Player's Criticism: unsatisfied w/basic combat

[frogspawner]

I think y'all are being awful hard on a formerly enthusiastic BRP newbie. Mike844 and his group gave the system a playtest, had legitimate questions about the combat rules, and found that the "feel" of the system didn't meet their expectations. Instead of receiving encouragement and friendly advice from those experienced with the rules, he found himself being savaged when he dared to express his concerns. Not exactly a way to win friends and influence gamers on behalf of your beloved system, guys.

OK, my initial statement was a somewhat harsh judgement on Mike944's players (though not him). But I think the bulk of my response(s) were encouragement and friendly advice.

(And RosenMcStern's combat example, though perhaps not exactly 'friendly' in tone, was very good advice. PS: The End is Nigh! )

[Mike844]

No, Seneschal is right. Most of you came across as BRP Fanboys to me. The system is not flawless - no system is flawless. I was just hoping for some encouraging advise. Oh, and I'm technically not a newbie... played the original RQ & Elfquest, been playing CoC for over 20 years, and I was on the playtest for BRP for a couple months (with a different ID).

My question may seem like D&D players criticizing BRP - which, for some of them, it is - but it's a legitimate concern. If BRP wants a bigger piece of the pie, these are the sort of things we should be prepared for.

Well, if you and your players would prefer a "sliding" percentage to hit vs. a passive defense, here's a house rule I've used before - most recently for WFRP. I used it to experiment with the idea that the players could make most of the rolls in the game, freeing me to concentrate on story and narrative.

That is an interesting idea, Amra! The more I think about it, the more I like it actually. At the least, maybe use it for grunts to speed things up. Very nice!

[soltakss]

No, Seneschal is right. Most of you came across as BRP Fanboys to me.

I'm sorry about that - it wasn't my intention at all. I prefer RQ to BRP in any case.

The system is not flawless - no system is flawless. I was just hoping for some encouraging advise. Oh, and I'm technically not a newbie... played the original RQ & Elfquest, been playing CoC for over 20 years, and I was on the playtest for BRP for a couple months (with a different ID).

No, the system is not flawless. It all depends what is expected from a combat system.

Personally, I find combat pretty boring in most systems - that's why I like to try new tactics and techniques in combat, or avoid combat where possible.

My question may seem like D&D players criticizing BRP - which, for some of them, it is - but it's a legitimate concern. If BRP wants a bigger piece of the pie, these are the sort of things we should be prepared for.

It all boils down to how combat works.

In D&D you work out a target figure (based on your Level and equipment, your opponent's level/Hit Dice and equipment), roll a D20 and apply damage if necessary.

In BRP you work out a target figure (based on your skill, equipment and combat modifiers), roll D100 and apply damage if necessary but your opponent has a chance to react and counter some or all of the damage.

So, BRP has an extra step to combat but isn't that different to D&D, really. It can be slow (with evenly matched opponents) but can be very quick (with mismatched opponents).

[Nightshade]

While I do agree there was a certain amount of leaping at the bait, I have to admit I'm a bit boggled about Mike's players. There are any number of critiques of BRP style systems I can understand, but "sameness" is just pretty alien to me; it seems far less same-old-same-old than almost any version of D20, for example.

[vagabond]

No, Seneschal is right. Most of you came across as BRP Fanboys to me. The system is not flawless - no system is flawless. I was just hoping for some encouraging advise. Oh, and I'm technically not a newbie... played the original RQ & Elfquest, been playing CoC for over 20 years, and I was on the playtest for BRP for a couple months (with a different ID).

My question may seem like D&D players criticizing BRP - which, for some of them, it is - but it's a legitimate concern. If BRP wants a bigger piece of the pie, these are the sort of things we should be prepared for.

I agree no system is flawless, but this is very close to a strawman argument.

This is purely an issue of a group of players who are very familiar with one

style of play not understanding another style, and as a result, saying that

the other style is flawed. That is complete BS. My first two replies addressed

the issue and broke things down and showed how the system's standard

rules addressed the issue, as well as how some of the optional rules could

further "placate" the players.

The core issue is, in D&D, the defender is basically passive while in BRP the

defender is active. So, in D&D, the target roll is modified by the passive

defense (AC creates the target roll, and is affected by DEX and Size). Sure,

there are additional things the defender can do to create more modifiers, but

this is based upon the original passive concept (increasing HP also factor in

here a little) and affect the target roll. In BRP, the attack roll is generally

static, but can be modified by SIZ of target, yet the active defense can also

be modified by SIZ and DEX as well.

Even moreso, though, is the false issue that in BRP the target roll is always

static, when that specifically isn't the case. This was your complaint - the

players complained that it was always 70% to hit. And that was the result

of the GM not knowing that there were rules (standard and optional) that

explicitly addressed that complaint. So, while it may have sounded fanboyish,

the reality is we were pointing out that you missed the rules. You cannot

claim rules are flawed if you only use some of them. And, my reference to

your decision from RPG.net is pretty much exactly what you stated:

Thank you all for the great suggestions. My analyzing is over,

however, since I came home today to my wife having bought me the three

core 4E D&D books. She says I think too much, and need to just "do" - plus,

she wanted to try it. Already has her half elf paladin planned out. LOL

Really great input, though. If D&D doesn't work out, Savage Worlds looks like

it deserves a glance. I also wasn't familiar with the RQII option to modify

attack rolls.

Again, thank you all for taking the time to respond.

__________________

Mike C.

(emphasis mine)

-V

[kaddawang]

Another issue might be that while BRP is high in functionality, it is low in Oomph!.

And by Oomph!, I mean all the goodiness of HP, feats, levels, orderly character development, balance, godlike magical power, a multitude of setting books with nice pictures in them, neat dice mechanics(the last point doesn't apply to D&D, but to many other systems) etc.

When I sat down to create my first(and regretfully, only) RQ-character, I thought "what kind of stupid game is this?". Yes, I know, bring on the hurt. But I was young and stupid:o

[Thalaba]

No, Seneschal is right. Most of you came across as BRP Fanboys to me. The system is not flawless - no system is flawless. I was just hoping for some encouraging advise.

I don't think anybody claimed the system was flawless - only that combat in BRP is not boring just because the resolution mechanism is not what your players are used to.

Your wording in the first post suggested to me (and probably others) that you had never tried a combat:

Not enough variety in "target numbers" I guess - fine for skills, maybe a tad more repetitive during combat.")

and yet you requested "Fixes".

Your wording made it look like you had not really tried the system, and yet had decided it was broken and needed fixing. I'm sure to many people this came off as the height of arrogance. If you really wanted 'encouraging advice', you might have phrased your question in a less provocative manner.

...weapon specifics; armor specifics; hit locations; various results...my god, it gives me a wood just thinking about it.

If this means what I think it means, it's too much information!:shocked:

Thalaba

[RosenMcStern]

I was just hoping for some encouraging advise. Oh, and I'm technically not a newbie... played the original RQ & Elfquest, been playing CoC for over 20 years, and I was on the playtest for BRP for a couple months (with a different ID).

But, since you are not a newbie, what's your need for encouraging advice? Many members here do not have 20 years' experience with BRP-related systems. Shuldn't you be giving advice to them?

If BRP wants a bigger piece of the pie, these are the sort of things we should be prepared for.

Now this is good advice. It looks like you were more useful to us than we were to you.

[gevrin]

...late to the party I know.

Just to add I remember one of the first combats I ever GMed in RQ2.

My friend's character was attacked by a wolf in the woods (yes, just one). After a couple of wild swings and the wolf snarling a lot, he fumbled with the sword and it flew from his hand. The wolf launched itself at him, knocked him down and landed on his chest. The fight went on with the wolf trying to bite his throat and our hero, having snatched out a dagger, trying to stab it while the two of them rolled around in the mud. :eek:

Having started rpgs on D&D, we were breathless. All this happened according to the dice rolls within the rules! There was no GM invention (actually I'm not sure I knew how to back then). After the standard procession of D&D combats, this was a Road-to-Damascus moment for us.

All of the actions we encountered are there to be used in BRP. Boring?

Dave

Edited March 3, 2009 by gevrin
clarification

[Pete Nash]

My friend's character was attacked by a wolf in the woods (yes, just one). After a couple of wild swings and the wolf snarling a lot, he fumbled with the sword and it flew from his hand. The wolf launched itself at him, knocked him down and landed on his chest. The fight went on with the wolf trying to bite his throat and our hero, having snatched out a dagger, trying to stab it while the two of them rolled around in the mud. :eek:

Although when I rolled up my first RQ2 character I was having a hard time reconciling myself with the static HPs, it was precisely the same experience in my first combat which caused me to fall in love with the rules (along with the lovely story examples and the Grecian flavoured illustrations). Combat was brutal, and by the gods, damned exciting!

From that day on, no other RPG combat rules have ever given me the tactical flexibility, sense of danger and ease of use which RQ and its ilk have.

[cjbowser]

My friend's character was attacked by a wolf in the woods (yes, just one). After a couple of wild swings and the wolf snarling a lot, he fumbled with the sword and it flew from his hand. The wolf launched itself at him, knocked him down and landed on his chest. The fight went on with the wolf trying to bite his throat and our hero, having snatched out a dagger, trying to stab it while the two of them rolled around in the mud. :eek:

After combat like that, how can you not be hooked? Thinking about, my most memorable moment from my first BRP game (CoC) in this case, was also my first combat.

Facing off against a puissant sorcerer, my PI dives toward him to remove the sacrificial knife from his wizened grasp. At the exact same moment (dex rank), the neighborhood dilettante opens fire with her derringer. Needless to say, her bullet did enough damage to my head that it was lights out. It was dynamism like that in combat that hooked me...

...well, that and the fact that the player whose character shot at my character was my girlfriend...

[sdavies2720]

Just to add I remember one of the first combats I ever GMed in RQ2.

My friend's character was attacked by a wolf in the woods (yes, just one).

Some of my favorite early RQ combat memories involve wolves. I used a system where everyone could move a little every strike rank. At first the players had their characters stand and wait for the pack to come in and attack. That was until the wolves darted in, attacked from the rear, and dodged back before being bloodied. From that point on, the party started drawing into a tight circle with the weakest members in the center...

Brilliant!

[sdavies2720]

Another issue might be that while BRP is high in functionality, it is low in Oomph!.

This is a good point. I've only lost the interest of one player in the last 5 years (yeah, a little bragging there). His complaint was basically, "I've been playing this character for 6 months and I still have the same hit points. That's ridiculous."

And no, he didn't care that his parry and dodge had increased, that he had better armor, and was able to tackle toughter opponents.

[Mike844]

Unfortunately, most of my BRP combat experience over the past couple of decades has been CoC - where the simplicity and unbroken flow was more important.

"...then I give 'em both barrels!"

"It keeps coming"

"Eep"

I had hoped Fantasy combat could be as rewarding played as simple, but unfortunately maybe not. I hate to include too many optional rules, since simplicity is the selling point on the system for me. For a Fantasy game, however, it might be necessary.

[frogspawner]

Unfortunately, most of my BRP combat experience over the past couple of decades has been CoC - where the simplicity and unbroken flow was more important.

That's understandable then. It seems to me (an almost entirely external observer, mind) that in CoC the effect wanted from combat is either all or nothing - k.o. the humans but n.a. to monsters!

Fantasy needs a bit more detail. The various Spot Rules (big/little targets, combat situational modifers, whatever) aren't really optional. The GM should know them, but the players don't have to (not in detail, anyway). But they're not so difficult as to spoil BRP's simplicity too much, IMO.

D&D has lots of rules too - many more (and much less intuitive) than BRP, I reckon. Having been required to play D&D recently, we've been having to interrupt play and look things up far too often. BRP, once you have the basics (plus perhaps a little more for the GM), flows much better.

[islan]

Unfortunately, most of my BRP combat experience over the past couple of decades has been CoC - where the simplicity and unbroken flow was more important.

"...then I give 'em both barrels!"

"It keeps coming"

"Eep"

I had hoped Fantasy combat could be as rewarding played as simple, but unfortunately maybe not. I hate to include too many optional rules, since simplicity is the selling point on the system for me. For a Fantasy game, however, it might be necessary.

Strangely my experience was the exact opposite XD

I decided to run a horror game where the players didn't have much in the way of fighting skills, being average people. The result was them being frustrated that they couldn't shoot something that was right in front of them--even with the Easy condition, it would only bring the roll up to maybe 50%.

Right now I'm trying to get back into the system after that initial reaction.

PS: it also didn't help that it quickly became apparent that grappling the unspeakable monsters proved to be the most effective at dispatching them. I also couldn't readily interpret the grappling rules when it comes to grappling with something that has a totally different anatomy to your own.

[Thalaba]

"...then I give 'em both barrels!"

"It keeps coming"

"Eep"

Ha! That brings back memories. My first introduction to BRP was also through CoC and I seem to remember this happening a lot. It learned us a healthy regard for running away, which we later carried to RQ and WFRP. CoC also taught me that fumbles could be fun. I was once saved from a tentacled monster when a friend fumbled his attack on the tentacle and cut my leg off instead. When I tried to find a peg-leg to stand on in the desert, the GM ruled that the only thing suitable was one of those cactus rain sticks, so I made quite an entrance into the saloon. 80's gaming - gotta love it.

I had hoped Fantasy combat could be as rewarding played as simple, but unfortunately maybe not. I hate to include too many optional rules, since simplicity is the selling point on the system for me. For a Fantasy game, however, it might be necessary.

I've always believed flavour in combat can be acheived through mechanical crunch or clever description and interpretation of events (on a sliding scale). I'm not convinced one is universally simpler than the other - it probably depends on how each individual's mind works. I prefer the former, but many other's prefer the latter.

My players tell me that our BRP game with all the combat options in is not any slower to resolve than D&D4. You may not find that game to your group's taste either. I've noticed a lot of D&D grognards are abandoning 4th Ed after playing it for a while.

Maybe you could try the following option with BRP:

Use weapon categories instead of individual weapons (i.e. Swords, Axes, Maces, or even Slashing, Impaling,Crushing) as the skill. Use separate attack and parry skills. Then, in combat, have everyone roll d% and add the amount to their skill. Whoever is higher wins. You would have to figure out a different way of calculating fumbles/criticals, or ignore them altogether, but it would be an easy way to get the dice effect you want in the game. You could even round skills to the nearest 5% to keep the math easier. For opponents who are not actively parrying, give them a passive defence - say Dodge+50% - for attackers to overcome.

Thalaba

[vagabond]

Unfortunately, most of my BRP combat experience over the past couple of decades has been CoC - where the simplicity and unbroken flow was more important.

"...then I give 'em both barrels!"

"It keeps coming"

"Eep"

I had hoped Fantasy combat could be as rewarding played as simple, but unfortunately maybe not. I hate to include too many optional rules, since simplicity is the selling point on the system for me. For a Fantasy game, however, it might be necessary.

The thing is, as others have said, this is how CoC specifically is. Genrewise,

combat is much simpler (shotgun blasts, firing in a panic, etc.) - the

necessity of tactical combat is lessened as the horrors descend upon the

PCs. The nasties are supposed to be intimidating.

In a fantasy setting, the overwhelming fear and feeling of hopelessness is

not supposed to be there, so there are more tactical options - fighting

defensively, all out attack, higher ground, etc.

But, the main problem you and and your players had was not about tactical

decisions, nor really about the options. Again, target modifiers for SIZ are

part of the regular rules and are applied before the strike. DEX affects

when (and how often) one gets to strike. And, the optional use of stat

modifiers for attack and dodge (and optional separate parry) are all front

loaded and should not be applied during combat (if you use the options,

then either the GM should adjust the PC's foes beforehand, but need not

since most of the modifiers are pretty straight forward +/- less than 15%).

The system is still simple, the mods are done beforehand.

At one time I was fiddling with a rule where the attacker's roll set the target,

i.e. if the attacker had an 80% skill, and the defender had a 120% skill, and

the attacker rolled a 60, the defender had to roll 120% of 60 or 72 or less.

This favored higher skilled characters to some degree, yet allowed the

"active" character to set the bar. It also worked pretty well for crits and such,

assuming 20% crit for a simple example, if the attacker rolled a 12, the

defender needs a 14 or better (also a crit) to parry. However, knowing that the

crit range for the defender is 24 or less, a roll between 15 and 24, while normally

a crit for the parry, would be a partial success, and lower the attack to a normal

result instead of a crit. So, advantage is mostly to the higher skilled opponent,

but the aggressor gets some benefit by having the "active" action. This would also

work well for opposing skills. And, no ties. It also handles the 200%+ stuff from

Elric!/SB5 pretty well.

The downside is, of course, more math. I don't mind it since I can do it in my head,

but I could see how the math might become an issue.

Anyway, I guess I could write up this "opposed roll mechanic" and drop it in the wiki

if wanted. I have example and subrules to handle various levels of success, execptional

skill levels, etc.

-V

Edited March 4, 2009 by vagabond

[Nightshade]

Strangely my experience was the exact opposite XD

I decided to run a horror game where the players didn't have much in the way of fighting skills, being average people. The result was them being frustrated that they couldn't shoot something that was right in front of them--even with the Easy condition, it would only bring the roll up to maybe 50%.

Right now I'm trying to get back into the system after that initial reaction.

If there's one thing that BRP can sometimes take a hit on, its that it assumes a level of difficulty among the unexperienced--even fighting the unexperienced--that isn't clearly correct, and is certainly counter-intuitive.

[sdavies2720]

If there's one thing that BRP can sometimes take a hit on, its that it assumes a level of difficulty among the unexperienced--even fighting the unexperienced--that isn't clearly correct, and is certainly counter-intuitive.

I was surprised when I learned just how many bullets missed in a typical firefight -- most of them, even with experienced combatants.

So, you're right that it's "[not] clearly correct, and is certainly counter-intuitive" but I've come to realize that it is right, even if that's not clear to those who haven't examined it.

Steve

[sdavies2720]

One thing that I've found difficult about RQ/BRP as a GM is that it's very dependent on a few good rolls. My personal luck tends to be streaky -- most of an evening I'll roll poorly, then have about 10-15 minutes of blazingly good luck.

As a player, it's fun ("send Steve in, he's hot right now") but when I GM it's a problem: The players can wade into almost any situation until I start hitting, then they beat a full retreat and wait for 10-15 minutes of real time until my luck cools. :mad:

Steve

[Nightshade]

I was surprised when I learned just how many bullets missed in a typical firefight -- most of them, even with experienced combatants.

So, you're right that it's "[not] clearly correct, and is certainly counter-intuitive" but I've come to realize that it is right, even if that's not clear to those who haven't examined it.

Steve

That works to a point with firearms because the truth is that handguns are intrinsically inaccurate, and most of the times longarms are in use, they're being pointed vaguely in the direction of someone and used to make noise. Its far less clear it should apply to melee weapons, however.

Even with firearms, its unclear it should be the case when rates of fire such as often used in the game (i.e. one shot every 10-12 seconds) are being used; one reason so many shots are wasted in firefights is people are firing relatively rapidly.

But as an example, even for an untrained user, missing someone two times in three with a shotgun at relatively short (but not point blank ranges) when firing it only once every ten seconds is a bit odd.

Edited March 5, 2009 by Nightshade

[Amra]

That is an interesting idea, Amra! The more I think about it, the more I like it actually. At the least, maybe use it for grunts to speed things up. Very nice!

Thanks, I think it works well for games where I want to cut down on rolling. Mixing it up and using it when you want to speed up combat is a good idea too.

[Trifletraxor]

No, Seneschal is right. Most of you came across as BRP Fanboys to me.

But we are!

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

But we are!

SGL.

You maybe. I'm more of a RQ fanboy who'se slummin'.:D