Why is BRP not that popular?

[Atgxtg]

I've seen a couple of good fixes to this.

1) Cap off the damage bonus equal to that of the weapon. So you can't have a troll getting a full 2d6 db with a dagger. Makes sense, but not quite right.

2) Damage beyond the weapon AP counts as damage to the weapon. The idea being that the weapon just wasn't built to habndle that sort of force. Probably the more sensible and realistic option. MEans that trolls and such would need heavier stronger weapons to pull off the massive damage results.

[Sorloc]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

Trying to change the rules to suit people, when there are already a lot of happy players just doesn't seem as likely to work out. It could easily alienate folks like me and not draw in any new blood at all.

They've already made a RuneQuest to try to suit everybody...
"I don't know the secret to success, but the secret to failure is trying to please everybody" -- Bill Cosby

====================================

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

killing yourself is felt to be a one in a million sort of thing and here it actually is! Which turns out to be a lot more often than people think meet..

Jason has informed us that BRPCore will have a 2% fumble mechanic. So only 54 men will lose their heads to their own hands!

Rolemaster has a neat mechanic where the fumble range is based on the weapon. Short, fixed weapons like clubs and shortswords have fumble ranges of 3%-5%, longer weapons have ranges of 3%-7%, depending on how many hands you have on it and its awkwardness, flexible weapons like flails and whips have ranges of 6%-9%. Natural weapons and really short weapons have a 2% fumble.
It does make sense to me that some weapons are more susceptible to fumbling than others - even for firearms, some are less reliable than others.

I would support a fumble range based on the weapon or weapon type, or a modifier due to the weapon.


=============================

Originally Posted by drohem

hehe...that's why we affectionately called the RQ rules as written as MainQuest, lol.

Someone strong enough could kill with just one punch. Although this is certainly possible in the RL, it is not a sure thing whereas in game mechanics it was almost certain against 'normals.'

Also, a strong person with a weapon was like a ginsu knife in combat. If they fumbled on themself, it was usually very bad.

Again, agruements could be made for the 'realism' or that the STR damage bonus is good and realistic.

However, myself and my group felt it silly and adjusted as needed.

Seriously, when role-playing a hero do you want him to be killed by a punch? Or that he is so strong that he maims or kills himself with a fumble?

We use subdual damage for certain attacks - one of 2 methods -
1) as in Champions, a max result on any die is 1 point of damage, but the total counts against your total HP and CON (for stun).
2) if damage exceeds 2x location HP (1x location HP for head, 2x total HP), you're knocked out, but not dead or maimed.

I never thought about the damage modifier, but I'm not much for 'monster mayhem'... I do see the point, though.
Perhaps damage from the damage mod roll over weapon AP goes against the weapon as damage to the weapon, but the total damage should still be used when calculating knockback.

[Trifletraxor]

"Why is BRP not that popular?" is the biggest thread here on the forum, but most of the topics in the thread is not directly related to the original topic.

Time to open some new threads?

(Looks like we're only bitching about d&d being bigger than brp. )

SGL.

[drohem]

Those are some great ideas.

After years of play, we heavily modified the rules. Our damage bonus modification was used in conjuction with other modifications that fall in line with those suggestions. We used a modified healing rate system. We used a modified weapon breakage rules. We modified the multiplier of damage necessary to severe or main a hit location based up weapon type.

After years of play, we felt that our modified damage bonus system was very workable. I mean high STR creatures still owned and were extremely dangerous. If you got bitten by a dragon, then you were more than likely to have something severed, LOL.

That is the beauty of the RQ and BRP systems- they were extremely robust and flexible. It was a great framework upon which you could reasonably add layers of detail if you so desired.

I also liked the Rolemaster and MERP varying critical chance based upon weapon type. Ahh, the good old days of chart-based role-playing, LOL! Rolemaster and MERP systems were the pinnacle of that era and style of role-playing.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

No the frequency of the severity is the problem. That sort of thing is so very rare even for weekend warriors that it makes for apocryphal tales.

Joseph Paul

In regards to missile weaponry at least, I wish that was only true, but "friendly fire" exists as a term for a reason.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Triff

Does that calculation assume 6000 men fighting constantly for 30 minutes (150 melee rounds)? That would never happen in a RQ battle, no fight lasts for 150 MR. It would probably not happen in a real world battle either, as quite some time would be used moving and not fighting. So I think that calculation is flawed.

Sverre.

One of the most noticeable flaws almost all games have is that they don't represent the reality of extended battles well; there's almost no reason to pause, manuever (often pointlessly) and do other things that are a constant element of real battles.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

That's funny, I've never played in a game that didn't have at least some house rules.. even if that just means ignoring some of the ones in the rulebook.

I did not use the word "significant" accidentally. To people who are bothered by such, introducing a hero point type mechanic into a game that doesn't have one is beyond what they'll often want to do with house rules.

What are we 'ignoring'? I am completely aware that SOME people like fate
points and ads disads and other stuff... but I don't, I want the OTHER game, the one without those things. Choice is good, right?

You probably aren't, but some people in this thread have acted like this _isn't_ one of the reasons its not a popular system, and I think they _are_ ignoring it, or trying to.

Though I guess, as a fan of an 'older system', I'm obviously unable to discern good rules from bad...

Please. Lose the chip.

If we go by the 'general tastes' of the hobby we'd also have to throw in levels and classes and alignments... the stuff RQ was such a revolution against in the first place.

Actually, unless _all_ you look at is WOTC and Palladium, there's little sign that's a general taste of the hobby. You have to look good and hard to find any other game made in the last 20 years that uses them.

Who said anything about 'only'... I'm just saying that trying to market the \

Again, you probably aren't; I'm just suggesting that people who think that exposure will magically increase the popularity of BRP games dramatically are likely living in a dream world.

Trying to change the rules to suit people, when there are already a lot of happy players just doesn't seem as likely to work out. It could easily alienate folks like me and not draw in any new blood at all.

That's always a risk, but the question you have to ask is if meeting halfway is worth it to you. If it isn't, it isn't.

[Simlasa]

'Meeting halfway', to me, is having options... which I'm fine with.

There was an interesting discussion of 'Drama Points' on RPG.net:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?...t=drama+points

[Simlasa]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Please. Lose the chip.

I thought I was just chucking your chip back at ya... heh


'Meeting halfway', to me, is having options... which I'm fine with.

There was an interesting discussion of 'Drama Points' on RPG.net:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?...t=drama+points

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

I thought I was just chucking your chip back at ya... heh

I'd suggest I'm not the one acting like having something like Drama Points is contaminating BRP; I won't say you've done that, but I'd take a look at Badcat's posts on the topic before you suggest I'm pulling it out of thin air.

'Meeting halfway', to me, is having options... which I'm fine with.

As am I. Again, I'm just suggesting that blowing off people who have problems with some aspects of the rules is not productive.

There was an interesting discussion of 'Drama Points' on RPG.net:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?...t=drama+points

I actually participated in that thread toward the very end. I do agree for some styles of play that hero point mechanics can sometimes be jarring; but then, immersive players are often the most bothered by unexpected character death or maiming, so its a trade-off.