WFRP Style Fate points in BRP?

[Simlasa]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Yes, I also worry about the lethality of BRP/RQ outside fantasy settings - i.e. without Divine Intervention, magical Healing/Resurrection etc.
So I have tried a sort-of Fate Points system, giving characters 1% Dodge per FP (that's all - they can't spend 'em on anything, so no re-rolls, resurrections or story-fiddling). I'm not entirely happy with it, but some mechanism like that (which doesn't refer to Holy/Magic powers - just "Luck") might help make such settings playable. Something like RQ2 Defence, perhaps?

This sounds to be in the realm of doable to me... it's not revisionist and merely addresses the fact that anyone who behaves that way and doesn't get dead must be a bit charmed in terms of luck.

And it leaves in place the possibility that you might still be heading for Boot Hill every time you reach for your gun.

Originally Posted by AikiGhost

Exactly, if you want a "Heroic" with a capital H game then Hero points are a good option to use. The clue is in the mechanic name

Which is why I still say it's a matter of taste. If I don't want 'Heroic' I can ignore the Hero points option...
I kinda don't give a crap about nitpicking historical accuracy either... I've chased my own tail over that sort of snark hunt too many times already.
Something in the general ball park is good enough for me.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I think it also has to do with the setting you are gaming in. For instance, some of us have been discussing using BRP for an Old West game. Problem is, weapon damagfes are high (actually too high) and there is no armor. So most fights will endup with someone dying after the second of third shot, with little in the way the can do for defense (Dodge is both low and limited).

A Hero Point option is one way around that. Otherwise the setting really isn't playable. You will simply end up loosing too many PCs.

I think BRP is not the right system for a Western game if you play it out of the box. At least not if this western game should be along the lines of some unrealistic genre movies. For such games I would suggest to double hitpoints for PCs. Should improve their survival rate. (not that I would be ever interested to play in such a heresy )

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Not really. Even with a low amount of gunfighting, the results don't change, just the frequency. Sooner or later weapons will be used, at least somewhat. Once that happens it is simply a case of mathematics. With no armor to speak of an no parry, and limited dodging, the casualty rate will be high. Much higher than it was historically.

You are right. The casuality rate was not high. But rather because there have not been many situations with duellists and gunfighting in high noon. The whole bloodthirsty genre is an invention of cheesy pulp mags and some clever Italians. So if you play a "western game" then you just copy cheap movies and comics but not how it really was to live in the 19th wild west.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

You are right. The casuality rate was not high. But rather because there have not been many situations with duellists and gunfighting in high noon. The whole bloodthirsty genre is an invention of cheesy pulp mags and some clever Italians. So if you play a "western game" then you just copy cheap movies and comics but not how it really was to live in the 19th wild west.

I grant you that the "shootout at noon" os mostly fiction. But at for the moetality rates of gunsdhots, that is also a fiction caused by the pulps, Hollywood, TV, etc.


THe information avaiable from real world shootings, both in the Old West and in the modrn era show that very few gunshots actually kill someone right away. Instant kills are limited to within the crtical hit % and most other deaths occur later. THat is actually one of the problems with shootouts. Unless you can severe the guys spine, he is going to have at least 10 seconds of so to act before he passes out from blood lost. And that is the "best case" scenario.

So if you want to play "how it really was" then you need to reduce the instant kill rates.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

So if you want to play "how it really was" then you need to reduce the instant kill rates.

Well if playing with hitlocations, instant kills are not that often. Except you hit a vital location, you dont die with one pistol shot. And if you hit a vital location there is a good chance that you dont die and only be out of action.

Another story is if play it without locations of course.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Well if playing with hitlocations, instant kills are not that often. Except you hit a vital location, you dont die with one pistol shot. And if you hit a vital location there is a good chance that you dont die and only be out of action.

Another story is if play it without locations of course.

Yup. That's why I was in the "hit locations make BRP Less deadly" camp. Even if someone is "gonna die" they usually have a few rounds where they can be saved through First Aid.

Of course Major Wounds will do the same sort of thing for BRP.

[Simlasa]

yeah, the number of instant kills for guns (outside of assasination/execution type situations) oughtta be low... with an aftermath of having to deal with the non-deadly wounds that might turn deadly if not tended to.

I'm cool with hit locations for helping that along... rather than blocking the blows with fate points.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Yup. That's why I was in the "hit locations make BRP Less deadly" camp. Even if someone is "gonna die" they usually have a few rounds where they can be saved through First Aid.

Of course Major Wounds will do the same sort of thing for BRP.

But my argumentation is based on the assumption that in order to play a cinematic western game you probably only need to double the amount of hitpoints for PCs to achieve the effect you want and not to introduce fate points while letting the hitpoints as they are.

Your argument was that lethality rate in wild west was historically not so high (indirectly saying the BRP is too deadly to be historically accurate) and that fate points would correct this problem. Which led me make the comment that this true but only because there have been not many duels in history and that the "western games" which your improvement suggestion is adressed to, are purely pulp and cinematic and thus not much historical. (indirectly saying that I think your assumption that a "western game" should be historically accurate by reducing the lethality of BRP is not right)

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

But my argumentation is based on the assumption that in order to play a cinematic western game you probably only need to double the amount of hitpoints for PCs to achieve the effect you want and not to introduce fate points while letting the hitpoints as they are.

The problem is that solution creates its own problems, and doesn't address the fact that even in a _non_ cinematic game there's problems here; almost any Western game is going to expect a shootout a time or two unless its completely noncombat oriented, and as I've noted in the past, BRP either is overly forgiving or unforgiving; there's not a lot of middle ground. Without either hit locations or some type of major wound system, its overly forgiving to single strikes/shots, which are often simply incapable of killing someone; with them, a single bit of bad luck and you're done. The lack of armor and paranormal healing in a setting inflates the latter enormously.

So unless people are really prepared for sudden death any time a combat starts with firearms (in fact, unless they expect it) this is going to be a problem even in avowedly non-cinematic games.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

But my argumentation is based on the assumption that in order to play a cinematic western game you probably only need to double the amount of hitpoints for PCs to achieve the effect you want and not to introduce fate points while letting the hitpoints as they are.

Your argument was that lethality rate in wild west was historically not so high (indirectly saying the BRP is too deadly to be historically accurate) and that fate points would correct this problem. Which led me make the comment that this true but only because there have been not many duels in history and that the "western games" which your improvement suggestion is adressed to, are purely pulp and cinematic and thus not much historical. (indirectly saying that I think your assumption that a "western game" should be historically accurate by reducing the lethality of BRP is not right)

It isn't that BRP is too deadly to be historically accurate, it is that BRP is killing people too quickly to be historically accurate. The majority of people who have died in battle, actually died after the battle. Relatively few drop dead on the spot.

And while there weren't that many "Western Shootouts" (the best count I've seen was 16, and there were some duels but they were a bit different), there is plenty of data available from the Civil War. Technically speaking gangrene killed more soldier than gunfire.


In BRP once a wound has been inflicted, damage rolled, and the effects applied that particular "injury" is over. The player doesn't have to worry about it coming back to haunt him. There is little chance for a delayed fatality. Basically in BRP if you can get someone to a Doctor, the wound wasn't lethal in the first place. There is a bunch of info on terminal wound ballistics and it all points to dispelling the myth that guns usually kill right away.

Based on real world data, especially with pistols. Instant kills are within the critical hit chance. Delayed kills, on the other hand are over 90%. That is, nearly any wound will kill you if you don't get it treated properly, the variable is really how long it takes to do so.