Why is BRP not that popular?

[sladethesniper]

If somebody told me that they would rather play GURPS or HERO instead of BRP for either realism or less complexity...I'd laugh.

GURPS has really good supplements, that are quickly turned into BRP stuff for me.

HERO, um...well Fuzion was alright...but seriously, HERO and Phoenix Command (or anything by Leading Edge...) takes the cake for sheer, mind numbing, unnecessary complexity...

-STS

[rust]

Well, it depends somewhat on what kind of complexity one is looking for.

For my science fiction settings I want a high level of complexity / plausibi-

lity / "realism" when it comes to the astronomy (world building), the tech-

nology (equipment, vehicles) and even the economy (trade rules). This is

why I use GURPS material, although equally good material could doubtless

be written for BRP, too.

On the other hand, I want a smooth (easy to learn, easy to play), charac-

ter-oriented roleplaying system with a high flexibility, one that I can easily

adapt to any of my settings, and here in my opinion nothing beats BRP.

So, complexity for the setting, because there (at least in "hard" science

fiction settings) complexity gives colour and depth to the setting, makes

the suspension of disbelief easier, and gives more choices to the players.

But not "complexity" when it comes to the roleplaying rules themselves, be-

cause there complexity usually means that the system gets in the way of

the roleplaying, and this often ruins the suspension of disbelief.

In my opinion, BRP has the (almost) perfect roleplaying mechanics and ru-

les, it just lacks some good genre supplements for genres like "hard" SF.

[Atgxtg]

There is a difference between complexity and detail.

A Sci-FI RPG doesn't need to be complex, but usually does need a bit more detail than a Fantasy RPG. Adding all that detail is work, and that is probably why BRP hasn'T had many SF settings.

With fantasy, you can start small and expand the setting as you go. Plan out a isolated village with a half dozen interesting NPCs, a problem or two for the PCs to solve, and you are ready to go-the GM can literally make things up as he goes along.

With Sci FI, it isn't quite so easy to pull off. An isolated colony needs more info that the isolated village to be playable. Not to mention more technology. When the PCs start adventuring, the GM is also a bit more restricted in what he can add to the campaign setting and how. A fantasy GM can throw out a dragon or have a wizard cause an earthquake and have them instantly accepted. A Sci-FI GM needs to come up with some sort of plausible explanation for such things. While not necessarily more complex or difficult to explain, the explanation adds more detail. For instance, if a PSI Adept could crreated earthquakes, then the GM could explain it as applying mental energy along a fault line. Easily done, except now the GM must add some detail for mental powers, and tectonic plates.

Kind of a case of where ignorance is bliss. Sci Fi PCs are usually much less ignornat of thier environment that Fantasy PCs and so require more information to play. Fantasy PCs know so little that they can accept more on less evidence.

[vagabond]

There is a difference between complexity and detail.

A Sci-FI RPG doesn't need to be complex, but usually does need a bit more detail than a Fantasy RPG. Adding all that detail is work, and that is probably why BRP hasn'T had many SF settings.

With fantasy, you can start small and expand the setting as you go. Plan out a isolated village with a half dozen interesting NPCs, a problem or two for the PCs to solve, and you are ready to go-the GM can literally make things up as he goes along.

With Sci FI, it isn't quite so easy to pull off. An isolated colony needs more info that the isolated village to be playable. Not to mention more technology. When the PCs start adventuring, the GM is also a bit more restricted in what he can add to the campaign setting and how. A fantasy GM can throw out a dragon or have a wizard cause an earthquake and have them instantly accepted. A Sci-FI GM needs to come up with some sort of plausible explanation for such things. While not necessarily more complex or difficult to explain, the explanation adds more detail. For instance, if a PSI Adept could crreated earthquakes, then the GM could explain it as applying mental energy along a fault line. Easily done, except now the GM must add some detail for mental powers, and tectonic plates.

Kind of a case of where ignorance is bliss. Sci Fi PCs are usually much less ignornat of thier environment that Fantasy PCs and so require more information to play. Fantasy PCs know so little that they can accept more on less evidence.

I disagree. Hard SciFi yes. Otherwise, not really.

Let's put your example on equal footing.

A fantasy psionicist using his mental powers to create an earthquake. Do

you need plate tectonics and a fault line? No. Do you need a system for

mental powers? Yes.

A Sci-Fi Adept using his mental powers to create an earthquake. Do you

need plate tectonics and a fault line? No. Do you need a system for mental

powers? Yes.

I agree that with advanced tech you need more items to cover the variety

of tech levels, but do you need much more than descriptions, number of

shots before energy source depleted, and shots per round? Not really. Because

those same issues hold up for a blaster as much as a bow and arrow.

It all depends on story and how much detail is wanted by the group. I can

assure you that some fantasy players are going to demand just as much if

not more detail.

-V

[Nightshade]

A fantasy psionicist using his mental powers to create an earthquake. Do

you need plate tectonics and a fault line? No. Do you need a system for

mental powers? Yes.

A Sci-Fi Adept using his mental powers to create an earthquake. Do you

need plate tectonics and a fault line? No. Do you need a system for mental

powers? Yes.

Actually, the moment you have a player who wants to do something unusual, and knows anything about seismology at all, yeah, you do. You can blow that sort of thing off easily in fantasy (after all, there's no way for the character to know that most likely); its much harder in anything that preports to be a modern or future style setting to do that.

Now if you're only talking science fantasy, you're correct, but science fantasy is really just fantasy in futuristic dress.

[vagabond]

Actually, the moment you have a player who wants to do something unusual, and knows anything about seismology at all, yeah, you do. You can blow that sort of thing off easily in fantasy (after all, there's no way for the character to know that most likely); its much harder in anything that preports to be a modern or future style setting to do that.

The GM and or player needing to have knowedge (or having knowledge) about

seismology has nothing to do with it. The setting is provided by the GM. The

level of detail is left up to the GM. The reality is there does not need to be

a fault line, molten lava, etc. described at all.

The PSI Adept concentrates, succeeds at his Difficult telekinesis roll,

and the ground shakes. Yes, you need to define the powers, but that is

no different than defining the spells in fantasy. But, there is no need for

details about seismology, fault lines, and geological requirements. The

telekinesis power creates an energy field with sufficient volume, and "shakes"

that volume of space i.e. the power provides the physics.

Yes, you can provide the detail if you want, but when you're talking hi-tech

and psionics, you've already committed to a certain amount of handwaving.

-V

[rust]

The GM and or player needing to have knowedge (or having knowledge) about

seismology has nothing to do with it. The setting is provided by the GM. The

level of detail is left up to the GM. The reality is there does not need to be

a fault line, molten lava, etc. described at all.

Once again, it depends ...

In a science fiction game you may well have a character with geology, pla-

netology or seismology skill, and this character's player may well ask for a

plausible explanation of the events in more or less scientific terms, because

this is what his character would look for.

In a fantasy game, none of the characters is expected to think in scientific

terms and ask such questions. A fantasy character may attempt to explain

the events in his world in religious or magical terms, which are much easier

to handwave than science, I think, because religions and magic often con-

tain contradictions that would ruin the suspension of disbelief if they would

appear in science.

[vagabond]

Once again, it depends ...

In a science fiction game you may well have a character with geology, pla-

netology or seismology skill, and this character's player may well ask for a

plausible explanation of the events in more or less scientific terms, because

this is what his character would look for.

And, in my above example, the GM would be perfectly justified by saying

"There is no plausible explanation". Because, while the character may have

geology, planetology, or seismology skills, he does not have paranormal psych

skills. Not everything can be explained by the laws of physics if you are

bringing psi skills/powers into a game.

But, yes, it depends. If you are going for a hard sci-fi setting, you can

supply details if that's what everyone wants. But, that is not necessary.

What happens when the GM is at a disadvantage in the scientific knowledge

arena, and a player, with or without the scientific background, has his

scientist character ask for detail? Does the GM need to provide the detail?

Or, can he just handwave it away saying the character learns whatever it

is he wants to learn and leave it at that? That's not the system, that's

not the setting, that's the group's onus.

The issue is not a BRP one, but an RPG one. How much detail do you need?

If you need a lot, than that's up to you. But the same holds true for

any game - GURPS, Hero, d20, Traveller, etc. As you said, supplements can

provide the details, but it is still up to the group to use them.

-V

[Nightshade]

The GM and or player needing to have knowedge (or having knowledge) about

seismology has nothing to do with it. The setting is provided by the GM. The

level of detail is left up to the GM. The reality is there does not need to be

a fault line, molten lava, etc. described at all.

Except when the player asks about it. And does so with the knowledge its a legitimate question from his PC's POV. Then, if its meaningful to what he's trying to do, you don't get to entirely blow it off, because he may well try and do something dependent on them being present or not.

The PSI Adept concentrates, succeeds at his Difficult telekinesis roll,

and the ground shakes. Yes, you need to define the powers, but that is

no different than defining the spells in fantasy. But, there is no need for

details about seismology, fault lines, and geological requirements. The

telekinesis power creates an energy field with sufficient volume, and "shakes"

that volume of space i.e. the power provides the physics.

You clearly have not had a knowledgable player who will try to finesse process if you think that's adequate in all cases.

[Nightshade]

And, in my above example, the GM would be perfectly justified by saying

"There is no plausible explanation". Because, while the character may have

geology, planetology, or seismology skills, he does not have paranormal psych

skills. Not everything can be explained by the laws of physics if you are

bringing psi skills/powers into a game.

That doesn't mean you get to blow off the point where the paranormal interacts with the non-paranormal there; if you can (i.e. its utterly irrelevant) then I'm back to claiming you're running science fantasy and the question is moot.

[Atgxtg]

I disagree. Hard SciFi yes. Otherwise, not really.

Well, no one said you had to agree with me. But, as Niteshade has touched on, you wrong. Or, to be fair, I think you are wrong.

With fantasy, "magic" is an acceptable explaintation for a lot of things. If people want to know why the Earth just shook, the GM can just say"it(s magic" and satisfy everyone.

Now, with Sci-Fi, hard or soft, you are going to need more. Classic Space Opera shows like Star Trek or Doctor Who frequently play around in this kind of arena. PCs have to take out a tricoder or similar device, and work out a plausible explanation. And the more people know about the real science, the more technobabble is going to be needed to explain away the breaks from reality. If you know about things like Inertia, you are going to want to know why accerating at 200gs didn't hit the characters like flying into a wall at supersonc speed.

Here,s an example that occured in a fantasy campagin a few years back, and shows how much trouble a little scientific knowledge can cause (or the lack of it).

Our group was travelling downriver from City A to City B, when one of the players noticed that the river was flowing from the sea to the mountains-in other words, water was flowing uphill.

Now since nearly everyone knows that water flows downhill the group got sidetracked while we were all trying to figure out why this particular river flowed in the wrong direction.

Tfe real cause was the GM messed up. Our character explained it away as some sort of mangical spell, and didn't mess with it. We also avoided drining any water from the river for fear that it might flow backwards inside us, or makes us float away.

Now in a Sci-Fi setting, some sort of explanation would be needed, requiring the creation of some sort of high tech device that caused the effect, and a reason why anyone would have gone to the trouble to do so.

As for weapons and other equiptment, you very quickly start running into the hows and whys things work. A bow an arrow isn't going to penetrate a brick wall, but a blaster or phaser just might be able to disintergrate a section of the wall. ANd that opens up a bunch of questions about how to defend against such weapons.

In general, whenerver you are using more powerful/less forgiving stuff, be it spells or items, you need things better defined. Miss with an arrow and you might take out the wrong person, miss with a phaser and you might take out the wrong city block. Since Sci Fi tends to have, on average, more powerful items, and larger areas of effect, it therefore needs items better defined.

[sladethesniper]

I agree with Atgxtg...with the caveat that it is the "players" that want the detail.

Granted, the interesting thing is that most people can't explain how an airplane flies, but as long as it looks aerodynamic, they will buy that it flies.

Most gamers are fairly intelligent, but ever try to explain armored vehicle technology to the average gamer? It's an exercise in pain!

For the same reason, people think Mecha are a good idea, like phasers and particle beams...

I think as long as you "explain" with some sort of "handwavium" it's fine.

Look at RIFTS, none of that setting makes any sense. Shadowrun did. Battlelords of the 23rd Century was 400 pages of wtf awesome and it didn't explain anything.

*****

OK, I have no idea what I just said, but, uh, basically it is player/genre dependent.

If you wanted a "realistic" Sci-Fi campaign, look at Deep Space and Near Orbit for Cyberpunk...realist in the extreme, but no one played it, because it was boring!

-STS

[vagabond]

Here,s an example that occured in a fantasy campagin a few years back, and shows how much trouble a little scientific knowledge can cause (or the lack of it).

Our group was travelling downriver from City A to City B, when one of the players noticed that the river was flowing from the sea to the mountains-in other words, water was flowing uphill.

Now since nearly everyone knows that water flows downhill the group got sidetracked while we were all trying to figure out why this particular river flowed in the wrong direction.

Tfe real cause was the GM messed up. Our character explained it away as some sort of mangical spell, and didn't mess with it. We also avoided drining any water from the river for fear that it might flow backwards inside us, or makes us float away.

Now in a Sci-Fi setting, some sort of explanation would be needed, requiring the creation of some sort of high tech device that caused the effect, and a reason why anyone would have gone to the trouble to do so.

And in the Fantasy world the GM didn't have to come up describe the

spell that caused the river to flow uphill? Or a reason why?

Again, in both cases, it isn't truly needed. In both cases, the players may

want the detail, Sci-Fi or Fantasy, it doesn't matter.

Again, it's up to the group whether or not such detail is necessary, regardless

of genre. But in reality, it isn't required. And often times, leads to more conflict

when a player challenges the detail because the GM and player have

conflicting views of how things work.

Miss with an arrow, you might take out a person. Miss with a phaser, you

might take out a person. Why does the city block come into play? Because

there's something there that will blow it up? If there is a stockpile of volatile

chemicals that will ignite blowing up the whole city block, then you are in the

same boat with a flaming arrow. Again, no differentiation necessary.

-V

[vagabond]

That doesn't mean you get to blow off the point where the paranormal interacts with the non-paranormal there; if you can (i.e. its utterly irrelevant) then I'm back to claiming you're running science fantasy and the question is moot.

We're talking Psi skills, right? That right there throws the whole Sci-Fi -

Sci-Fantasy issue into disarray.

Have you ever seen someone drive a pick into a rock? And then see that

piece of rock crumble or shift?

Now imagine a billion picks slamming into the rock 10 feet below the surface

in a circle.

Nice earthquake, huh?

Did we need any geophysics and and talk of plate tectonics ? Nope.

And yet with the fantasy wizard, the same explanation suffices.

-V

[rust]

And yet with the fantasy wizard, the same explanation suffices.

Ah, well, I would not really want to call that an explanation ...

Otherwise, while I do see your point, I think you are missing one of the

basic differences between (at least "hard") science fiction and fantasy:

In my opinion Science Fiction does require details, explanations and plau-

sibility, because this is the "science" part of it, if you neglect this you

have just average fiction.

[vagabond]

Ah, well, I would not really want to call that an explanation ...

Otherwise, while I do see your point, I think you are missing one of the

basic differences between (at least "hard") science fiction and fantasy:

In my opinion Science Fiction does require details, explanations and plau-

sibility, because this is the "science" part of it, if you neglect this you

have just average fiction.

That's part of what I am getting at. "Hard" Sci-Fi is a different animal.

Sci-Fi with a Psi Adept is not "hard". It may be Sci-Fi, and it may border

on Sci-Fantasy, but it is not "hard" Sci-Fi.

So, for Sci-Fi (not "hard") with a Psi Adept, imagining that his telekinetic

powers act like a giant wedge being driven into the ground 10 feet below

and lifting that chunk and shaking it, that is all the detail you need - the

same as a sorceror doing the same with a spell. In "hard" Sci-Fi it doesn't

work because there is no Psi Adept.

So, again, the detail is not "required" for Sci-Fi in general. Traveller does

quite well with copious amounts of handwaving.

-V

[rust]

That's part of what I am getting at. "Hard" Sci-Fi is a different animal.

Sci-Fi with a Psi Adept is not "hard". It may be Sci-Fi, and it may border

on Sci-Fantasy, but it is not "hard" Sci-Fi.

Yep, I think now I understand it, and agree.

By the way, Traveller can be played as "hard" SF, too, especially the GURPS

and New Era versions are well suited for that kind of game, although I have

to admit that psionics do not fit in well.

The "maximum psionics level" I ever used in one of my settings was the em-

pathy and telepathy ability of the Treecats from David Weber's Honor Har-

rington novels, and I regarded even that as a "borderline case".

[frogspawner]

It's not my genre, but I don't see why everything has to have an explanation, even in a Hard SF setting. In the RW, there are plenty of scientists researching into things that are not understood - to be realistic, the same should apply in SF settings.

If a player wants to know why that river flows uphill, or that earthquake didn't happen in quite the way he thought it should, just ask him how many decades his character is going to spend researching the explanation (or how much they'll pay someone else to do so).

It's just a way of signalling "this isn't relevant to the plot". (Any old-timers remember Orange Door-Rot and Purple Jelly?)

[rust]

While "hard" SF does not require to give a player a plausible explanation

whenever a character asks for one, such a plausible explanation should

always be possible (no contradictions with the basic laws of the setting

universe), and the GM should have at least an idea of the explanation

(to avoid such contradictions), I think.

So, if the player's character asks why that river is flowing upwards, the

GM can just shrug and tell the player to let his character attempt to do

some research and find the explanation.

However, the GM should be prepared to come up with a plausible expla-

nation in the case that the character really does the research ...

[Ombord]

To steer the thread back from "why is hard sci-fi not that popular?" to "why is BRP not that popular", and now I take BRP to specifically mean the generic rules framework (the new book from Chaosium) rather than any specific BRP-based game:

The devil is in the details. And BRP doesn't offer these.

Yes, I know BRP offers opportunities for enterprising GMs to use as a toolbox.

But as a finished game, BRP falls rather short of the mark. It offers a wealth of options, but doesn't even attempt to balance them.

This means that as a GM I can't simply place the book in front of my players with the instruction "make up your characters".

And no, I don't mean they will stumble on "but which optional rules and sub-systems will be used?". Selecting those is the fun and easy part.

It is when it comes to actually choosing specific stats (characteristics, powers, skills etc) the risk of arriving at hopelessly unbalanced characters is too great.

So, as a reference manual for BRP game designers, the new book is excellent. It makes it much easier to know where to stay with BRP defaults and where to expand your specific material.

But as a rulebook for the end-user, it simply cannot compete with other offerings. The guidelines for balancing powerful options against more modest ones simply aren't there. Heck, the book doesn't even indicate which options are powerful and which are not!

I'm not saying this approach is wrong. (It would probably be a mission impossible to cost each option accurately, given the enormous wealth of alternatives offered).

I'm just saying this might be unpopular.

[Nightshade]

We're talking Psi skills, right? That right there throws the whole Sci-Fi -

Sci-Fantasy issue into disarray.

Don't think so. You have plenty of SF that uses psi and still deals with issues of energy limits, how it interacts with natural laws, and so on. There's a world of difference between how Larry Niven dealt with telekinesis in his Gil the Arm stories and how George Lucas does in Star Wars. The latter is science fantasy, the former isn't.

[Nightshade]

It's not my genre, but I don't see why everything has to have an explanation, even in a Hard SF setting. In the RW, there are plenty of scientists researching into things that are not understood - to be realistic, the same should apply in SF settings.

Its not the issue of whether he's trying to understand; its the issue of using knowledge of real physics and the like to apply solutions to the problems at hand. If the GM doesn't at least have a vague idea of how they relate, there's a disconnect there.

[sladethesniper]

:mad: OK this is my THIRD attempt at replying to this.

I had typed out a freakin' treatise, but the internet ate it ;-(

the short recreated version:

BRP is not popular because it lacks focus and structure.

Observe the difference between BRP and other games with more focus and structure, namely D&D.

In D&D there is a focus (kill monsters) and a structure (you're an adventurer who kills monsters)

In BRP you can do anything, be anything...it is an open ended rule system.

The choices and freedom inherent in BRP allow for GMs to build and create any style of world they want. Which is the problem.

In life and in games, people are quickly overwhelmed by choices. BRP is an advanced RPG (similar to RIFTS...sadly) which means that the GM has to be an integral part of character creation, world building, campaign running, etc. The GM is not so necessary in focused/structured games (especially D&D 4E)

RPG's are targetted at tweens and teens, and an 11 year old can pick up D&D 3E or 4E and start playing in a few hours (I know, my 11 plays and even runs games for us and his 9 year old sister...silly Inuyasha style dungeon crawls, but still, he is GM-ing 4E...at 11)

A tween or teen CAN NOT pick up BRP and play in a few hours, heck, maybe in a week of reading, they can make a decent character, unlike D&D where character creation is basically a menu of roll this, add this and your character is done.

The rules of BRP are subjective and let the GM mould decisions around the rules, where as D&D has a rule about everything and is fairly cut and dried about what does what, when and how. Not so with BRP.

So basically BRP is not popular because it is focused on experienced gamers, while D&D and other focused/structured games are targetted towards tweens and teens...any unfortunate first time gamer that buys BRP will probably not be a gamer for long.

The first version of this was much better...stupid internet.

-STS

[frogspawner]

But as a finished game, BRP falls rather short of the mark. ...

So, as a reference manual for BRP game designers, the new book is excellent. ...

But as a rulebook for the end-user, it simply cannot compete with other offerings. ...

Sad, but true. The new BRP book is 'a new hope' (though, incidentally, I took the original question to mean unpopular historically) but it's clearly up to us to flesh it out, and get out there proselytizing the masses...

[Atgxtg]

Why BRP isn't that popular?

1) Because BRP just came out, has not drawn a lot of attention to itself yet, nor does it havea lot of supplmenets, nor it is backed by a "machine" like D&D, Storyteller, GURPS, or any of the "popular" systems.

2) RQ was/is popular, but dropped off the gaming radar due to some mistakes made at Chaoisum and the company's economic woes.

3) CoC is popular, and has been fairly well supported over the years.

So I think it is fair to say that BRP would be popular if:

1) gamers were made more aware of it.

2) it get good support in terms of supplements, rules additions, setting, etc.

Basically it is the BETAMAX dilemma. It doesn't matter if it is a superior machine/format if most of the machines and "tapes" people see are in VHS format.