Q&A with the new BRP Author

[Nightshade]

As I recall, Jason said you could now parry or dodge the damage spells. That makes a big difference. You still potentially can get splattered, but at the point there's a trade-off in intensity to risk; a Mage can only do that sort of thing a few times, while a fighting type can do it all day.

And to be honest, it wasn't like RQ Sorcery couldn't clobber someone perfectly well; it just took a fairly high level of skill to do it.

[Trifletraxor]

But, sorcery was quite difficult to learn. I don't know how the MW magic works, but if you're a warrior, can you still learn the blast spell f.ex.? Just the blast spell? Then you could fight the critters and blast the Boss. It would be somewhat unsatisfying to GM. I had a ogre talon, with vomit acid and 28 POW - we had a house rule that you could max put POWx2 MP into divine spells - so I could vomit 56 points of acid. I know the GM found this very difficult - as that spell was a sure-to kill. (especially since I had two! used it against Ralzakark once, but he teleported away before the second stream of acid).

SGL.

[Nightshade]

But, sorcery was quite difficult to learn. I don't know

Not really. A single spell and intensity--which you both could bet as your free magic in RQ3--weren't that hard to improve. The only reason you didn't see more problems with it was because of the way encumberance negatively impacted it.

how the MW magic works, but if you're a warrior, can you still learn the blast spell f.ex.? Just the blast spell? Then you could fight the critters and blast the Boss. It would be somewhat unsatisfying to GM. I had a ogre talon, with

Assuming you had it at a high enough skill to be reliable. Given you had to learn it in play, that's a pretty big assumption. And at that point you've spent a lot of training time on essentially, a one-shot trick that may not work, can be dodged, and takes extra time to cast. Keep in mind that 12 Int fighting type could only do 6d6 that way (and likely only once), so I'm not sure that's all that much of a killer, honestly. Yeah, its a nice trick, but if its not going to be a nice trick some of the time, why even bother?

[Jason D]

But, sorcery was quite difficult to learn. I don't know how the MW magic works, but if you're a warrior, can you still learn the blast spell f.ex.? Just the blast spell?

The GM is the arbiter of whether a character is able to start with magic or sorcery.

Learning magic later is up to the GM again. He may say "nope" outright. If he allows it, it's not exactly a massive tactical advantage.

For magic, let's say your non-magician has an INT 13. It'll first take (30-INT) weeks to learn a spell (Blast). It may be expensive, if he can even find a tutor, and it's dedicated training time.

At the end of those 17 weeks, your warrior can now use Blast at 13% (starting skill % = INT) and is limited to 3 levels in it (INT/4, rounded down) for a whopping 3D6 damage. Each level of Blast costs 3 power points to cast, so he's likely to only be able to cast 5, maybe 6 levels of it, tops, before slumping into unconsciousness from being out of power points.

Now your warrior has a missile attack that is slower than a regular attack, costs power points, can be dodged, and begins at a lower percentile than picking up a random missile weapon.

More incentive to leave the spellcasting to specialists.

[Trifletraxor]

That's a balancing touch yes! :-)

SGL.

[Jason D]

I should emphasize once again that Basic Roleplaying is not Generic RuneQuest. Many of the questions seem to be aimed at that nonexistent product rather than the one that's been created, playtested, and promoted.

Basic Roleplaying provides a rules framework for any setting, and calls for a lot of decision making by the GM to determine what should fit or not fit in each setting.

A BRP-based fantasy setting would present more guidelines on what the specific costs for learning spells, and might further limit spellcasting characters.

As it stands, BRP simply presents rules for creating characters, says "a starting-level character might have this level of power", and presents a list of powers. There's a bit more detail than that, but not a ton more.

[TRose]

So are there going to be penalties for casters that walk around encumbered ? Or will Wizards be able to go around in Plate armor? Or for melee types for that matter? And if so will they be the same penalties

But it sounds that for a warrior type perhaps spending 13 weeks learning Arbalast might be better then learning blast

[badcat]

As an example of what Jason is saying, I can offer the following. I have run a BRP swords and sorcery game for years with a magic system based specifically on the Magic World booklet. Some of the limiting factors I used were: having a requirement of POW 16 to be able to use magic (mageborn), basing resistance attacks on current POW (the more you use, the less effective many spells become), sticking to the 'untrained' rule (non-mages can only cast one quarter of INT level spells, rounded down). In addition I made a houserule that required knowledge of other magic disciplines to cast some spells so that the more effective the spell, the more had to be invested in terms of experience and skills. For instance, the Wards spell is a spell that allows a defensive field to be set up that warns against intruders and blasts them in a preset area if they intrude there. The material component is a set of enchanted stones that are set out to define the area. I just required a certain expertise in Enchantment as well as Sorcery to use the spell.

One thing that is really neat about this system is that you can have spells of a defensive nature that a hostile mage must then overcome to harm you...a fighter is not necessarily going to be toasted by a spell directed at him (assuming he has learned some of those defensive spells, like Countermagic and Protection). It's very flexible and flavorful, very much like a D&D style magic system with more options. A PC can have a few spells and a mage can have any weapons, but neither is as good at the secondary ability as the one trained in it. Using it is sort of like RQ without the cultural flavor, that you can tailor to taste.

[Nightshade]

I'd not even remembered the quarter cap on levels of spell (I thought it was a quarter of your Int in _spells_); was that a change, Jason, or am I just misremembering Magic World?

[Jason D]

I'd not even remembered the quarter cap on levels of spell (I thought it was a quarter of your Int in _spells_); was that a change, Jason, or am I just misremembering Magic World?

For non-magicians who dabble, you're limited to 1/4 INT in the number of spells you can cast, and the levels of each. (If I recall correctly.)

If you're a trained magician, you can know more spells, and the limit of levels you can cast raises to 1/2 INT.

[badcat]

It's 1/2 INT, round up, for spells held in memory and levels that can be cast for a trained mage; 1/4 of each, rounded down, for an untrained caster. Elves are mid range in both at 1/3, round up. Base %'s, INTx3% for four spells to start for the mage, 25% for any spells known for non-mages. There is no minimum POW or INT for learning magic, for anyone, under the rules. A non-mage has to have a very high INT and POW before he has much capability with magic at all...he does not even get to cast 3 levels until INT 12, nor 4 levels unless INT 16+. It's not really a worry, no one is going to get to be the best at combat and magic in this. A trained mage can cast 8 levels at INT 16, the most an untrained warrior can ever cast is 4 levels, as above. A warrior with a spell or two has an advantage but not an overwhelming one. The mage is limited in weapons in a similar way, I think it was DEX x 4% with any weapon known. But they can use any weapon.

[TRose]

OK if nonmages are restricted to knowing 1/4 their int in spells then what restrictions are there on mages to even this out? For example I roll say 18 on str and con and 16 on power and int(I'm using loaded dice:D) Whats to keep me from declaring myself a mage then go on my merry way being the best fighter in the game , but with a full load of spells.

[badcat]

Nothing at all. In that case, enjoy your warrior-wizard.:thumb:

Of course, with all 18s and 16s, you are going to pretty much have it all in any system, right? With your example, your main restriction as a fighter would be an upper weapon skill limit of 72%. With a DEX 18.

[Nightshade]

For non-magicians who dabble, you're limited to 1/4 INT in the number of spells you can cast, and the levels of each. (If I recall correctly.)

If you're a trained magician, you can know more spells, and the limit of levels you can cast raises to 1/2 INT.

I went and checked, just because I was curious; in the original at least, being a non-magician did, indeed, only limit the number of spells you knew; there was no indication that the potency of spell was any more limited than as per usual for any spellcaster.

[Nightshade]

It's 1/2 INT, round up, for spells held in memory and levels that can be cast for a trained mage; 1/4 of each, rounded down, for an

As I said, you're correct about number of spells, but there's nothing special indicated about the level of spell they can cast. Check page 9 of the old MagicWorld book when you have time.

[Nightshade]

OK if nonmages are restricted to knowing 1/4 their int in spells then what restrictions are there on mages to even this out? For example I roll say 18 on str and con and 16 on power and int(I'm using loaded dice:D) Whats to keep me from declaring myself a mage then go on my merry way being the best fighter in the game , but with a full load of spells.

In MW, they had a cap on physical skills of Dex times three or four (the latter, I'm thinking, but I just put the box away again, so...)

[soltakss]

The trouble here is that everyone is discussing what they think will be in the D100 rules, or what was in RQ or Magic World or some other system, rather than what's going to be in the rules.

Hopefully it will come out close enough to Christmas for me to use Christmas money, or close enough to my birthday for me to use Birthday money so we can discuss what's actually in it.

[NickMiddleton]

The trouble here is that everyone is discussing what they think will be in the D100 rules, or what was in RQ or Magic World or some other system, rather than what's going to be in the rules.

The "Spells levels in any spell limited to 1/2 INT, or 1/4 INT for non-mages" is in the playtest draft the playtest group saw, and Jason's indicated that it's still the case in the final manuscript - so I think we can safely say that IS what's in the rules...

The playtest draft didn't inlcude the old MW limit on mages Combat skills to DEX x 3 AFAICT - but since a mages spells are bought from their skill point pool at character creation, and training time in later play is a fixed resource, I'd say Mages were pretty effectively prevented from becoming combat monsters as well. If they spread their skill points too thinly they won't do anything well, and most professions that give access to Magic won't give access to a lot of combat skills, and in later play they havea limited amount of training time to spread between skills and spells...

I am intrigued by the fact that Blast is 3pp per level now - that's a change from the playtest draft I have (and MW IIRC). Can't wait to see the finished book!

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[Nightshade]

The "Spells levels in any spell limited to 1/2 INT, or 1/4 INT for non-mages" is in the playtest draft the playtest group saw, and Jason's indicated that it's still the case in the final manuscript - so I think we can safely say that IS what's in the rules...

That was in terms of actual spell levels too? If so, that is a change, and weakens them noticeably for non-spellcasting specialists.

Though I'm curious given that Jason has said the previous experience is a simple point distribution, how you distinguish a mage from a non-mage, especially since you indicate the skill limits for non-mages have gone away. What defines someone as a "mage"?

[Jason D]

That was in terms of actual spell levels too? If so, that is a change, and weakens them noticeably for non-spellcasting specialists.

Though I'm curious given that Jason has said the previous experience is a simple point distribution, how you distinguish a mage from a non-mage, especially since you indicate the skill limits for non-mages have gone away. What defines someone as a "mage"?

During character creation, one stop says (essentially) "Stop here! Does your GM plan to use powers? If so, ask which ones are available." Some character professions state "this profession may have access to one of the power types". If the GM allows, then rules are presented in those power types for what level of power a starting character should have.

[Jason D]

While chatting with a coworker about games and BRP (he's a Call of Cthulhu player), we both lamented that it's impossible to "spring" the Mythos on a player as he (usually) knows what he's getting into.

It struck me that BRP allows a GM to do "the switch" (not in the Seinfeldian sense), starting with a generic system and players who may have no idea what's in store during the campaign.

So a normal world BRP game might suddenly veer into horror or science-fiction.

[Nightshade]

During character creation, one stop says (essentially) "Stop here! Does your GM plan to use powers? If so, ask which ones are available." Some character professions state "this profession may have access to one of the power types". If the GM allows, then rules are presented in those power types for what level of power a starting character should have.

I'm a little puzzled then; if experience is simply done by distributing skill points, how does one define a profession within the rules?

[Nightshade]

While chatting with a coworker about games and BRP (he's a Call of Cthulhu player), we both lamented that it's impossible to "spring" the Mythos on a player as he (usually) knows what he's getting into.

It struck me that BRP allows a GM to do "the switch" (not in the Seinfeldian sense), starting with a generic system and players who may have no idea what's in store during the campaign.

So a normal world BRP game might suddenly veer into horror or science-fiction.

Though you've got to be careful to know your players there; some react very badly to that sort of bait-and-switch.

[Jason D]

I'm a little puzzled then; if experience is simply done by distributing skill points, how does one define a profession within the rules?

As with Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer.

You have a short skill description, a list of skills that are appropriate for someone of that profession, and a suggested wealth level. You get a lump of skill points to distribute across those skills.

Later, you get another lump of skill points for personal interests (skills outside those designated as professional skills).

If you have powers defined by skill points, you can spend skill points from an appropriate pool. For example, a priest with magic spells might spend professional skill points on spells, but a psychic police officer would spend personal interest points for psychic powers.

[Jason D]

Though you've got to be careful to know your players there; some react very badly to that sort of bait-and-switch.

Of course.

But it should seem obvious that there is a tremendous amount of trust assumed between the GM and the players.