Comparative Systemology

[Jason D]

And I have to admit that I am just guessing on some of them because I don’t have BRP0. But I do have what people have posted here and the fact that Jason wasn’t supposed to bring about any great changes so I feel safe in making some assumptions about some systems.

I'll admit to considerable frustration with the "I don't have it, but here's why it fails" opinions, so maybe you'll understand why I get peevish with the fact that the most vocal critics are those who don't seem to actually have copies of Edition Zero, or were hoping for RuneQuest 3.5 instead of the book that was solicited.

That would mean that the .22 still does 1d6 but can be fired 3 times a round. That lets you put 3d6 on an opponent in each round while the .45 only did a single shot of 1d10+2. Hmmm, which is the manstopper here? Had a GM that couldn't figure out that the game system was dictating unconventional choices.

Now give the foe 6 points of armor. Which weapon would you want to use against him?

Furthermore, an impale from the .22 does a max of 12 points of damage, which may or may not put someone down in one shot. Compare that to an impale from your .45, doing a max of 24 points of damage. Very few humans can survive that shot, even if armored.

Atgxtg has pointed out that the AP for some of the tanks can be penetrated by firearms.

The vintage tank (from around 90 years ago) has 18 points of armor. The modern tank has 24.

Missing from the table is a footnote that special successes from hand weapons (longarms, etc.) do not affect vehicles, and that criticals only do at the gamemaster's discretion.

It speaks to the fact that the very foundation of the game is not set up to accept being played in a crunchy gearheaded manner.

You're correct.

Making BRP more crunchy was never a design goal. At no point did I think "You know, this needs to be more complex."

You've said you're unhappy with what you've heard about the game. You've made it clear that the direction of the game is not for you. From all indications, you don't seem like you're going to buy it.

At the risk of alienating a potential customer,why are you still posting on threads about the new BRP game?

[SDLeary]

Venomous Pao wanted to know-

Here is my problem- it looks like the numbers for several different parts of the gameworld/system don’t work out. And I have to admit that I am just guessing on some of them because I don’t have BRP0. But I do have what people have posted here and the fact that Jason wasn’t supposed to bring about any great changes so I feel safe in making some assumptions about some systems. If you have a copy of BRP0 let me if I am wrong OK? For instance I am betting that not much changed in the firearms from CoC. That would mean that the .22 still does 1d6 but can be fired 3 times a round. That lets you put 3d6 on an opponent in each round while the .45 only did a single shot of 1d10+2. Hmmm, which is the manstopper here? Had a GM that couldn't figure out that the game system was dictating unconventional choices.

The Pistol, Light (assume .22) allows you to shoot at the same target target three times per round, meaning three separate shots which all have to hit and do damage independently. If you change targets, you loose the extra shots and can't shoot till your next action because of the time to acquire and aim at the new target. Perhaps slightly fast, 2/round might seem more reasonable, but keep in mind that a .22 is generally not going to have the kick of a .45.

Many Special Operators keep .22s in their inventory because they are easily silenced, but also because they don't have a lot of kick and can be kept on target easily.

Another example from CoC that may have changed in BRP0-explosives. A stick of dynamite does 5D6 damage. A 75 mm shell does 10D6. The 75 has over 4 times the explosive in it (about 800 grams to 136 grams). Even accounting for different qualities of explosive (60% nitro in the dynamite and ammonium picrate in the 75) I don’t think the numbers jive. One is too large or one is too small. Again I see this as a situation where the original designers eyeballed things and never did get around to setting a standard to work from.

75mm shells have a fragmentation effect that is generally not present with dynamite, unless the dynamite is contained within something else that will fragment.

These are all examples of things that should have been integrated into the original games better but were not. Some of them, maybe all of them will be present in BRP. It speaks to the fact that the very foundation of the game is not set up to accept being played in a crunchy gearheaded manner.

Ok... I'll give you that. But please look carefully at the history of BRP.

BRP was never designed to be played in a crunchy gearhead manner.

RQIII was the crunchiest BRP game. That game can be approximated in these rules with the appropriate choice of optional and alternate rules sets. One of the biggest complaints about RQIII (at least that I've heard) from new players was how long combat took. And even that could not be considered crunchy gearhead

In a genre game it can be forgiven. However BRP is no longer a genre game, it is a generic platform for many different games and styles of play. I feel that standards should have been set and systems created so that as new material was being developed it would fit into the overall structure with out straining things. Do all the crunchy stuff up front –even if it isn’t going to show. That way when it does matter you have a system to go on rather than having to eyeball it and hope that it fits.

That was not the mandate of the author. His mandate was to take what already existed and integrate it into a single core system. Also, as has been stated before, none of the people at Chaosium are "gearheads"... the issue about money and history of the company has been stated in other threads.

I like RQ- I am not so thrilled with Glorantha. I like crunchy, gearheaded play, lots of tactical options, and involved chargen. RQ was a good basis for that and it could have been set up so that it was easy and did not break the game if people wanted simpler modes of play. Doing it the other way around seems to be a bit problematic to me.

RQ is there, if you choose the appropriate optionaly/alternate rules. It can still be expanded on as you state above, if you want to. In most BRP fan's opinions, Stormbringer 5e was the best version of BRP, and thus that was used as the basis for this effort.

I have really liked the design philosophy that I have seen out of the GURPS game. Armor has a standard-1”RHA will stop 70d6. Firearms and explosives have their own formulas. Are they in the books? Does SJG expect you to figure something on the fly? No. The design formulas are used to set up all of the material world stats so that I don’t have to eyeball it myself. It provides a consistent, rational approach to things that are modeled from the real world. Does GURPS have its problems? Certainly. But modelling that doesn’t work isn’t one of them. Except for hiking.

Hmmm... in the BRP book, the Steel Plate is NOT listed as RHA. Its listed as Steel Plate. Because of its specific design as armor, I would expect RHA to have a much higher AP value; in fact I would expect any material designed as modern AFV armor to have higher values.

I applaud SJG, their writers, or both for being so thorough in their approach to world modeling. BRP was never designed as a model of the world though, but as an abstract. An abstract with enough detail that people could have fun roleplaying in the story that the GM has placed them in.

As for accurate world modeling? YMMV, as no two people "see" the world in quite the same way.

SDLeary

[Trifletraxor]

At the risk of alienating a potential customer,why are you still posting on threads about the new BRP game?

The game have been postponed for almost a year now. As most people don't have (and maybe also don't want) the Zero Editon, and we still don't have any ETA on the final product, we don't have much else to do than to discuss it here while we wait. Everyone will probably, not like ALL the rules, and everyone is probably going to use at least some houserules. Discussing the "new" parts that we're not happy with based on information and rumours from those who do have it, is also a good way to get tips on how to tweak the game like you want it. This thread was startet by Simon to point out what they did not like about what they've heard about the new edition, so you shouldn't take it as an offense that the posts are mainly critical, as opposed to the other threads.

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

Missing from the table is a footnote that special successes from hand weapons (longarms, etc.) do not affect vehicles, and that criticals only do at the gamemaster's discretion.

:thumb::thumb:

Yeah!

Might be better to just restrict that to actual armored vehicles, though. You should still be able to "kill" an 18 wheeler with rifle bullets. It's armor is more a function of its structure than actual armor.

[Kloster]

I'll admit to considerable frustration with the "I don't have it, but here's why it fails" opinions, so maybe you'll understand why I get peevish with the fact that the most vocal critics are those who don't seem to actually have copies of Edition Zero, or were hoping for RuneQuest 3.5 instead of the book that was solicited.

...

Hello Jason,

As I have already explained, I'm not buying BRP edition 0 because, counting shipping and handling, it is far too expensive, and I am saving my money to buy it in a store when final version will be released, not because I don't like what you've done. As I can NOT have this edition 0, I am basing my judgment on the explanations YOU gave.

I would have preferred having RQ 3.5, but I knew from the beginning I would not have it, and this is not my point. I would have preferred having BRP more based on RQ and less on SB because I think RQ is a better game than SB, but I know since month that I would not get that, and this is not my point. What I told is that I would have preferred a top-down approach, with a maximum of rules by default, and optional simplifications, because I find simpler to remove what I don't use than having to add what I want and is not default.

To cite the exemples you gave:

• Hit Points Per Location in addition to general HP... not much conflict there
  
• Fatigue Points and Sanity... easy enough to add... this seems easy!
  
• Armor per Hit Location is easy enough to add, but what if the GM wants random armor?
  
• Heroic Hit Points doubles HP, and causes a double value if you want to have normal HP also represented
  
• Splitting Attack and Parry Skills... hmm... now each melee weapon skill has two values - what if I only want to use one? Do I average them, or just use attack?
  
• Skill Category Modifiers - should they be presented and not added, or should they be included and GMs not wishing to use them must subtract the values from existing skills?
  
• Simpler Skill Bonuses - hmm... these don't really mesh with the above easily, do they?
  
• Increased Personal Skill Points, Cultural Modifiers, EDU/Knowledge rolls, etc. - do I add these for GMs who want to use them, and make GMs who don't want to use them remove them, or do I put them in a block alongside each NPC writeup?
  
• Skill Ratings Over 100% - hoo-boy! Do I want to play Elric! style, with NPCs with attack skills of 300% or more, do I want to keep things simple and say that 100% is the top? Does each skill have two ratings, based on where you want to put the limit? Over 100% and under 100%?
  

If the supplements, which are, like I said, my main points are using only core rules, I have to:

- calculate all the location HP (not easy on the fly).

- calculate the SR (not easy on the fly)

- put armor on each location (easy, if we assume no variation).

- calculate FP and SAN base and remaining (not so easy).

- generate a separate value for all melee weapons (easy).

for each npc.

- check which variable armor I should use (easy, not fast)

With the top-down approach, you have all of this printed, and those who don't use the options:

- ignore the locations HP, as the total HP is also given (doubling is easy for heroic).

- Ignore the SR, and just use the DEX rank.

- ignore the armor value for each location, using only one (probably torso or abdomen, if a specific value is not given).

- Ignore FP and SAN if not using them.

- Use only attack value for melee weapons (parry for shields) and ignore the second value.

- Same problem for variable armor, but value can also be printed.

This is what I have explained..

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[threedeesix]

Venomous Pao wanted to know-

Here is my problem- it looks like the numbers for several different parts of the gameworld/system don’t work out. And I have to admit that I am just guessing on some of them because I don’t have BRP0. But I do have what people have posted here and the fact that Jason wasn’t supposed to bring about any great changes so I feel safe in making some assumptions about some systems. If you have a copy of BRP0 let me if I am wrong OK? For instance I am betting that not much changed in the firearms from CoC. That would mean that the .22 still does 1d6 but can be fired 3 times a round. That lets you put 3d6 on an opponent in each round while the .45 only did a single shot of 1d10+2. Hmmm, which is the manstopper here? Had a GM that couldn't figure out that the game system was dictating unconventional choices.

There are other factors that come into play that you may not be thinking of. Jason brought up the point of armor, which is a good one. But you also have to take into account that the attacker with the .22 can only do 1D6 damage per 5 DEX Ranks. Even assuming he has the higher DEX and shoots first, it will only be for 1D6 damage. More than likely, the target with the .45 will get the next shot for 1D10+2.

Throw in the optional Hit Location rules and even a low damage roll with the .45 to an arm or leg is more than enough to cripple it and a crippled location pretty much eliminates most targets as a threat.

Rod

[Kloster]

...

BRP is entirely compatible with RQIII - pick the right set of optional rules and, bar a few skill category names and the contributing stats, it's mechanically indistinguishable. Add the BRP Magic Book monograph and it has the same magic systems as well.

...

Yes, but will the aforementioned BRP monograph still be available when final BRP will be out? If not, possibility does not exist.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Jason D]

Yes, but will the aforementioned BRP monograph still be available when final BRP will be out? If not, possibility does not exist.

I suspect that as long as they have copies in stock, it'll be available, and that some BRP edition of it is a likely candidate for publication before too long.

I've encouraged people time and again on this forum and elsewhere to pick up the ball and roll with such a project.

[SDLeary]

To cite the exemples you gave:

If the supplements, which are, like I said, my main points are using only core rules, I have to:

- calculate all the location HP (not easy on the fly).

- calculate the SR (not easy on the fly)

- put armor on each location (easy, if we assume no variation).

- calculate FP and SAN base and remaining (not so easy).

- generate a separate value for all melee weapons (easy).

for each npc.

- check which variable armor I should use (easy, not fast)

With the top-down approach, you have all of this printed, and those who don't use the options:

- ignore the locations HP, as the total HP is also given (doubling is easy for heroic).

- Ignore the SR, and just use the DEX rank.

- ignore the armor value for each location, using only one (probably torso or abdomen, if a specific value is not given).

- Ignore FP and SAN if not using them.

- Use only attack value for melee weapons (parry for shields) and ignore the second value.

- Same problem for variable armor, but value can also be printed.

This is what I have explained..

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Silly question. If you were the GM, why would you have to do the required calculations on-the-fly? Wouldn't you do this in pre-game prep? And if you are the player, wouldn't these calculations be done during character gen?

I can understand it being an issue if you are just doing a pick-up game, but for a planned game/campaign it shouldn't be an issue.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

I suspect that as long as they have copies in stock, it'll be available, and that some BRP edition of it is a likely candidate for publication before too long.

I've encouraged people time and again on this forum and elsewhere to pick up the ball and roll with such a project.

And if anyone does, could you please not forget to shoe-horn the Pendragon 4e magic system in there? Thanks much!

SDLeary

[Kloster]

And if anyone does, could you please not forget to shoe-horn the Pendragon 4e magic system in there? Thanks much!

SDLeary

I don't know this one, but why not. In fact, I think that for completeness sake, all systems present in previous BRP games should be included, if only to be able to convert those old games to the new BRP.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

Silly question. If you were the GM, why would you have to do the required calculations on-the-fly? Wouldn't you do this in pre-game prep? And if you are the player, wouldn't these calculations be done during character gen?

I can understand it being an issue if you are just doing a pick-up game, but for a planned game/campaign it shouldn't be an issue.

SDLeary

I'm not speaking of player-characters. Chargen is what it is.

When, speaking of the GM, I'm saying 'not easy on the fly', I mean that there is a mandatory extra phase during preparation, for converting all NPCs, like I have today when using some SB or Hawkmoon supplements for RQ. In this case, there is an issue, and the issue is extra time and extra work for the GM.

If using the top-down approach, instead of bottom-up, this extra phase is only 'ignore what you don't need', which don't take time.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Atgxtg]

And if anyone does, could you please not forget to shoe-horn the Pendragon 4e magic system in there? Thanks much!

SDLeary

Would need to shoe-horn a trait and passion system (either Pendragon,s THieves Worlds' or Prince Vlaiants) of some kind to make that work.

[lawrence.whitaker]

Would need to shoe-horn a trait and passion system (either Pendragon,s THieves Worlds' or Prince Vlaiants) of some kind to make that work.

Personality traits are presented as an option in BRP, based on D100 rather than D20, but they are there.

[Joseph Paul]

Jason wrote:

I'll admit to considerable frustration with the "I don't have it, but here's why it fails" opinions, so maybe you'll understand why I get peevish with the fact that the most vocal critics are those who don't seem to actually have copies of Edition Zero, or were hoping for RuneQuest 3.5 instead of the book that was solicited.

Well what Chaosium solicited does not seem to be satisfying the cravings of some of the fan base. Of course once it hits the stores we all may find that it does handstands.

I can also certainly see that those who have paid for BRP0 are probably already pretty much in agreement with what has been wrought so this dichotomy shouldn’t be a surprise.

I do have most of the legacy source material and your assertion that you did not want to be innovative at this point puts a pretty good limit on what might change. I don’t think that my criticisms have been out of line or substantively off base about what the BRP0 rules actually allow.

Concerning fire arms:

Jason:

Now give the foe 6 points of armor. Which weapon would you want to use against him?

Well I wouldn’t mind a 2d10+4 Barret but an average damage roll of 15 is just survivable by someone with 6 pt armor (and no I don’t think that is right either). People pick up large caliber hand guns because they will presumably be better at stopping a target right now. The damage for the .22 plus the high rate of fire made this gun perform better in that role than the .45. This is why I suggested reducing the damage for the .22. You get more believable results and more believable use out of it ie a stealthy weapon or one used for pests like snakes. Alternatively kick the .45 up to RoF 2. That way it will also outperform any RoF 3 1D8 automatics in the .32 range.

Furthermore, an impale from the .22 does a max of 12 points of damage, which may or may not put someone down in one shot. Compare that to an impale from your .45, doing a max of 24 points of damage. Very few humans can survive that shot, even if armored.

Most gamers aren’t willing to bet on a 20% chance of an impale as a means of coping with a threat. Given equal skill the .22 is putting more points on the target than the .45 is in any given combat round. Under CoC rules it also has three separate times to roll a special or critical- of course that may change in BRP. If you know you will face body armor that changes things. In the time frame of the .45 and the .22 it is only recently that body armor for people has become much of a possibility. That is why the 1920’s players were choosing the .22 as the more effective weapon. It was purely a function of the way that the game chose to model firearms. Want a different result, change the model.

The vintage tank (from around 90 years ago) has 18 points of armor. The modern tank has 24.

Missing from the table is a footnote that special successes from hand weapons (longarms, etc.) do not affect vehicles, and that criticals only do at the gamemaster's discretion.

So a big guy with a 3D6 halberd and a 1D6 DB can penetrate a WWI tank on a good roll? Hmmm that doesn’t snap your suspension of disbelief? It does mine. What happened to the idea of BRP games being gritty and realistic? The modern tank has 24 AP and can be damaged by an average shot from a French 75 HE shell. Since 6” of armor (that is 6 times the 19AP in a steel plate minimum for a bad model of armor thickness) is pretty common on the 1960s-70s vehicles ie not really modern, I have to think that this is another symptom of the game straying further from its realistic roots.

You're correct.

Making BRP more crunchy was never a design goal. At no point did I think "You know, this needs to be more complex."

You say that like it is a bad thing. I do not think that being internally consistent with the modeling can be bad for a game. It is inconsistency that makes for a bad game. I think that Atgxtg captured my position on this when he wrote:

“I tend to believe that some "crunch" is important in RPGs, just to keep thing internally consistent, but that most of the "crunch" can and should be transparent in play. For example, a game could have a formula that is used to calculate weapon damage dice, APs, Hit Points, ship's performance stats and whatever, but the players don't need to know them. They just need to know the final numbers and what dice they need to roll.”

You've said you're unhappy with what you've heard about the game. You've made it clear that the direction of the game is not for you. From all indications, you don't seem like you're going to buy it.

At the risk of alienating a potential customer,why are you still posting on threads about the new BRP game?

Because I don’t think that it is a bad thing to express a dissenting view about the design phiolsophy of BRP. I am not alone in being less than satisfied with the choices that appear to have been made. Questioning them promotes dialouge about what different sections of the fan base want from a game which may prove valuable for future supplements or revisions.

From earlier:

The goal, as has been stated from the very pitch I gave Chaosium more than three years ago, was to create a solid and consistent BRP platform by which to make new games and develop new intellectual properties.

Except that it is not internally consitent with the modeling of many things that will be part of those new intelectual properties. I don’t think that wanting a tank that functions like a tank is too much to ask of BRP. Nor do I think that creating the systems to do so would break the game. As stated in Atgxtg’s quote above it doesn’t have to even be present in the game as long as the end results are. I certainly don’t want what we had before which was a mess of variant and sometimes contradictory rules spread through several different game sets or supplements.

SDLeary writes:

The Pistol, Light (assume .22) allows you to shoot at the same target target three times per round, meaning three separate shots which all have to hit and do damage independently. If you change targets, you loose the extra shots and can't shoot till your next action because of the time to acquire and aim at the new target. Perhaps slightly fast, 2/round might seem more reasonable, but keep in mind that a .22 is generally not going to have the kick of a .45.

I am assuming that is from the BRP0?I didn’t have a problem with the speed of the succesive attacks for a .22 but with the damage from it making sequential succesful attacks more deadly than the .45 and the low rate of fire for most of the larger caliber pistols. What is the paradigm for a combat round? Is it set or elastic? Either way most of the firearms rules defy the experience of many moderately skilled shooters. Ultimately this can be traced back to the legacy rules in CoC. It appears that they were intentionally crippled to make sure that players brought the right attitude to the tableie investigate don’t detonate! This bias is inappropriate in a game that is supposed to be generic enough to be a vehicle for other games because it certainly precludes many historical settings, as well as modern and Sci-Fi adventure, from functioning as their genres demand.

75mm shells have a fragmentation effect that is generally not present with dynamite, unless the dynamite is contained within something else that will fragment.

So you are agreeing that the dynamite shouldn’t be –half- the damage of the four times larger explosive correct? Is there a formula for expressing a quantity of explosive in dice of damage? If not why not?

Hmmm... in the BRP book, the Steel Plate is NOT listed as RHA. Its listed as Steel Plate. Because of its specific design as armor, I would expect RHA to have a much higher AP value; in fact I would expect any material designed as modern AFV armor to have higher values.

I seem to have been unclear about my point. I am not griping that the steel plate is not RHA but that there seems to have been -no- standard selected to use for calculating what the value of the armor should be. Like you I would expect a modern tank to have much better protection than that offered by 1” steel plate. It actually has all of 5 points more. Lets look at that a bit closer- the last tanks to use homogenous steel armors instead of composites have 150mms or more of steel armor that is hardened. Tell me how only a 5 point increase is justified with a 6 fold increase in thickness in materials that are far and away better at stopping penetration than 19 AP 1” steel plate? With AP=24 you can damage such a vehicle with a WWI 75mm explosive shell (avg dam=35pts)? Does that seem right to you?

I applaud SJG, their writers, or both for being so thorough in their approach to world modeling. BRP was never designed as a model of the world though, but as an abstract. An abstract with enough detail that people could have fun roleplaying in the story that the GM has placed them in.

I disagree that BRP was never designed as a world model. All RPGs model the world (real or genre limited). The systems involved in chargen model human attributes, the combat resolution mechanics model combat, the skill system models the use of skills etc. There are certainly abstractions in the models but they are still models. There are several genres where the examples I have cited are definitely not fun for the players.

As for accurate world modeling? YMMV, as no two people "see" the world in quite the same way.

True! However models that are based on some sort of actual research will fare better than ones that handwave such essentials and dismiss the attempt at accuracy as being unimportant to the play of the game.

SDLeary

Triff wrote:

This thread was startet by Simon to point out what they did not like about what they've heard about the new edition, so you shouldn't take it as an offense that the posts are mainly critical, as opposed to the other threads.

Actaully Simon was responding in a new thread to a question I asked him. I thank him for his frank and earnest posts here, they have been most informative. Actually I would like to thank everybody for their very civil responses.

[Jason D]

And if anyone does, could you please not forget to shoe-horn the Pendragon 4e magic system in there? Thanks much!

SDLeary

Pendragon is now owned by Arthaus, a subsidiary of Sword & Sorcery, which is a subsidiary of White Wolf (now a subsidiary of CCP Games), through some sort of licensing arrangement with Greg Stafford.

[Atgxtg]

Pendragon is now owned by Arthaus, a subsidiary of Sword & Sorcery, which is a subsidiary of White Wolf (now a subsidiary of CCP Games), through some sort of licensing arrangement with Greg Stafford.

Yeah. Greg is writing it again (yeah! yeah!) and the Great Pendragon Campaign is one of the best RPG supplments I've even bought! :thumb::thumb:

[SDLeary]

Would need to shoe-horn a trait and passion system (either Pendragon,s THieves Worlds' or Prince Vlaiants) of some kind to make that work.

Ah! But we have Traits!

Option: Personality Traits (pp. 290-291)

Most of magic works off of "Talents", ie. skill. Passions can provide a bounus to cast through skill augmentation. Certain Traits are needed for certain effects in some of the spell possibilities.

Without passions, I would base bonuses on "Religious Bonus", a value of 16 (80%) or higher in each of the 5 traits that the religion values.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

Pendragon is now owned by Arthaus, a subsidiary of Sword & Sorcery, which is a subsidiary of White Wolf (now a subsidiary of CCP Games), through some sort of licensing arrangement with Greg Stafford.

True. But the Personality Traits originally come from RQ, and are in Pendragon. There is no reason a similar system couldn't be put into a magic supplement, especially as Greg has expressed his dislike of the magic system itself for the current version of Pendragon.

SDLeary

[Joseph Paul]

There are other factors that come into play that you may not be thinking of. Jason brought up the point of armor, which is a good one. But you also have to take into account that the attacker with the .22 can only do 1D6 damage per 5 DEX Ranks. Even assuming he has the higher DEX and shoots first, it will only be for 1D6 damage. More than likely, the target with the .45 will get the next shot for 1D10+2.

Throw in the optional Hit Location rules and even a low damage roll with the .45 to an arm or leg is more than enough to cripple it and a crippled location pretty much eliminates most targets as a threat.

Rod

Who said the target had a .45? Just place two PCs side by side and let them fire at the same kind of targets. In a round the .22 gets the opportunity to fire three times and the .45 only once. Absent any other optional rules and assuming equal skill the .22 will outperform the .45. The other arguments are all reasons to choose the .45 but they don't mitigate the disparity in actual dice-o-damage on target. That is where I am saying there are consistency problems.

[Atgxtg]

Ah! But we have Traits!

Option: Personality Traits (pp. 290-291)

Most of magic works off of "Talents", ie. skill. Passions can provide a bounus to cast through skill augmentation. Certain Traits are needed for certain effects in some of the spell possibilities.

Without passions, I would base bonuses on "Religious Bonus", a value of 16 (80%) or higher in each of the 5 traits that the religion values.

SDLeary

Ooohh.

Hand...reaching...for book.

You know, if we didn't just swipe the Pendragon method, but used if for inspiration, we could treat the "Life Porce" stuff as a sort of multiplier/controller for POW (life force in BRP). Could be an interesting base for a new magic system.

For instance using the sum of the "Religious Traits". So 5 traits @ 80% would be 400% or 4 times the effect for POW.

[threedeesix]

Who said the target had a .45? Just place two PCs side by side and let them fire at the same kind of targets. In a round the .22 gets the opportunity to fire three times and the .45 only once. Absent any other optional rules and assuming equal skill the .22 will outperform the .45. The other arguments are all reasons to choose the .45 but they don't mitigate the disparity in actual dice-o-damage on target. That is where I am saying there are consistency problems.

Sorry Joseph, for some reason I thought the point was that no one would want a .45 as the .22 did more damage over the course of a round. But damn it, I still made a good point.

Rod Leary

[Atgxtg]

Guuys,

I don';t think the .45 would be classifed as a "heavy" pistol in BRP, though. Based on how the classfications work, it would probably be a medium pistol, and so would give you 2d8 vs. 3d6. THe heavy pistol is probably along the lines of a .44 magnum.

That said, I do think the 3:1 ROF differences is a problem. 3:2 might be better. But then that would mean tweaking the medium pistol to a 3 RoF too. Overall medium pistols usually have the highest Rate of Fire among pistols. They tend to had the best size/gripping space/recoil characteristics, the largest ammo capacity, and the fastest reloading times.

[Trifletraxor]

Pendragon is now owned by Arthaus, a subsidiary of Sword & Sorcery, which is a subsidiary of White Wolf (now a subsidiary of CCP Games), through some sort of licensing arrangement with Greg Stafford.

Basic Roleplaying is owned by Chaosium. Didn't stop Mongoose usings its magic systems and spells though. :cool:

SGL.

[Jason D]

Well what Chaosium solicited does not seem to be satisfying the cravings of some of the fan base. Of course once it hits the stores we all may find that it does handstands.

I can also certainly see that those who have paid for BRP0 are probably already pretty much in agreement with what has been wrought so this dichotomy shouldn’t be a surprise.

I do have most of the legacy source material and your assertion that you did not want to be innovative at this point puts a pretty good limit on what might change. I don’t think that my criticisms have been out of line or substantively off base about what the BRP0 rules actually allow.

...

Because I don’t think that it is a bad thing to express a dissenting view about the design phiolsophy of BRP. I am not alone in being less than satisfied with the choices that appear to have been made. Questioning them promotes dialouge about what different sections of the fan base want from a game which may prove valuable for future supplements or revisions.

This is the last post I'll make to this thread, as I'm going to significantly reduce my presence on these forums with the completion my BRP edits.

However, I just had to reply.

This is likely a bit more blunt than I am usually, but I've been on a high simmer for a while and need to release some steam.

It's interesting that you say "that those who have paid for BRP0 are probably already pretty much in agreement with what has been wrought" - aside from a handful of vehement (and in some cases, uninformed) critics like yourself, the response has been positive. There have been requests for clarification, and some helpful suggestions or even useful criticism, but overall, folks seem pretty happy with the game, even in the pre-edited version they've got.

I'm not thrilled about the release of Edition Zero, but on the bright side, it has given me more sets of eyes to catch last-minute corrections and make some useful clarifications outside of the playtest and Chaosium's own editing/proofing processes.

I don't know if it's one of your intended goals, but the primary result of all of this intensely negative feedback based on a game book you still haven't seen has made me reevaluate my own availability and willingness to discuss the development of the game in a public forum.

If someone were to approach me with advice writing materials for BRP, the first thing I'd tell them is "You will not be able to please everyone, and knowing that, you should probably stay off the forums altogether. Don't even read them."

Over the past month, I've seen several potential authors tell me they've seen the response here and lost interest. Rather than thinking "I'd like to write for that game line", they're thinking "What's the point if the fans will hate it before they see a word of it? Who needs the hassle?"

And I can't really say they're not right to think so.