Why is BRP not that popular?

[RMS]

Originally Posted by badcat

Ouch! That is expensive.

I have my own back ups in place. Primarily I use Luck rolls quite a bit. As in, PC fails the Climb roll half way up a hundred foot cliff. They get a Luck roll to see if there is a handy root, then another Climb roll to see if they succeed in saving themselves from a fall. It has always seemed satisfactory to me.

I use Luck rolls too. The point of POW would come into play if POW failed. Btw, I usually go with a failed climb roll representing someone not making any progress, not a fall. (I thought that was the actual rules as written, but I admit to having a hard time keeping track which rules come from which incarnations of BRP and which are straight houserules.)

The players are usually happy with the way I run my game; as long as they have a fair chance to survive/get away/win. It makes for fun gaming and a big sigh of relief over a favorite character when they make it. I do fudge rolls when fate just seems too cruel, as well.

Same here. I mentioned earlier having a 7 year campaign that includes two PCs that have been around since the beginning. That's with no special hero points, etc. though does include standard Gloranthan DI, which has been used a fair number of times. My players play it smart, use discretion on when violence is the best option, and set the odds highly in their favor before using violence.

When a player does something insane or foolish I kill them quickly and with great glee, too. An early RQ2 game, I think it was Balastor's Barracks, there were some gargoyles who liked to attack by dropping rocks on the PCs' heads...is that the right one?...and one of the players insisted on staying out in the open and firing her bow at the gargoyles. You can guess what happened to her head location, and I didn't feel at all bad about it.

I don't have my players doing much foolish these days. When it does appear to happen, I know it's generally because of a failed communication so stop and make sure we're all on the same page. Their biggest threat comes from someone else getting the drop on them, and that's part of living in a dangerous world and being movers and shakers in the world (at this point). Actually one went down recently when they were ambushed by someone with a grudge. A DI by his allied spirit saved him.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by badcat

I like the re-roll on the stats. Is that once per character rolled up or once for each stat? I think I might use it.

Once per stat. Also, if the stats flat out suck, I allow the player to start from scratch, or add a few strategic points. I want characters that are fun to play. I like realistic/gritty/deadly, but I like to play in the environment with the equivalent of special forces type characters: good starting experience and average stats notably above the average stats of the population at large.

[badcat]

I'm with you on that, my usual method is roll 3D6 in order and get x points to distribute. I like the players to be competent skill-wise from the start too. One of the few things I liked about MRQ was the character generation.

[badcat]

Yes, I use the 'fail to progress' first as well. Forgot that part. Multiple redundancy can be a life saver.

The gargoyle thing was very early; my players learned to be smart, ambush, and use missile weapons when possible and smart tactics always. As Enpeze has said many times, that is one of the main things that makes BRP games so much more fun than some, in our opinion, that is. You have to PLAY.

[Simlasa]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Why shouldn't they? If you ask someone why they don't play the game, you should expect they'll tell you their reasons; that you don't like their reasons is no reason for them not to be honest about it.

I'm fine with people not wanting to play BRP.
It's the people who want to make fundamental changes to it that I have issues with... because it always comes up that they want it to be like some other game... a game that, if they like it that much, they ought to be playing rather than bitching at BRP.
Optional rules are fine but don't shove stuff like disads/ads and fate points into the core rules... that's all I'm saying.

... and luck rolls do seem like they serve the purpose quite well and don't mess up the 'immersion'.

[badcat]

Ditto, that's how I feel too. Let BRP be BRP.

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

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.

The trouble with games without GMs is that sooner or later they will meet someone who isn't part of the party or a player character and they need someone who is independant to take control of that character. That's what a GM is for, to play the parts of all the other people in the world.

Railroading has its part to play in a game, but can be counter-productive. Players often like their freedom to choose what they can do in a game. They want to go off and kill the chap who insulted them in a bar. They want to court the woman they met in a random encounter. They want to set up a caravan to trade with a nearby town. All well and good.

However, it can be taken to extremes. I've been in several games where the players have complained that they have been forced to do scenario after scenario with no input into the game. When given the choice and asked "OK, what do you want to do?" invariably, the result is a lot of slack-jaws and faffing about as they desperately struggle to decide anything.

Having said that, I've played in a number of scenarios where the players have boycotted certain parts of the scenarios. I've also had memorable scenarios where the players have dictated the scenario, what happened, where they went and what they did, with the GM following along like a lost puppy.

A GM has his place and can be very useful in directing a game, controlling what happens and speeding the game up. But, there are times where the GM can sit back and let the PCs fight amongst themselves, plot amongst themselves and have a good session with minimal GM input.

Originally Posted by Simlasa

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).

I played The Pool once and it was terrible. I couldn't get into it at all. I've also played narrative games where there was very little dice-rolling and I didn't like them much. I liken them to the games we used to play when we were little - "make believe" games - where my brothers and I would tell a story with characters who did things in the story. All very nice, but no substance.

Sometimes you need risk, danger and threats to make a game exciting.

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by badcat

I have my own back ups in place. Primarily I use Luck rolls quite a bit. As in, PC fails the Climb roll half way up a hundred foot cliff. They get a Luck roll to see if there is a handy root, then another Climb roll to see if they succeed in saving themselves from a fall. It has always seemed satisfactory to me.

Luck Rolls are useful in a last-ditch situation. But, we use Hero Points as well to enable the players to take control of their PCs' lives.

One example we had last week used both Luck Rolls and Hero Points. A Storm Bull went into a room containing a Basilisk. He failed his Sense Chaos and used a Hero Point to reroll it after a bit of hinting, but failed again. He then failed a Scan to see the basilisk, failed a Listen to hear it, failed a Luck Roll to spot it before it glared and then his POW was overcome by the low-POW basilisk, so he used another Hero Point to make the basilisk reroll the POW vs POW roll. None of it was his fault, he just failed 5 skills that were between 60% and 70%.

Originally Posted by badcat

The players are usually happy with the way I run my game; as long as they have a fair chance to survive/get away/win. It makes for fun gaming and a big sigh of relief over a favorite character when they make it. I do fudge rolls when fate just seems too cruel, as well.

I never fudge dice rolls, but I try to give PCs the chance to get out of problems themselves.

The same PC (he is unlucky) fought the Avatar of Chaos in the Eternal Battle and failed his parry, used a hero point, failed again and had his abdomen ripped out, but a good DI to Storm Bull fixed that one .....

Originally Posted by badcat

When a player does something insane or foolish I kill them quickly and with great glee, too. An early RQ2 game, I think it was Balastor's Barracks, there were some gargoyles who liked to attack by dropping rocks on the PCs' heads...is that the right one?...and one of the players insisted on staying out in the open and firing her bow at the gargoyles. You can guess what happened to her head location, and I didn't feel at all bad about it.

Well, that's just tough. A PC almost put the skull of a chaos hero on her head as a helmet, despite warnings that it had residual POW and sensed as chaotic. Had she done so, she would have been possessed and the player would have lost his PC until something cured her. Some things just happen.

[Trifletraxor]

As long as hero points (fate points?) are not part of the default system, it's fine by me. I do enjoy having my players fear for their characters lives though. And my own character when I play. It makes the game more exciting for me at least. The characters usually get more and more carefull the older they get. One of my players actually stopped playing with a certain character in fear of it dying.

SGL.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by RMS

I'd wager money that the most played RQ published adventure is Apple Lane and that's part of the charm of Rainbow Mounds: an Eurmal's Crumb and all the associate random fun that goes with it. It's also a payment in the Munchrooms adventure. Pretty much every old school RQ campaign will have a character or two who got lucky enough to get the POW gain from an Eurmal's crumb. (That's in addition to ones who gained other stats, took damage, or outright died from it: very old school!) Just like every one of those campaigns has a character or two with the 2AP skin from slaying the Lizard Mother in the Rainbow Mounds.

Again, not in my experience, but then, I rarely have seen anyone who uses published adventures at all (and that's not counting the non-Gloranthan campaigns where its largely moot).