Jump to content

Attribute Maxes in BRP0


Tywyll

Recommended Posts

It's the good old 'max rollable +1 per die' formula.

Britain has been infiltrated by soviet agents to the highest levels. They control the BBC, the main political party leaderships, NHS & local council executives, much of the police, most newspapers and the utility companies. Of course the EU is theirs, through-and-through. And they are among us - a pervasive evil, like Stasi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is the same thing.

Whether INT and POW are limited depend on which version of BRP you are playing. Early Stormbringer depended on higher and higher levels of INT and POW to become capable of summoning more powerful entities, for instance. It also was the source of some dissatisfaction with that game, because the wizards tended to have the best weapon skill bonuses too. INT and POW made you a better fighter as well as a better sorcerer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, that's a good point. Then again, I haven't played with attribute bonuses much in the last several years (Elric! and CoC being my main BRP games in the last several years).

I suppose one could easily cap that bonus for non-magical skills if its a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Touche', Jason.:thumb:

I still prefer Stormbringer 1...I find it easier to ADD or modify rules, usually, rather than have them as options (it's easier to houserule than pick and choose from a toolkit, I think). That is one reason I have stayed with BRP rather than use Hero or GURPS. Players see stuff and want to know why we aren't doing THAT. Then again, maybe the feel will be different with BRP. But I am hesitant to buy in, and this is one reason.:confused:

Also, it made sense that someone who was smarter and luckier would be a better natural fighter, at least as long as he wasn't a total wuss physically. And my favorite character in D&D was the fighter/magic-user. It's just me.:D

This is probably a whole new thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, it made sense that someone who was smarter and luckier would be a better natural fighter, at least as long as he wasn't a total wuss physically. And my favorite character in D&D was the fighter/magic-user. It's just me.:D

It's a bit of a muddle, actually.

For Stormbringer 1st edition (my absolute favorite incarnation of the BRP system, bar none), it made sense that Elric was good in swordsmanship because of his incredible cunning and strength of will (his high INT and POW).

Having a system that supports the licensed intellectual property is a good thing.

However, Theleb K'aarna was absolutely no physical threat, but he had comparable bonuses due to the high INT and POW scores. The way the system worked, he should have been quite competent with any weapon he'd put his hand to. The same with Myshella, who was in no way a fighter.

Also, since BRP allows for mutations and super powers that greatly increase characteristics, it should be the GM's choice whether to allow them.

And on another topic, perhaps suitable for another thread, I'm uncertain about the perceived difference between an optional rule and a house rule. As I see it, most of the optional rules are simply houserules or houseruled systems that have been printed for ease of access and use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but Theleb K'aarna was 'potentially' a good fighter. One of the fun things about Stormbringer was the 'play what you get' factor. Like, a pc could start off as a kid right off the farm, and have good stats for a fighter, and still be 40% best weapon. And so on, but you already know all that. It was a positive for me, anyway.

As for the other thing, about houserules? Most people around here play D&D, which game has the philosophy of empowering the players with 'builds', without much regard to empowerment for the GM. That leaks over and when they make a character for a different game they often bring certain expectations of power level and so on. So I find that it is easier to sell a game with a simple base. The new BRP book has a simple base, but a lot of tinsel (options) too. I guess my main concern boils down to my comfort level and being able to draw players without the game turning into something I don't enjoy running or playing anymore.

You say SB1 is your favorite version of BRP? Then, just out of simple curiosity, why didn't you use it as the basis for the new book instead of SB5?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the other thing, about houserules? Most people around here play D&D, which game has the philosophy of empowering the players with 'builds', without much regard to empowerment for the GM. That leaks over and when they make a character for a different game they often bring certain expectations of power level and so on. So I find that it is easier to sell a game with a simple base. The new BRP book has a simple base, but a lot of tinsel (options) too. I guess my main concern boils down to my comfort level and being able to draw players without the game turning into something I don't enjoy running or playing anymore.

But why not simply say, "We aren't using those rules" or "We are using these options, but not those options"? How would that be any different from saying, "We are playing BRP but using these Houserules"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say SB1 is your favorite version of BRP? Then, just out of simple curiosity, why didn't you use it as the basis for the new book instead of SB5?

Because when I began writing BRP, the two commercially available editions of BRP were Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer (5th edition). Chaosium had also received the rights to the non-Glorantha system for RQ3 back from Avalon Hill (or whoever held the rights at that time).

The logical conclusion was to make a game compatible with the in-print Chaosium games (and their source material), and using the RQ3 material where appropriate. Other materials (Worlds of Wonder, Ringworld, Elfquest, Thieves World, etc.) were used where aspects could enhance the BRP book.

Using an out-of-date version of Stormbringer didn't make any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tywyll, there is a culture in 3.5 that says the players should control the game more than the GM. Yes, really. So most everyone around here plays and has learned to play in that sort of culture, where the 'build' is more important than playing. So a lot of these new generation gamers expect to be able to use every trick and option in the rulebook. And D&D 3.5 is so inter related it is difficult to separate out parts of the rules...and that is how they expect any game to work. Ergo, a simple base game with house rules is an easier sell, if you want to try to introduce an older style of game, whether it be D&D or BRP. Or at least, that has been my experience lately. And 3.5 is not the only currently popular game with an emphasis on 'stuff' and 'kewl powerz' over actually playing a game. Look at Exalted.

OK, Jason, that makes sense. Now I just have to decide if it is $40 worth of useful to me. Thanks for the effort, though. I believe it will be far, far superior to the upcoming 4e no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tywyll, there is a culture in 3.5 that says the players should control the game more than the GM. Yes, really.

I disagree. It says that the players should control their characters more than the GM. And what's wrong with that? Its my character, I should be able to do what I want with it and the character should grow in a way that I want.

So most everyone around here plays and has learned to play in that sort of culture, where the 'build' is more important than playing. So a lot of these new generation gamers expect to be able to use every trick and option in the rulebook.

Again I disagree. One of the first things done when joining a new game is to find out what resources the DM allows and what he does not. That control is ultimately up to the DM. After that the players can use whatever resource that the DM allowed in the first place. Or they might convince him to allow something else, but again the final decision is up to the DM.

And D&D 3.5 is so inter related it is difficult to separate out parts of the rules...and that is how they expect any game to work.

Well, yes and no. In the core rule it would be hard to remove magic, or magic items or feats, because the game relies on those being there. But it would be easy to remove prestige classes or not include any of the hundreds of supplements. They are just not needed.

Ergo, a simple base game with house rules is an easier sell, if you want to try to introduce an older style of game, whether it be D&D or BRP. Or at least, that has been my experience lately.

Well I can't argue what your experiences are. Everyone has their own. But like Tywyll said, it shouldn't be much harder to say "Here are the optional rules we are using" instead of "Here are the house rules we are using".

And 3.5 is not the only currently popular game with an emphasis on 'stuff' and 'kewl powerz' over actually playing a game. Look at Exalted.

Don't really understand this here. What's the point of having 'cool stuff' if you don't get a chance to use them? Having cool items or powers gives you one more reason to want to play. Honestly I find games where you play a 'regular joe' deadly dull. Probably why I never got into CoC that much. :ohwell:

OK, Jason, that makes sense. Now I just have to decide if it is $40 worth of useful to me. Thanks for the effort, though. I believe it will be far, far superior to the upcoming 4e no matter what.

Amen to that!

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

30/420

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Control the character, and what the character can do, control the game.

As for the rest, I am speaking from a standpoint of frustration. Thus my nervousness about allowing some mechanics that look unnecessary to me, and I don't enjoy the games I have tried recently. Could be I just haven't met much in the way of compatible gamers lately. I do know I would just rather not game with the groups I have encountered. Heh, I don't even think the local RPGA group is playing the game correctly...mostly just a lot of handwaving....after the fun part is done (making the characters with all the kewl powerz). All I can do is shake my head. And bow out gracefully. And try not to throw up. Could be I am just burned out on rpgs, I suppose.

Right now I am thinking about running Talislanta 4 (assuming the existance of people around here who want to play it). It has a stat + skill dynamic that looks workable, no levels, and the rules don't include a lot of hard to deal with options that are difficult to separate from a good game. The stat IS the stat bonus. That's nice. Only thing is, it uses that damn D20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is the same thing.

For 3D6 stats, or nD6 stats, then yes.

However, inhumans have different characteristic dice and even humans may have 2D6+6.

So, an RQ centaur with 3D6+3 DEX has Species Max of 24 using the 7/die + extra approach, 25 if you treat the +3 as an extra die or 27 if you use Max Rollable + Min Rollable.

Max Rollable + Min Rollable normally gives higher species maxima and is easier to work out, which is why I prefer it.

As I intend to houserule BRP to death it doesn't really matter to me.

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the other thing, about houserules? Most people around here play D&D, which game has the philosophy of empowering the players with 'builds', without much regard to empowerment for the GM. That leaks over and when they make a character for a different game they often bring certain expectations of power level and so on. So I find that it is easier to sell a game with a simple base. The new BRP book has a simple base, but a lot of tinsel (options) too. I guess my main concern boils down to my comfort level and being able to draw players without the game turning into something I don't enjoy running or playing anymore.

If you want to build a character then BRP is probably one of the best systems to do it, certainly if you include some things from RQ as well.

Looking at Fantasy Settings rather than other genres, you start off by choosing a species, then a background, then a profession. You are generally not restricted that much by species as to which background/profession to choose nor by background as to which profesison to use. Once you have your species/background/profession you allocate skills to the PC based on that set. You can also allocate other skills with GM approval. I don't know much about the Powers Section as I'd use the RQ Magic System, but I am sure that you could build spells/powers/abilities with ease. From RQ you have a whole host of magical items and equipment that you could use to add character to your PC and I would assume that BRP would eventually have a similar host of nifty things to add on/use.

Unlike classic AD&D/D20, BRP doesn't have classes so you can mix and match things. BRP is very flexible in character generation, especially so if the GM allows you to have had different professions or allows different skills to be taken up if your backstory specifically refers to them.

So, BRP is no worse a system for building characters than D&D/D20.

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, BRP is no worse a system for building characters than D&D/D20.

I thought badcat's point was he didn't want players to have such fine control over character generation. From that pov, you're saying "BRP is no better a system for building characters than D&D/D20" - which doesn't sound nearly so good. And surely some mistake? BRP is always better!

Britain has been infiltrated by soviet agents to the highest levels. They control the BBC, the main political party leaderships, NHS & local council executives, much of the police, most newspapers and the utility companies. Of course the EU is theirs, through-and-through. And they are among us - a pervasive evil, like Stasi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought badcat's point was he didn't want players to have such fine control over character generation.

I thought his point was he did want players to have such fine control over character generation.

It's funny that two people can read the same thing and interpret it in different ways.

From that pov, you're saying "BRP is no better a system for building characters than D&D/D20"

That's probably right. It's definitely as good and because it is classless it has some points that are better, unless you prefer classes in which case it isn't as good.

And surely some mistake? BRP is always better!

Different perhaps, better at some things certainly, better overall? You'd have to look at sales figures to decide that one.

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different perhaps, better at some things certainly, better overall?

:eek: Good God, man! Listen to yourself - you're arguing in favour of D&D! Snap out of it! Snap out of it! ;)

Britain has been infiltrated by soviet agents to the highest levels. They control the BBC, the main political party leaderships, NHS & local council executives, much of the police, most newspapers and the utility companies. Of course the EU is theirs, through-and-through. And they are among us - a pervasive evil, like Stasi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind players having some control over making a character they want to play, my problem is the WOTC philosophy of taking control of how they run the game from the GM and 'empower the players', making the game more rules driven altogether (and my resistance to anything that may take BRP in that direction). Also, the games of 3.5 that I have sat in on have been about more about 'my PC is a better build than yours' than embarking on an adventure the GM is running. Lots of things like that, not just the way the pcs are generated per se. Myself, I prefer a mix of choice and randomness and usually do it about like soltakss, sure. If you could see some of the RPGA 'games' I have recently you would understand, I believe. So like I said in another recent post, mostly I am expressing frustration. Not that I like the most recent versions of D&D when its done according to the rules, either. But WOTC stated that Eberron was designed to use all the published rules for 3.5, and it is a pain even at the RPGA thingies.

Back to our regularly scheduled BRP talk...:focus:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tywyll, there is a culture in 3.5 that says the players should control the game more than the GM. Yes, really. So most everyone around here plays and has learned to play in that sort of culture, where the 'build' is more important than playing. So a lot of these new generation gamers expect to be able to use every trick and option in the rulebook. And D&D 3.5 is so inter related it is difficult to separate out parts of the rules...and that is how they expect any game to work. Ergo, a simple base game with house rules is an easier sell, if you want to try to introduce an older style of game, whether it be D&D or BRP. Or at least, that has been my experience lately. And 3.5 is not the only currently popular game with an emphasis on 'stuff' and 'kewl powerz' over actually playing a game. Look at Exalted.

OK, Jason, that makes sense. Now I just have to decide if it is $40 worth of useful to me. Thanks for the effort, though. I believe it will be far, far superior to the upcoming 4e no matter what.

I find that culture tends to be addressed when the GM is the only one with the rulebook. Selling a game, at least in my experience, hasn't been about passing it around and letting them read all the details... and usually a player doesn't like to buy a new book until they know they'll be playing the game for awhile.

I agree that there are many players who are all about the build, but that's not really unique to 3.5, that sort of min-maxing has always been around.

I've only encountered one player who felt that 'if its in a book, we should play it'. I just kept telling him 'no' until he got the hint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is the same thing.

Whether INT and POW are limited depend on which version of BRP you are playing. Early Stormbringer depended on higher and higher levels of INT and POW to become capable of summoning more powerful entities, for instance. It also was the source of some dissatisfaction with that game, because the wizards tended to have the best weapon skill bonuses too. INT and POW made you a better fighter as well as a better sorcerer...

Considering it was only 1% bonus per point over 12, and odds were any

INT and POW bonuses were offset by 1% penalties for low STR and DEX

(unless the characters were quite special - which fit well with the premise

of the saga/game), by the time you had sorcerers with high enough INT

and POW to make a difference, you most likely had warriors with very

high combat skills that made the stat bonuses fairly irrelevant.

-V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bit of a muddle, actually.

For Stormbringer 1st edition (my absolute favorite incarnation of the BRP system, bar none), it made sense that Elric was good in swordsmanship because of his incredible cunning and strength of will (his high INT and POW).

Having a system that supports the licensed intellectual property is a good thing.

However, Theleb K'aarna was absolutely no physical threat, but he had comparable bonuses due to the high INT and POW scores. The way the system worked, he should have been quite competent with any weapon he'd put his hand to. The same with Myshella, who was in no way a fighter.

From the SB3 book -

Elric has a +44% attack bonus (with drugs)

Myshella has a +34% attack bonus

Theleb K'aarna has a +27% attack bonus

In SB1-4, 90% total skill was considered "Master" level. Elric is significantly

more skilled than Theleb K'aarna, and much better than Myshella on that

scale by bonus. But then there is training. Elric as trained as one of if not

the best swordsman on Melnibone. Myshella was adept with the dagger in

the saga IIRC. Theleb K'aarna was not very adept with the sword.

Again, from the SB3 book -

Elric has a greatsword skill of 92% - Master level. Also, Sea Axe of 84%.

Myshella has a dagger skill of 100% (seems to fit, no other weapon training)

Theleb K'aarna has a shortsword attack of 44% (he only trained up 17%

over stat bonus - makes sense) and dagger of 89% (again, good, but not

master).

As I said earlier, the stat bonuses really do not make much of a difference

as you get more advanced characters hitting the 100% and over mark. It

was only those "special" characters that really benefitted.

-V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...