Compare and contrast The BGB with Revolution D100

[rsanford]

So how would you all compare and contrast Revolution D100 with the BGB? Do they have similar intent? Other than the obvious differences in the rules how do the goals differ? Do they have similar weaknesses? In what ways is one superior or inferior to the other?

 

[muminalver]

I think revo.. Has a Great advantage over Brp. In The traits and the way it handles skills, first time I checked.The rules i was surprised how few skills it was but reading the traits I realised how well it seems to work. The "Main" weakness I can think of is backward compability. Revo.. Feels more like Brp&fate had a great time together

 

 

Edited December 22, 2015 by muminalver
forgot to write a full answer.

[Zit]

My first feeling is that RD100 allows for a broader range of game styles and adresses a wider public. Traits and Motivations can be used as acurate gritty skills or as more freeform capabilities and the basic rules are well adapted to narrative games while the advanced ones will please the simulationists. RD100 sticks also better to the first Petersen's convention. On the contrary, the BRP offers more granularity -at the cost of a rather long skills list.

I think -but I may be wrong- that there are 2 generation of BRP-based games : before MRQ/RQ6 (separate skill rolls, resistance table, fixed starting skill levels, general Hit Points...) and after MRQ/RQ6 (opposed skill rolls, characteristics based starting skills, combat effects, no general Hit Points...). The BRP is the compilation of all the versions and improvements of the former, while RD100 belongs to the latter.

[GianniVacca]

I've played my first game of ReD100 last night, and it feels enormously different to the vanilla BRP games I've played -- Traits are paramount.

[rsanford]

25 minutes ago, GianniVacca said:

I've played my first game of ReD100 last night, and it feels enormously different to the vanilla BRP games I've played -- Traits are paramount.

So go on ;-)  How was it different?

 

[GianniVacca]

Just now, rsanford said:

So go on ;-)  How was it different?

 

I was a mere player and the GM was @RosenMcStern himself, so I'd rather he'd answer. What I can say is that Traits give big bonuses (at least 30%) so they make a difference because all/most [I still haven't figured this out] checks are opposed.

[RosenMcStern]

Actually, the point is that you played out a conflict where the PCs never rolled but instead supported an NPC who rolled. No one of you had the required skill/trait to roll, so you had to assume a support role, which in Revolution is based on Traits and not skills (however, the variant to support conflicts with "classic" trait-less skills will be included in the next iteration of the rules). In fact, you can simply justify narratively the bonuses you produce, but the GM has the authority to demand the presence of a Trait - which I did, to stimulate creative use of your characters.

If the players had assumed the lead of the conflict (which was an option - you could grab the heel yourselves, once the Captain was down to 8 Resolution Points and the airship was in danger of going down - but were you willing to roll your base Pilot skill of 20-30% versus a sandstorm that rolled between 80% and 110% skill?), things would have felt differently.

Wait till someone tries to stick something pointy into your most beloved hit locations, or fires at you one of those 2d8 rayguns and you will see how it actually works.

Ooops, I almost forgot you can make gadgets that absorb raygun fire...

[Baulderstone]

On 1/2/2016 at 10:31 AM, Zit said:

My first feeling is that RD100 allows for a broader range of game styles and adresses a wider public. Traits and Motivations can be used as acurate gritty skills or as more freeform capabilities and the basic rules are well adapted to narrative games while the advanced ones will please the simulationists.

This is what intrigues me about the system. While I haven't had any chances to roleplay in the last two months, it looks like the system can be as narrative or simulationist as you need on a scene-by-scene basis. I  like both styles of play, and am often torn on what system to use for a campaign. Being able to go with a system that allows me make the decisions as needed once play begins would be wonderful.

[Zit]

4 hours ago, GianniVacca said:

I was a mere player and the GM was @RosenMcStern himself, so I'd rather he'd answer. What I can say is that Traits give big bonuses (at least 30%) so they make a difference because all/most [I still haven't figured this out] checks are opposed.

your player's POV would be actually very interesting. 

[Aelwyn]

On 1/2/2016 at 10:31 AM, Zit said:

I think -but I may be wrong- that there are 2 generation of BRP-based games : before MRQ/RQ6 (separate skill rolls, resistance table, fixed starting skill levels, general Hit Points...) and after MRQ/RQ6 (opposed skill rolls, characteristics based starting skills, combat effects, no general Hit Points...). The BRP is the compilation of all the versions and improvements of the former, while RD100 belongs to the latter.

 

On 12/22/2015 at 2:51 AM, muminalver said:

Revo.. Feels more like Brp&fate had a great time together

I would agree with both of these. BRP is more simulationist; Revolution D100 is a descendant of both RQ6 and FATE.

[Mankcam]

I'm part of the KS - have I missed a beta pdf or do we just have the rules on various topics as they are presented? 

I probably won't get my head around it until I have the finished pdf and printed product in my hand, but I would say it may be a little unfair to compare these systems. They are both BRP games, but the BGB is a collection of pre-existing BRP rules more or less with a core char gen and spot rules. Revolution D100 is building upon this, but is a very contemporary product that has benefited from MRQ D100 but also games like FATE and such.

My gut feeling is that I am going to feel that Revolution D100 wins out in game mechanics, but it is standing on the shoulders of giants. The sentiment that it is just as narrative as it is simulationist rings true. And that is a good thing.

I can't wait for it to be released, it seems to have alot of great concepts which can be plugged into pre-existing systems

Edited January 5, 2016 by Mankcam