View Single Post
  #76 (permalink)  
Old January 27th, 2008
Jason Durall's Avatar
Jason Durall Jason Durall is offline
Author
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Paul View Post
And I have to admit that I am just guessing on some of them because I don’t have BRP0. But I do have what people have posted here and the fact that Jason wasn’t supposed to bring about any great changes so I feel safe in making some assumptions about some systems.
I'll admit to considerable frustration with the "I don't have it, but here's why it fails" opinions, so maybe you'll understand why I get peevish with the fact that the most vocal critics are those who don't seem to actually have copies of Edition Zero, or were hoping for RuneQuest 3.5 instead of the book that was solicited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Paul View Post
That would mean that the .22 still does 1d6 but can be fired 3 times a round. That lets you put 3d6 on an opponent in each round while the .45 only did a single shot of 1d10+2. Hmmm, which is the manstopper here? Had a GM that couldn't figure out that the game system was dictating unconventional choices.
Now give the foe 6 points of armor. Which weapon would you want to use against him?

Furthermore, an impale from the .22 does a max of 12 points of damage, which may or may not put someone down in one shot. Compare that to an impale from your .45, doing a max of 24 points of damage. Very few humans can survive that shot, even if armored.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Paul View Post
Atgxtg has pointed out that the AP for some of the tanks can be penetrated by firearms.
The vintage tank (from around 90 years ago) has 18 points of armor. The modern tank has 24.

Missing from the table is a footnote that special successes from hand weapons (longarms, etc.) do not affect vehicles, and that criticals only do at the gamemaster's discretion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Paul View Post
It speaks to the fact that the very foundation of the game is not set up to accept being played in a crunchy gearheaded manner.
You're correct.

Making BRP more crunchy was never a design goal. At no point did I think "You know, this needs to be more complex."

You've said you're unhappy with what you've heard about the game. You've made it clear that the direction of the game is not for you. From all indications, you don't seem like you're going to buy it.

At the risk of alienating a potential customer,why are you still posting on threads about the new BRP game?
__________________
1/420 ||| Rocket Séance (my blog)
Reply With Quote