WFRP Style Fate points in BRP?

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

In many ways the guns stuff is far more important story wise than the "critters' stuff. About 95% of the critters in the Old West, as anywhere else, have enough sense to stay clear of humans, and only attack when threated. I've got stats in the works for coyote's and bobcats, but they probably won't be needed much. More along the lines of sneaking onto the ranch after chickens or sheep.

Why? If you play a pulp western game, there should be hungry wolves, snakes and bears behind every second corner. No need to hide them.

I mean
preambel: riding through the town
scene 1: duel with 6 black hats (needless to say - hero wins),
interim: riding through the desert
scene 2: ambush of 6 hungry kojotes (of course hero kills them),
interim: riding to the ranch
scene 3: final shootout on the evil villains ranch (hero wins again killing 6 black hats, 1 bear hiding behind the corner plus 1 evil villain - but unfortunately hero receives a small wound from the evil villains Colt .45 Peacemaker MkIV/D7A superspecial - just to have a use for all the carefully researched gun data)
scene 4: rescue of the farmers daughter (of course she falls in love with hero)
interim: riding with girl into the sunset

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

No really. Historically you almost never saw someone carrying a "backup" sword. Generally weapons didn't break as opten as in RQ2. THat's why I prefer RQ3's AP ratings. Actually breaking a sword requires either a lot of abuse or a good vice.

As noted when I was arguing the other side of this, though, you can still lose it one way or another, and most people who care about that want something with a little more vigor than a dagger.


What I'm suggesting I guess is that getting into too much detail is, in practice, sort of pointless here. Among melee weapons there's at least some tradeoffs that can make people do some variation (at least once you're dealing with the whole impale/slash/bash business) but its not a coincidence that you pretty much have three sizes of sword in most versions of the game and that's it, because if you go much past that you have exactly the same problem; one or more never gets used except by the purists. With the limited number of traits that will be visible to a revolver in BRP, I'd have to assume _most_ of them would never get used.[/quote]


Actually just a few traits can make all the difference. For example the Bond BRP RPG uses 11 numbers to rate most guns, and it covers the various weapons rather well.

[/quote]

Sure. I was talking about the default way weapons are handled in BRP, where they tend to have damage, range and encumberance, and perhaps a set of attribute minimums.

Just by adding a Concealment and Draw modifers for BRP Old West I added something else to the mix besides damage, ammo, and range.

Though in a lot of campaigns the Concealment modifier would be semi-irrelevant.

The only games where I see people going with the big damage doers or most ammo are those where the other stats don't matter. Or where the players are

I'd argue that's a lot of games, though.

[/quote]

Most versions of BRP actually use at least 6 variations of the 'sword". Knife/Fighting Knife (Dagger)/Shortsword/Broadsword/Bastard Sword/Greatsword.

[/quote]

I can also count the number of times I've seen some of those used outside of Strength mimimum issues on one hand, too. Greatswords have the issue of the lack of shield, so they tend to be a specialists weapon, and people will occasionally get stuck using a regular knife because of the fact they have one for utility purposes and it just comes up, but in practice, which of the other four got used most of the time was almost entirely an issue of attribute minimums.

Then there is the saber, kurkri , rapier, and scimitar.

I can't say I ever saw most of those used in-game, either, barring cultural reasons.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Why? If you play a pulp western game, there should be hungry wolves, snakes and bears behind every second corner. No need to hide them.

Depends on how puply you want to make it. Plus there is the fact that most wild animals are no real threat. In an RPG you can only have the hero run out of ammo, drop his gun down a crevass, and such a handful of times before the players have had enough.

I'm also more into running animals and foes a bit more realstically. That is, I don't run them as kamakzi squads. So after a player shoots a coyote or two the rest should probably scatter.


But I'd also say that running a western game, the weapons would be just as important. Quite a few stories about someone having a seven shooter. Plus around the 1850s the differences between differnt designs were much more radical than is the case today.

For instance, today most military pistols are 9mm self loads, with some .45 self loads. In general the round fired determines most of the characteristics of the weapon that fires it. So, since most military pistols are chambered for similar ammo, and with the same expectations, so most details are similar.

Go back to the Old West and such was not the case. Most of the major innovations in the field were under patent. Military Pistols ranged from single shot muzzle loaders, to cap & ball revolvers, to pinfire revolvers, to paper catriges revolvers, to metallic cartridge revolvers. Plus a few more, all availaibe at the same time.

Parts were not interchangable, either. Many revolvers were sold with a spare cylinder so the weapon could be "reloaded" by changing the cylinder in a battle.


Relaoding most weapons was a slow, time consuming process.

Now run one of those "band of injuns attack the settlers" type western stories and see how the characterstics of the firearms would make a big difference.


Prior to the 1870s or so the settlers are going to have a hard time keeping enough weapons loaded to fend off those "injuns".

If it is 1875 or so, and the settlers have Winchester rifles, and a colt "peacemaker" or better yet a Smith & Wesson American reloading will be a breeze and the fight more one sided.

In fact, if you look at the expansion into the west, you will see that it was technology that tamed the Old West. Between the railroads, telegraph, and firearms, order was established.

Custer probably wound have won at Little Bighorn if he had waited for his gatling guns.

[Atgxtg]

Nightshade,

Well, the point with firaems is that they do come with tradeoffs. It is just those tradeoffs haven't been addressed in BRP much. Mostly becuase, as we've mentioned before, firearms have always been something of an afterthought to the games that have them. Superworld is a suerpheor RPG, Furture Wolrd was a high tech setting, and CoC isn't about gunfights as it is about unspeakable horror.


But other stats would help, and would be useful in a setting where firearms are a major factor in the combat. I could image CON and DRAW being very important stats for an espionage setting.

I'll agree that a lot of RPGs just have people grabbing the biggest damage dooers and marching on. D20 is a prime example. But in most cases that is because those RPGs focus on lots of fighting and tend to deemphasize everything other than damage. For instance in D&D, where characters can have 50-100 hit points, getting in the first shot with a pistol that does 2d6 isn't that important.

Liekse, given the nature of most D20 games, being cvaught with a conceal weapon doesn't come up much.

But in a less combat oriented campaign, it would be important. A pocket pistol that is fairly useless in a battle can be a lifesaver around the card table. Especially if the other people don't know that you've got it.



As for blades. Most of the players I've seen tended to go with the broadsword. Those who didn't mind loosing a shield went with the greatsword. The STR min was rarely an issue. Especially since RQ yets you get around the minimums with a penalty. So most players would take a slight penalty to use the broadsword.

The shortsword was popular with two weapon users, and the bastard sword was probably my personal favorite, although it didn't catch on with most other players.

The scimitar and rapier did get used in my groups. The kurkri never did, as it was a bit to culture specific.

Realsitically if the saber and such got a bonus from horseback, like they should, they'd have gotten more use with mounted characters.



Probably the best way to try and please everybody is to do up the stats, and then take some default weapons to be the standard pistol, rifle etc. That way those who want it have the details, and those who don't have generic weapons.

For instance, in a late western era, where the "Peacemaker" was the most popular pistol it makes sense to have it as the default pistol stats. Ditto for the Winchester rifle. Add in a pocket pistol/derringer, big game rifle, and a shotgun and you got enough for generic weapons.

For those who want the extra details, like a "frontier" instead of a "Peacemaker" to match the ammo of the Winchester, or those who want a Schofield for faster reloading time, it can still be there.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Depends on how puply you want to make it. Plus there is the fact that most wild animals are no real threat. In an RPG you can only have the hero run out of ammo, drop his gun down a crevass, and such a handful of times before the players have had enough.

I always thought, pulp is non-simulationistic. Its hero-centric and the story is bended around the hero. (to enable another story with the same hero in the next magazine) He has to survive or the reader (or player) is not satisfied. Even in not-so-pulpy westerns like tombstone there are scenes where the villain is able to fire at least 20 shots with 2 pistols without reloading. In italian pulp westerns the hero (or villain) is able to kill 1 person per second with one shot. How do one want to play such impossibilities out in the BRP rules? (I dont really understand why some people want to play these pulpy hero things, thus the question of "how" is only a theoretical one)

So the solution (also for the sake of a good roleplaying game) for this dilemma is to play a mix of pulp and simulation - as you seem to suggest in your post. For me the answer is clear. 80% simulation, 20% pulp. For others it may be the reverse.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Relaoding most weapons was a slow, time consuming process.

Now run one of those "band of injuns attack the settlers" type western stories and see how the characterstics of the firearms would make a big difference.


Prior to the 1870s or so the settlers are going to have a hard time keeping enough weapons loaded to fend off those "injuns".

I am not against detailed weapon data, especially if they are researched for a scenario which is focusing on those differences in ammo etc. (and having the right ammo at the right place is a matter of live and death) But I just do not see the necessity of detailed weapon data in a typical pulpy western scenario, where it is clear that the hero kills 6 black hats in 6 seconds with head shots. (right ammo or not...)

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Custer probably wound have won at Little Bighorn if he had waited for his gatling guns.

If Custer has been a pulp hero he would surely have won Little Bighorn - just with his bare fists.

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

...
The shortsword was popular with two weapon users, and the bastard sword was probably my personal favorite, although it didn't catch on with most other players.
...

Same for us.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

...
The scimitar and rapier did get used in my groups. The kurkri never did, as it was a bit to culture specific.
...

Same for scimitar and rapier (in RQIII). The kukri is considered the same as a kopi or a falchatta, and as such, saw usage.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

...
Realsitically if the saber and such got a bonus from horseback, like they should, they'd have gotten more use with mounted characters.
...

Agreed.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

So we might as well dump zombies and werewolves and evil medicine men into it... to liven it up a bit!

Heretic.

Prepare hot tar and feathers.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

I always thought, pulp is non-simulationistic. Its hero-centric and the story is bended around the hero. (to enable another story with the same hero in the next magazine) He has to survive or the reader (or player) is not satisfied. Even in not-so-pulpy westerns like tombstone there are scenes where the villain is able to fire at least 20 shots with 2 pistols without reloading. In italian pulp westerns the hero (or villain) is able to kill 1 person per second with one shot. How do one want to play such impossibilities out in the BRP rules? (I dont really understand why some people want to play these pulpy hero things, thus the question of "how" is only a theoretical one)

So the solution (also for the sake of a good roleplaying game) for this dilemma is to play a mix of pulp and simulation - as you seem to suggest in your post. For me the answer is clear. 80% simulation, 20% pulp. For others it may be the reverse.

Pretty much. Ideally the GM can "dial up" whatever level of realism or pulpiness, or TV or film to suit his desires. That's why I did up most of the Western stuff as options. For instance, historically the Quick Draw was pretty much a non issue. Hip shooters and fan-firers actually do tend to shot first, but don't hit anything. It's the ability to act calmly and take the time for a good shot, while in a fight, that spelled the difference between joe average and a successful gunfighter.

But the genre stresses the quick draw. So it's in there.

Likewise gun-spinning has no real place in a fight. It looks fancy, but will get you killed. The rifle reload thing might have some use, as would a border shift, but mostly it is just a good way to shoot yourself or an innocent bystander with your own gun. But its part of the TV and film Westerns up to the 1960s.

Originally Posted by Enpeze

I am not against detailed weapon data, especially if they are researched for a scenario which is focusing on those differences in ammo etc. (and having the right ammo at the right place is a matter of live and death) But I just do not see the necessity of detailed weapon data in a typical pulpy western scenario, where it is clear that the hero kills 6 black hats in 6 seconds with head shots. (right ammo or not...)

Yeah. But I don't think BRP is going to lean towards pulp. If I wanted to do a pulpy western, I'd probably go with Spirit of the Century. It's got about 90% of what is needed already, and the few things it is missing could be worked up pretty quickly.

Originally Posted by Enpeze

If Custer has been a pulp hero he would surely have won Little Bighorn - just with his bare fists.

Well yeah, the people he was fighting weren't white. THe pulps were rather racist. Not so much by conviction, just because any outsider makes for a good villain.


BTW, there is a distinction between Pulp, Film, and TV Westerns. Some overlap, too. So many of the "rules of the genre" depend on what version of the West you are going after.

The "Wild West" suffered in part because it was being fictionalized before it's demise. Much of the real West was obscured by the legend.

[soltakss]

Can we pull the Wild West stuff from this thread into another thread? It's interesting but hasn't got a lot to do with Fate Points.

[Atgxtg]

Sounds good. We sort of got sidetracked (my fault, I used the Western stuff for an example).