Q&A's with the new BRP author version 2.0

[badcat]

OK, then, I assume it is now supposed to be the accepted way to do things. My disinclination to join in grows.

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by badcat

Just out of curiousity, is there a conflict mechanic other than the clunky opposed roll method described elsewhere?

As has been said a couple of times on this and other threads, there's the default one that is core to the system, and a number of alternate, optional methods.

[juhanfg]

New question:

Do you know if there are any translations planned. Particularly, do you know if there is a Spanish translation planned?

I've lived for many years in the UK so I don't mind, but I know my players would prefer a Spanish version.

J

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by juhanfg

Do you know if there are any translations planned. Particularly, do you know if there is a Spanish translation planned?

I have no idea.

I suspect that it would depend on Chaosium finding an interested publishing partner willing to do the translation.

[badcat]

I was just asking which was default, and am very aware of previous posts. Never mind, though, wouldn't want to bother you. Again.

[Lord Twig]

Originally Posted by badcat

OK, then, I assume it is now supposed to be the accepted way to do things. My disinclination to join in grows.

Originally Posted by badcat

I was just asking which was default, and am very aware of previous posts. Never mind, though, wouldn't want to bother you. Again.

For the record, there is an option to divide the skills by 5 and then use the Resistance table. One skill would have to be declared "passive" and the owner of the "active" skill would roll to determine success or failure.

I am somewhat confused by your attitude badcat. Are you saying that if the BRP rulebook, by chance, just happened to do things exactly the way that you do in your game you would buy the game? But since it doesn't you are not?

[Joseph Paul]

Jason,
Since there are core defaults for BRP mechanics do you have an idea of what the standard for supplements will be, particularly in regards to NPCs?
For example if the combat default is general HP and uses the major wound table is Chaosium going to want to see that in an adventure rather than Hit locations?

Personally I think that defaulting to the more complex write up is a service to the GM in that it is easy to cut things down and tedious to bring them up to a more complex level.

How are you handling Interplanetary right now?

Regards,

[Trifletraxor]

Originally Posted by badcat

OK, then, I assume it is now supposed to be the accepted way to do things. My disinclination to join in grows.

The opposed roll is not much of a problem, as it's not that often used, and there's nothing stopping you from using your preferred method, unless you really don't like houseruling. Personally, I'll either go with the RQ:AiG-like method or maybe the highest roll (though I think maybe my players would complain about that one).

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

Jason,
Since there are core defaults for BRP mechanics do you have an idea of what the standard for supplements will be, particularly in regards to NPCs?
For example if the combat default is general HP and uses the major wound table is Chaosium going to want to see that in an adventure rather than Hit locations?

This is a good and important question. If general hit points only appears in the supplements, the GM will have to do a lot of work if using hit locations. I'm also interested in hearing how you handle Interplanetary in this respect.

SGL:

[Shaira]

My gut feeling on producing supplements, adventures, etc, for BRP is that they should take into account some of the optional rules for usability, but in general they should stick to the core rules for brevity - I still remember with a bit of a shiver the pages and pages of creature statistics all with marginally different hit location stats... oooohhh... Pity the poor trees!

So, for example: in an adventure, opponent stats would be presented in line without hit location / strike rank / etc stats. However, if a new creature was being presented (ie a "new creature description" rather than a simple stat block for an inline monster), then hit location should be addressed. Note that this could simply say something like "Hit locations are figured as for a standard quadruped"; you'd only need to point out the actual hit locations if the body form of the creature was not included in the BRP rules (9 legged 2-headed chaos monster, anyone?) Strike ranks aren't so crucial - GMs can always derive these from the existing rules.

Benchmarking starts to get a bit more tricky when you get to magic. Which system to you use? Again, my gut feeling is that magic systems for fantasy supplements will default to "setting specific" (so my own Chronicles of Future Earth campaign uses a modified MagicWorld system, and scenarios for it therefore assume that system), whereas "generic" fantasy adventures or critter sourcebooks will probably settle on a consensus, which IMHO may well end up being the MagicWorld-derived system due to its similarity to "other magic systems" out there.

Fundamentally, though, regarding the Core Powers systems, etc, I see nothing wrong with a brief paragraph at the start of any supplement or adventure just stating the assumed rules conventions - Traveller used to do something pretty similar in the early days, when Basic Traveller, Mercenary, High Guard, and Striker all coexisted. Referees will usually chop and change what they don't like anyway!

Sarah

[threedeesix]

I think generic adventures should for the most part use the core system with very little optional rules but, in the "Settings" chapter, it lists all the optional rules suggested to capture the feel of a particular genre. I think anyone designing adventures for a specific setting/genre should include as many of those as possible to maintain a consistent "feel" from one persons adventure to another.

For instance, the pulp setting suggests Total Hit Points (CON+SIZ), skills over 100%, fate points etc. If everyone writing pulp adventures stick with those then all pulp adventures will be compatible.

But the final decision should rest with each writer.

Rod