Why is BRP not that popular?

[Nightshade]

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.

The only places I can think of where this should have been an issue in play (rather than during character gen and advancement) was with the fatigue and encumberance systems.

[drohem]

Well, that was my point: odd numbered additions/subtractions to an odd numbered percentile score in the middle of game play was an issue for the group I played RQ3 with back in high school. We had an excessively large group (up to 10-12 or more at times), and most of them were Jr. high or high school students we didn't care much for math at all.

It can get very tedious when you are GMing a very large group, AND you have to do all the math calculations for almost everyone in the group on the fly in combat.

I know that most vetern gamers are good at math by necessity (either natural or born out of years of crunching numbers). However, the question was what issues might detract from BRPs popularity. In my gaming experience, this was an issue with our RQ3 group. I know that with BRP it is not so much an issue because all the modifiers were even (5 or 0).

[Trifletraxor]

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.

Though I do not like hero/fate points (what was the new BRP name for it by the way), you do have a point there. I just feel some of the feeling of danger disappears if you f.ex. knows you have 4 HP left.

The only places I can think of where this should have been an issue in play (rather than during character gen and advancement) was with the fatigue and encumberance systems.

Char-gen was horrible, at least the old RQ3 one. Took ages calculating stuff. And I had to do it all, cause the others hadn't learned the rules by heart!

Special, criticals & fumbles. Easy math you would say, yes I agree, but it's still math, and many people are not good with instant math.

Sverre.

[Nightshade]

Well, that was my point: odd numbered additions/subtractions to an odd numbered percentile score in the middle of game play was an issue for the group I played RQ3 with back in high school.

I was just trying to find out if it was something other than fatigue or encumberance, since all the other modifiers tended to be five or tens, with the majority of them the latter.

[Nightshade]

Though I do not like hero/fate points (what was the new BRP name for it by the way), you do have a point there. I just feel some of the feeling of danger disappears if you f.ex. knows you have 4 HP left.

Some of it does. Its a trade-off. Fact is, its just not something most people want to deal with (by evidence of the success and failure of games in the last 20 years; there's almost no games that don't either have a hero point mechanic, some other buffer mechanism (like D&D's or Palladium's escalating hit points, or where the inherent mechanism of damage makes it hard to really kill someone with one shot that are still alive in the marketplace. And its not like there never were (it wasn't an overly uncommon trait among less cinematic games in the early 80's)). Truth is most people want the illusion of danger to their characters, not the reality. Badcat had some of the right of it; most people, either because of what they play for or just because they have time and effort invested in a character, don't really want there to be all that much chance of losing it.

Char-gen was horrible, at least the old RQ3 one. Took ages calculating stuff. And I had to do it all, cause the others hadn't learned the rules by heart!

Special, criticals & fumbles. Easy math you would say, yes I agree, but it's still math, and many people are not good with instant math.

Sverre.

I have to point out those could be recorded on the character sheet; you didn't typically need to do them on the fly. As for char-gen--well, it was adding two digit numbers. I really can only work up so much sympathy for people who can't handle adding together some two digit numbers during character generation.

[Trifletraxor]

As for char-gen--well, it was adding two digit numbers. I really can only work up so much sympathy for people who can't handle adding together some two digit numbers during character generation.

I care to disagree. To find your starting % in a particular skill (and there where many skills), first you had to look up the base chance, then you had to calculate a skill modifier to add or subtract (and also look up how it was calculated), and then in the end you had to add a number multiplied with your years of experience.

Figuring out the starting skills for a character took way too much time. :cool: IMO.

Sverre.

[Nightshade]

I care to disagree. To find your starting % in a particular skill (and there where many skills), first you had to look up the base chance, then you had to calculate a skill modifier to add or subtract (and also look up how it was calculated), and then in the end you had to add a number multiplied with your years of experience.

Figuring out the starting skills for a character took way too much time. :cool: IMO.

Sverre.

You only had to calculate the modifier once per skill category, so I didn't consider that onerous. Past that, you were adding three two digit numbers together, and had one step where you multiplied a single digit number by (usually) another single digit number. Again, I just can't get that worked up.

[Trifletraxor]

Truth is most people want the illusion of danger to their characters, not the reality.

An illusion of danger could be fudged by the GM, if skillfully done. But a player with a high level AD&D character would have to be delusional if he thought his player was in any sort of danger (unless the DM had deceided to kill him that is).

Badcat had some of the right of it; most people, either because of what they play for or just because they have time and effort invested in a character, don't really want there to be all that much chance of losing it.

That's where being carefull comes into play. I seldom ever lose characters when I play. Well, some of them have died several times, but DI or resurrection have brought them back. One member of our group burns through characters though, they are usually frontline warriors that don't back down. He's an AD&D player we converted to BRP some time ago. Still, with all the dead characters, he've said he wastly prefer BRP and the danger you find there.

You're probably right it's not for all people, but it have been one of the main characteristics of BRP. A deadly, gritty game. Having hero points as an optional rule is okay for me, but if it had been made a default rule, I think it would ruin some of the game's original spirit.

Sverre.

[Simlasa]

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.

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.

The guy in our group who borrowed the idea from UA was a player, not one of the GMs... he thought it would really help the immersive feel of the combats if you didn't have a clear idea of how badly you were hurt or hurting your opponent. We tried it out and it really did change how we played... people were more cautious and would often run out of battles without being all that badly wounded (just in pain or bleeding a lot)... that vs. the more video-game version of comparing your health bar to the enemies and judging who would outlast whom.

We don't do it for 'control' reasons but because of the mood elements and the interesting events it causes. Only slightly more work for the GM and more fun for the players.

Also, we don't always hide the numbers... for some more pulpy or macho games we use the rules more like a wargame... with all stats in the open.

[Nightshade]

An illusion of danger could be fudged by the GM, if skillfully done. But a player with a high level AD&D character would have to be delusional if he thought his player was in any sort of danger (unless the DM had deceided to kill him that is).

The first is true, but I think it pays a price in terms of making the game more about the GM than what the players do as someone else said. As to the second--I don't entirely agree; it was entirely possible to lose a character in high level AD&D, it was just very difficult to go from "unhurt" to "dead" in one round. Its actually harder in D&D3 because unlike prior editions resurrection magic by the book is infallible and essentially unlimited.

That's where being carefull comes into play. I seldom ever lose characters when I play. Well, some of them have died several times, but DI or

resurrection have brought them back. One member of our group burns through

I have to point out that by the book RQ3 had low chances of DI outside of Gloranthan characters, and Resurrection was a non-reusable spell, and not likely available at all until priests came into play. None of that's liable to deal with a low ro mid level character who just has a bit of bad luck.

You're probably right it's not for all people, but it have been one of the main characteristics of BRP. A deadly, gritty game. Having hero points as an optional rule is okay for me, but if it had been made a default rule, I think it would ruin some of the game's original spirit.

Sverre.

I've never been really arguing for it to be a default rule; what I've been arguing is that the lack of it has been a serious reason to not play the game for some in the past, and rolling my eyes a bit at some of the tough-guy rhetoric some people have used in disparaging the idea.

Now its perfectly possible what the real question at the start of this thread was was "Why don't more people like the style of play BRP promotes"; in which case the answer is rather different. But as it is, the answer at least in part is that, whatever other virtues it has, BRP style games (and RQ is one of the more noteable here specifically because of the crit and impale mechanics) tend to produce, all other things being equal, more character death (and to some degree crippling) than other games, and they don't like that. Its just a simple reality.

Can one mitigate it by caution? To some extent (though as I've noted, short of not finding yourself in the situation at all, getting in an arrow's path isn't something you can do much about). But excessive caution also isn't something a lot of people play for, either, and if the game forces that on them, that's another downside.

So the bottom line is, people should ask themselves if they're actually looking for more BRP players, or more players who like the style of play they do. If its the former, some modifications to the system can help. If its the latter, you're pretty much on your own, and I suspect, by evidence of what's been successful in the market and what's died, out of luck.

[Nightshade]

The guy in our group who borrowed the idea from UA was a player, not one of the GMs... he thought it would really help the immersive feel of the combats if you didn't have a clear idea of how badly you were hurt or hurting your opponent. We tried it out and it really did change how we played...

There certainly are some benefits in terms of transparency. My caveat has always been that it also narrows the communication bandwidth and makes it fundamentally arbitrary; the GM explains what has happened to the character _as the GM sees it_, which turns entirely on his perception of how much a character can tell about his level of injury, fatigue, and other issues. To be honest, I think many GMs, perhaps most, are bad about conveying environmental information properly; adding in doing the same about personal information just doesn't seem an overall virtue to me. But then, I'm only intermittantly immersive as a player, and am quite good at firewalling, so I'm perhaps not the ideal subject for such techniques.

[Atgxtg]

The key factor for any sort of Hero Point system is that it has limits. THe key advantages are that they let you avoid some horrendous dice rolls and set up for more story based adventures.

FOr example, one time I rolled up a character and got killed from a critical hit in the first fight (first attack, GM rolls 01, game over).

With smaller groups this can seriously slow down or derail a campagin. With a group, someone else can cover for a dropped PC or heal them or whatever, but with small groups losing one PC can throw the fight.

Another nice thing about the points is that they allow a GM to better model many (actually most) genres and settings better. Most works of fiction place the heroes in tight spots with the odds stacked against them . They hero manages to succeed, relying on wits, perseverance, and a good deal of script immunity. But, try to mirror that with most RPG mechanics and you just get a dead hero. In fiction the fledgling hero (at 30%) manages to survive his encounter with the evil master swordsman (140%), so he can find the master swordsman and be trained. In BRP the hero is meat. Chances of surviving the encounter are fairly slim. What Hero Points do is give the PC some minor script immunity.

As for the fumble thing. What I think people fail to grasp is that fumbles are much much more common thanks to multiple rolls. Basically it is Russian roulette. Keep rolling a a fumble is a certainty. This stems from one of the weakness of older RPGs: Most tasks are a simple succeed/fail roll, while combat is broken down to a series of rolls. If you actually try to use BRP to handle a real battle, EVERYBODY would be fumbling multiple times during the fight. A typical warrior would fumble, on average, one a minute!

[Nightshade]

As for the fumble thing. What I think people fail to grasp is that fumbles are much much more common thanks to multiple rolls. Basically it is Russian roulette. Keep rolling a a fumble is a certainty. This stems from one of the weakness of older RPGs: Most tasks are a simple succeed/fail roll, while combat is broken down to a series of rolls. If you actually try to use BRP to handle a real battle, EVERYBODY would be fumbling multiple times during the fight. A typical warrior would fumble, on average, one a minute!

I'm not actually convinced that's a bad model; in real combats, or even sparring outside of incredibly controlled conditions, all kinds of things go wrong with suprising frequency. The problem isn't the frequency of fumbles, but their severity. I had my foil get out of line because of slipping or my glove slide fairly often over my years of fencing; something like it could be counted on to happen at least once a match. Having my bell catch on the other guy's bell, the knob on the end of the foil come off, and the whole thing come apart leaving me standing there with only a piece of nylon grip in my hand, on the other hand, was a once in a fencing career situation.

So I'd say its not the fumble mechanics that are a problem so much as, perhaps the tables used.

[badcat]

Please don't misquote me. Any reference to people who don't want to lose a PC because of the time invested in it was not meant in a particularly positive way.

Although I admit there are indivuals who get into the characters so much they get emotional when they die or whatever, I don't have a lot of patience with that overall.

Speaking of patience, a thing I do have patience with is someone who wants to keep a lot of math out of the game. That is a taste, not an indicator of ineptitude with math; it is rude to infer such.

[Aycorn]

I'm not actually convinced that's a bad model; in real combats, or even sparring outside of incredibly controlled conditions, all kinds of things go wrong with suprising frequency. The problem isn't the frequency of fumbles, but their severity. I had my foil get out of line because of slipping or my glove slide fairly often over my years of fencing; something like it could be counted on to happen at least once a match. Having my bell catch on the other guy's bell, the knob on the end of the foil come off, and the whole thing come apart leaving me standing there with only a piece of nylon grip in my hand, on the other hand, was a once in a fencing career situation.

So I'd say its not the fumble mechanics that are a problem so much as, perhaps the tables used.

I always figured the tables were just suggestions and you could freely improvise.

[Atgxtg]

I'm not actually convinced that's a bad model; in real combats, or even sparring outside of incredibly controlled conditions, all kinds of things go wrong with suprising frequency. The problem isn't the frequency of fumbles, but their severity. I had my foil get out of line because of slipping or my glove slide fairly often over my years of fencing; something like it could be counted on to happen at least once a match. Having my bell catch on the other guy's bell, the knob on the end of the foil come off, and the whole thing come apart leaving me standing there with only a piece of nylon grip in my hand, on the other hand, was a once in a fencing career situation.

So I'd say its not the fumble mechanics that are a problem so much as, perhaps the tables used.

There is some truth to that. I think the tables grew out of real life experiences in the SCA. Now while the table probably do mirror the sort of screwed up stuff that happens to weekend warriors doing simulated battles, I doubt it reflects just how things went for people who actually did this sort of thing for a living. No offense to any SCA folk, but I doubt many of them could go toe to toe against an average merc from the middle ages.

So I think the fumble chart might be a little biased from the perspective of weekend warriors. Maybe something like at at over 50% skill rolling twice and taking the lowest result?

[Simlasa]

I always took the fumble tables to be guidelines also... not hard and fast rules of what HAD to happen.

I'm sure Nightshade is right that the lack of certain mechanics has kept some people away from BRP... but I don't really think that the lack of fate points or ads/disads is at all the major reason for BRP not being more of major player... since there actually is a protean system of ads/disads in the Superworld system and fate points are simple to add to the game if you want them.

You could just as readily count out a those gamers who won't touch anything with a roll-under system or percentiles or dice or GMs.

Should the game morph to please them as well?

There is less than a handful of hugely popular RPGs out there... and none of them have a perfect set of rules either. There are plenty of flash-in-the-pan games that tried to be just like them and spent a summer on the shelves before disappearing.

Really I think it has a lot more to do with the stuff we were originally discussing in this thread, marketing and awareness amongst gamers of what BRP had to offer... and the sorts of way Chaosium has made use of it.

I don't think it's a matter of smooshing BRP into some perfected shape that would draw the people who've tried it and disliked it, I think it's more a need to get it into the hands and minds of people who haven't tried it but would like it if they did.

[Jason D]

Really I think it has a lot more to do with the stuff we were originally discussing in this thread, marketing and awareness amongst gamers of what BRP had to offer... and the sorts of way Chaosium has made use of it.

I don't think it's a matter of smooshing BRP into some shape to please people who've tried it and disliked it, I think it's more a need to get it into the hands and minds of people who haven't tried it but would like it.

Thanks for stating my own beliefs so clearly.

I think that BRP isn't a "popular" game system because until now, BRP hasn't really been a game system of its own.

For the last 20 years, BRP has been for all intents and purposes just the engine by which people played Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer, and maybe Nephilim. If you want to extend that date back another five years, then you're bringing in out-of-print stuff like Elfquest, Superworld, Ringworld, and maybe Worlds of Wonder.

And as for those, Nephilim, Hawkmoon, Elfquest, and Ringworld weren't big-sellers because the subject matter was not well known, or the subject matter just didn't grab fans at the time. Superworld failed because it went toe-to-toe with more entrenched games like Champions, Marvel Superheroes, and Villains & Vigilantes (though the decidedly unheroic art style didn't help).

On the other hand, Stormbringer lasted for a long, long time - five editions and another game is a robust game line for any RPG. RuneQuest and BRP took separate paths for a very long time but are (more or less) back together again in a slightly different form, and Call of Cthulhu still has a huge and devout following.

So, it'll be interesting to see what the upcoming year says about BRP and how well the market embraces it. I'm just hoping that there aren't too many mistakes in the final manuscript...

[Nightshade]

Please don't misquote me. Any reference to people who don't want to lose a PC because of the time invested in it was not meant in a particularly positive way.

Its still an accurate perception of their reasons, whether you disdain them or not. I frankly don't much like your attitude here, but I give credit where its due.

[Nightshade]

I always figured the tables were just suggestions and you could freely improvise.

That may be, but I suspect most people either used them as-is, or wrote new ones.

[Nightshade]

There is some truth to that. I think the tables grew out of real life experiences in the SCA. Now while the table probably do mirror the sort of screwed up stuff that happens to weekend warriors doing simulated battles, I doubt it reflects just how things went for people who actually did this sort of thing for a living. No offense to any SCA folk, but I doubt many of them could go toe to toe against an average merc from the middle ages.

So I think the fumble chart might be a little biased from the perspective of weekend warriors. Maybe something like at at over 50% skill rolling twice and taking the lowest result?

I think, on the other hand, real combatants have a lot of extra problems to deal with that SCA guys don't, like blood in the eyes, really crappy conditions, damaged equipment and more. But in the end, I suspect the percentages were just sort of pulled out of the air and written down; it wouldn't be hard to make some of the more extreme results less frequent, even if it meant going to a separate table.

[Joseph Paul]

Yes the RQ fumble tables were drawn from the authors' experience with fighting in the SCA. Those experiences are 30 years old and that table could probably use some updating.I am with the camp that says fumbles happen too often. It is because of this- Murphy's Rules, "Cutting mistakes": In a thirty minute Runequest battle (Chaosium) involving 6000 armored, experienced warriors using Great Axes, more than 150 men will decapitate themselves and another 600 will chop off their own arms or legs.Now I haven't replicated the math for this but it sounds plausible given the rules for RQ. And that tells me that something is wrong. I may have to dig out "Innumeracy" for the math.Joseph Paul

[Nightshade]

I always took the fumble tables to be guidelines also... not hard and fast rules of what HAD to happen.

I'm sure Nightshade is right that the lack of certain mechanics has kept some people away from BRP... but I don't really think that the lack of fate points or ads/disads is at all the major reason for BRP not being more of major player... since there actually is a protean system of ads/disads in the Superworld

Note that few people will have seen Superworld, however, and I still maintain that its system works more in conjunction with the powers system than with the main BRP character generation.

system and fate points are simple to add to the game if you want them.

But most people don't take a system and hack it into shape if it has what seems like a signficant failing to them; they just move on to another system.

You could just as readily count out a those gamers who won't touch anything with a roll-under system or percentiles or dice or GMs.

Should the game morph to please them as well?

It depends on how common you think them to be, and whether you can maintain the fundamental nature of the game while satisfying them. I don't happen to think the fundamental part of BRP is "what you roll is what you get". Its the resolution mechanic and the lack of a lot of abstraction.

Really I think it has a lot more to do with the stuff we were originally discussing in this thread, marketing and awareness amongst gamers of what BRP had to offer... and the sorts of way Chaosium has made use of it.

I'm not going to deny that there's a contributor there; certain RQ was helped to its grave by the excessive cost and apparent flimsiness of the AH edition.

I think, however, that ignoring the ways RQ doesn't match the general tastes of the hobby is burying your head in the sand, and its all too common a habit in the hobby, especially among fans of older systems.

I don't think it's a matter of smooshing BRP into some perfected shape that would draw the people who've tried it and disliked it, I think it's more a need to get it into the hands and minds of people who haven't tried it but would like it if they did.

Whereas I think that's a false dichotomy. I think trying to assume its _only_ exposure or _only_ system is lying to one's self.

[Nightshade]

Yes the RQ fumble tables were drawn from the authors' experience with fighting in the SCA. Those experiences are 30 years old and that table could probably use some updating.I am with the camp that says fumbles happen too often. It is because of this- Murphy's Rules, "Cutting mistakes": In a thirty minute Runequest battle (Chaosium) involving 6000 armored, experienced warriors using Great Axes, more than 150 men will decapitate themselves and another 600 will chop off their own arms or legs.Now I haven't replicated the math for this but it sounds plausible given the rules for RQ. And that tells me that something is wrong. I may have to dig out "Innumeracy" for the math.Joseph Paul

Again, that's not frequency, that's severity.

[Joseph Paul]

Again, that's not frequency, that's severity.

No the frequency of the severity is the problem. That sort of thing is so very rare even for weekend warriors that it makes for apocryphal tales.

Joseph Paul