Can BRP really do fantasy?

[Shaira]

Of all the BRP games I have played/GMed Superworld was the most disappointing as BRP does not cope with using powers imaginatively to cope with other powers.

Hi Simon,

I'm going to take you slightly out of context cos you make an interesting point - hope you don't mind.

With "old" BRP I'd definitely have agreed with you - power vs power or skill vs skill is a fairly plain affair. However, in the new rules you get three apparently small tweaks which have considerable effect on gameplay - namely the "Complimentary Skills", Cooperative Skill Rolls" and "Opposed Rolls" rules. In HeroQuest terms, these effectively give you Augments and Simple Contests (when you need them); add in the Skill Difficulty Levels (to which a level between Difficult and Impossible is absolutely crying out to be houseruled - a "Formidable" difficulty of 1/4 your skill) and the Personality Traits, Allegiance Rules, and Status Skill, and you have a suite of options which can take you a long way from the traditional "roll-under-your-skill-is-all" BRP approach.

I have a lot of respect for the HeroQuest skill system, and think it can provide some useful feedback into the BRP system - especially in the *mindset* you use when approaching the rules. I'm not houseruling at this stage, but am experimenting with the optional rules in the BRP book "in the spirit of" HeroQuest, just to see. As a simple example, you could use your Personality Trait "Brave 60%" or "Hate Lunars 75%", or your "Allegiance (Death Rune) 100%" to "compliment" your Greatsword Attack with a +12%, +15%, or +20% bonus. Or, three characters could each use their Etiquette (Heortling), Status (Colymar Tribe) and Intimidating Manner personality trait to "cooperate" with a fourth character's Persuade skill attempt. Suddenly things start to sound rather familiar...

Naturally this refers to skills, not powers. My game uses Sorcery as its principle power system, with psychic powers and mutations in the background. I'm eyeing the possibility of hooking the Complimentary, Cooperative, and Opposed Roll rules into the POW vs POW / PP vs PP rolls which power use generally requires, plus the psychic power "skill" percentages, again to see how it plays. If you're a Gloranthan BRP gamer, however, you could probably graft the HQ magic rules into this system fairly easily.

In some ways, although perhaps not quite as deliberately, the new BRP book is a little like the first appearance of HW/HQ, in that a lot of the implications of the rules (specially the optional ones) are not immediately obvious on the surface. As I'm playing the new rules, I'm getting the feeling that there's a substantially different game here than the "old" BRP we've been used to - although you can leave all the optional rules out and play old-style too, if you want to.

Anyhoo, just my two-pennorth.

Cheers,

Sarah

[Shaira]

Even with the spot rules, non-casters have a lot less to do in combat that is 'interesting' or mechanically effective, or represent any kind of special training or abilities for non-magic users. this isn't an issue for everyone, but for some, it is.

After reading some of the cool powers in 4e, I thought about gemming up something similar for BRP. Before I did this, I went through the BRP rules with a fine toothcomb to find out what - if anything - was already there in terms of tactical options.

What I found actually surprised me. There's a lot there. I ditched my plans to "4e-up" my BRP game, and concentrated on using the already existing options. It's not just spot rules, either. Unfortunately a lot of these rules are sprinkled throughout the text, but I think the very simple base of BRP skill system and combat can lull you into a straight "I attack then you parry" approach to combat, which is easy to get your head round, but eventually misses out on a lot of the sophistication that's in the rules. Here are my findings - excuse the relatively unedited mess they're in, I've been meaning to write them up into a small article but haven't had the time yet. Everything in the list is from the BRP book - they're "official" rules. Using these creatively makes combat much more fluid and dynamic.

*****

BRP TACTICAL COMBAT OPTIONS

I. COMBAT TURN SEQUENCE

Characters act in the following order:

• Missile Weapons

• Long Weapons (spears, lances, etc)

• Medium Weapons (swords, axes, etc)

• Short Weapons (daggers, unarmed, etc)

II. COMBAT ACTIONS

You may take the following Combat Actions in a combat round:

Attack: Move up to 5m and attack

Move and Attack: Move from 6-15m and attack at half your DEX Rank

Move and Attack: Move from 16-29m and attack at quarter your DEX Rank

Move Only: Move 30m

Engage in Combat: Move up to 5m and attack

Disengage from combat:

i.) Succeed in Knockback Attack, then a successful Dodge.

Ii.) Fighting Withdrawal: Succeed in all Parries / Dodges. You are then disengaged and may move up to 30m

Iii.) Desperate Withdrawal: turn and run. Attacker gets a free attack which may not be defended against.

Parry / Dodge: You may Parry or Dodge in addition to Attacking

Fight Defensively: Make no attacks, but gain an extra Dodge at full chance.

Speak

III. FATIGUE POINTS

For extended combats, or where characters are heavily encumbered or already fatigued (through injury, magic, etc), fighter fatigue becomes important.

• First, you have Fatigue Points: STR+CON. Costs 1FP per standard CR. Regain 1FP per 5CR.

• Negative FP = penalty to all skill, characteristic, and resistance rolls

• FP at negative STR+CON = totally fatigued, unable to act, probably unconscious (maybe Stamina Roll).

• [NEED TO CONFIRM EFFECT OF ENC ON FATIGUE]

IV. IMPLIED COMBAT ACTIONS

These rules are found throughout the BRP rulesbook. They involve a more cinematic style of combat.

Parrying Missile Weapons with Shields (p198): usually at Default Shield Parry chance; optional cinematic feat: (optional too: Successful Spot roll required): Shield Parry vs SIZ 0 missiles is Difficult; vs SIZ 1 missiles is Standard.

Dodging Missile Weapons (p198): usually a Difficult roll; GM may make this a Standard roll based on game genre

Parrying Missile Weapons with Weapons (p198): GM discretion for extraordinary feat or genre. Agility roll required; then, special or critical parry required.

Catch Missile Weapon (p198): special or critical Agility or Throw roll. On a normal success, the weapon is not caught, but the defender has avoided the attack. On failure, make a Luck roll to avoid being hit; Fumble means automatic hit.

Dying Blow (p199): character is Dying: successful Stamina roll allows a character to make one action at full skill level.

Speaking Final Words (p199): requires a Luck roll for each piece of info.

V. CIRCUMSTANTIAL MODIFIERS

The following modifiers apply to Missile Weapon Attacks:

Target Moving Fast: -50%

Difficult Vision:

Light shadows: -10%

Light fog: -25%

Darkness: skills are Difficult

Intense Darkness / Invisible Target: skills are POWx1% unless Difficult Idea or Luck roll

Target covered or partially concealed: skills are Difficult

Target prone at range greater than attacker's DEX/3 in meters: Difficult

VI. SPOT RULES FOR COMBAT

The following rules are all found in the Spot Rules chapter.

Aimed Attacks:

Taking More Time: For every 5 DEX ranks (or SR) delayed, add 10% of the skill rating as a bonus. Must happen in same CR. Up to double base range. If aiming at window, doorway, etc, max range is half base range.

Target Specific Area: Difficult.

In both cases, interruptions require Difficult Idea roll to maintain aim.

Aura Attack (p214): (maybe special "Feat Power") Average SIZ, POW, and APP to get AURA. Requires 1 full CR. Targets must resist AURA with INT. Failure means target is "mesmerized" for that CR - may defend but not attack. Fumble means target is "demoralized" and may surrender or flee - all actions are Difficult for that CR

Backstabs (p215): Attack is Easy. If target succeeds in a Difficult Listen or Sense roll, a Difficult Dodge or Parry roll is allowed.

Big and Little Targets (p215):

For every 10 SIZ of target above 30: +5% to hit

For every 1 SIZ of target below 5: -5% to hit

Close Combat (p219): need to sort out (but see Weapon Length below for a workable version)

Desperate Action (p220): at end of CR, make Difficult Agility roll to gain Desperate Action, which is a Difficult Action and costs double Fatigue Points. Forfeit any attack actions in the next CR.

Disarming (p221):

Grapple Disarm: need to be in Close Combat. Then successful Grapple attack: see Grapple skill

Attack Weapon Disarm: if attack is less than 1/2 attacker's skill, Disarm succeeds. Target may resist with a Difficult Effort roll. Special Disarm means Effort roll is STR x 1%; Critical Disarm disallows Effort roll. Disarm Attack may be Dodged, but not Parried.

Entangle Attack (p222): requires Entangling Weapon and a Difficult attack roll at 3m range. Success means target is Entangled (see p196).

Firing into Combat (p224):

Firing a missile weapon into combat: -20%

Firing a missile weapon whilst engaged in combat: Difficult, unless in Close Combat, when Standard

Any miss that is between modified chance and normal chance will hit a random target.

Firing willy-nilly at mass of closely packed targets: +5% per target packed together

Knockback (p225): Match damage done vs SIZ; success means 1m knockback per 5 damage above SIZ. Damage is also done: an Agility roll is required to remain standing.

Knockout Attack (p226): Only works against humans and humanoids. Difficult Attack roll; damage is rolled to determine potential for knockout. Armor defends. If subsequent rolled damage is equal to a Major Wound, knockout occurs for 1D10+10CR. If less than Major Wound, minimum damage is done.

Attacking While Running (p227): capped at Agility roll.

Attacking While Jumping (p227): capped at Jump roll.

Moving and throwing a weapon to the side (p227): Difficult

Moving and throwing a weapon behind (p227): Difficult and Agility roll.

Quick-Draw (p230): One combatant acts first. The other makes an Easy Spot roll; failure means the first combatant gets an Easy attack. Success means DEX vs DEX roll required by EACH participant; winner goes first. If both win (or fail), they both make an attack. Any Dodges or Parries are Difficult.

Stunning or Subduing (p232):

Grapple Stun: see the Grapple skill

Crushing Stun: see p195

Knockout Stun: see Knockout Attack

Stun Weapon Attack: match damage done vs target HP on resistance table - armor protects. Success means Stunned for CR equal to damage. If damage would reduce HP to 2 or less normally, target is Knocked-out and the Stun attack need not be rolled for.

Sweep Attack (p233): Easy Attack, but damage is halved. Cannot be Dodged; Jump roll avoids. STR vs Damage (before halving) resistance roll required in order to make Parry roll. Non-edged sweep attacks may cause Knockback.

Two Weapons (p233): Need to have 100%+ in both weapons to use at half each if ambidextrous of specially trained in 2-weapon fighting (Martial Arts Feat?) (otherwise secondary attack is Difficult - halved again). Second attack happens 5 DEX ranks later. [NB THIS SPOT RULE IS CONTRADICTORY - NEED TO REVIEW]

Volley Fire (p235): [THIS SPOT RULE SEEMS VAGUE. NEED TO REVIEW.]

Weapon Length (Long Weapons - p235): These rules are possibly more coherent than the Close Combat rules.

o Start in "Standard Combat"

o Long weapon user vs short / medium weapon user always attacks first in "Standard Combat"; short / medium weapon user can Dodge or Parry, but cannot attack AT ALL whilst in Standard Combat.

o If short / medium weapon user successfully Dodges the attack, he is then in Close Combat, and can attack. The long weapon user cannot then attack. End of CR

o Next CR (now in Close Combat), the short / medium weapon user goes first. The long weapon user can Dodge or Parry, but cannot attack. He must Dodge the attack or Disengage to be able to disengage from Close Combat (or can do another Close Combat action); if successful, the long weapon user is in Standard Combat again and can attack the same CR. End of CR.

*****

So, that's from the official rules.

The one thing missing from the above is the "Martial Arts" skill. This is something which is pretty huge when you look at it, including Weapons Schools, Legion Fighting Styles, the whole thing: if you want D&D3E feats or 4E powers, this is probably where they live. I've some ideas for drumming up some Fighting Schools using the Martial Arts rules, but have not got round to doing so yet.

Hopefully you can see that BRP isn't just "I attack you parry" - there's a lot of versatility in the rules. All being well when some BRP fanzines or magazines start to turn up, we can start writing some articles on how these rules can be used. There's a lot there already without having to houserule.

Cheers!

Sarah

[RosenMcStern]

However, in the new rules you get three apparently small tweaks which have considerable effect on gameplay - namely the "Complimentary Skills", Cooperative Skill Rolls" and "Opposed Rolls" rules. In HeroQuest terms, these effectively give you Augments and Simple Contests (when you need them)

....

I have a lot of respect for the HeroQuest skill system, and think it can provide some useful feedback into the BRP system - especially in the *mindset* you use when approaching the rules. I'm not houseruling at this stage, but am experimenting with the optional rules in the BRP book "in the spirit of" HeroQuest, just to see.

Thumbs up for Shaira here. I do agree with Simon that HeroQuest is probably the most suitable rule system for playing supers, but the new BRP has a lot of options that can be used to make it HQ-like if you wish. It is just a matter of knowing how to apply the rules.

There's a lot there already without having to houserule.

Again, I completely agree. The first time I took a BRP-based game in my hands I felt the urge to houserule a lot of things, but I later discovered that very little could not be accomplished by simply using the existing rules correctly.

[NickMiddleton]

...Hopefully you can see that BRP isn't just "I attack you parry" - there's a lot of versatility in the rules. All being well when some BRP fanzines or magazines start to turn up, we can start writing some articles on how these rules can be used.

If you write them now, we can put them in the fanzines...

There's a lot there already without having to houserule.

The thing that still gets me about BRP is that very often when I start thinking about how to reflect some detail properly in the game mechanics, I realsie that I don't need new rules, just to apply exisitng rules to the topic at hand - the extent to which actually BRP just copes is quite remarkable...

Nick

[Shaira]

If you write them now, we can put them in the fanzines...

Ooh! That sounds fun! :party:

Any ideas when you'll be putting something together? Is this the D100 fanzine thing? I'd be happy to submit some stuff if you think you can use it.

If you have any kind of wordcount expectation and timescale let me know!

Cheers,

Sarah

[slimyroleplaying]

Well, not really. Game balance is pretty much for pussies. If you can't live with the fact that your magician is better at drying opponents than you will ever be and that the thief can climb up a sheer wall and pick the pocket of a guard on the ramparts whereas your scout can only survive for days in the wilderness then tough.

Different PCs will be better at different things and this might seem unfair, in fact it might be unfair. Also tough.

My issue wasn't whether magic users should ever be better at magic than fighters, or whether thieves should be able to climb walls better than clerics, it was regarding a specific mention in the book about powered and non-powered characters in the same campaign.

Edited November 17, 2008 by slimyroleplaying

[RMS]

My issue wasn't whether magic users should ever be better at magic than fighters, or whether thieves should be able to climb walls better than clerics, it was regarding a specific mention in the book about powered and non-powered characters in the same campaign.

Having played a fair amount of SB1/3 straight and having an absolute blast doing it, I can attest that game balance is way overrated. There's nothing like rolling up a Nadsokorian beggar with a handful of diseases and reduced stats while someone else is rolling up a Pan Tangian Warrior/Priest and having fun playing the beggar to the hilt. (Also the pure fun of getting the character to survive and then retiring him as a virtual noble is fun.)

Seriously, I never understood all the fuss over game balance. It's a roleplaying game, not a competitive board game. Run with what you got and have fun with it. If you don't like it, run something else.

Greg was right FWIW.

[slimyroleplaying]

Once again, my question is simply one of degree.

Many game systems do not specifically mention unbalanced situations with regard to character creation, and I personally do not have a problem with D&D levels of difference between characters.

Soooo then, does BRP differ significanlty from other fantasy games in terms of balance?

Specifically: does it differ significantly

[pulpcitizen]

I think game balance is a bit of a false idea in rpgs in some ways, since it is dependent on so many variables. The only way to have true 'balance' is to have all protagonists and antagonists being precisely equal, ie identical: hardly a desirable choice.

Is a warrior as useful as a thief or a magic-user or whatever alternatives there are? The answers are specific to individual campaigns and gaming groups, and the unspoken meta-game they develop.

To anyone concerned about balance in an rpg (and no point build system achieves perfect balance either, in my view), I'd suggest to not get to hung up on it for surely to do so is to overlook some of the key points in playing a rpg in the first place.

[RMS]

If it wasn't clear, I was responding to the specific tangent of whether game balance is really that important, not about whether BRP is actually balanced. We had wandered away from the original topic a bit.

Soooo then, does BRP differ significanlty from other fantasy games in terms of balance?

Specifically: does it differ significantly

It is a toolkit game and will require some basic upfront work if you desire a specific balance between power types (including the lack of powers) that fits the world you want to run. However that's true of every game out there that's not specifically tied to a detailed published world.

Is D&D balanced? It's world specific and depends heavily on how available magic items are for characters and how available new spells are to magic using characters. I can completely shift the balance of power by shifting those premises. Run with no permanent magic items available and all spells available and there will be a different equilibrium point than if you run a world full of powerful magic items and has limited access to new magic for magic using characters.

BRP is no different. It's just more upfront about the fact that the balance will depend on the GM/world than on anything in the rules themselves.

BRP is also significantly different since it's primarily skills based. It's very easy to have a character completely lack any kind of traditional "power" be very effective and interesting so long as that character's niche is regularly brought into play. That is very GM dependent. A merchant can be a very fun character in a BRP game, but the merchant will almost always be far less "powerful" than a warrior or a combat mage. The aforementioned beggar was a very interesting character because the GM (and myself) put him in a position to be the center of attention at times - which is what I'd term balance. I've had several people run scholars in fantasy games with a lot of esoteric skills and no practical skills. Those characters are as balanced as anyone else since they got plenty of limelight time and had plenty to do in the game. Anyhow, that's just some ideas of how to think about balance that's probably more in line with how I think it should be discussed in terms of games. It should be about how much time the character gets to do his/her thing, not about how many things the character can kill in a short span of time, or how many total points of this or that one players character has compared to another players. (Yes, this is another tangent, but I did answer your question above. )

[Shaira]

AFAIK, D&D is the only rpg that's ever really made a hullaballoo about this vague thing called "game balance", and IMHO that's only because it obsesses about combat and had all kinds of unbalanced artifacts built in to the game system from day one (capping the max level of immortal elves, frex. Never figured what that was all about...).

Unless you're playing a miniatures board game in which the object is to kill things and take their stuff, and the person with the most stuff wins >:->, then game balance is pretty meaningless.

Having played BRP fantasy for 27 years, I can testify it handles the genre extremely well, everyone (who wants to) has a blast, and magic-specialists and combat-specialists ("powered and non-powered characters") rub shoulders with the best of them.

One thing worth bearing in mind about BRP; specialists win, generalists suck. Yes, you can create a character with 35% in greatsword, plate armor, and a raft of spells at 35%, 35% in climbing walls, hiding, dodging, spotting, speaking languages, the whole shebang. Then, the first time he meets a specialist worth his salt (Greatsword 75%, or Domination 75%, or Hide 75%), then he's toast, powers or no powers.

Does it differ from D&D in its approach to "game balance"? Yes, of course, especially with 4E, which IMHO hamstrings a perfectly good game in the name of "game balance". "Other fantasy games?" Dunno - name some. All the FRPs I have on my shelves don't give a damn about game balance - except one, and it shouts about it all the time.

IMHO, if your game is out of balance, and one player is hogging the limelight and everyone else is bored or struggling, it's the gm's fault, not the game.

I'm aware it's a topic very dear to the hearts of some, but I do think the entire concept belongs more in a game of monopoly than an RPG.

Cheers,

Sarah

[soltakss]

My issue wasn't whether magic users should ever be better at magic than fighters, or whether thieves should be able to climb walls better than clerics, it was regarding a specific mention in the book about powered and non-powered characters in the same campaign.

Sorry, I was answering a point by Shiba Homer, probably a point too far, really.

Your original post was a good question, actually.

[RMS]

I'm aware it's a topic very dear to the hearts of some, but I do think the entire concept belongs more in a game of monopoly than an RPG.

The top hat is where it's at. It always gets all the good bonuses and the best card drawings!

[slimyroleplaying]

Actually guys, you've been very helpful, and have given me a lot to think about.

I guess for me, my groups eventually made the shift to 3rd, then 3.5 -and some- to 4th edition D&D, so balance has always been an area of concern.

Especially when players started using feat books, and other d20 game aids that threw everything out of wack.

I've always been a 'hands off DM', in the sense that what I roll on a die is what I roll, and this has worked really well mainly because I've used purchased modules.

With BRP, I'm hesitant to give the book to players to make a character without worrying about the munchkin factor, especially after reading the game balance reference in the BRP book.

But that said, you guys have given me much to think about, so I'll give up on the purchased adventure idea for a time, and start writing my own stuff, which hopefully will tailor more to each specific character's needs.

Edited November 17, 2008 by slimyroleplaying

[pulpcitizen]

Actually guys, you've been very helpful, and have given me a lot to think about.

I guess for me, my groups eventually made the shift to 3rd, then 3.5 -and some- to 4th edition D&D, so balance has always been an area of concern.

Especially when players started using feat books, and other d20 game aids that threw everything out of wack.

I've always been a 'hands off DM', in the sense that what I roll on a die is what I roll, and this has worked really well mainly because I've used purchased modules.

With BRP, I'm hesitant to give the book to players to make a character without worrying over the munchkin factor, especially after reading the game balance reference in the BRP book.

But that said, you guys have given me much to think about, so I'll give up on the purchased adventure idea for a time, and start writing my own stuff, which hopefully will tailor more to each specific character's needs.

That sounds a good way to go. Even with the near limitless options of core and 3rd party feats in 3.0 D&D onwards, there is an argument that they were not all wholly and intrinsically balanced.

Writing your games to meet the needs of the group you have and the stories you'd like to teel is what is at the heart of rpgs for my money, so more power to you.

[Shaira]

Especially when players started using feat books, and other d20 game aids that threw everything out of wack.

That is actually a nightmare. Whenever I've played D&D, I've always required the splatbooks in use to be DM-approved. Otherwise it's just this whole munchkin juggernaut tearing the campaign apart...

I've always been a 'hands off DM', in the sense that what I roll on a die is what I roll, and this has worked really well mainly because I've used purchased modules.

With BRP, I'm hesitant to give the book to players to make a character without worrying about the munchkin factor, especially after reading the game balance reference in the BRP book.

But that said, you guys have given me much to think about, so I'll give up on the purchased adventure idea for a time, and start writing my own stuff, which hopefully will tailor more to each specific character's needs.

Go for it! One thing I'd say about BRP combat; always give your guys a way out, even if it's just "run away!". D&D et al tends to assume PCs will stand toe-to-toe and just slug it out until all the opposition are dead. Which is great fun, natch :thumb: BUT, it is a feature of the game, rather than RPGs in general. In BRP fantasy, things can go wrong very quickly - a few fumbles, the opponents critical at the wrong moment, and even your most powerful munchkin is left holding his innards in his shield-hand and hightailing it for the hills.

Because of that, combats don't need to be specifically "balanced to the death", as it were. Relative newbies can scout out powerful baddies and still have fun - just not in a full-frontal attack.

In terms of BRP published scenarios, there are some crackers out there, so treat yourself if you feel like it. I don't know whether you've ever played RuneQuest, but you could do a lot worse than buy the RuneQuest-2 campaign pack "Borderlands". Some of the magic may need swapping out with the new BRP magic systems, but the MRQ SRD is available online and you could use the magic systems from that pretty much as is. It's a helluva scenario pack even after umpteen years. The published Stormbringer scenarios tend to be very sorcerer-centric, as that's the genre, and if you're concerned about character occupation balance that could be an issue, but Borderlands, or even Griffin Mountain, are quite a treat.

BTW - if you're worried about giving the players the rulesbook, don't be. All you need to do is limit the combination of powers you're using in your initial game, just to get the hang of it. Say, use Sorcery, or Magic, and stick with just that. Things shouldn't get too unbalanced, and, hey, if you do have a minimaxing combat specialist, then one is always useful in every party!

Cheers,

Sarah

[The Venomous Pao]

Once again, my question is simply one of degree.

Many game systems do not specifically mention unbalanced situations with regard to character creation, and I personally do not have a problem with D&D levels of difference between characters.

Soooo then, does BRP differ significantly from other fantasy games in terms of balance?

Specifically: does it differ significantly

In my admittedly limited experience, no, it does not differ significantly. Using a skill-based, Power Point-draining magic system keeps things in line. I've not tried the Sorcery rules, but again, the PP-drain seems like it alone should be enough to keep the spell-slingers in check. Additionally, the simple requirement of having a 16 POW to use Sorcery in the first place is also a speed bump.

Putting aside the practice of examining the rules in a vacuum (which is, of course, useful) one should also consider the GM's game world effects on such things as well. For example, Sorcery in any world I run would only be available to characters of certain specific professions, which would also have their own limiting effects on such casters. Of course, this is all very situational and what works for me might not work for others.

In the end, I think if you are, as you state, ok with "D&D levels of difference between characters" then you'll be fine with BRP. I believe that the book makes note of possible unbalanced situations simply out of an honest desire to alert (but not alarm) the reader. Unfortunately, saying "Some snakes may be poisonous" sometimes comes across as "Holy crap! All snakes are poisonous!"

[The Venomous Pao]

The top hat is where it's at. It always gets all the good bonuses and the best card drawings!

Heretic! Everyone knows the race car is the way to go. The Top Hat is too dependent on social skills. Plus, the race car is always the beneficiary of GM Fiat

[Atgxtg]

That is actually a nightmare. Whenever I've played D&D, I've always required the splatbooks in use to be DM-approved. Otherwise it's just this whole munchkin juggernaut tearing the campaign apart...

Sarah

Oh, so true. I've experienced that nightmare. It killed both the setting and any pretensions of balance between the various prestige classes-specially between different interpretations of a particular class. So you end up seeing six differernt version of the Gladiator, Templar, Healer, or Swashbuckler.

[PK Games]

Oh, so true. I've experienced that nightmare. It killed both the setting and any pretensions of balance between the various prestige classes-specially between different interpretations of a particular class. So you end up seeing six differernt version of the Gladiator, Templar, Healer, or Swashbuckler.

I found that to be ok when I ran Farscape D20. Any class/race was allowed from any book, from any line. But they had to follow Farscape D20 general rules.

I also find that acceptable as it allows for pirates to be different and not the same everytime.

As far as a balanced party or rules, as long as you arent using point buys for everything then it should be quite balanced. If you make the points for spells/miracles and what not come out of skill points you will see fighters being better well rounded then wizards. Then add in a bit of that evil magic flavor from Cthulhu or Stormbringer and it is well balanced and fun.

Thats the great thing about BRP is you can do virtually anything and you have some very good examples out there to look at.

[sdavies2720]

...In BRP fantasy, things can go wrong very quickly - a few fumbles, the opponents critical at the wrong moment...

Is there ever a good time for the opponents to critical?

Kidding aside, the point is a good one. My campaign has been going a long time, so my regular players have gotten pretty good at reading encounters, or their luck, and talk or hightail it when they need to. New players, on the other hand, tend to think in D&D terms and slug it out.

I recently GMed encounter with a Giant--who was not particularly antagonistic---and the old hands were warily getting ready to chat him up, but one new player insisted on having his character charge the giant with sword raised. One swat, and he was down.

"Dat guy wit you?"

"Nope, not with us. Nope, never seen him before. He came out of nowhere. He looked crazy, thanks for saving us!"

Steve