Hero Points/Fate Points for BRP

[Trifletraxor]

How about a more 'organic' approach, letting the story tell itself? After all, no matter how much potential someone has there is always the chance that said potential will be cut short by a stray arrow or bullet or even by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. No rhyme or reason in real life. And in my experience at least, the best rpg experiences are the ones where the players have no idea whether or not it is going to be the last for a particular character (mirroring real life or a good story, the best of which mirror real life IMO). Why not let the story tell itself, whatever the consequences? It would seem to be just a matter of taste, of what sort of story one wants to tell. In which case both the use of fate points or not are valid approaches. Also, I have noticed that some people tend to invest more in their characters than others; I myself have always looked at my own PCs as playing pieces or pawns, and their passing may be a little disappointing (best DEX I ever rolled!) but then I just shrug and get on with the game. Use of fate points of any sort change the whole experience and not in a good way, to me. I much prefer to let the story develop as it will (I figure that is what the randomness of the dice rolling does) and don't have a desire to dabble in what occurs as a result of that primary means of determining those occurrances in-game.

I feel GM fudging is appropriate in certain situations, where the PC otherwise would get killed instantly with no say on the outcome. I then make care taht the player do not know I'm fudging.

In my games it's often starting characters who die first. Not because their worse, but because the player hasn't got attached to it yet and so is not as carefull as he/she could be.

Hero Points as an optional system is no problem for me. It seems like many people use them allready. I am however strongly against having them as part of the default, as BRP have allways been a "deadly" and realistic game compared to the rest.

(trying to break up the old thread into new ones )

Sverre.

[Lord Twig]

I completely agree. They are fine as an optional rule, but they are not core BRP in my mind.

I see GM fudging as a tool for dramatic license. Other's don't like it because it allows for GM abuse. At least, I guess that's why they don't like it. The opponents of GM fudging can probably state their case better than I.

[TRose]

I am in total agreement that the GM should fudge at times. Otherwise what do you do when say 5 out of your 6 players are having a good night using their skills and everything and then the 6 player does something really stupid that if you played it out would result in the party getting wiped. I think we all seen fools that throw rocks at a T-Rex, insult a Troll Priestess in her fortress, Try to attack a whole Lunar regiment , etc, and one should not punish the rest of the party for the action of one person.

[lawrence.whitaker]

I'd say that GM fudging is essential, from time to time. I've had carefully worked-out scenarios completely trashed through unlucky GM dice rolls. You have a decision to make: rewrite the scenario on the fly as a result, or fudge/ignore the result. The former can be fun to do, but sometimes the latter is better - as long as its used judiciously and the players are aware that sometimes it will happen to keep the action moving.

Hero/Fate points aren't core BRP, but the Luck Roll, which sort of amounts to a similar thing (but isn't a finite, managable resource) has been there since Ringworld and probably before. Luck Rolls are good and very useful, but require careful moderation to ensure consistency, usually because it requires GM approval. I've come a cropper myself where I've allowed a Luck roll in one situation but disallowed it or not offered it later in the same or similar, just because I've forgotten what I did earlier.

Hero/Fate points place that capability in the hands of the players which ensures a certain degree of consistency. And, as a finite resource, players do (or should) think carefully before using them. I use them in MRQ and have used them in a BRP/HQ/Bushido hybrid I ran for Glorantha a few years back. They worked well and weren't abused. I'm a big fan of them. More so than Luck rolls, I think.

[RMS]

Hero/Fate points aren't core BRP, but the Luck Roll, which sort of amounts to a similar thing (but isn't a finite, managable resource) has been there since Ringworld and probably before.

For the record, Luck rolls have been around since RQII. I just mention this because I've read several posts saying that "Luck rolls have been around since..." lately. RQII also had characteristic rolls for all 6 other characteristics introduced. They varied from 1x to 5x the characteristic chosen by the GM, rather than the set 5x on the character sheet in later, simplified BRP implementations.

[lawrence.whitaker]

For the record, Luck rolls have been around since RQII. I just mention this because I've read several posts saying that "Luck rolls have been around since..." lately. RQII also had characteristic rolls for all 6 other characteristics introduced. They varied from 1x to 5x the characteristic chosen by the GM, rather than the set 5x on the character sheet in later, simplified BRP implementations.

Yes, quite right. Luck rolls are mentioned in the RQ2 appendices under POWER in section A; but not indexed and certainly not up there as part of the core character generation. I do know Ringworld had Luck as a key part of the character design rather than something tucked away at the back of the book, hence my reference to it. Back when I played RQ2 we never used them, and they didn't form part of the Stormbringer core rules either, until Elric! appeared in 1992.

The original BRP booklet has Luck as a part of the base system, but its figured as POW x5. RQ2 did clarify that different multipliers could be used for the Luck roll, depending on circumstances.

[Trifletraxor]

I've only used luck rolls for non-combat related stuff, fumbling the climb roll with a certain death drop, etc.

How have you guys used it? :confused:

Sverre.

[badcat]

As I have stated in another thread, I do fudge a little sometimes when killing a character off over a simple mistake would be just too cruel (or sometimes when the dice are just being too contrary, there is a tiny increment of danger and things just GO WRONG, if you know what I mean). I prefer to do it that way because I think the game is more fun when they (the players) can never be sure of a positive outcome. I very rarely fudge, though. Most likely when a simple trap kills a PC or some such. Maybe once a session, sometimes twice. Nothing like the frequency a fate point system would get used. I also think fate points are a perfectly valid option, just not for me. If I were to play in a group that had a GM who used them, I would just disregard them and let fate take its course. I don't see any conflict...unless someone insisted on their use in a game I was running.

[lawrence.whitaker]

I've only used luck rolls for non-combat related stuff, fumbling the climb roll with a certain death drop, etc.

How have you guys used it? :confused:

Sverre.

Pretty much in the same way. However if a player has come up with a combo or move that is dramatically brilliant, or just makes me laugh, I've had them make a Luck roll to see if the character pulls it off.

[Enpeze]

Luck rolls are good for many situations. (even in combat sometimes) I use them in POW x1, x3, x5 etc. variants. (depending on the situation) If 2 persons compete with their luck, I compare their POW on the resistance table.

[badcat]

Yep, very flexible and useful. Which is why I don't understand the need for a fate point system, in general.

[Enpeze]

Yep, very flexible and useful. Which is why I don't understand the need for a fate point system, in general.

I guess the acceptance of the BRP rules as they are depends primarly on playing style, experience and playing environment. Many people want to play the things they read in books or films and in these mediums the protagonists often dont not die because of an insignificant situation.

Not me. I dont see roleplaying games as books or films, because this could lead to serious bad (for me and my players) gaming style called railroading.

The only thing I take from movies and litereature are ideas for moods, NPC and sometimes story hooks. But I dont play stories "after books" and in my games there are no heroes. They are always gritty and sometimes rather dark and like in real life you can die if you are stupid or have bad luck. The players have to work and to struggle to survive dangerous situations but thereafter their victory is double sweet. After more than 20 years I think they really like it.

BRP is the ideal vehicle for this style of playing, IMO.

[badcat]

I'm with you. You just pretty well summarized my own gaming philosophy.

[Aycorn]

I guess the acceptance of the BRP rules as they are depends primarly on playing style, experience and playing environment. Many people want to play the things they read in books or films and in these mediums the protagonists often dont not die because of an insignificant situation.

Not me. I dont see roleplaying games as books or films, because this could lead to serious bad (for me and my players) gaming style called railroading.

The only thing I take from movies and litereature are ideas for moods, NPC and sometimes story hooks. But I dont play stories "after books" and in my games there are no heroes. They are always gritty and sometimes rather dark and like in real life you can die if you are stupid or have bad luck. The players have to work and to struggle to survive dangerous situations but thereafter their victory is double sweet. After more than 20 years I think they really it.

BRP is the ideal vehicle for this style of playing, IMO.

Y'know, I've often heard RP in general described as "let's pretend, with rules." And the thing is, as a kid, I distinctly remember my best friend and I, when playing games with toy soldiers or G.I Joes or whatever, used to establish this rule where, if a situation arose where one of them would believably be killed in real life (i.e. the pillow we were pretending was a giant boulder fell smack on them), then they were "killed" and that was it. No second chances.

It added an element of vicarious risk that we both liked a lot. And I think the same element is there in RPG's.

As a GM, I have always said - I do not KILL characters. I do not, as policy, set up traps that can't be escaped or pit them against foes they can't possibly defeat. BUT - I do not prevent them being killed in the course of things, either. I won't kill characters, but I will allow them to be killed.

[Simlasa]

I'm with Enpeze, that's a good description of the games we play too.

in my games there are no heroes.

Same here, at least no pre-ordained ones... protaganists yes, and any player might very well come out as the hero of the story but it's not just handed to them at the start. When I GM I figure I'm there to facilitate the mood and play the NPCs... not to kill off the PCs or ruin their fun... that's the villain's job.

[Atgxtg]

I am in total agreement that the GM should fudge at times. Otherwise what do you do when say 5 out of your 6 players are having a good night using their skills and everything and then the 6 player does something really stupid that if you played it out would result in the party getting wiped. I think we all seen fools that throw rocks at a T-Rex, insult a Troll Priestess in her fortress, Try to attack a whole Lunar regiment , etc, and one should not punish the rest of the party for the action of one person.

What you do is killed the group off and hope that "stupid" either learns from his mistake or leaves the group. If you fudge and then cover it up so the players don't know, "stupid" is going to get the idea that throwing rocks at a T-Rex is a valid tactic ("It worked the last time!!!") and do it again the next time the situation comes up.

That is why I like Hero Points. the player learns pretty quickly that he did wrong, but the Hero Points gives him a chance to survive and learn the error of his ways. If he makes a habit of acting stupid, he will run out of points faster than he runs out of T-Rex.

[RMS]

Yes, quite right. Luck rolls are mentioned in the RQ2 appendices under POWER in section A; but not indexed and certainly not up there as part of the core character generation.

Fair enough. Much of the wonderful goodness of RQII was tucked away in the appendices. While they aren't part of the core rules, there is a lot of goodness in there. It has those rolls, the wonderful damage options for different weapon types, advanced experience, languages, etc. In fact, to my know the first point based character creation system is in the RQII appendices, as is the first RPG with interlinked languages.

We always used characteristic rolls fairly frequently, in addition to a lot of opposed (Resistance mechanic) rolls. In fact we used them in Stormbringer all the time too, and I don't know that it ever occured to me that they weren't officially in the rules. Much of what was innovative about RQ/BRP was in those appendices.

[Simlasa]

What you do is killed the group off and hope that "stupid" either learns from his mistake or leaves the group. If you fudge and then cover it up so the players don't know, "stupid" is going to get the idea that throwing rocks at a T-Rex is a valid tactic ("It worked the last time!!!") and do it again the next time the situation comes up.

Naw... you let 'stupid' get eaten, cause he did something stupid... it's the other players who maybe get to benefit from a fudge... as they try to escape stupid's stupidity.

[Atgxtg]

Naw... you let 'stupid' get eaten, cause he did something stupid... it's the other players who maybe get to benefit from a fudge... as they try to escape stupid's stupidity.

Well, in that situation, stupid is probably the one who is going to attract T-Rex's attention, giving the other PCs time to do something while T-Rex has lunch. It's when stupid throws a rock at the T=rex while his friend is trying to sneak past where things can get bad.

To be completely honest, I know "stupid" or someone very much like him, and ran him in several of my campaign, and neither fudging or Hero Points did much good. Neither could match his ability to generate stupidity, and got overwhelmed.

[Sorloc]

So much for just about any action movie ever...

James Bond does 15-20 stupid things per movie - and survives

Indiana Jones, The Man With No Name, even Luke Skywalker are all dead as Ceasar within the first half hour of your game...

I'm not saying it always has to be cinematic, but is the story about 'YOUR GAME', or is it about the heroes in the story?

[badcat]

Hey, my players' characters do stupid stuff like that all the time, and survive...most of the time. And that, my friend is why they keep coming back. That 'most of the time'.

They always feel like they accomplished something, surviving.:eek:

And they did!

[Simlasa]

So much for just about any action movie ever...

James Bond does 15-20 stupid things per movie - and survives

Indiana Jones, The Man With No Name, even Luke Skywalker are all dead as Ceasar within the first half hour of your game...

I'm not saying it always has to be cinematic, but is the story about 'YOUR GAME', or is it about the heroes in the story?

For us it's neither, it's about all of us having a good time playing out the sorts of stories we like...