Why is BRP not that popular?

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

There are plenty of games out there with 'cinematic' rules where the precious PC doesn't have to worry about getting wacked... but for me BRP is my game of choice for rules where the default is a reasonable likelihood of character death as a penalty for doing something stupid.
But then our group like games where you're not guaranteed the starring role... just for showing up.

There's no need to play the dozens on people who don't happen to like sudden death. Its not like doing everything right is a guarantee of survival (or even makes it exceptionally more likely) in some BRP sets; in RQ one critical hit from a longbow arrow in the wrong place was sufficient, and there could sometimes be next to nothing you could do about that. This is particularly true with lower powered characters where simply fighting someone with a shortspear had a relatively high risk of this sort of thing over the course of multiple combats.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

There's no need to play the dozens on people who don't happen to like sudden death. Its not like doing everything right is a guarantee of survival (or even makes it exceptionally more likely) in some BRP sets; in RQ one critical hit from a longbow arrow in the wrong place was sufficient, and there could sometimes be next to nothing you could do about that. This is particularly true with lower powered characters where simply fighting someone with a shortspear had a relatively high risk of this sort of thing over the course of multiple combats.

There is alot you can do against the "sudden death syndrome" like arrows in head or chest.
One (and maybe the best) of the things you can do is to evaluate if conflict can be solved in another way than getting in a fight. Another one is to put better armor on vital locations. Third you can do is to kill your enemy first.

In other more cinematic and forgiving systems a warrior has to pretend to live with one foot in his own grave. In RQ he really does. This I call authenticity and realism and it is one of the things I love in BRP. Its direct. A warrior kills fast and dies fast. If you want cinematic and unrealistic games, there are alot of other out there. No need to infest BRP with this game style. With some tweaking I am sure you can make even BRP somewhat more cinematic. (not that I would do that but its possible)

[Lord Twig]

One of the reasons why our characters did not die more than they did in our RQ game was because of hit locations. There was a good chance that you would be taken out by a limb being "functionally incapacitated" and be out of the fight. As long as your group won the combat in the end you would be healed up while the others would be captured or "put to the sword".

Another was admittedly a house rule where you made progressively tougher Con rolls when you were at 0 general HPs or less till you hit -10. At that point the Con roll was Conx0, which you of course failed automatically.

Failing either of those, or getting your head severed or something like that, there was always the Resurrection spell to fall back on. Although we had a couple Humakti who managed to make it to retirement without ever dying. Actually I think they might have been a little disappointed about that.

[Trifletraxor]

GM screens saves lives!

Sverre.

[Simlasa]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

There's no need to play the dozens on people who don't happen to like sudden death.

I'm not dogging people who like 'cinematic' games... I'm just saying the games I want to play aren't that way, and I'd rather people who like those games not come trying to tell me that BRP needs to be more forgiving in order to attract their attention.
I'm certain BRP can easily be made to be 'cinematic' but I'd never want that part of the core design.
That's all...
Whatever direction the current 'hipness pendulum' is swinging right now it's sure to swing the other way eventually.

[Lord Twig]

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

GM screens saves lives!

Sverre.

Indeed! I have heard people complain loudly about GM fudging, but I never understood it. For some reason it is okay for a system to fudge a dice roll by having points, but it is not okay for a system to fudge dice by saying, "GMs can fudge dice for cinematic effect if they wish".

To reiterate:

Random bandit rolls critical impale to the head of a hero with an arbalist.
GM: "Looks like a critical to the arm! You'll be out of it for a while."
This is BAD!

Random bandit rolls critical impale to the head of a hero with an arbalist.
GM: "Looks like you took a critical hit to the head. Your dead."
Player: "I spend a hero point so it hits the arm instead."
GM: "Okay, I guess it hits the arm."
This is GOOD! This is revolutionary! This is the future of RPGs everywhere!

[Simlasa]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

Indeed! I have heard people complain loudly about GM fudging, but I never understood it. For some reason it is okay for a system to fudge a dice roll by having points, but it is not okay for a system to fudge dice by saying, "GMs can fudge dice for cinematic effect if they wish".

I think the difference is in GM vs. player control of the outcome...
From what I've been reading lately in various forums there is a camp that is pushing for a move away from more traditional concepts of GM control... a dislike of GM 'fiat'... lots of talk against 'railroading'... lot's of goodspeak about games that give the players control of the story/setting/rules...
I've seen a fair number of people pushing the idea of games without GMs.

I've played storytelling games, like Once Upon A Time, that can do some of that sort of thing, but I think it takes the right mix of people.
It all reads good on paper but when I think back to a lot of the people I've played RPGs with I can't say I trust them to really use their creativity/fate points/drama dice for dramatic purposes... rather just to get their way (meaning not die and always be the coolznez).

[badcat]

I for one would rather not play at all than play with that 'camp'. That's that.

And I suppose it is why my game of choice is BRP, I don't want it changed for the benefit of aforesaid 'camp', and believe me most of all when I say I have no patience with them any more.

You might say me and anyone in the 'camp' ain't gonna be friends...

All that said (once) whoever wants to play a 'cinematic' rpg where anybody can do whatever and there is no risk/reward paradigm, have fun but don't expect me to be there, or even sympathetic to your choice.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

There is alot you can do against the "sudden death syndrome" like arrows in head or chest.
One (and maybe the best) of the things you can do is to evaluate if conflict can be solved in another way than getting in a fight. Another one is to put better armor on vital locations. Third you can do is to kill your enemy first.

Unless you avoid combat entirely--and that's an odd choice in most campaigns--that isn't always an option. Armor does nothing against RQ style crits. And as long as dice are involved, killing your enemy first is at least in part as dependent on luck as getting the damage in the first place.

In other more cinematic and forgiving systems a warrior has to pretend to live with one foot in his own grave. In RQ he really does. This I call authenticity and realism and it is one of the things I love in BRP. Its direct. A warrior kills

And that's fine, but most people _don't_ like that degree of hazard; its offputting. Now, you can always say "Play another game", but then no one should be wondering why BRP is a corner of the hobby.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

One of the reasons why our characters did not die more than they did in our RQ game was because of hit locations. There was a good chance that you would be taken out by a limb being "functionally incapacitated" and be out of the fight. As long as your group won the combat in the end you would be healed up while the others would be captured or "put to the sword".

Sure. But over the course of a campaign, its not hard to catch a head, chest or abdomen shot, and if that happens to be the crit (just about as likely as not), that's pretty much that in many cases.

Another was admittedly a house rule where you made progressively tougher Con rolls when you were at 0 general HPs or less till you hit -10. At that point the Con roll was Conx0, which you of course failed automatically.

And that's certainly an alternate approach to the hero point style mechanics, but I'd argue I'd rather have a core mechanic that isn't as forgiving and a limited bail-out mechanic in many cases.

Failing either of those, or getting your head severed or something like that, there was always the Resurrection spell to fall back on. Although we had a couple Humakti who managed to make it to retirement without ever dying. Actually I think they might have been a little disappointed about that.

Note that's not much help until one starts running into runic characters, though.