Why is BRP not that popular?

[Simlasa]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

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.

And why, again, won't luck rolls do pretty much the same thing?
Hero/fate points just seem like a metagame distraction to me, similar to gimmicky dice mechanics like 'flip flops'... maybe I'd like them better if their use was limited to before the damage is rolled.

Besides, unless the GM is a nut you're not playing 'against' him... and since fudging is assumed to be done in secret so how can that kill the sense of danger any more than heading into the 'big battle' with a fist full of hero points? I'm assuming the GM doesn't say, 'Ok, I'm gonna fudge that roll you just made...'

It's just a matter of taste I suppose... no right or wrong... leave them as thoroughly optional and I'm fine.

[badcat]

Having read through this discussion, I guess I will have to say 'no' to fate points, myself. The Luck roll seems enough to me as well. After all, when I am reading a good book there is a point of no return, someone in a fight doesn't get a second chance to hit better or whatever. When fate plays a hand (as grabbing a root to keep from falling on fumbled climb roll) the Luck roll mechanic covers the need to simulate random chance that 'saves the day'. No need for any more redundancy, IMO. There are other ways to simulate fate through regular play, without fate points, too. Sometimes the factor is already built into the rules, as with the random armor roll in Stormbringer. If you roll a low armor value vs. a good hit, well, that is fate...having too many ways to thwart negative results takes away too much of the excitement. One of the most thrilling and visceral parts of Stormbringer was never knowing if the armor would hold or not. Fate points would cetainly blunt that aspect of many rpgs.

[Sorloc]

I do both.
Or is it all three?

I have no problem with fudging rolls as a GM. After all, I'm setting the stage, aren't I? I'm the one who decides if there are 4 muggers in the alley or only 3, right? I decide what their chance to hit is don't I? I decide if they have daggers or battleaxes, right? So what if I fudge a roll? Hell, if I want the character dead, <pouf> you're dead. No, you don't know why - you're frikkin dead, and no longer care about the realm of mortals. NEXT! OK, you choked on your tongue. You got hit by a meteorite. You contracted a fatal disease a week ago, and it has just now taken effect.

I have this power, but I can't use it on a die roll? Shit, OK, I'll just assign a special GM modifier of, oh, hm, whateverthehellifeellike to the roll...

The only reason someone would fudge a roll is becuase they want the story to go a certain way; so you have to have faith in your GM that they are telling a story that will ultimately be satisfying to you.



We use Fate Points and Hero Points in our games (although we usually don't in RQ, we developed the system for RoleMaster, which gives more power to the dice than RQ does).

Fate Points are awarded for roleplaying, for showing up, for helping advance the plot, for other out-of-game or metagame activities.
A player will receive 0-3 Fate points per session, and they can only hold a maximum of 3.
A Fate Point forces a re-roll of the last roll.
A Fate point may be spent to block a Fate Point; and important NPCs may possess Fate Points.

Hero Points are awarded for truly heroic in-game actions - that is, selfless, 'heroic' acts. It has to be something the character either would not normally do, or would be detrimental to the character, or contrary to the character's best interests, yet is still the 'right thing to do'.
They are extremely hard to earn, and must be.
PCs will start the game with 1, there is no limit to how many they may bank.
A Hero Point may be spent to change the last roll made to either an '01' or '00'. example: Juliette's player learns that one of her students has contracted the plague and has failed their RR, and will die from the plague. Juliette spens a Hero Point, and the student recovers after a lengthy illness.
A Hero Point may be spent to block a Hero Point spent by someone else; and Villains possess 'Villain Points' for this purpose, and to use as Hero Points themselves.
Hero Points may also be spent to affect non-rolled events. example: Juliette needs to find a certain herb, she checks all the stores, but no one seems to have any. Her player spends a Hero Point, and someone remembers that a local wizard bought a bunch of it recently, and here's his address.

Obviously, it is crucial that these points are handed out sparingly, but having NPCs possess them levels the field, should I wish to exert that effort.

[Simlasa]

That's interesting Sorloc, I don't know that I've heard of people giving hero/fate points to the villains...
I can see that conversation coming up in a game... 'You're dead'... 'No I'm not, I use a hero point!'... 'Well, I use a hero point too then, so now you're dead again!'

[Aycorn]

Hmmmm ... I'm not familiar with the whole "fate point" or "hero point" thing, but it sounds suspiciously similar the old "Top Secret" "fortune points," which I always thought was kinda cool, and adopted into all my games since, hell `81 or so.

As I have used it, characters had a random number of points 1-10. The way they could be used was/is: IF the character was killed by a very narrow margin (i.e. a couple of hit points - it wouldn't work if you'd just gotten blown to smithereens in some way), you could get back just enough hit points to be alive (barely) if, and only if, you could give a convincing/compelling rationale as to HOW you managed to survive whatever happened ("the bullet actually hit my badge, reducing it's momentum" or some such). If you did, it cost you a "fortune point." Fortune points were not replenishable - once gone, they were gone for good and you didn't earn any extra in the course of the game.

There was only once that anyone ever invoked it. That was after his character blew a climb roll and fell a short distance. Since the climb wasn't relevant to the adventure anyway, I agreed,

Everyone I ever played with liked it.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

And why, again, won't luck rolls do pretty much the same thing?

Because LUCK rolls are an uncontrolled element (you can't be certain that a character CAN blow up the Death Star, defuse the a-bomb, etc.), a unimplemented one (I've never seen Luck rolls used to reduce damage from a sword hit. In BRP, LUCK rolls have generally been an afterthought), and an unlimited one (your LUCK roll never goes down. So if you got a POW of 19+ you can pretty much expect to make the roll).

Now if the difficulty of, say using LUCK kept going up everytime you used in during an adventure, like in EABA, then LUCK rolls could be used.

Originally Posted by Simlasa

Hero/fate points just seem like a metagame distraction to me, similar to gimmicky dice mechanics like 'flip flops'... maybe I'd like them better if their use was limited to before the damage is rolled.

THe do provide some nice advantages. A great example is with small groups. IN RQ/BRP the consequnces of failing a roll can be pretty severe. THe consequnces of fumbling are disaterous. Okay, unitl you do a little number crunching and realize that every PC is going to fumble eventually, and that said fumble isn't too far off in the future.

Originally Posted by Simlasa

Besides, unless the GM is a nut you're not playing 'against' him... and since fudging is assumed to be done in secret so how can that kill the sense of danger any more than heading into the 'big battle' with a fist full of hero points? I'm assuming the GM doesn't say, 'Ok, I'm gonna fudge that roll you just made...'

Easy. Lets say you have a group that is doing fine until Joe PC rolls a fumble, rolls bad on the funmble table and ends up cortically hitting his closest buddy and himself. With BRP is is impossible to "fudge" that without the Players knowing it.

It is the GM "fudging" for you that really sucks. Esepcially if he is secretive about it. I've seen it lead to players getting reckless (hey, a frontal assault worked the last time!) to arrogant (they knew the GM would save them). So the game got sutpider and stupider until eather the PCs become invincable, or the GM has enough, stops fudging, and has to deal with a bunch of confused players.

Originally Posted by Simlasa

It's just a matter of taste I suppose... no right or wrong... leave them as thoroughly optional and I'm fine.

Partially tastes, partially style or genre. For instance, my favorite implementation of Hero Points in the the James Bond RPG. In that game the points serve to allow PCs to pull off those longshot stunts that a James Bond type character should be able to do. Frankly,the game wouldn't have the right feel without them. Since the points are used up when spent, and not replenished (you have to earn more), it keeps the players from getting too cocky.


If I were going to incorporate Hero Points into BRP, the JB version would probably be the way I'd do it, since it bumps up the degree of success. 1 pt turns a miss into a hit, or a hit into a special success, etc. Very useful for shooting the villain who is about to nuke the city, even though you are a thousand yards away, hanging upside down from a helicopter, during a rainstorm, at night, with one broken arm. That's the sort of thing that a GM can't fudge.

[Simlasa]

So, again, it's a matter of taste/style... whatever you want to call it.

If you want cinematic heroics... sure I can see you might want them to be able to pull off movie-type stunts.. that or nerf all the skills and damage so James Bond is bulletproof and infallible.

But if you don't want cinematics? If you want something fairly believable? Then that 'inevitable fumble' seems fairly correct... you keep getting into swordfights and eventually you're gonna get hurt... probably badly.

I'm not all that big on GM fudging myself... but I still don't see it as any worse than letting the players fudge... which is what fate points are to me... and if it is used it's less distracting than the whole 'you're dead'... 'no I'm not' situation.

Seems to me the luck roll is easily modified by circumstance... or could even be used as an opposed roll of some sort... depending on the situation.

All this just convinces me more that they need to remain optional.

[Atgxtg]

The rpoblem with the inevitable fumble is that it comes up far too often one the dice than it should to be the realstic gaming you are talking about. If 1% or more of the airliners taking off fumbled every day, the FAA would shut the industy down.

Getting a fumble in combat is much more likely since you are making two skill rolls per round. Even at 1% fumble chance. Your typical 4 on 4 fight that lasts for four rounds is pressing its luck.

Oh, and as far a believability goes, the Bond RPG combat system is far more believable than BRP. It is also a lot more brutal.

Hero points are not layer fudging becuase they speficially have a mechanic that addresses their use, and restricts their number. Sort of like DI in RQ. GM fudiging has no such limits, and generally the better the GM, the less the need to fudge. So what happens is that the ones who do the fudging tend to be the ones who shouldn't, and then they overdo it.

[badcat]

Have to disagree with you on this one, Atgxtg. I find the BRP combat rules to be the most realistic/playable I have found. Note the slash...the two factors together are what make it so, to me. Although no doubt there are more realistic, as you say James Bond is, BRP (as the system stands) remains the most realistic within the limits of playability that I want from my games. The results of play simulate my favorite books and movies just fine, and that is what I want from my rpg system. Playability has the edge; I guess I am not much of a system monkey...no offense intended, of course.

[Sorloc]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

That's interesting Sorloc, I don't know that I've heard of people giving hero/fate points to the villains...
I can see that conversation coming up in a game... 'You're dead'... 'No I'm not, I use a hero point!'... 'Well, I use a hero point too then, so now you're dead again!'

Yes, I have twice seen a 'bidding war' occur, but it rarely goes far; and never with Hero Points - they're too hard to get in my game. With Fate points, however, players tend to be willing to burn them because they're effectively free (I've got some great players, when we play).
That's also the down side; my players aren't abusive, and there's no adversarial relationship between the GM and players, no matter who's GMing, so I don't really know what might happen using this method with, shall we say, 'more typical' players.

And yes, I give them to the villains. Maybe the big bad villain doesn't WANT to die from your thrown rock in your first encounter just because you rolled an '01'. Maybe he wants to see you roll again with your 12% thrown rock skill and get a more realistic result.
In my game, I try to make sure that the 'villain' is the hero of his story. Any decent villain should have a reason for doing what they do; and it's much better if that reason kind of makes sense - or is even a noble cause, just implemented in an 'evil' way.