Typos, Errata , Corrections, and Clarifications

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I don't understand why none of this was brought up during the playtesting. For an RPG that is nearly finished to have problems with the combat matrix, especially one based on a 30 year old game system puzzles me.

Did the playtesters just run the way they have for years and therefore didn't reference their rules and notice stuff like this? Typos, omissions, page references to non-existant pages, these I can understand. Not having Attack & Parry functional and simple I can't.

I've been swamped and haven't been able to jump in lately on this thread, but you've actually nailed the problem.

There were a lot of preconceived notions about how combat would work from existing BRP players (mostly from the RQ-centric player base), so I don't know if things got explained as clearly.

Also, the subtle changes in the system between the many variants of BRP are confusing how things are presented in the book vs. how they're ingrained in people's minds.

So right now I'm going through the whole combat chapter to ensure that it's as clearly worded as possible.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

I've been swamped and haven't been able to jump in lately on this thread, but you've actually nailed the problem.

There were a lot of preconceived notions about how combat would work from existing BRP players (mostly from the RQ-centric player base), so I don't know if things got explained as clearly.

Also, the subtle changes in the system between the many variants of BRP are confusing how things are presented in the book vs. how they're ingrained in people's minds.

So right now I'm going through the whole combat chapter to ensure that it's as clearly worded as possible.

Okay,

Not having a copy of zero, it can be a little hard to guesstimate just how severe the errors are. Having played most variation of BRP over the last 30 years, I figured I knew how it works, mostly, and got a little spooked when old standbys like Attack/Parry have problems. I know Elric's matrix had problems (I beleive the matrix contradicted the text, but would have to dig out my old copy) but all the other BRP variants worked.

But I could see how people who have run the game for years would probably run very smooth playtests just because they had all the rules in their head, and thus failed to use the book, and so missed some stuff. Especially those Gms who prefer a more trasnparent "rules-lite" approach.

I just hope that its nothing too serious. I'd hate to think the puppets lied to me.

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

But I could see how people who have run the game for years would probably run very smooth playtests just because they had all the rules in their head, and thus failed to use the book, and so missed some stuff.

My experience was that the playtesters unfamiliar with previous editions of BRP found it worked fine, while the longtime BRP partisans are noting the ambiguities or things that have never been particularly cut-and-dried.

A drawback of the project has been dealing with some issues that have house rules older than some of the potential player base...

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

A drawback of the project has been dealing with some issues that have house rules older than some of the potential player base...

That just has to be your signature!

[Lord Twig]

I look forward to the cleaned up text!

One thought I had, maybe combat shouldn't use the Opposed Roll rule exactly. Maybe just compare degrees of success and whoever wins wins (with the loser lowering the degree of success if he also succeeded on his roll, but lost). In a tie (Success vs. Success), it always goes to the defender, regardless of who rolled lowest or highest. This would mean that you don't have to compare rolls and would make it easier for people who decided to use one of the Opposed Roll variants.

Some people really don't like the Opposed Roll rules, so making them a standard part of combat could really sour them on the game. Just a thought!

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

Maybe just compare degrees of success and whoever wins wins (with the loser lowering the degree of success if he also succeeded on his roll, but lost). In a tie (Success vs. Success), it always goes to the defender, regardless of who rolled lowest or highest.

That's sort of how it's supposed to be working.

[Lord Twig]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

That's sort of how it's supposed to be working.

Cool! That would be similar to how it was done in the past as well. So that makes sense.

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by Shaira

Hi Jason,

Just wondered what you thought about the "Pox" spell on p132. This seems to be an extremely powerful spell as written - as indeed it was in SB5 also, to the extent that I've always houseruled it.

For the cost of 1PP, and after a PP vs PP resistance roll, the caster causes 1D6 PP "damage" to the target, and prevents the target from casting any sorcery spells for the duration of the spell. As far as I can see, the Duration is the caster's POW in combat rounds - a minimum of 16 combat rounds.

So at first glance this spell looks like it can take out a sorceror completely from a combat, at the cost of 1PP and a PP vs PP roll, whilst the caster can continue to cast sorcery without restriction. This also seems to have been the case when it was a Stormbringer spell!

Do you know if this is intentional, or am I missing some restriction that makes it less of a sorceror-stopper? When I've used this spell, I've always houseruled that the sorceror has a resistance roll each combat round to try and break the Pox, but as far as I know that's not actually how the spell is meant to be used.

Cheers,

Sarah

The spell should only have an effect during the combat round it's used (and I'll clarify it in the text).

For example, your character casts Pox (1) on some enemy. When the spell goes off, make a resistance roll. If the enemy loses the resistance roll, he loses 1D6 power points, and can't cast a spell for the remainder of the combat round.

You can choose to keep casting Pox each round to thwart the enemy (and if you keep winning, it's likely they'll run out of power points and fall unconscious). If the enemy goes before you in combat, delay your action until the next combat round.

[SDLeary]

In response to a post in another thread, I went looking for the Fate Points option, and ran into an issue in indexing that might point to more items that were dropped out of the edit. Of course, it could simply be indexing issues, but not having a previous edit to compare too.

Indexing: Fate Points (p373)

Points to references on pgs 32 and 176. There is no mention of Fate Points on p32 that I could see. There is a large call-out box there talking about Fatigue and Sanity. Perhaps a paragraph in that call-out with an option that included Fate??

Ironically, right after the previous issue...

Indexing: Fatigue Points (p373)

References pgs 12 and 21, which both do have Fatigue references. But p32 with the call-out box listed above is NOT referenced.

SDLeary

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by SDLeary

In response to a post in another thread, I went looking for the Fate Points option, and ran into an issue in indexing that might point to more items that were dropped out of the edit. Of course, it could simply be indexing issues, but not having a previous edit to compare too.

Indexing: Fate Points (p373)

Points to references on pgs 32 and 176. There is no mention of Fate Points on p32 that I could see. There is a large call-out box there talking about Fatigue and Sanity. Perhaps a paragraph in that call-out with an option that included Fate??

Ironically, right after the previous issue...

Indexing: Fatigue Points (p373)

References pgs 12 and 21, which both do have Fatigue references. But p32 with the call-out box listed above is NOT referenced.

SDLeary

I'll point out to Charlie that the index has some issues, but it's not something that can be fixed in a proofread.

Indexes are usually generated by the page layout software, or at least they should be.