Q&A with the new BRP Author

[Jason D]

How are the sample vehicles and equipment defined in the new BRP book?

Equipment is defined as it's been in the past. Rules and guidelines are provided for adding powers to equipment to improve them or increase functionality. Almost any super power can be invested in a piece of gear and paid for with character points.

Vehicles are defined on a big table with the following entries:

Type - a generic description, like "automobile, modern sports car"

Skill - what skill you use

Rated Speed - an abstract value for the chase system

Maneuver - a modifier to your skill for doing maneuvers

Handling - an abstract value for the chase system

ACC - how many rated speed units it can accelerate or decelerate in a combat round

MOV - how many MOV it can go in a combat round, in average

Armor - how many armor points it has, split between hull and passenger protection (if different)

SIZ - self-explanatory

HP - self-explanatory

Crew - how many people needed to pilot it at one time

Passengers - how many people not involved in operating it can it hold, on average, in some comfort

Cargo - as SIZ

Value - self-explanatory

Notes - self-explanatory

I believe that having those values, and around three dozen examples, makes it pretty easy for anyone to come up with some values of their own.

Does the book provide any kind of real-world benchmarks to which character or creature abilities (superstrength or superspeed, for instance) can be compared?

As much as BRP ever has.

Do you think you achieved that goal?

I think I've come closer than anyone yet has, though I'm certain that once it hits print, I'll start a list of changes for Basic Roleplaying (Revised and Expanded Edition). It always works like that.

[Jason D]

I also am seeing that we may have a definition problem. BRP can stand for both the current project of core rules and the entire concept of what a Basic Role Playing system can encompass.

You are correct in this.

I'm not opposed to any vehicle/gear systems for BRP as a game line, but in my opinion based on the project's scope and goal, the BRP book I wrote was complete enough without such a system.

[The Tweaker]

I believe that having those values, and around three dozen examples, makes it pretty easy for anyone to come up with some values of their own.

Certainly. That's what I thought.

I think I've come closer than anyone yet has, though I'm certain that once it hits print, I'll start a list of changes for Basic Roleplaying (Revised and Expanded Edition). It always works like that.

Sad but true, as with almost all extensive projects

Thanks once more, Jason. My curiosity is more than satisfied. Now, I will go back to impatiently waiting for the book to be released at last.

[Joseph Paul]

You are correct in this.

I'm not opposed to any vehicle/gear systems for BRP as a game line, but in my opinion based on the project's scope and goal, the BRP book I wrote was complete enough without such a system.

And I am in agreement with you on that.

Joseph Paul

[Nightshade]

Not to derail this thread, but I think that even in a mecha game you could probably wing most details without using a dedicated

And you could wing combat and character generation, too, but like those, the nature of a mecha is a bit to close to the point in the game for this to serve most people well. So I think either one has to argue that _any_ subsystem can be done without, or that for some sorts of games, vehicle construction systems are, indeed, necessary.

[NickMiddleton]

And you could wing combat and character generation, too, but like those, the nature of a mecha is a bit to close to the point in the game for this to serve most people well. So I think either one has to argue that _any_ subsystem can be done without, or that for some sorts of games, vehicle construction systems are, indeed, necessary.

One of the settings I am noodling away at for BRP is a Mecha setting, and I have no plans for a Mecha design system for it - it would take far too much time and effort to create and check, whereas a set of predefined mechs is perfectly feasible. And I played a LOT of Battletech in the late eighties and never used a Mech design sequence#.

BRP games / settings in general tend not to be detail oriented, and complex design sequences (GURPS, MegaTraveller) by defintion ARE, so I think in general they are a poor fit with BRP.

On the other hand, Classic Traveller Book 2 has a very simple, almost abstract design system for Starships that is far closer to the BRP approach ("Put logical number on what must have numbers only"). The difficulty comes in building a similar system for other technologies. Personally I much prefer what I saw in the equipment chapter in the playtest to any elaborate design system, but its clearly a potential supplement that someone could pitch to Chaosium.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

#indeed, I don't remember there being one in the set we used: there must have been I suppose, but I remember none of the features of it at all.

[The Tweaker]

I said I did not want to derail this thread, but...

And you could wing combat and character generation, too, but like those, the nature of a mecha is a bit to close to the point in the game for this to serve most people well. So I think either one has to argue that _any_ subsystem can be done without, or that for some sorts of games, vehicle construction systems are, indeed, necessary.

You are right in that, for some types of games, a design subsystem might be necessary. I don't think, however, that not using them can be compared to winging character generation or combat. A good, solid system for characters and combat is great for playing in most genres, but I can also play a pretty good mecha game if I previously figure out a solid base for how I want mechas to work in my game and write down stats for a few simple designs. I don't think you really need anything else, but you may enjoy the process of designing them with a more involved system, which is all right, but not what I am really looking for in BRP.

[The Tweaker]

One of the settings I am noodling away at for BRP is a Mecha setting, and I have no plans for a Mecha design system for it - it would take far too much time and effort to create and check, whereas a set of predefined mechs is perfectly feasible. And I played a LOT of Battletech in the late eighties and never used a Mech design sequence#.

BRP games / settings in general tend not to be detail oriented, and complex design sequences (GURPS, MegaTraveller) by defintion ARE, so I think in general they are a poor fit with BRP.

I wrote my reply before reading your post, but, as you can see, I fully agree with you.

[Nightshade]

One of the settings I am noodling away at for BRP is a Mecha setting, and I have no plans for a Mecha design system for it - it would take far too much time and effort to create and check, whereas a set of predefined mechs is perfectly feasible. And I played a LOT of Battletech in the late eighties and never used a Mech design sequence#.

Which is why I originally said a "general" mecha game. A specific one, where there's a finite number of defined mechs doesn't need one. A more general purpose one where the mechs not only aren't predefined, but may be player defineable I think does.

BRP games / settings in general tend not to be detail oriented, and complex design sequences (GURPS, MegaTraveller) by defintion ARE, so I think in general they are a poor fit with BRP.

You'll note I made the same argument earlier.

[Nightshade]

I said I did not want to derail this thread, but...

You are right in that, for some types of games, a design subsystem might be necessary. I don't think, however, that not using them can be compared to winging character generation or combat. A good, solid system for characters

If the game is focused in a way that you need one, I can and do. The fact less games are doesn't change that. My disagreement was with the "you can fudge that" argument; "you can fudge that" with almost any subsystem in a game. The question is how important and necessary that subsystem is to the course of the game. As you note, more games need a combat and character generation system because its more important to them, but that's an argument about frequency, not necessity.

[The Tweaker]

Which is why I originally said a "general" mecha game. A specific one, where there's a finite number of defined mechs doesn't need one. A more general purpose one where the mechs not only aren't predefined, but may be player defineable I think does.

That's where GM-player dialogue and having a good idea of what you want in your game come in, IMHO.

But we could go on arguing about this topic for ages and I suspect I would not make you change your mind, nor you would be able to change mine. If you think your mecha game needs a design system, good for you. Go ahead and create or use one. As Nick Middleton said, it would be a good proposal to pitch to Chaosium. And I would probably buy it if it is good enough.

[Atgxtg]

One of the settings I am noodling away at for BRP is a Mecha setting, and I have no plans for a Mecha design system for it - it would take far too much time and effort to create and check, whereas a set of predefined mechs is perfectly feasible. And I played a LOT of Battletech in the late eighties and never used a Mech design sequence#.

BRP games / settings in general tend not to be detail oriented, and complex design sequences (GURPS, MegaTraveller) by defintion ARE, so I think in general they are a poor fit with BRP.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

#indeed, I don't remember there being one in the set we used: there must have been I suppose, but I remember none of the features of it at all.

Nick, you might want to look at BRP's Stuff! supplement for their EABA RPG. EABA is a fariyl simple, bstrat RPG, so the design process for Stuff! is fairly simple. The idea was to allow you to design a basic APC/Tank/T-Rex/.50 cal Machuine Gun/ALien Civilization (I'm not kidding pretty much anything) in a few minutes, with options to go into more detail IF you want to.

What is nice is that Stuff! was boiled down from BTRC's much more complex GUNS GUNS GUNS and Veheicle Desgin System. The upshot of this is that with Stuff! you can design something in a few minutes and get decent results.

The nature of the game makes the book somewhat suited towards conversions. It might be just the tool to help with working out vehicles and mecha for BRP. You could use the BRP and CoC weapon damages for bechmarks to covert from EABA to BRP and design away.

IT could help in working on some sort of values for things beyond PC scale.

[The Tweaker]

Nick, you might want to look at BRP's Stuff! supplement for their EABA RPG. EABA is a fariyl simple, bstrat RPG, so the design process for Stuff! is fairly simple. The idea was to allow you to design a basic APC/Tank/T-Rex/.50 cal Machuine Gun/ALien Civilization (I'm not kidding pretty much anything) in a few minutes, with options to go into more detail IF you want to.

What is nice is that Stuff! was boiled down from BTRC's much more complex GUNS GUNS GUNS and Veheicle Desgin System. The upshot of this is that with Stuff! you can design something in a few minutes and get decent results.

The nature of the game makes the book somewhat suited towards conversions. It might be just the tool to help with working out vehicles and mecha for BRP. You could use the BRP and CoC weapon damages for bechmarks to covert from EABA to BRP and design away.

IT could help in working on some sort of values for things beyond PC scale.

This is what I call convergent thinking. Click here

[Rurik]

Another one:

What is the default fatigue system (and what optional systems are there)?

[Jason D]

What is the default fatigue system (and what optional systems are there)?

It's a slightly simpler version of the one in RQ3, and a much-simpler alternate version. Both are optional rules.

As for what they are exactly... that's a "buy the book" sort of thing.

[Atgxtg]

This is what I call convergent thinking. Click here

See what happens when I take a few days off and miss a thread?

[badcat]

Every time.

[Atgxtg]

Considering how fast this thread is growing, maybe it would be a good idea for Jason to do a new thread (part2, part3, etc.) once a week or after the thread gets to a certain size?

[Jason D]

Considering how fast this thread is growing, maybe it would be a good idea for Jason to do a new thread (part2, part3, etc.) once a week or after the thread gets to a certain size?

Maybe so.

Two other options present themselves:

1. Urging folks to take extended discussions of any particular topic to another thread.

2. Starting new threads about a specific question. That might be the better way to go, as it would make searching later much easier.

[The Tweaker]

1. Urging folks to take extended discussions of any particular topic to another thread.

2. Starting new threads about a specific question. That might be the better way to go, as it would make searching later much easier.

I declare myself guilty in respect of point #1.

But now, I have another question. Are 'heroic' or 'superheroic' styles of play supported in any way in the new book apart from different point totals or rolls during character creation?

[Enpeze]

And once more

-is SciFi Equipment/Weaponry mentioned in the new book and if yes which equipment/weapons?

thanks for your patience and time.

[Jason D]

But now, I have another question. Are 'heroic' or 'superheroic' styles of play supported in any way in the new book apart from different point totals or rolls during character creation?

Some guidelines in the "customizing creatures" section and in the GM sections.

[Jason D]

-is SciFi Equipment/Weaponry mentioned in the new book and if yes which equipment/weapons?

Not only mentioned, but described. There are all manner of energy weapons (melee and missile) and armors, sci-fi vehicles, and some equipment described. Plus a couple of sample robots and aliens.

Not a ton, but enough to give you a good start.

[Enpeze]

Great. One last question: how about armor. Did you include 2 systems? One with fixed armor (and usable for hitlocations too) and one with var. armor like SB5?

Do heavier armor have dodge penalties? (or other penalties?)

[Jason D]

Great. One last question: how about armor. Did you include 2 systems? One with fixed armor (and usable for hitlocations too) and one with var. armor like SB5?

Do heavier armor have dodge penalties? (or other penalties?)

Yes, yes, and "other penalties" (athletic- and perception-type skills).