Why is BRP not that popular?

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

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'.

And I don't generally have a problem with that, but I do think people who wonder why the game isn't more popular and then grumble when someone tells them are being disenginious. Its quite possible to like some aspects of the game and not like others; as an example, I still greatly admire RQ's transparency (how much what is being done mechanically seems to connect with what's going on in-game), lack of lockstepping, and many aspects of its combat system. I don't admire how much can turn on one, rather linear die roll (specifically how easy it is to get killed outright through, really, no fault of one's own except one bad die roll). As such its not a case where I want another game; I want this one with slightly different mechanics. And in the end, that's pretty much what _anybody_ with an issue with a game system they like wants.

[Lord Twig]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Simple, really. One's entirely arbitrary, one is systematic and regulated.

So which one is really more about storytelling and which is more about game mechanics? It just seems odd that games that bill themselves as "Storytelling" games need mechanics to make it cinematic, but they get down on a game that just says "Do what is dramatic!"

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Again, the latter is a systematic fix to the problem; the former is a brute force solution, much like constantly ignoring a rule because it doesn't do what you want it to.

So again we find that the "Storytelling" game adds a mechanic while BRP (and even D&D for that matter) rely on the GM to tell a story. And it is not ignoring a rule, it is following the "Dramatic License" rule. Just because the rule doesn't have numbers attached doesn't make it any less of a rule.

Of course we can flip things around...

Many games give out an arbitrary number of Experience Points based on how well the GM thought you played the game or how well you role-played. Once again this is seen as "Brilliant!" and "Encourages Role-Playing and not Roll-Playing". Whereas BRP's experience check, which are a lot less arbitrary encourages "Check hunting". Whatever.

Really I don't have anything against games with Hero points or whatever. I played a lot of ShadowRun with Karma Points and found it to be very enjoyable. I just don't see it as "better" than allowing for GM fudging.

[Lord Twig]

Originally Posted by soltakss

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%.

Yeah, I don't get it. Where's the danger? If you have that many chances to avoid death you might as well just not have put the basilisk in there at all.

Of course as long as everyone is having fun that's the important thing. But I know my players would actually get upset and insist that I just let the character die. They would feel cheated of the challenge.

These same players have no problem with GM fudging. They actually ran across a basilisk once and nobody spotted it. I rolled a Pow vs. Pow against one of the characters and succeeded. I fudged it and told the player, "You feel a magical attack against you." The characters stood looking around and basically doing nothing, so I rolled again and failed. Told the character he had been hit again. Again they didn't do anything, they stood around and talked about what it might be. Third time I failed again, looked at the player and said, "Your character just fell over dead." THAT got them into action.

After they realized that there was a basilisk there and they hacked it to pieces they all agreed that the death was well deserved.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

Yeah, I don't get it. Where's the danger? If you have that many chances to avoid death you might as well just not have put the basilisk in there at all.

Of course as long as everyone is having fun that's the important thing. But I know my players would actually get upset and insist that I just let the character die. They would feel cheated of the challenge.

My players too. I would never dare to give them so many chances. I mean "..your roll fail, your roll fail again, your roll fail again and again and again... But dont be worried, you have still some hero points, dont you?..."

People tend to forget that fate is a represented by random rolls in the game. If they exclude bad or good luck of random rolls they displease the gods of fate and the game is open to railroading.

Such an approach would be the antithesis of a challenging game for me and my group, sorry to say. But if soltakss players are happy with it, its ok for me.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

So which one is really more about storytelling and which is more about game mechanics? It just seems odd that games that bill themselves as "Storytelling" games need mechanics to make it cinematic, but they get down on a game that just says "Do what is dramatic!"

Because people typically want _both_; they want some control over the flow of the game, but don't want it to be completely arbitrary. Its not an either-or choice.

So again we find that the "Storytelling" game adds a mechanic while BRP (and even D&D for that matter) rely on the GM to tell a story. And it is not ignoring a rule, it is following the "Dramatic License" rule. Just because the rule doesn't have numbers attached doesn't make it any less of a rule.

Bah. That's a rule about like palming dice is a rule. The fact its an accepted part of gaming to many people doesn't make it a rule.

Of course we can flip things around...

Many games give out an arbitrary number of Experience Points based on how well the GM thought you played the game or how well you role-played. Once again this is seen as "Brilliant!" and "Encourages Role-Playing and not Roll-Playing". Whereas BRP's experience check, which are a lot less arbitrary encourages "Check hunting". Whatever.

If you're going to wait for me to champion carrot-and-stick experience systems, you've come to the wrong address.

Really I don't have anything against games with Hero points or whatever. I played a lot of ShadowRun with Karma Points and found it to be very enjoyable. I just don't see it as "better" than allowing for GM fudging.

I do, because I don't consider fudging a virtue. In fact, to me, its an indicator the game system isn't doing its job.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

My players too. I would never dare to give them so many chances. I mean "..your roll fail, your roll fail again, your roll fail again and again and again... But dont be worried, you have still some hero points, dont you?..."

But that's the point; hero points are usually a finite resource, so players can't be indefinitely blaise. When properly implimented, its much like using magic points; you want to use them when you need them, but save a few for dire necessity, but that doesn't ensure you'll never run out at a bad time. What it primarily does is make it likely that if something bad happens it will happen after ongoing play and at a more dramatic moment, rather than anticlimatically in a minor fight.

[Simlasa]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

But that's the point; hero points are usually a finite resource, so players can't be indefinitely blaise. When properly implimented, its much like using magic points; you want to use them when you need them, but save a few for dire necessity, but that doesn't ensure you'll never run out at a bad time. What it primarily does is make it likely that if something bad happens it will happen after ongoing play and at a more dramatic moment, rather than anticlimatically in a minor fight.

That's assuming proper implementation though... what mechanism is in place to ensure the player uses his fate points 'dramatically'... what's to ensure his idea of drama isn't just his character's survival at all costs?
If anything, I'd go with having fate points be unseen in the hands of the GM to bail the characters out at those fragile moments, kind of an 'official' fudge... since he probably has a better ideas of what's coming in their future and the import of various elements.
But then I also like the idea of players not knowing exactly how many hit points or how much damage they have taken. Fog of war and all that...

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

That's assuming proper implementation though... what mechanism is in place to ensure the player uses his fate points 'dramatically'... what's to ensure his idea of drama isn't just his character's survival at all costs?

Well, in some case that's okay; there are certainly games that operate on "script immunity", where the only time a character actually dies is when the player lets them. That said, beyond that if the hero points are primarily mechaniced so they minimize bad luck, the player simply can't prevent a sufficiently big problem or set of problems from doing them in. The simplest way is to limit them to one used per round; at that point if you've simply found yourself in an untenable situation, the fact you deal with the first problem in a round with a hero point won't stop the second from killing you. But it does eliminate the step-into-the-fight-and-get-killed-by-an-arrow situations.

If anything, I'd go with having fate points be unseen in the hands of the GM to bail the characters out at those fragile moments, kind of an 'official' fudge... since he probably has a better ideas of what's coming in their future and the import of various elements.

That's fine if you want to simply regulate GM fiat in this area, but I think that's putting the power in exactly the wrong place.

But then I also like the idea of players not knowing exactly how many hit points or how much damage they have taken. Fog of war and all that...

I find that sort of thing generally a little control freaky, to be honest.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

Really I don't have anything against games with Hero points or whatever. I played a lot of ShadowRun with Karma Points and found it to be very enjoyable. I just don't see it as "better" than allowing for GM fudging.

I see it as "better". The reasons why?

GM fudging is very arbitrary, by it's very nature. The GM decides what to FUDGE. Perhaps he will save a PC's life, perhaps not.

The problem is that since the GM has such power and authority over the campaign, fudging tends to give players the feeling that their success and failure have less to do with how they are playing, and more with how they impress or annoy the GM. Fudging can completely kill the sense of danger in a campaign, or make a campaign totally frustrating.

With some sort of "Hero Point" system, the plays still fell like they still have some sort of control over things, but that it is limited.

[Simlasa]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I find that sort of thing generally a little control freaky, to be honest.

I don't see how it's 'control freaky'... it just sets a certain mood. Works especially well for horror games. We saw it in the rules for Unknown Armies and tried it out and liked it... it takes some of the artificial feel of 'hit points' and replaces it with 'OW!!! That really hurts'.

Maybe it's just a matter of how much 'game' you want in your game. When I play (vs. GM) I like it to feel like a story, less like a wargame).