Non human playable races and encounter balancing

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, radmonger said:

The mistake the OP is making is not that CR can't exist in BRP, or that it isn't useful. It is that different combatants need to have different CRs.

Yes, because the differences in CR aren't as important. A CR 1 encounter for a 10th level group in D&D is a boring encounter. A trollkin hiding in the woods with a sling and a point of speedart can still seriously mess up a Rune Lord.  

In real life if someone points a rifle at you, you're in danger no matter how experienced you are. And that's the big difference between BRP and D&D.

[Ian Absentia]

3 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, because the differences in CR aren't as important. A CR 1 encounter for a 10th level group in D&D is a boring encounter. A trollkin hiding in the woods with a sling and a point of speedart can still seriously mess up a Rune Lord.

Agreed.  But the counter-argument, and the issue at the heart of the OP, is and will be:  Why isn't this quantified in the GM mechanics to simplify game preparation for the GM?

This mis-match has been addressed ad nauseum over 8 pages of back-and-forth, resulting in mutual encampment of opinion, grognards vs troll.  That said, this has still been a fascinating examination of what I do and don't like about BRP.

!i!

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

Agreed.  But the counter-argument, and the issue at the heart of the OP, is and will be:  Why isn't this quantified in the GM mechanics to simplify game preparation for the GM?

I don't think it is a counter argument. The reason why it isn't is becuase it can't be. Not with free form character advancement, treasure, training and all that. You would have to gut all of that to make it work.

And then there is the fact that PCs improve gradually after every adventure rather than staying the same for multiple sessions until they "level up."

It's like asking why fish can't walk on land. They not built for it.  

 

2 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

This mis-match has been addressed ad nauseum over 8 pages of back-and-forth, resulting in mutual encampment of opinion, grognards vs troll.

I don't think it's a matter of opinion, but of fact. It's like someone asking why they can play Axies & Allies the same way they play CHess because bot are board games. A&A has a lot more randomization and players don't start off equal. 

All this should become apparent when the OP actually runs the game.

2 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

  That said, this has still been a fascinating examination of what I do and don't like about BRP.

!i!

Oh. I'm not sure it really reflects on BRP at all. Just on the people playing it and their approaches to doing so. 

Edited July 1 by Atgxtg

[Ian Absentia]

35 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

It's like asking why fish can't walk on land. They not built for it.  

But, admit it.  It'd make them easier to catch. lol

!i!

Edited July 1 by Ian Absentia

[Ravenheart87]

14 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

And then there is the fact that PCs improve gradually after every adventure rather than staying the same for multiple sessions until they "level up."

And depending on their rolls it's possible they don't improve at the same pace. BRP characters in a party can be all over the place in experience.

[Susimetsa]

I'm not certain that a "ballpark" version of such a system might not be possible - if one ignores possible critical rolls etc. and counts weapon skills, armour, hitpoints and damage output as averages for each character and opponent. You could get some sort of a total danger level for the player party and compare it with the danger level of the opposing party. You'd have to update the "danger level" figures every time the character's skills etc. change, but it could all be in a Calc table.

Mind you, it would be a ballpark comparison and the first bad rolls or critical rolls would mess up all predictions.

My own eyeballing basically goes like this:

If I want a relatively easy, but still potentially challenging fight, I'll make sure that the opponent's skills are about half or little less than the player characters' skills. If my four players have weapon skills around 70-100, a group of 6-7 thugs with skills around 35-50 should be survivable, depending on the tactical situation (defending a house, or otherwise making sure that they don't have to face them all at once). Mind you, it always depends on the situational factors and the players' luck with the dice.

[Lloyd Dupont]

a ballpark estimation is same number of enemies as the number of party characters and same skill percentages, perfect balance! 😉 

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, Ravenheart87 said:

And depending on their rolls it's possible they don't improve at the same pace. BRP characters in a party can be all over the place in experience.

Precisely. In fact that's the most likely outcome.

So a few months in you've got one PC with Sword 120%, two PCs at 70%, and one at 45% wondering when they will start making improvement rolls. 

So you don't ave a party level as in D&D. At lest you have a median level, but if you set your opponents at 50% to challenge the 70% PCs your opponents are better than the 45% PC.

And then there is training & practice...

 

 

 

[Atgxtg]

18 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

But, admit it.  It'd make them easier to catch. lol

!i!

Ow...oh Fish sticks!!

But yes,  walking fish will suffer the agony of da feet.

(Okay, I apologize for that. There was no reason for me to be cruel.) 

 

P.S. Hmm, maybe fish do need a bicycle after all. Score one for religion.

(I hope that one was better). 

 

[Ian Absentia]

Just for yuks, and I realise that this is wandering afield from BRP, I read through my copy of the 3.5e Dungeon Master's Guide.  I mention the edition in the interest of full disclosure - I never dipped my toes into 5e.  Yes, there are tables for calculating Challenge Ratings, but they're:

1. Oriented to combat
2. Full of subjective language
3. Cite numerous exceptions without providing specific guidance (e.g., tight quarters, terrain, unusual opponents)
4. Pretty much hand-wave non-combat encounters

I understand that 5e is a much more programmed encounter experience than 3/3.5e (and 4e was a different sort of fish), so maybe all of this has been nailed down.  But from the outset, RQ/BRP has always differentiated itself from D&D in style of play and outcomes, though we've been notified that this is a bug, not a feature.  Honestly, I'm surprised that no one has invoked Classic Fantasy yet (either BRP or Mythras editions), though even that lacks CRs.

!i!

Edited July 2 by Ian Absentia
Mea culpa - Classic Fantasy HAS been mentioned

[Atgxtg]

4 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

But from the outset, RQ/BRP has always differentiated itself from D&D in style of play and outcomes

Playing devils advocate here, someone pointed out a few years back that this wan't always the case. Back in the Balastor's barracks days RQ was just as much of a dungeon crawl as D&D. And Arduin was orignially created for Glorantha. 

4 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

, though we've been notified that this is a bug, not a feature.  Honestly, I'm surprised that no one has invoked Classic Fantasy yet (either BRP or Mythras editions), though even that lacks CRs.

!i!

I did. Twice. 

I posted the Treasure Factor system from RQ2 which is probably as close to a CR as you can get for BRP, and or will ever be able to get , and I even offered to post the Danger Classes from RQ3 (remember those?).

The OP didn't even acknowledge them. 

Both of which would, at the very least,be a useful guide for someone trying to create their own system for rating the monsters. If nothing else,  any major differences  between a monster's Treasure Factor, Danger Class and a homebrewed rating would be red flags to investigate. If it were me, I'd want to know why the game designers considered something tougher than I calculated. But then I would assume that they knew something I didn't, and try to figure out what it was. 

 

[Ian Absentia]

Just now, Atgxtg said:

I did. Twice. 

Mea culpa.  That's what I get for skimming.  But you were right to cite it -- for a D&D-like encounter experience with BRP, Classic Fantasy is possibly the best model, and does a neat job of undermining my square pegs metaphor.  That should be a slam dunk.

7 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Back in the Balastor's barracks days RQ was just as much of a dungeon crawl as D&D. And Arduin was orignially created for Glorantha. 

[...snip...]

I posted the Treasure Factor system from RQ2 which is probably as close to a CR as you can get for BRP, and or will ever be able to get , and I even offered to post the Danger Classes from RQ3 (remember those?).

Unfamiliarity with old sources is forgivable, though they are still in (digital) print.  Thus, I suppose, we're confronted with the argument that old concepts like these should've been updated and included in the recent edition of BRP.  Except for the fact that they're implicitly and explicitly not part of the current design approach, and thus lmfao.

!i!

[Atgxtg]

19 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

Mea culpa. That's what I get for skimming

No harm, no foul. It was buried in a long post (I need be more concise), and it was for the OP. 

19 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

.  But you were right to cite it -- for a D&D-like encounter experience with BRP, Classic Fantasy is possibly the best model, and does a neat job of undermining my square pegs metaphor.  That should be a slam dunk.

Yeah. I mean D&D isn't my cup of tea, but if I wanted to run BRP like D&D, Classic Fantasy would be the first thing I'd look for. From what I've read and heard it does it so well that people are actually using it to run old AD&D modules. 

That's quire an accomplishment. Rod had to jump through some burning hoops to pull that off.

19 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

Unfamiliarity with old sources is forgivable, though they are still in (digital) print. 

Not always. And people are not always awareof them. I just whatched a 30 minute video where a guy raved about Sanndbox Generator. A minute into the vido I relaized that I have Sandbox Generaotr and wasn't wowed by it. So I pulled it out and yes it was the same thing, and no I wasn't as impressed with it as he was. 

But then I have a lot of old Judges Guild stuff with lots of random tables. So to me a hexcraw generator isn't all that new or novel. I still use Frontier forts of Kelnore. 

And I used to make a habit of surprising people who "wished there was an RPG for..." with just such an RPG. Sadly Licensed RPGs just vanish when the license expires. So if you didn't get it when it was available, you won't be able to find a digital copy afterwards. Just look at how long the Princes Bride RPG lasted.

19 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

Thus, I suppose, we're confronted with the argument that old concepts like these should've been updated and included in the recent edition of BRP.  Except for the fact that they're implicitly and explicitly not part of the current design approach, and thus lmfao.

!i!

LOL. That's the thing. To most of us things like level and game balance are the "old concepts" and BRP evolved away from them in the 1980s. In fact it was one of the pioneers in doing so. 

 

[Videopete]

Yet even if you look at Balastors Barracks, Snake Pit Hollow or Snake Pit Hollow and compare them to an equivalent DnD module they come across as extremely skimpy in the encounters department are absolutely murderous to even a party of RQG.

Also unlike dnd crits still hit on a 5% and a special on 20% and don't need to confirm.

[Atgxtg]

51 minutes ago, Videopete said:

Yet even if you look at Balastors Barracks, Snake Pit Hollow or Snake Pit Hollow and compare them to an equivalent DnD module they come across as extremely skimpy in the encounters department are absolutely murderous to even a party of RQG.

Yup. And there are good reasons why that's the case.

51 minutes ago, Videopete said:

Also unlike dnd crits still hit on a 5% and a special on 20% and don't need to confirm.

And that is one of them.

The average damage to hit point ratio is another.

Hit Locations (or major wounds) is a third

 

Combine all three  and you're not in Greyhawk anymore, Tenser.

 

When the opponents average 5.5 points and you got 60 hit points, you get longer battles that take time, or can handle multiple shorter battles. 

When the opponents average 5.5 points and you got 12 hit points, you get battles that are short and not so sweet. Yes armor will tend to reduce most of those 5.5 point hits down to 1-2 point hits, and things seem the same, but add in criticals  specials, and hit locations and you'r back to short and bloody.   

That's why D&D groups press on when down 25% of their HP and Spells while RQ groups will stop to heal up. Down 25% in D&D is an inconvience while down 25% in  RQ probably means a PC is incapacitated or dead..Healing the down PC in RQ might be possible but will drain the healers POW for several hours or worse.

It's like comparing a hand of gin rummy to a hand of blackjack. 

 

[Perry Holley]

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

And Arduin was orignially created for Glorantha. 

 

I thought Hargrave was already running his Arduin game when he attempted to write up a RPG that would fit Glorantha?

[Questbird]

On 5/24/2024 at 3:05 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? 

 

I've done it as GM. Wasn't very happy with the outcome, but it was also because my adventure at the time was too railroady. It was literally a dragon and the differences between ad&d and runequest dragons did play a part. However I was happy that I played it straight. It was the final (in all ways) battle of the campaign. Actually there was a survivor, who escaped, later returned and defeated the dragon in another way. However most of the players' characters died, and it did leave a bit of a flat feeling.

I've also had characters who have died from unlucky criticals etc. But I do prefer to let the dice decide even if it makes for an imperfect 'story'.

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, Perry Holley said:

I thought Hargrave was already running his Arduin game when he attempted to write up a RPG that would fit Glorantha?

Hhe was running his game, but it was a variant of D&D with his house rules. He then wrote the house system up as the Ardiun Grimore,  to be used for Glorantha, at Greg's suggestion, but Greg ultimately rejected it. 

At least that's the story I heard. I wasn't there.

But if Greg had accepted Arduin we wouldn't have gotten RuneQuest,. Or, if we did, it would have look like Arduin, or maybe an Old D&D version of 13th Age Glorantha. 

[Susimetsa]

17 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

a ballpark estimation is same number of enemies as the number of party characters and same skill percentages, perfect balance! 😉 

Of course, but that would not be easy and would stop the story until the group has healed up (those who can, if anyone survives). For the first few encounters in a story, I want to go easy, especially as there is no healing magic available in my game. Of course, it is also easy for me to eyeball things, as practically all enemies are humans, like the player characters (historical setting).

Mind you, I should not really talk about my experiences, since I'be changed the combat system quite radically.

Edited July 3 by Susimetsa

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, Susimetsa said:

Of course, but that would not be easy and would stop the story until the group has healed up (those who can, if anyone survives).

I think that was the point, hence the smiley. 

"Balanced" encounters are not balanced at all, they are skewed quite heavily in the players favor. The specifics:

1.  A group of four PCs should face a CR equal to their level.
2. A First Level character is considered to be CR 1 
3. For every doubling on the monsters CR increased by 2

So an actual balanced encounter for a 1st level party (that is another group of four first level characters) would be CR 5 , not CR 1! That is CR 1 for 1st level, +2 for two NPCs, and +2 more for four NPCs.!

So if the OP is throwing opponents who are 3 CR's above the party level it means he is giving them encounters at about 75% of the party's Strength (or three 1st level NPCS against a party of four 1st level PCs). A tough encounter for D&D, but probably close to the default for BRP. Something like Four PCs at 60% fighting four NPCs at 40%.  With a similar 4:3 advantage in armor and magic. 

I think the dangerous thing about CR and "balanced encounters" is that gamers start to believe those encounters are actually balanced and that the advantage level given to the players in D&D is some sort of gold standard that every other RPG must adhere to. And to be fair to the authors of D&D 3.0, the DMG doesn't say that. 

If BRP were "balanced" like D&D (which is what a CR would be for) then the PCs defending Gringle's Pawnshop in Apple Lane would probably face two baboons (Knochaz and Barzeek, , with a Dragonnew (Xarban) and a Duck (Pinfeather) for support. Well, actually less than that since those are experienced NPCs are would probably count as a CR 10+ encounter.  A balanced encounter for a group of first level D&D characters would probably only have to face Shuffle the Trollkin.

7 hours ago, Susimetsa said:

 

For the first few encounters in a story, I want to go easy, especially as there is no healing magic available in my game. Of course, it is also easy for me to eyeball things, as practically all enemies are humans, like the player characters (historical setting).

Mind you, I should not really talk about my experiences, since I'be changed the combat system quite radically.

I think we all want to go easy on the PCs at first. I think that was the point of Lloyd Dupont's  brilliant comment. We really don't want the encounters to be balanced because then it would be a coin toss as to who won, and a 50% PC loss per encounter is unsustainable for a campaign - unless your playing Paranoia and got a half dozen clones waiting in the wings.

[Susimetsa]

Agreed - and I've always been able to find the proper balance by eyeballing the skills etc. And sometimes it is just a good idea to prepare some failsafes (people heard the sounds of fighting and alerted the night guard etc.).

That's why I don't personally need a formula to count these things and I believe that finding a good balance is better done by simply playing the game (just like you learn a new board game by playing the first game rather than first analysing the rules to death).

[Atgxtg]

6 hours ago, Susimetsa said:

Agreed - and I've always been able to find the proper balance by eyeballing the skills etc.

Always? I'm impressed. Pretty much every GM I've ever known has mess up a couple of times. I know I have, and in both directions.  

6 hours ago, Susimetsa said:

And sometimes it is just a good idea to prepare some failsafes (people heard the sounds of fighting and alerted the night guard etc.).

LOL! Definitely. Although the vast majoirty of PC deaths I've seen in BRP games are self inflicted by the players, with unlucky die rolls taking the number two spot. 

I still remember the game where the GM rolled a critical on the first attack roll of the campaign. Not much you can do about that.

6 hours ago, Susimetsa said:

That's why I don't personally need a formula to count these things and I believe that finding a good balance is better done by simply playing the game (just like you learn a new board game by playing the first game rather than first analysing the rules to death).

Yup, plus there is no guarantee the formula would apply in every situation. I've seen a lot of PCs get banged up by inferior adversaries who has a better position, or used better tactics, and vice versa. I ran the same adventure with different players and one group charged into melee and  got mauled by the bear, and another one took it down with arrows without getting a scratch.

[Susimetsa]

7 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Always? I'm impressed. Pretty much every GM I've ever known has mess up a couple of times. I know I have, and in both directions.

I should specify that this is mostly while playing other D100 systems (though surprisingly similar when considering encounters and comparative enemy skills). I've only run RQ for a few years back in the 90's and now a self-made BRP-derivative (with a faster, but somewhat more forgiving combat system) for a year or so. And, yes, critical rolls and bad stuff ends up happening, but never in a way that I would have said was unfair (after all, the players have rolled crits in unexpected situations as well, taking down enemies before they had a chance to realise that a fight began).

And my luck with dice is generally on the horrible side of things, so that helps my players a lot (at least it did in the fight I described above in this thread). When rolling my present RQ character, my stat rolls were generally under 10 or a bit over. My GM shook his head and let me try again. The total stats still ended up well under 90, but at least the character is playable... 😕

Edited July 4 by Susimetsa

[shadythedevil]

On 7/1/2024 at 11:54 AM, Ian Absentia said:

Agreed.  But the counter-argument, and the issue at the heart of the OP, is and will be:  Why isn't this quantified in the GM mechanics to simplify game preparation for the GM?

This mis-match has been addressed ad nauseum over 8 pages of back-and-forth, resulting in mutual encampment of opinion, grognards vs troll.  That said, this has still been a fascinating examination of what I do and don't like about BRP.

!i!

thank you for understanding lol

[Scotty]

Okay guys, nine pages later and it's getting heated. Deep breath everyone. Please remind yourself of this (it applies to the whole site not just RQ and Glorantha):