Why is BRP not that popular?

[Lord Twig]

Simple, really. One's entirely arbitrary, one is systematic and regulated.

So which one is really more about storytelling and which is more about game mechanics? It just seems odd that games that bill themselves as "Storytelling" games need mechanics to make it cinematic, but they get down on a game that just says "Do what is dramatic!"

Again, the latter is a systematic fix to the problem; the former is a brute force solution, much like constantly ignoring a rule because it doesn't do what you want it to.

So again we find that the "Storytelling" game adds a mechanic while BRP (and even D&D for that matter) rely on the GM to tell a story. And it is not ignoring a rule, it is following the "Dramatic License" rule. Just because the rule doesn't have numbers attached doesn't make it any less of a rule.

Of course we can flip things around...

Many games give out an arbitrary number of Experience Points based on how well the GM thought you played the game or how well you role-played. Once again this is seen as "Brilliant!" and "Encourages Role-Playing and not Roll-Playing". Whereas BRP's experience check, which are a lot less arbitrary encourages "Check hunting". Whatever.

Really I don't have anything against games with Hero points or whatever. I played a lot of ShadowRun with Karma Points and found it to be very enjoyable. I just don't see it as "better" than allowing for GM fudging.

[Lord Twig]

Luck Rolls are useful in a last-ditch situation. But, we use Hero Points as well to enable the players to take control of their PCs' lives.

One example we had last week used both Luck Rolls and Hero Points. A Storm Bull went into a room containing a Basilisk. He failed his Sense Chaos and used a Hero Point to reroll it after a bit of hinting, but failed again. He then failed a Scan to see the basilisk, failed a Listen to hear it, failed a Luck Roll to spot it before it glared and then his POW was overcome by the low-POW basilisk, so he used another Hero Point to make the basilisk reroll the POW vs POW roll. None of it was his fault, he just failed 5 skills that were between 60% and 70%.

Yeah, I don't get it. Where's the danger? If you have that many chances to avoid death you might as well just not have put the basilisk in there at all.

Of course as long as everyone is having fun that's the important thing. But I know my players would actually get upset and insist that I just let the character die. They would feel cheated of the challenge.

These same players have no problem with GM fudging. They actually ran across a basilisk once and nobody spotted it. I rolled a Pow vs. Pow against one of the characters and succeeded. I fudged it and told the player, "You feel a magical attack against you." The characters stood looking around and basically doing nothing, so I rolled again and failed. Told the character he had been hit again. Again they didn't do anything, they stood around and talked about what it might be. Third time I failed again, looked at the player and said, "Your character just fell over dead." THAT got them into action.

After they realized that there was a basilisk there and they hacked it to pieces they all agreed that the death was well deserved.

[Enpeze]

Yeah, I don't get it. Where's the danger? If you have that many chances to avoid death you might as well just not have put the basilisk in there at all.

Of course as long as everyone is having fun that's the important thing. But I know my players would actually get upset and insist that I just let the character die. They would feel cheated of the challenge.

My players too. I would never dare to give them so many chances. I mean "..your roll fail, your roll fail again, your roll fail again and again and again... But dont be worried, you have still some hero points, dont you?..."

People tend to forget that fate is a represented by random rolls in the game. If they exclude bad or good luck of random rolls they displease the gods of fate and the game is open to railroading.

Such an approach would be the antithesis of a challenging game for me and my group, sorry to say. But if soltakss players are happy with it, its ok for me.

[Nightshade]

So which one is really more about storytelling and which is more about game mechanics? It just seems odd that games that bill themselves as "Storytelling" games need mechanics to make it cinematic, but they get down on a game that just says "Do what is dramatic!"

Because people typically want _both_; they want some control over the flow of the game, but don't want it to be completely arbitrary. Its not an either-or choice.

So again we find that the "Storytelling" game adds a mechanic while BRP (and even D&D for that matter) rely on the GM to tell a story. And it is not ignoring a rule, it is following the "Dramatic License" rule. Just because the rule doesn't have numbers attached doesn't make it any less of a rule.

Bah. That's a rule about like palming dice is a rule. The fact its an accepted part of gaming to many people doesn't make it a rule.

Of course we can flip things around...

Many games give out an arbitrary number of Experience Points based on how well the GM thought you played the game or how well you role-played. Once again this is seen as "Brilliant!" and "Encourages Role-Playing and not Roll-Playing". Whereas BRP's experience check, which are a lot less arbitrary encourages "Check hunting". Whatever.

If you're going to wait for me to champion carrot-and-stick experience systems, you've come to the wrong address.

Really I don't have anything against games with Hero points or whatever. I played a lot of ShadowRun with Karma Points and found it to be very enjoyable. I just don't see it as "better" than allowing for GM fudging.

I do, because I don't consider fudging a virtue. In fact, to me, its an indicator the game system isn't doing its job.

[Nightshade]

My players too. I would never dare to give them so many chances. I mean "..your roll fail, your roll fail again, your roll fail again and again and again... But dont be worried, you have still some hero points, dont you?..."

But that's the point; hero points are usually a finite resource, so players can't be indefinitely blaise. When properly implimented, its much like using magic points; you want to use them when you need them, but save a few for dire necessity, but that doesn't ensure you'll never run out at a bad time. What it primarily does is make it likely that if something bad happens it will happen after ongoing play and at a more dramatic moment, rather than anticlimatically in a minor fight.

[Simlasa]

But that's the point; hero points are usually a finite resource, so players can't be indefinitely blaise. When properly implimented, its much like using magic points; you want to use them when you need them, but save a few for dire necessity, but that doesn't ensure you'll never run out at a bad time. What it primarily does is make it likely that if something bad happens it will happen after ongoing play and at a more dramatic moment, rather than anticlimatically in a minor fight.

That's assuming proper implementation though... what mechanism is in place to ensure the player uses his fate points 'dramatically'... what's to ensure his idea of drama isn't just his character's survival at all costs?

If anything, I'd go with having fate points be unseen in the hands of the GM to bail the characters out at those fragile moments, kind of an 'official' fudge... since he probably has a better ideas of what's coming in their future and the import of various elements.

But then I also like the idea of players not knowing exactly how many hit points or how much damage they have taken. Fog of war and all that...

[Nightshade]

That's assuming proper implementation though... what mechanism is in place to ensure the player uses his fate points 'dramatically'... what's to ensure his idea of drama isn't just his character's survival at all costs?

Well, in some case that's okay; there are certainly games that operate on "script immunity", where the only time a character actually dies is when the player lets them. That said, beyond that if the hero points are primarily mechaniced so they minimize bad luck, the player simply can't prevent a sufficiently big problem or set of problems from doing them in. The simplest way is to limit them to one used per round; at that point if you've simply found yourself in an untenable situation, the fact you deal with the first problem in a round with a hero point won't stop the second from killing you. But it does eliminate the step-into-the-fight-and-get-killed-by-an-arrow situations.

If anything, I'd go with having fate points be unseen in the hands of the GM to bail the characters out at those fragile moments, kind of an 'official' fudge... since he probably has a better ideas of what's coming in their future and the import of various elements.

That's fine if you want to simply regulate GM fiat in this area, but I think that's putting the power in exactly the wrong place.

But then I also like the idea of players not knowing exactly how many hit points or how much damage they have taken. Fog of war and all that...

I find that sort of thing generally a little control freaky, to be honest.

[Atgxtg]

Really I don't have anything against games with Hero points or whatever. I played a lot of ShadowRun with Karma Points and found it to be very enjoyable. I just don't see it as "better" than allowing for GM fudging.

I see it as "better". The reasons why?

GM fudging is very arbitrary, by it's very nature. The GM decides what to FUDGE. Perhaps he will save a PC's life, perhaps not.

The problem is that since the GM has such power and authority over the campaign, fudging tends to give players the feeling that their success and failure have less to do with how they are playing, and more with how they impress or annoy the GM. Fudging can completely kill the sense of danger in a campaign, or make a campaign totally frustrating.

With some sort of "Hero Point" system, the plays still fell like they still have some sort of control over things, but that it is limited.

[Simlasa]

I find that sort of thing generally a little control freaky, to be honest.

I don't see how it's 'control freaky'... it just sets a certain mood. Works especially well for horror games. We saw it in the rules for Unknown Armies and tried it out and liked it... it takes some of the artificial feel of 'hit points' and replaces it with 'OW!!! That really hurts'.

Maybe it's just a matter of how much 'game' you want in your game. When I play (vs. GM) I like it to feel like a story, less like a wargame).

[Simlasa]

I see it as "better". The reasons why?

GM fudging is very arbitrary, by it's very nature. The GM decides what to FUDGE. Perhaps he will save a PC's life, perhaps not.

The problem is that since the GM has such power and authority over the campaign, fudging tends to give players the feeling that their success and failure have less to do with how they are playing, and more with how they impress or annoy the GM. Fudging can completely kill the sense of danger in a campaign, or make a campaign totally frustrating.

With some sort of "Hero Point" system, the plays still fell like they still have some sort of control over things, but that it is limited.

And why, again, won't luck rolls do pretty much the same thing?

Hero/fate points just seem like a metagame distraction to me, similar to gimmicky dice mechanics like 'flip flops'... maybe I'd like them better if their use was limited to before the damage is rolled.

Besides, unless the GM is a nut you're not playing 'against' him... and since fudging is assumed to be done in secret so how can that kill the sense of danger any more than heading into the 'big battle' with a fist full of hero points? I'm assuming the GM doesn't say, 'Ok, I'm gonna fudge that roll you just made...'

It's just a matter of taste I suppose... no right or wrong... leave them as thoroughly optional and I'm fine.

[badcat]

Having read through this discussion, I guess I will have to say 'no' to fate points, myself. The Luck roll seems enough to me as well. After all, when I am reading a good book there is a point of no return, someone in a fight doesn't get a second chance to hit better or whatever. When fate plays a hand (as grabbing a root to keep from falling on fumbled climb roll) the Luck roll mechanic covers the need to simulate random chance that 'saves the day'. No need for any more redundancy, IMO. There are other ways to simulate fate through regular play, without fate points, too. Sometimes the factor is already built into the rules, as with the random armor roll in Stormbringer. If you roll a low armor value vs. a good hit, well, that is fate...having too many ways to thwart negative results takes away too much of the excitement. One of the most thrilling and visceral parts of Stormbringer was never knowing if the armor would hold or not. Fate points would cetainly blunt that aspect of many rpgs.

[Sorloc]

I do both.

Or is it all three?

I have no problem with fudging rolls as a GM. After all, I'm setting the stage, aren't I? I'm the one who decides if there are 4 muggers in the alley or only 3, right? I decide what their chance to hit is don't I? I decide if they have daggers or battleaxes, right? So what if I fudge a roll? Hell, if I want the character dead, <pouf> you're dead. No, you don't know why - you're frikkin dead, and no longer care about the realm of mortals. NEXT! OK, you choked on your tongue. You got hit by a meteorite. You contracted a fatal disease a week ago, and it has just now taken effect.

I have this power, but I can't use it on a die roll? Shit, OK, I'll just assign a special GM modifier of, oh, hm, whateverthehellifeellike to the roll...

The only reason someone would fudge a roll is becuase they want the story to go a certain way; so you have to have faith in your GM that they are telling a story that will ultimately be satisfying to you.

We use Fate Points and Hero Points in our games (although we usually don't in RQ, we developed the system for RoleMaster, which gives more power to the dice than RQ does).

Fate Points are awarded for roleplaying, for showing up, for helping advance the plot, for other out-of-game or metagame activities.

A player will receive 0-3 Fate points per session, and they can only hold a maximum of 3.

A Fate Point forces a re-roll of the last roll.

A Fate point may be spent to block a Fate Point; and important NPCs may possess Fate Points.

Hero Points are awarded for truly heroic in-game actions - that is, selfless, 'heroic' acts. It has to be something the character either would not normally do, or would be detrimental to the character, or contrary to the character's best interests, yet is still the 'right thing to do'.

They are extremely hard to earn, and must be.

PCs will start the game with 1, there is no limit to how many they may bank.

A Hero Point may be spent to change the last roll made to either an '01' or '00'. example: Juliette's player learns that one of her students has contracted the plague and has failed their RR, and will die from the plague. Juliette spens a Hero Point, and the student recovers after a lengthy illness.

A Hero Point may be spent to block a Hero Point spent by someone else; and Villains possess 'Villain Points' for this purpose, and to use as Hero Points themselves.

Hero Points may also be spent to affect non-rolled events. example: Juliette needs to find a certain herb, she checks all the stores, but no one seems to have any. Her player spends a Hero Point, and someone remembers that a local wizard bought a bunch of it recently, and here's his address.

Obviously, it is crucial that these points are handed out sparingly, but having NPCs possess them levels the field, should I wish to exert that effort.

[Simlasa]

That's interesting Sorloc, I don't know that I've heard of people giving hero/fate points to the villains...

I can see that conversation coming up in a game... 'You're dead'... 'No I'm not, I use a hero point!'... 'Well, I use a hero point too then, so now you're dead again!'

[Aycorn]

Hmmmm ... I'm not familiar with the whole "fate point" or "hero point" thing, but it sounds suspiciously similar the old "Top Secret" "fortune points," which I always thought was kinda cool, and adopted into all my games since, hell `81 or so.

As I have used it, characters had a random number of points 1-10. The way they could be used was/is: IF the character was killed by a very narrow margin (i.e. a couple of hit points - it wouldn't work if you'd just gotten blown to smithereens in some way), you could get back just enough hit points to be alive (barely) if, and only if, you could give a convincing/compelling rationale as to HOW you managed to survive whatever happened ("the bullet actually hit my badge, reducing it's momentum" or some such). If you did, it cost you a "fortune point." Fortune points were not replenishable - once gone, they were gone for good and you didn't earn any extra in the course of the game.

There was only once that anyone ever invoked it. That was after his character blew a climb roll and fell a short distance. Since the climb wasn't relevant to the adventure anyway, I agreed,

Everyone I ever played with liked it.

[Atgxtg]

And why, again, won't luck rolls do pretty much the same thing?

Because LUCK rolls are an uncontrolled element (you can't be certain that a character CAN blow up the Death Star, defuse the a-bomb, etc.), a unimplemented one (I've never seen Luck rolls used to reduce damage from a sword hit. In BRP, LUCK rolls have generally been an afterthought), and an unlimited one (your LUCK roll never goes down. So if you got a POW of 19+ you can pretty much expect to make the roll).

Now if the difficulty of, say using LUCK kept going up everytime you used in during an adventure, like in EABA, then LUCK rolls could be used.

Hero/fate points just seem like a metagame distraction to me, similar to gimmicky dice mechanics like 'flip flops'... maybe I'd like them better if their use was limited to before the damage is rolled.

THe do provide some nice advantages. A great example is with small groups. IN RQ/BRP the consequnces of failing a roll can be pretty severe. THe consequnces of fumbling are disaterous. Okay, unitl you do a little number crunching and realize that every PC is going to fumble eventually, and that said fumble isn't too far off in the future.

Besides, unless the GM is a nut you're not playing 'against' him... and since fudging is assumed to be done in secret so how can that kill the sense of danger any more than heading into the 'big battle' with a fist full of hero points? I'm assuming the GM doesn't say, 'Ok, I'm gonna fudge that roll you just made...'

Easy. Lets say you have a group that is doing fine until Joe PC rolls a fumble, rolls bad on the funmble table and ends up cortically hitting his closest buddy and himself. With BRP is is impossible to "fudge" that without the Players knowing it.

It is the GM "fudging" for you that really sucks. Esepcially if he is secretive about it. I've seen it lead to players getting reckless (hey, a frontal assault worked the last time!) to arrogant (they knew the GM would save them). So the game got sutpider and stupider until eather the PCs become invincable, or the GM has enough, stops fudging, and has to deal with a bunch of confused players.

It's just a matter of taste I suppose... no right or wrong... leave them as thoroughly optional and I'm fine.

Partially tastes, partially style or genre. For instance, my favorite implementation of Hero Points in the the James Bond RPG. In that game the points serve to allow PCs to pull off those longshot stunts that a James Bond type character should be able to do. Frankly,the game wouldn't have the right feel without them. Since the points are used up when spent, and not replenished (you have to earn more), it keeps the players from getting too cocky.

If I were going to incorporate Hero Points into BRP, the JB version would probably be the way I'd do it, since it bumps up the degree of success. 1 pt turns a miss into a hit, or a hit into a special success, etc. Very useful for shooting the villain who is about to nuke the city, even though you are a thousand yards away, hanging upside down from a helicopter, during a rainstorm, at night, with one broken arm. That's the sort of thing that a GM can't fudge.

[Simlasa]

So, again, it's a matter of taste/style... whatever you want to call it.

If you want cinematic heroics... sure I can see you might want them to be able to pull off movie-type stunts.. that or nerf all the skills and damage so James Bond is bulletproof and infallible.

But if you don't want cinematics? If you want something fairly believable? Then that 'inevitable fumble' seems fairly correct... you keep getting into swordfights and eventually you're gonna get hurt... probably badly.

I'm not all that big on GM fudging myself... but I still don't see it as any worse than letting the players fudge... which is what fate points are to me... and if it is used it's less distracting than the whole 'you're dead'... 'no I'm not' situation.

Seems to me the luck roll is easily modified by circumstance... or could even be used as an opposed roll of some sort... depending on the situation.

All this just convinces me more that they need to remain optional.

[Atgxtg]

The rpoblem with the inevitable fumble is that it comes up far too often one the dice than it should to be the realstic gaming you are talking about. If 1% or more of the airliners taking off fumbled every day, the FAA would shut the industy down.

Getting a fumble in combat is much more likely since you are making two skill rolls per round. Even at 1% fumble chance. Your typical 4 on 4 fight that lasts for four rounds is pressing its luck.

Oh, and as far a believability goes, the Bond RPG combat system is far more believable than BRP. It is also a lot more brutal.

Hero points are not layer fudging becuase they speficially have a mechanic that addresses their use, and restricts their number. Sort of like DI in RQ. GM fudiging has no such limits, and generally the better the GM, the less the need to fudge. So what happens is that the ones who do the fudging tend to be the ones who shouldn't, and then they overdo it.

[badcat]

Have to disagree with you on this one, Atgxtg. I find the BRP combat rules to be the most realistic/playable I have found. Note the slash...the two factors together are what make it so, to me. Although no doubt there are more realistic, as you say James Bond is, BRP (as the system stands) remains the most realistic within the limits of playability that I want from my games. The results of play simulate my favorite books and movies just fine, and that is what I want from my rpg system. Playability has the edge; I guess I am not much of a system monkey...no offense intended, of course.

[Sorloc]

That's interesting Sorloc, I don't know that I've heard of people giving hero/fate points to the villains...

I can see that conversation coming up in a game... 'You're dead'... 'No I'm not, I use a hero point!'... 'Well, I use a hero point too then, so now you're dead again!'

Yes, I have twice seen a 'bidding war' occur, but it rarely goes far; and never with Hero Points - they're too hard to get in my game. With Fate points, however, players tend to be willing to burn them because they're effectively free (I've got some great players, when we play).

That's also the down side; my players aren't abusive, and there's no adversarial relationship between the GM and players, no matter who's GMing, so I don't really know what might happen using this method with, shall we say, 'more typical' players.

And yes, I give them to the villains. Maybe the big bad villain doesn't WANT to die from your thrown rock in your first encounter just because you rolled an '01'. Maybe he wants to see you roll again with your 12% thrown rock skill and get a more realistic result.

In my game, I try to make sure that the 'villain' is the hero of his story. Any decent villain should have a reason for doing what they do; and it's much better if that reason kind of makes sense - or is even a noble cause, just implemented in an 'evil' way.

[Simlasa]

The rpoblem with the inevitable fumble is that it comes up far too often one the dice than it should to be the realstic gaming you are talking about. If 1% or more of the airliners taking off fumbled every day, the FAA would shut the industy down.

Not at all... because, given normal conditions the competent (say 50% plus) pilots wouldn't be needing to make any rolls against their skill... only in unusually stressful situations, like extremely heavy storms or attacks from robot pterodactyls, would I expect to have the pilots in my games roll dice.

Combat, on the other hand, is always going to be stressful... and I don't really think that the fumble percentage is all that unreasonable there. Though, again, for a warrior of high skill there are some things I wouldn't make them roll for either... like shooting a still target at close range or knifing someone they've successfully snuck up on from behind.

[Joseph Paul]

There is a Murphy's Rules carton that addresses this exact question concerning RQ. It was frightening how many combatants managed to cut off their own heads in very large battles.

Joseph Paul

[badcat]

How about a more 'organic' approach, letting the story tell itself? After all, no matter how much potential someone has there is always the chance that said potential will be cut short by a stray arrow or bullet or even by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. No rhyme or reason in real life. And in my experience at least, the best rpg experiences are the ones where the players have no idea whether or not it is going to be the last for a particular character (mirroring real life or a good story, the best of which mirror real life IMO). Why not let the story tell itself, whatever the consequences? It would seem to be just a matter of taste, of what sort of story one wants to tell. In which case both the use of fate points or not are valid approaches. Also, I have noticed that some people tend to invest more in their characters than others; I myself have always looked at my own PCs as playing pieces or pawns, and their passing may be a little disappointing (best DEX I ever rolled!) but then I just shrug and get on with the game. Use of fate points of any sort change the whole experience and not in a good way, to me. I much prefer to let the story develop as it will (I figure that is what the randomness of the dice rolling does) and don't have a desire to dabble in what occurs as a result of that primary means of determining those occurrances in-game.

[drohem]

One of the issues that I experienced with RQ3 was the fact that some quick math skills were necessary. Unfortunately, not everyone is that skilled at math, and it bogged play down when odd percentile modifiers had to be calculated on the fly.

I know this isn't the same with BRP since those modifiers were even numbers. However, since most peoples introduction to BRP was through RQ the concept of math was still probably a factor.

Our group eventually just dropped percentile and used a d20 for rolls with RQ3. All skills and modifiers were rounded to 5 or 0 and then we used a d20.

[Nightshade]

I don't see how it's 'control freaky'... it just sets a certain mood. Works especially well for horror games. We saw it in the rules for

For horror games I can sort of see it, but for most I think it tends to mean the GM feels he's a better manager of information than the players, which is why I think its a bit of a control issue.

Maybe it's just a matter of how much 'game' you want in your game. When I play (vs. GM) I like it to feel like a story, less like a wargame).

While I agree that's an issue, even if you're story oriented, it makes the assumption you're better at seperating yourself from the numbers than the players are.

[Nightshade]

How about a more 'organic' approach, letting the story tell itself? After all, no matter how much potential someone has there is always the chance that said potential will be cut short by a stray arrow or bullet or even by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. No rhyme or

And how much fiction do you know that focuses on such people? Its fine to acknowledge that can happen, but there's nothing to require people to want to _play_ the guy who gets cut in half in the first scene to emphasize how dangerous the situation is.