.
 

Edited June 26 by g33k

[Susimetsa]

I don't think I've been hostile or confrontational in any of my few responses. If a CR type mechanic is doable, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it. I just fear that such a system would not be able to account for all possibilities or situational factors - which have already been repeated several times in this thread.

I'm not saying don't try to make it - but I fear it will be a lot of effort for little gain. A few practice games with one of the BRP-like systems would certainly be a more fun way to accumulate the experience to plan exciting adventures/combat.

[Joerg]

12 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

i want to design encounters to be between very challenging and tpk, as anything less than that will probably be too boring.

The way to do this is to keep part of the opposition vague. If they have healing magic and a support caster, downed foes could return to the combat. Encounters need to be tuned to the situation if you want them to verge on believable TPK.

Note that even in combat, non-combat activities may play a role - a successful bargain might persuade intelligent opponents to surrender for ransom, for instance. Intimidation may take the opposition or some of the player characters out of the combat. Spirit combat on top of melee can boost rather insignificant opponent melee fighters to a deadly menace. Shades with fearshock or madness spirits can change the balance, with player characters possibly changing sides.

I have not the slightes clue how to include such opposition tactics or extras that can turn a combat on its head into a CR. If you have a solution, let us know by all means.

[Atgxtg]

• .5*

16 hours ago, g33k said:

One idea that has come to me for a CR system: 

I think for it to work you'd have to do an offense stat and a defense one. 

Offense would be something like Skill%*average damage.

Defense would be something like half hit points plus parry%*half hit points plus armor.

So a warrior with 12 hp in Bezainted (4 point) armor with Sword 50% would did 1D8+1+1D4 damage be

Offense: .50*8= 4

Defense= 6+.50*6+4 = 13

So this guy has a better defense than offense, which holds true, since his defenses should stop three out of four attacks from a clone of himself. 

Add them, average them or multiply them for some sort of overall value. I'd have to do more examples to get the right answer for that.

_____________________________________

A BRP Dragon (UGE p.226) would be:

Offense:  

• Flame Breath .75*14 = 10.5 but special area attack
• Bite: .65*38.5= 26.18
• Claw: .5*31.5 = 15.75
• Tail: .5*17.5 = 8.75

Defense:  26.5+0*26.5+12 = 38.5

_____________________________________

BRP Elf (UGE. p.226)

Offense:

• Longbow .55*5.5 = 3.025
• Shortsword .45*4.5 = 2.025
• Short spear .4*4.5 = 1.8, .55*4.5 =2.475 thrown

Defense: 5+.45*5+1 = 8.25

_____________________________________

BRP Troll (UGE p.230)

Offense:

• Tree Trunk Club: .45*14.5 = 6.525
• Claw: .5*10.5 = 5.25
• Grapple: special (we'll ignore that for now)

Defense: 10+.45*10+3= 17.5

 

As for problems with this:

 

1. It doesn't account for specials (impales would probably be worth a 20% increase)
2. It doesn't account for magic (for instance if the warrior above had Bladesharp 4, and Protection 6 would his Offense go to 8.4 and his Defense to 16)?
3. It doesn't factor in for differnt weapons. Like when you have to drop your bow and grab your sword.
4. It doesn't factor in for reach, range or strike rank.
5. It doesn't factor in for movement or mode of travel. For instance the dragon could fly over all the other examples and breath fire on them and only the elf has a missile weapon, and it needs to impale to hurt the dragon. But the elf runs faster than the dragon flies, so he should be able to empty his quiver and run away while the dragon enjoys roast man & troll. 
6. It doesn't factor in for multiple attacks (two longbow arrows are better than one broadsword or even the dragon doing a claw and bite)
7. It certainly doesn't factor in for tactics, terrain, teamwork, tehcnology, temporary power points, or much else. For instance on paper the Troll outclasses the Elf but in play the elf is fast and has a ranged weapon and will probably pincushion the troll or run away.
8. It just focuses on combat and nothing else.
9. While it will give you a good indication if A has a better offense or defense than B, it dosn't help with multiple foes. For instance seven men have a better Offense and much better defense score than the dragon, but probably not after the first round of combat. Even if the dragon drops it's going to take somebody with it. 
10. Since BRP stats aren't static, you'd have to recalculate them any time you diverted from the statblock.
11. Would it be of any use to anyone other than a new GM? I mean don't we all kinda do something like this in our heads already? Maybe not a detailed, but generally the same thing. I knew the dragon was going to outclass the other examples before I did the stats. That was why I picked it. Same with the elf and troll. 

[Atgxtg]

8 hours ago, Joerg said:

The way to do this is to keep part of the opposition vague. If they have healing magic and a support caster, downed foes could return to the combat. Encounters need to be tuned to the situation if you want them to verge on believable TPK.

But what makes an encounter exciting has more to do with presentation than with actual stats. For instance consider Darth Vader in Star Wars. In the first film he picks up a guy one handed, chokes someone with the Force, fights and possibly defeat Obi-wan in a duel, and started to pick off all the rebel fighters until Solo blindsided him. He chokes a few more poeple, soaks a blaster bolt or two, grabs a blaster from a distance with the Force, and acts intimidating in the second film before actually facing a PC in combat.

So by the time a PC (luke) gets to face him in a lightsaber duel, his rep has him as a Bad Ass. But they guy who can sense things through the force and was "the greatest star pilot in the galaxy" still got blindsided by Solo in the first film, and somehow fails to capture Luke in the second one.

So maybe his stats don't quite live up to the hype?

 

So much of what makes a big tough opponent in the game is the presentation. In BRP by the time you start rolling dice in combat, it's too late, and the die rolls will be what the players see not the stat blocks. A guy with Sword 20% will look better than a guy with Sword 90% if the GM keeps rolling below 10% for the first guy and over 90% for the second, and I've done that. 

 

Sticking with my Star Wars example, the Emperor seemed like a Bad Ass because everyone is intimidated by him, and even Vader bows down to him. He does nothing muc until he starts chucking bolts of Force Lighting, and that didn't go well for him. In game terms, based on what he did in the third film, he's a one trick pony. 

But again, the writers presented him in such a way that he seems very threatening. He yanks Vader's leash (and Vader puts up with it), he'd got tough looking personal guards. He orders everone around, he is said to be less forgiving than Mister-Force-choke-you-on-little-provocation-Vader. Luke is warned not to underestimate his powers, or he will suffer his father fate.

So by the time we get to the throne room scene, he's been established as a major threat. In play he comes off as an old man with a good taser who really should have let is personal guard actually guard his person. 

 

But again, no player sees his character sheet, so no player really knows how tough he really was. And that's a major blessing for GMs trying to sell a NPC as tough to the players. 

 

 

 

[rsanford]

17 hours ago, g33k said:

One idea that has come to me for a CR system: 

Base it on a WBRM chit; or something derived from that; or reverse-engineered from "character statblock" back towards that simple chit.

That'd mean it's not one single number; but it might provide a decent sort of quick-ref for how challenging a foe is gonna be.

Still up to the GM to understand the party of PC's in similar "CR-chit" terms.
 

Hey g33k!

Would you mind elaborating a bit. When you say “chit” are you referring to something like a counter used in a wargame? When you say “WBRM”, are you referring to the board game White Bear & Red Moon? 
 

I know how chits are used in Avalon Hill and SPI war games, but I have pretty much zero knowledge of Glorantha or Runequest (outside Runequest 6 / Mythras), and barely know what White Bear & Red Moon is..

I understand how a chit could be used to implement atgxtg’s defense and offense suggestion above, but are you envisioning a character’s complete stat block being represented with chits? Not sure, I see where you are going. Sorry I really am a noob on this topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Videopete]

Here is how I set up my encounters, what makes sense for the situation, not what can the players beat.

So of they are some young Sartarite warriors, they decide to go on a cattle raid.  They show up, and attack the two Sheperds, and tie them up.  Unfortunately the one of get Shepards was able to utter a prayer to the Clan Wyter (powerful spirit that ties the community together, think small god).  The Chief is warned by the Clan Wyter, (as the chief is also usually the Head Priest of the Wyter spirit Cult).  So the chief rallies his warriors to meet the cattle raiders.  Those warriors are armed to at least the same level as the players, as Thanes they atleast have a shirt of mail, a shield, a helm, 2 spears and a sword.

If the players are able to grab a handful of cattle, and don't kill the Shepherds, they should be able to avoid starting a  major fued.

So what does this encounter look like, 2 maybe 3 Sheperds and some Shadow Cats.  I'm going to look at their stats and hazard a guess they might be Lay members of a cult, and might even be initiated (as Satarites have a high concentration of initiated members in thier community, so that Shepard might even have Rune magic.  If the players arnt careful, they might get his with some nasty rune or spirit magic, and here is the other thing.

Don't fight for keeps, have the opposition run away, no body likes getting stabbed, and just because you have 6pt heal spell doesn't mean you can just reattach a limb willy nilly.  Unless Runemagic is available that's a spell with a 10 minute window.

Just to help with out point, here are some words from the creators of the game.

 

 

 

 

[shadythedevil]

🙄🙄🙄

i know i said balance, but it was really about time management. it was also about fairness.

all of this is extra shit that doesnt need to be said. i know how to run a game.

as a square one when session prepping, i believe everybody is doing stat comparisons to some degree, including myself. whether you go line by line, have a feeling for the system, or read a singular stat; it doesnt matter to what i am saying here. its my own opinion that this particular system takes more time comparing stats than other systems (and its highly unlikely anybody here would convince me otherwise. i have quantitative data lol). its also my opinion that this issue can easily be fixed without changing a single thing about the original system. furthermore, its also of my opinion that the community keeps the rules unevolved and non progressive. its a problem that things havent changed much in 40 years, the rules and the community (also an opinion that is very unlikely to change).

as a square one when players are rolling characters and picking races, they should be picking from equal options for the sake of fairness and for the sake of being interesting. i understand that this is balance adjacent, but its not the exact issue i am talking about. it needs to be fair for many reasons, mostly that there is more than one player at the table and stealing the show detracts from the experience of others. it also needs to be fair because if one race is clearly more powerful or weaker than others, youll end up with groups of all one race and groups that never have the latter race, which is boring.

im not looking for any other advice other than time saving when session prepping and comparing stats and ensuring that players have racial choices on par with each other when they pick them.

[radmonger]

You will find that advice here and in the post below it.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

🙄🙄🙄

i know i said balance, but it was really about time management.

Sorry but you have to put in the work. Sure you don't have to do as much work in a D&D adventure because the authors did a lot of that for you beforehand. You get balanced PCs and balanced opponents. You get that in part becuase you need it. The combat system greeately favors the higher level side (the PCs). 

You don't get that in BRP and you don't need it. You shouldn't have to spend a lot of time comparing stats. Just use generic foes. 

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

it was also about fairness.

Fairness to who? Unless you are somehow exploiting your players who is being treated unfairly? If I player a Hobbit and Bill players a Dragon how am I being treated unfairly? It's not like I've got to clean up after the dragon. 

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

all of this is extra shit that doesnt need to be said. i know how to run a game.

And that is your problem. You know how to run a game, you just don't know how to run this game. And you are making things much harder for yourself than they need to be.

 

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

as a square one when session prepping, i believe everybody is doing stat comparisons to some degree, including myself. whether you go line by line, have a feeling for the system, or read a singular stat;

Not really. I usually write the adventure and then write up the NPCs for the adventure. So I'm not looking at stat blocks and doing comparisons.. I'm thinking "What do I need here?" And then write up  foes that fit. I might even wimp them up a little.  You can get pretty far in BRP with generic opponents with 40% skill. Especially if he brings a blackpowder pistol to a sword fight, and maybe a friend or two. Unless the opposition is  really good, the actual stats won't matter that much.

.I know when I run the adventure they will usually be challenging to the PC.. When they aren't it's either because the PCs did something good and so benefit (and enjoy) that and are happy that the NPC wasn't a challenge, or r because I was on a bad rolling streak which they seem to enjoy even more.  The time when the PCs avoided an entire pirate fight because I fumbled two consecutive ship handling rolls was more fun for the players than if I had ran the fight. A lot more fun. No one felt like they were cheated out of a fight, they were all happy they count complete their mission without having to risk a fight.

 

I only really look at stats if I'm using a monster of some sort, and that is the exception rather than the norm, Most opponents are human. So if I have an adventure with a dragon I'll look at dragon stats. If I need a generic bandit, I don't bother looking at the stats and either make up something appropriate or just use the generic bandit stats. I'm not worried that much about how the bandit compares to the PCs because a guy with a sword is always a threat in this game, and when he attacks a PC that player will feel like they are being challenged, becuase barring major magic, one good hit can ruin the PCs life.

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

it doesnt matter to what i am saying here. its my own opinion that this particular system takes more time comparing stats than other systems

It probably does take more time for you. You are new to the game, and you are focusing on things that no one else is.  

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

 

(and its highly unlikely anybody here would convince me otherwise. i have quantitative data lol).

How many people is you quantitative data from? How many other GMs? 

Maybe, just maybe, your experiences aren't the norm here. 

 

Yes it is afaster and easier to just grap some random CR challenge off a table to make an encounter, but there isn't much to that encounter is there? Usally in BRPO adventures the bad guys are more fleshed out and have reasons for being there doing what they are doing. There is usually more to the encounter than just a mindless fight against disposable opponents, and more to adventures than just a string of such encounters.  You usually need to know who who are fighting and why.

 

I

 

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

its also my opinion that this issue can easily be fixed without changing a single thing about the original system.

Then do it. You keep saying that is is easy to do, but you haven't actually shown how easy it is. I don;t think it is as easy as you believe. I also don't think you are familar enough with BRP to judge what constitutes a good threat yet.

Don't get offended by that. You're new to BRP, and no one expects you to know everything about the game yet. And a lot of what you learned from other games doesn't work here. 

 

If you really want to balance off your PCs then use a point based creation method, instead of a random one. Given tem all the same amount of attribute and skill points. Balanced. 

 

 

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

ts also of my opinion that the community keeps the rules unevolved and non progressive.

And just how is the community keeping the game from evolving? How can we? What control do we have that stops it from evolving? We don't decide what does and doesn't get printed. We don't have any power over that. If I had that kind of power RQG would have been based on RQ3 not RQ2. 

And there have been over a half dozen different BRP games released in the last two decades, each with rule changes, so the game has continually evolved. 

It's just not changing to what you want it to be. 

The game doesn't work the way you want it to. Complaining won't change that. Your options are to change the game, change the way you play, or change or change to another game that does work the want you want it to. 

Blaming a community that is trying to help you isn't going to help.  Even if we all agreed with you, it wouldn't change the rules. Even if Chaosium agreed with you and  decided to change the rules for you, it wouldn't happen immediately, and it would be months or (more likely) years before you saw any results. So that won't help you.

You need to decide what you are going to do about your campaign. You can listen to our advice or not, but you are still the one who has to run your game.  

 

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

its a problem that things havent changed much in 40 years, the rules and the community (also an opinion that is very unlikely to change).

It's changed quite a bit. Look at Mthyras, CoC 7th edition and even RQG. All are very different from the Big Gold Book that was released in 2008, and it in turn was different from the games that came before it.

So there was lots of change, you just aren't aware of it. 

 

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

as a square one when players are rolling characters and picking races, they should be picking from equal options

Why? Why must players start of equal? We don't all start of equal in real life. 

 

I'm going to go all Yoda here and say "You must unlearn what you have learned." There is a lot of stuff about gaming and GMing that you've picked up from other games (probably D&D) that isn't true. Or at least it doesn't have to be true here. You have to let that stuff go or else you will not be happy with BRP. 

One of the things that you can do in BRP is run a group of PCs who aren't all at the same level. You can have an old vet alongside some younger inexperienced types and the game still works  because of the fixed hit points and damages. The low level guys don't get wiped out each week by the area effect spells and 1D8+1+1D4 is decent combat damage no matter how long you've been playing.  So you don't have to balance the PCs off against each other. This is really good for the GM as BRPs improvement system will ensure that even if they started off equal they won't stay that way. 

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

for the sake of fairness and for the sake of being interesting.

Life isn't fair. You don't have to start everyone off the same and keep then the same to make the game interesting. In fact differences make it more interesting. Batman and Superman aren't on the same level, but you can run them together. It's not like the PCs are fighting against each other.

The key isn't "balance" and equality, it's being useful. Batman can do things Superman can't. So Batman brings value to the table and feels like he is contributing to the group. He's not lifting tanks, but he is noticing clues, and doing the detective work. 

In RuneQuest a Troll PC is going to be bigger and stronger than a humanPC , and that's okay. In Stormbringer sorcerers can summon up demons and has powers that puts them is another class of power compared to most other characters, even other PCs. What makes it all work is that each character could have something that makes them interesting and fun to play, not that they were all equal.

Now I know you''ve got tons of D&D experience telling you that what I just posted was wrong. That's the problem. Most of the things that D&D ingrains into people isn't true, especially not outside of D&D. Balance is only important because they make an issue of it, and work so hard to maintain it for a campaign. It's a short cut to make things easier. Just like making a game recolve around combat. Combat has high stakes so players are instantly invested, saving the GM of having to find a way of getting the players invested in a situation. 

 

But you don't have to do any of that. You can run unbalanced groups of characters and as long as everybody has an interesting character who can contribute something, everything is fine. 

 

I once played in a campaign where my character died in a duel, and the GM told me to bring in my other character from a previous campaign, who was far more skilled, richer and of higher status than everyone else. I was Constable General of France, a former Musketeer, and a Banker, but it was a shipboard adventure and I knew nothing about ships other than how much money I made off of them. So everyone else is swinging around on lines like Errol Flynn while I'm fighting sea sickness. It didn't matter than I was twice the swordsman and marksman of everyone else, as I wasn't fighting the PCs. 

When we got back on terra firma I could (and did) lead the band into combat (Strategy I could do, provided the floor wasn't moving). And everybody had fun. A lot of fun. Especially during the pirate fight where I was still seasick and kept telling the pirates to go away, and then kept one shotting them when they didn't, got sick, and the cycle repeated. 

 

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

i understand that this is balance adjacent, but its not the exact issue i am talking about. it needs to be fair for many reasons, mostly that there is more than one player at the table and stealing the show detracts from theexperience of others.

Ah, that's a player problem that will only be solved by dealing with the player,  not by changing an entire game system.   Yeah, dealing with that is unpleasant, but it goes with the GM job.

If you want to run certain rules at your own table to deal with it, Okay. But you can't expect to change and institue a CR system just to help you deal with a problem player.. 

BTW, one approach for someone who likes to hog the spotlight is to make them a bigger target. In Castle Falkenstein (another unbalanced game) Players can play Dragons (with GM approval). One of the downsides to playing a Dragon though is that you tend to be a higher priority target that the other PCs. I mean what you you be more worried about, a guy with a sabre or a flying flamethrower?

 

So put the player in a postion of authority and plant a nice big target on his back. Send a couple of assassins after them, instead of after the group. That often makes the player want to bland back into the woodwork.

 

Or you put ten in a situation where all their great abilities don't apply. Back in our Star Trek campign, we had a player who was surprised at how they could max out combat skills during chargen, how great they were in a fight, etc, and complained about how the game was unbalanced, and why wouldn't everybody do what they did.

My response? "What if you get sent on a diplomatic mission?"

The player was so used to everything being about combat that It never dawned on them that they could get into a situation that couldn't be handled through combat. 

 

If you got a player who is big on playing combat monsters give them some problems that they can't solve through combat. 

 

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

it also needs to be fair because if one race is clearly more powerful or weaker than others, youll end up with groups of all one race and groups that never have the latter race, which is boring.

Sorry, but this is why people keep telling you to play something else.

Most BPR fantasy settings are not like D&D. You don't have a lot of mixed parties going around., and party unity don't override culture and religion.  In a typical RuneQuest campaign the Elves, Dwarves and Trolls pretty much hate each other, and most of the humans are split over religion. Parties where everybody is the same race iand culture s more the norm.

This is okay though because each culture has things that make it interesting. Humans aren't the bland boring default characters like in D&D. There a big differences between the People of Dragon Pass, Prax and the Lunar Empire. For instance what cult someone belongs to wil help to shape thier character and determine what weapons they favor and what spells they have access to. 

You don't need a half dozen different races and classes to make characters interesting. The game has other ways to do that.  

 

1 hour ago, shadythedevil said:

im not looking for any other advice other than time saving when session prepping and comparing stats and ensuring that players have racial choices on par with each other when they pick them.

Well then the advice would be you're going to have a hard time of it. Most of what you want and expect to do are things that the game deliberately doesn't do. That's not because of the community. That's because of how the authors designed the game. Balance, either in terms of encounter of in terms of Chargen isn't much of a thing. Attributes are rolled randomly and not all games give the characters the same amount of points to spend. So any game balance will be something that your bring it and enforce yourself, and will not be easy to maintain.

 

 

[Ian Absentia]

19 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

all of this is extra shit that doesnt need to be said. i know how to run a game.

But what game?

I used the square pegs/round holes metaphor previously, and you've continued to express your frustration that others with more experience are unable or unwilling to do what you haven't been able to.  Which is making BRP function like a different game, forcing that square peg into a round hole.

You've gotten some very sincere responses citing play style, the influence of skills and subtle attributes like Passions and Traits, and even conceptual design philosophy from people who've been playing variations of BRP for a long time.  I don't want to tell you what you can and can't do with BRP, because it provides a really flexible framework for tinkering, but others have managed to do intuitively what you insist must be done methodically.

At this point, my best advice regarding this particular discussion is: Avoid point-by-point exchanges over opinions.  Market share aside, if you and your players really like BRP and what it brings to your game table, come back and tell us how you made it work.

!i!

(P.S. I think this was recommended up-thread, but have a look at the chapter on Games Mastery in Mythras, p.p. 278-293, and particularly p. 289 "Creatures as Player Characters".  It's not BRP, but it's very, very BRP-adjacent.  Really good stuff, and possibly just as disappointing and frustrating as the responses you've received in this thread already.)

Edited June 28 by Ian Absentia

[Simulacrum]

What is CR - is it a thing?

[shadythedevil]

21 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes it is afaster and easier to just grap some random CR challenge off a table

yeah thanks and BRP is unevolved because it doesnt have any of that.

when i was a kid maybe i could have spent the time you are all so dedicated to insist that i do as well. no lol, i dont have the time, im not a kid anymore.

it is a HUGE flaw in the system, that the creators of the system and the community that supports the system to never change, wastes my time all over the place.

and thanks for cherry picking around what i was saying. a lot of your questions are literally in the same exact sentence that you cherry picked from lol.

i will say it again. adding these time saving features to the game does not inherently change the quality of what the game is. everything else has stayed the same. an additional stat on top of everything else does not change the game. it is literally stubbornness that prevents you for seeing something so simply. if the system was designed with a thought about adults managing time in the latest rerelease, it would have included time saving stats and tables. it doesnt.

flaw, not a feature. its like you were handed a dull pencil as the first writing utensil in your life and you cant fathom that there are more options. you can sharpen that pencil. it works better. its still a pencil.

[Sir Erwin]

Wow, this thread was frustrating to read. 

I don't understand what you want. Let me try to sum up what I've read so far.

You want a CR system. The game doesn't have one. You like the game, but don't like that it doesn't have a CR system. You spent some time with your uncle developing a CR-like system, but you don't like spending time with your uncle.

So, you're done right? You got what you wanted? Or, is this some sort of your pizza delivery took over 30 minutes and you want your money back kind of situation?

You should be excited! The game was held hostage by its hostile and elderly community, but you were the one to finally bring this unevolved and dead game into the future! If only there was just one person on this forum with experience playing Dungeons & Dragons, they might have caught this issue sooner. If only there was just one employed person on this forum, they might have realized the need for these crucial time-saving techniques. 

Unfortunately, the book is already printed. It is what it is. We all already have a our copies and you can't take back the weekend you spent with your uncle.  So, what are you asking for?

 

[Susimetsa]

As far as I'm aware, shadythedevil has a tentative system for encounter balancing. Others (like me) have asked how it might account for a variety of factors, but the discussion has not really developed from there.

If we saw the present system, we might help develop it further - if there is potential for development, that is.

Personally, I do not see the lack of such a system as as a sign of BRP being "unevolved", as shadythedevil puts it. That's a peculiar stance that much of this discussion has been about. Granted, a lot of modern RPGs are boardgame adjacent (or card game adjacent) and perhaps the point here is to simplify BRP to similar extent. That is not, however, what actual RPGs are about.(*

*) IMHO: Games like Blades in the Dark and later developments of D&D have structured the gameplay or balanced the characters to an extent where the game type has moved far from traditional RPGs. BitD has specific phases with limited possible actions, reminiscent of boardgames. D&D has carefully balanced races and professions where characters are basically just "builds" of abilities and feats (a la Magic the Gathering), rather than living, breathing characters. These factors undoubtedly make them more easy to predict and plan for, but they also lose some of the magic in transition.

Edited June 29 by Susimetsa

[Sir Erwin]

32 minutes ago, Susimetsa said:

Personally, I do not see the lack of such a system as as a sign of BRP being "unevolved", as shadythedevil puts it. That's a peculiar stance that much of this discussion has been about. Granted, a lot of modern RPGs are boardgame adjacent (or card game adjacent) and perhaps the point here is to simplify BRP to similar extent. That is not, however, what actual RPGs are about.(*

*) IMHO: Games like Blades in the Dark and later developments of D&D have structured the gameplay or balanced the characters to an extent where the game type has moved far from traditional RPGs. BitD has specific phases with limited possible actions, reminiscent of boardgames. D&D has carefully balanced races and professions where characters are basically just "builds" of abiities and feats, rather than living, breathing characters. These factors undoubtedly make them more easy to predict and plan for, but they also lose some of the magic in transition.

I completely agree with you. I see nothing wrong with more modern games and they can be a lot of fun, but I am happy we have some traditional options. Personally, I prefer the BRP style of game. I don't know why but I feel more immersed in a BRP driven world than in a game with more carefully balanced options. 

I was very frustrated by some of shady's posts, and my post above was meant to be very sarcastic towards them. I immediately regretted posting it because I never want to come off that way. It was a moment of weakness and I am sorry if there was confusion. 

I should apologize to shadythedevil as well. I'm sorry for the tone in my previous post. I am not a frequent poster on this forum but I am a very frequent lurker. Many people on this forum, and many of those that responded to your thread, are very helpful, knowledgable, and patient people. I think that when you get your game world up and running with your group, and play with the system for a little bit, it will really broaden your horizons. People would be very interested in your CR system as well. 

Edited June 29 by Sir Erwin

[Atgxtg]

20 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

But what game?

I used the square pegs/round holes metaphor previously, and you've continued to express your frustration that others with more experience are unable or unwilling to do what you haven't been able to.  Which is making BRP function like a different game, forcing that square peg into a round hole.

Exactly.

It's like somebody whose driven a taxi for twenty years jumping behind the wheel of a big rig and saying," I know how to drive." Thay know how to drive a taxi, yes, but not how to drive a 20 ton semi-tractor trailer. Even though much of the informations and rules of the same, and they  they will both cover much of the same ground they aren't the same.

Or a chess player sitting down to play checkers for the first time.

Not all of that previous experience matters here.

 

 

 

[Atgxtg]

15 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

yeah thanks and BRP is unevolved because it doesnt have any of that.

No. Becuase BRP isn't trying to be that. 

 

You want a game that is easy to set up that doesn't take much thinking. That's D&D. You can run it on autopilot.  In some cases you can even play it on autopilot. 

15 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

when i was a kid maybe i could have spent the time you are all so dedicated to insist that i do as well. no lol, i dont have the time, im not a kid anymore.

So don't do it. 

15 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

it is a HUGE flaw in the system, that the creators of the system and the community that supports the system to never change, wastes my time all over the place.

No it isn't. It's just that this isn't the sort of game that you just throw something together in ten minutes. 

It's a different style of play. That doesn't make it inferior, just different. 

 

Your problem is that you learned a way to run D&D and are trying to run BRP that way, and blame BRP and the community because it's not working the way you want it to. What if we popped over to a D&D forum and did that.

For instance what if we said that character classes, experience points and levels are so achaic and that D&D should have evolved beyond that 30 years ago. 

 

 

15 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

and thanks for cherry picking around what i was saying. a lot of your questions are literally in the same exact sentence that you cherry picked from lol.

Becuase you cherry pick the things you want to respond to.respond to, and coviently ingore anything that contradicts your narrative.

For instace you keep saying the game hasn't unevolved yet ignore the fact the BRP has gone through more evolutions in the past two decades that D&D has gone through in it's entire existence. So if BRP hasn't evolved what game has?

15 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

i will say it again. adding these time saving features to the game does not inherently change the quality of what the game is.

It does when those features won't work. You just refuse to accept that a CR stat would be meaningless in BRP. 

CR can workthe way it does in D&D the way it does because of character level. A

Any DM knows what a 5th level group is, what each class can do, what magic items and spells the PCs will have available to them, and so on. So no matter who writes an adventure, the setting, etc. if it is written for a party of four fifth level characters then it will work for any party of four fifth level characters. Ome fifth level fighter is practically interchangeable with another, because they will both have the same hit dice, BAB, class saving throw bonuses, and should have similar damage AC and hit points. Not identical but not too far off from one another. Likewise a GM knows that a fifith level wizard is going know know Fireball or Lightning Bolt or something similar, how many times they can cast it each day, and can plan for that in adventures. Any GM can becuase it will be the same from one campaign to the next.

A DM also knows how long a group will remain at 5th level, and what sort of incremental improvements everyone will see when they finally do go up a level.

 

A DM also knows how combats will go becuase if it. FOr instace if a first level rogue backstabs a tenth level fighter who is at full hit points., we all know that the fighter is going to turn around and take the rogue apart. He could literal do it with his bare hands in D&D. Because 10th level trumps anything the rogue can do in that fight. The rogue might be doing 1D6+2 with a swordshort and a tenth level fighter probably has over 70 hit points. 

 

BPR doesn't have that. A group of PC who have played together long enough to have reached 5th level in D&D can be so diverse from each other in BRP that they might all be different levels in D&D. PCs and NPCS aren't as interchangeable because you don't have standardized levels and classes. You don't even have a standardized magic system between campaigns.

If a begging rogue backstabs an experienced fighter in BRP, the fighter is probably going down unless he has some sort of armor or magic 1D6+1+1D4 is enough to drop almost anybody in BRP.

 

Let me give you a D&D example-

 In D&D there are creatures that can only be harned by magic (in some editions they can still be harmed by normal weapons but they get damage resistance against them). Now the CR stat for these creatures reflects that. But it also was determined based on the idea of magic being common. 

But what if a DM ran a campaign without all the magic. What if magic weapons were rare, there were no NPC wizards to train apprentices, and PC couldn't just make their own magic items?  Then something like a standard Vampire would be much tougher than it's Challenge 13 rating. In 5E the Vampire would be taking half damage and regenerating 20 points a round, so  it would make the Vampire closer to Challenge 20. 

 

BRP is full of stuff like that. So CR as you know it is meaningless.  You don't have cookie cutter characters and setting to work work with. 

Oh, and the D&D DM also knows how much experience the vampire is worth (10,000 xp for CR 13) and that each PC will get 2500 xp from the encounter. In most forms of BRP the GM has no idea how the PCs will improve from the encounter or even if they will improve.  

 

15 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

everything else has stayed the same. an additional stat on top of everything else does not change the game. it is literally stubbornness that prevents you for seeing something so simply. if the system was designed with a thought about adults managing time in the latest rerelease, it would have included time saving stats and tables. it doesnt.

Not if those time saving stats don't work. Any stat that doesn't work doesn't save any time.

You simply fail to accept that without levels you can have a level based rating. And you are not familiar enough with BRP to be aware of all the things that would affect such a rating. For instance how would you factor in a 20 point POW storing crystal, or a Healing Doubling Crstal, or a starting Humakti PC having Sever Spirit on hand (in D&D terms it's and opposed save or die roll) or for the fact that you can't/shouldn't raise dead Humakti (it's against their religion and they will kill you for it), or for a PC who joins the Sun Dome worshipers and gets his spear skill bumped up to 90%?

D&D won't let any of that stuff happen, that's why it can have a CR. BRP is more open, so CR won't work.

 

 

 

15 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

flaw, not a feature. its like you were handed a dull pencil as the first writing utensil in your life and you cant fathom that there are more options. you can sharpen that pencil. it works better. its still a pencil.

No, it's like you are handed a crossword puzzle and think it is a sudoku.

Edited June 29 by Atgxtg

[Atgxtg]

15 hours ago, shadythedevil said:

yeah thanks and BRP is unevolved because it doesnt have any of that.

 

Actually it has two CR type devices. Treasure Factor and Danger Level. I've mentioned both of you to you before but you ignored them. Neither are used anymore because the gave evolved away from them. But if you want something like that, a monster gets 1 Treasure Factor for:

1. each 5 hit points or fraction thereof.
2. each 25% chance to hit or fraction thereof
3. each extra damage die done by the monster
4. each point of armor covering the whole body
5. each combat spell posssed by the monster
6. each special power of the monster
7. each 5 levels of POT of posion used by the monster
8. each extra attack the monster has 

 

Most of us don't use Treasure Factor anymore because we don't see why a pride of lions should have a a couple hundred coins, two gemstones, and a scroll. But TF's origins are the same as D&D's CR.

[el_octogono]

9 hours ago, Sir Erwin said:

I should apologize to shadythedevil as well. I'm sorry for the tone in my previous post.

 

You don't need to apologize. shadythedevil came with demands and bullying attitude, using lots of "lols" in a clear passive-agressive maner, dismissing the numerous answers trying to explain the way BRP works and why his intention wouldn't work as expected, even when alternative solutions or guides were given.

 

[Peter Fitz]

I gave up on mechanistic character/monster equivalency systems long ago, when I ran a bunch of campaigns using the Hero System (3rd to 5th editions). In theory, a 100 point character and a 100 point monster in that system should be roughly equivalent in power, but due to the flexibility and open nature of the creature/character generation system, that's almost never the case.

Likewise, D&D's CR system never worked for me except in very gross terms, so it was largely useless to me. It fails to take into account a multitude of circumstances. The old AD&D dungeon level stocking tables were more useful.

In any system that I've used (and I've played with quite a few) there's no substitute for GM experience when attempting to "balance" an encounter. No hard and fast set of equivalency rules is ever going to cut it, and will never be any use except as a very general guide.

You just have to suck it up and learn from your mistakes, and get used to having to roll up new parties... and hopefully that will have to happen less and less as you learn what you're doing.

[Kloster]

2 hours ago, Peter Fitz said:

I gave up on mechanistic character/monster equivalency systems long ago, when I ran a bunch of campaigns using the Hero System (3rd to 5th editions). In theory, a 100 point character and a 100 point monster in that system should be roughly equivalent in power, but due to the flexibility and open nature of the creature/character generation system, that's almost never the case.

Same. That's roughly the example I gave.

2 hours ago, Peter Fitz said:

In any system that I've used (and I've played with quite a few) there's no substitute for GM experience when attempting to "balance" an encounter. No hard and fast set of equivalency rules is ever going to cut it, and will never be any use except as a very general guide.

You just have to suck it up and learn from your mistakes, and get used to having to roll up new parties... and hopefully that will have to happen less and less as you learn what you're doing.

Fully agreed.