Comparative Systemology

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

Then, frankly you either weren't paying attention or wilfully misconstrued what was said. Chaosium (and Jason) have consistently said that (to continue the analogy) they were producing the best motorbike they'd ever done, based on all their previous motorbike designs. Certainly, the "high cargo capacity" configuration was going to learn some lessons from the pickup truck they had made and marketed twenty plus years ago - but the new product has always explicitly been a motorbike, not a pickup truck.

Well in that case, I'd say they failed.A "Generic" hybrid motorbike made with a bunch on incompatible parts, and missing some of components as well, is hardly the best.

I though the idea was for Chaosium to get an in-house system in publication besides Call of Cthulhu so they could possibly sell something to the 98% iof gamers who aren't H.P. Lovecraft fanatics.


[center]
BRP is entirely compatible with RQIII - pick the right set of optional rules and, bar a few skill category names and the contributing stats, it's mechanically indistinguishable. Add the BRP Magic Book monograph and it has the same magic systems as well. [/quote]

Not really. You would need to get that BRP monograph or RQ3 to make BRP compatible. Of course, if you are going to do that, do what Jason would do and just play RQ3.

Frankly if someone wants to play RQ3 they are better off digging up a used copy of RQ3 then trying to retrofit BRP to the task.

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by soltakss

BRP was presented originally as "Chaosium's Roleplaying System". A lot of people think that RQ is Chaosium's Roleplaying System and that other BRP games are just derivations of RQ.

Yes, sure, BRP, RQ3 and RQM are all different games, as are Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer.

Would you expect to be able to use BRP to play Call of Cthulhu easily?

How about Stormbringer? Could you use BRP to play that?

One of the aims of BRP was to have a single generic ruleset to play in all the Chaosium games (I think).

Why not expand this to include RQ, the granddaddy of BRP?

We now have at least 3 good versions of BRP/RQ out there - RQ3, RQM and BRP. All are different but all are sort-of compatible. Us old folks would have liked them all to be a bit more compatible and to usher in a Golden Age of RQ where RQ would be used for all kinds of settings and have many supplements to buy and play.

That's RQ, that is.

At the risk of dragging this out even further, you keep saying the same thing over and over again.

To be clear, though:

Chaosium no longer has the rights to produce material for RuneQuest, though the system (BRP) is still theirs. As it always was. The publication of the BRP monographs were specifically aimed at retaining their intellectual domain over the BRP system when Avalon Hill let it lapse. I suspect that they felt this was adequate enough precaution until BRP came out as a standalone product.

Mongoose Publishing has the rights to produce something called RuneQuest. They chose to make a game derived from Chaosium's BRP system. Shouldn't any ire at their handling of RuneQuest be directed at them?

With the rights to ElfQuest back in the Pini's hands (or so I am told), the rights to Ringworld tied up with movie/miniseries rights, Eternal Champion at Mongoose, that leaves the "compatible with Chaosium's games" list at Call of Cthulhu (and maybe Nephilim... I'm not sure about the status of that license).

You seem to be assuming that a goal of BRP was to replace RuneQuest, for an audience who don't like Mongoose's version. It wasn't. It was proposed and work begun before Mongoose even began talking to Greg Stafford about RQ.

Backwards compatibility, though welcome and accommodated wherever possible, was not a primary goal. The goal, as has been stated from the very pitch I gave Chaosium more than three years ago, was to create a solid and consistent BRP platform by which to make new games and develop new intellectual properties.

From the introduction:

This book represents a first for Basic Roleplaying—a system complete in one book, without a defined setting. Previously, Basic Roleplaying has been an integral part of standalone games, usually with rich and deep world settings. Due to differences in these settings, Basic Roleplaying has had many different incarnations. Variant and some-times contradictory rules have emerged between versions, to better support one particular setting over another. Chaosium’s Basic Roleplaying system reconciles these different flavors of the system and brings many variant rules together between the covers of one book, something that has never been done before. Some of these rules are provided as optional extensions, some as alternate systems, and others have been integrated into the core system.

By design, this work is not a reinvention of Basic Roleplaying or a significant evolution of the system, but instead a collected and complete version of it, without setting, provided as a guide to players and gamemasters everywhere and compatible with most Basic Roleplaying games. It also allows the gamemaster the ability to create his or her own game world (or worlds), to adapt others from fiction, films, or even translate settings from other roleplaying games into Basic Roleplaying.

[Sunwolfe]

I plan to use BRP in its entirety for my next game and to gather my players prior to rework their characters or roll-up new ones. We have used RQIII exclusively up to this point, but I think it will be fun to experiment with a different flavor…something “new”. If the response is positive, I’ll adopt BRP as my foundational system to houserule and adapt when needed or warranted.

I sometimes wonder if this willingness isn’t more a matter of personality, expectations, and experience than it is mechanics. For example, I am not a Glorantha fan (LOL…sacrilege for some of you here…I know). I acknowledge Mr. Stafford’s fascinating milieu as an amazing feat of imagination and admire his creativity, but prefer to host games using my own 30+year old setting. To use ideas contained in various Glorantha-based supplements and fan-generated materials, however, (some of which you folk here have written—thank you very much), I have always had to remove or remodel Glorantha references, background materials or mechanics to make the ideas/concepts compatible with my own setting.

As I have read through 0E, I have been comparing and asking myself what I and my players might want from RQIII or how would they react to BRP’s “X”? (On that score, I don’t think most of them would care what system I used, as long as it was conducive to role-playing and that the game-world maintained its unique feel and flavor). I had few, if any, moments that gave me pause concerning RQIII/BRP compatibility or the effort to do so. HP location is a good example. I didn’t find myself too dismayed that is was optional or that BRP supplements may or may not cater to this beloved construct, especially since RQIII publications had conveniently provided me with plenty of archetypes to use as templates or models. As some of my players are time-invested sorcerers and shaman, the absence of RQIII “power” systems gave me pause, but only briefly, as to my mind, the adjustments seem simple. In fact, one of the first BRP-oriented projects I have undertaken is devising my own particular BRP sheet that includes RQIII features I consider important.

I sympathize with the hopes and expectations of the RQ faithful who have had to “roll their own” for so long and suffer being jerked around as companies and copyrights shuck and jive. I understand their desire for a new RQ age. Every time I look through the Barnes and Noble RPG section with its plethora of DnD supplements, I sigh heavily wishing the same for RQ. Hell, try being a non-Gloranthan RQ fan scouring the net for materials and I’ll tell you what a “dry season” is all about ! I hope all may find something useful in this rule-set, to one degree or another, and be thankful there is some movement on that front.

I’ve heard it said, “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure” and that such an observation is based on one man, or woman’s, experience verses another. As I have always had to adjust RPG materials to suit, I guess I’m used to the work and by virtue of this experience feel it’s pretty much part and parcel of gaming and why the thought of tweaking BRP isn’t too much of an issue for me. Considering the present discussion, I’m lucky in that regard. I hope BRP will be well supported and cater to as many tastes as possible; if not, I can handle it—I always have. I am looking even more forward, however, to the new constructs and ideas that, I hope, will spring from the BRP endeavor. If peeps stay open minded to the new and take BRP for what it is, who knows, maybe some of that DnD supplement laden shelf at BnN will finally have to give up a little space to gamers with taste !

Cheers,
Sunwolfe

[Joseph Paul]

Venomous Pao wanted to know-

Oh, and a note to Joseph Paul: I don't see any way in which BRP couldn't be used for a future space setting. What crunch is it that you don't perceive to be in the rules (even as options)? Strike Ranks are there. Hit Locations are there. HP by location is present, too. I'm not trying to refute you here, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from and what you think is missing.

Here is my problem- it looks like the numbers for several different parts of the gameworld/system don’t work out. And I have to admit that I am just guessing on some of them because I don’t have BRP0. But I do have what people have posted here and the fact that Jason wasn’t supposed to bring about any great changes so I feel safe in making some assumptions about some systems. If you have a copy of BRP0 let me if I am wrong OK? For instance I am betting that not much changed in the firearms from CoC. That would mean that the .22 still does 1d6 but can be fired 3 times a round. That lets you put 3d6 on an opponent in each round while the .45 only did a single shot of 1d10+2. Hmmm, which is the manstopper here? Had a GM that couldn't figure out that the game system was dictating unconventional choices.

Atgxtg has pointed out that the AP for some of the tanks can be penetrated by firearms. That is a fault of not setting standards for the material world that make sense, are appropriate to the weapons in use and scale well as materials increase or decrease in size/mass. Thicker steel gets a lot harder to penetrate and thinner gets easier. But a ¼” plate shouldn’t have fewer AP than say a brigandine. I think that it will if a 1” plate has 19 AP and you apply Real World scaling to it. And if it does I am augmenting my AFV with brig plates! Look at the response to the weapons table thread to see more about missing crunchiness.

Another example from CoC that may have changed in BRP0-explosives. A stick of dynamite does 5D6 damage. A 75 mm shell does 10D6. The 75 has over 4 times the explosive in it (about 800 grams to 136 grams). Even accounting for different qualities of explosive (60% nitro in the dynamite and ammonium picrate in the 75) I don’t think the numbers jive. One is too large or one is too small. Again I see this as a situation where the original designers eyeballed things and never did get around to setting a standard to work from.

These are all examples of things that should have been integrated into the original games better but were not. Some of them, maybe all of them will be present in BRP. It speaks to the fact that the very foundation of the game is not set up to accept being played in a crunchy gearheaded manner.

In a genre game it can be forgiven. However BRP is no longer a genre game, it is a generic platform for many different games and styles of play. I feel that standards should have been set and systems created so that as new material was being developed it would fit into the overall structure with out straining things. Do all the crunchy stuff up front –even if it isn’t going to show. That way when it does matter you have a system to go on rather than having to eyeball it and hope that it fits.

I like RQ- I am not so thrilled with Glorantha. I like crunchy, gearheaded play, lots of tactical options, and involved chargen. RQ was a good basis for that and it could have been set up so that it was easy and did not break the game if people wanted simpler modes of play. Doing it the other way around seems to be a bit problematic to me.

I have really liked the design philosophy that I have seen out of the GURPS game. Armor has a standard-1”RHA will stop 70d6. Firearms and explosives have their own formulas. Are they in the books? Does SJG expect you to figure something on the fly? No. The design formulas are used to set up all of the material world stats so that I don’t have to eyeball it myself. It provides a consistent, rational approach to things that are modeled from the real world. Does GURPS have its problems? Certainly. But modelling that doesn’t work isn’t one of them. Except for hiking.

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

At the risk of dragging this out even further, you keep saying the same thing over and over again.

I do that.

I've made whatever point I was trying to make.

Shutting up now ......

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

And I have to admit that I am just guessing on some of them because I don’t have BRP0. But I do have what people have posted here and the fact that Jason wasn’t supposed to bring about any great changes so I feel safe in making some assumptions about some systems.

I'll admit to considerable frustration with the "I don't have it, but here's why it fails" opinions, so maybe you'll understand why I get peevish with the fact that the most vocal critics are those who don't seem to actually have copies of Edition Zero, or were hoping for RuneQuest 3.5 instead of the book that was solicited.

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

That would mean that the .22 still does 1d6 but can be fired 3 times a round. That lets you put 3d6 on an opponent in each round while the .45 only did a single shot of 1d10+2. Hmmm, which is the manstopper here? Had a GM that couldn't figure out that the game system was dictating unconventional choices.

Now give the foe 6 points of armor. Which weapon would you want to use against him?

Furthermore, an impale from the .22 does a max of 12 points of damage, which may or may not put someone down in one shot. Compare that to an impale from your .45, doing a max of 24 points of damage. Very few humans can survive that shot, even if armored.

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

Atgxtg has pointed out that the AP for some of the tanks can be penetrated by firearms.

The vintage tank (from around 90 years ago) has 18 points of armor. The modern tank has 24.

Missing from the table is a footnote that special successes from hand weapons (longarms, etc.) do not affect vehicles, and that criticals only do at the gamemaster's discretion.

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

It speaks to the fact that the very foundation of the game is not set up to accept being played in a crunchy gearheaded manner.

You're correct.

Making BRP more crunchy was never a design goal. At no point did I think "You know, this needs to be more complex."

You've said you're unhappy with what you've heard about the game. You've made it clear that the direction of the game is not for you. From all indications, you don't seem like you're going to buy it.

At the risk of alienating a potential customer,why are you still posting on threads about the new BRP game?

[SDLeary]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

Venomous Pao wanted to know-
Here is my problem- it looks like the numbers for several different parts of the gameworld/system don’t work out. And I have to admit that I am just guessing on some of them because I don’t have BRP0. But I do have what people have posted here and the fact that Jason wasn’t supposed to bring about any great changes so I feel safe in making some assumptions about some systems. If you have a copy of BRP0 let me if I am wrong OK? For instance I am betting that not much changed in the firearms from CoC. That would mean that the .22 still does 1d6 but can be fired 3 times a round. That lets you put 3d6 on an opponent in each round while the .45 only did a single shot of 1d10+2. Hmmm, which is the manstopper here? Had a GM that couldn't figure out that the game system was dictating unconventional choices.

The Pistol, Light (assume .22) allows you to shoot at the same target target three times per round, meaning three separate shots which all have to hit and do damage independently. If you change targets, you loose the extra shots and can't shoot till your next action because of the time to acquire and aim at the new target. Perhaps slightly fast, 2/round might seem more reasonable, but keep in mind that a .22 is generally not going to have the kick of a .45.

Many Special Operators keep .22s in their inventory because they are easily silenced, but also because they don't have a lot of kick and can be kept on target easily.

Another example from CoC that may have changed in BRP0-explosives. A stick of dynamite does 5D6 damage. A 75 mm shell does 10D6. The 75 has over 4 times the explosive in it (about 800 grams to 136 grams). Even accounting for different qualities of explosive (60% nitro in the dynamite and ammonium picrate in the 75) I don’t think the numbers jive. One is too large or one is too small. Again I see this as a situation where the original designers eyeballed things and never did get around to setting a standard to work from.

75mm shells have a fragmentation effect that is generally not present with dynamite, unless the dynamite is contained within something else that will fragment.

These are all examples of things that should have been integrated into the original games better but were not. Some of them, maybe all of them will be present in BRP. It speaks to the fact that the very foundation of the game is not set up to accept being played in a crunchy gearheaded manner.

Ok... I'll give you that. But please look carefully at the history of BRP.

BRP was never designed to be played in a crunchy gearhead manner.

RQIII was the crunchiest BRP game. That game can be approximated in these rules with the appropriate choice of optional and alternate rules sets. One of the biggest complaints about RQIII (at least that I've heard) from new players was how long combat took. And even that could not be considered crunchy gearhead

In a genre game it can be forgiven. However BRP is no longer a genre game, it is a generic platform for many different games and styles of play. I feel that standards should have been set and systems created so that as new material was being developed it would fit into the overall structure with out straining things. Do all the crunchy stuff up front –even if it isn’t going to show. That way when it does matter you have a system to go on rather than having to eyeball it and hope that it fits.

That was not the mandate of the author. His mandate was to take what already existed and integrate it into a single core system. Also, as has been stated before, none of the people at Chaosium are "gearheads"... the issue about money and history of the company has been stated in other threads.

I like RQ- I am not so thrilled with Glorantha. I like crunchy, gearheaded play, lots of tactical options, and involved chargen. RQ was a good basis for that and it could have been set up so that it was easy and did not break the game if people wanted simpler modes of play. Doing it the other way around seems to be a bit problematic to me.

RQ is there, if you choose the appropriate optionaly/alternate rules. It can still be expanded on as you state above, if you want to. In most BRP fan's opinions, Stormbringer 5e was the best version of BRP, and thus that was used as the basis for this effort.

I have really liked the design philosophy that I have seen out of the GURPS game. Armor has a standard-1”RHA will stop 70d6. Firearms and explosives have their own formulas. Are they in the books? Does SJG expect you to figure something on the fly? No. The design formulas are used to set up all of the material world stats so that I don’t have to eyeball it myself. It provides a consistent, rational approach to things that are modeled from the real world. Does GURPS have its problems? Certainly. But modelling that doesn’t work isn’t one of them. Except for hiking.

Hmmm... in the BRP book, the Steel Plate is NOT listed as RHA. Its listed as Steel Plate. Because of its specific design as armor, I would expect RHA to have a much higher AP value; in fact I would expect any material designed as modern AFV armor to have higher values.

I applaud SJG, their writers, or both for being so thorough in their approach to world modeling. BRP was never designed as a model of the world though, but as an abstract. An abstract with enough detail that people could have fun roleplaying in the story that the GM has placed them in.

As for accurate world modeling? YMMV, as no two people "see" the world in quite the same way.

SDLeary

[Trifletraxor]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

At the risk of alienating a potential customer,why are you still posting on threads about the new BRP game?

The game have been postponed for almost a year now. As most people don't have (and maybe also don't want) the Zero Editon, and we still don't have any ETA on the final product, we don't have much else to do than to discuss it here while we wait. Everyone will probably, not like ALL the rules, and everyone is probably going to use at least some houserules. Discussing the "new" parts that we're not happy with based on information and rumours from those who do have it, is also a good way to get tips on how to tweak the game like you want it. This thread was startet by Simon to point out what they did not like about what they've heard about the new edition, so you shouldn't take it as an offense that the posts are mainly critical, as opposed to the other threads.

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

Missing from the table is a footnote that special successes from hand weapons (longarms, etc.) do not affect vehicles, and that criticals only do at the gamemaster's discretion.

Yeah!

Might be better to just restrict that to actual armored vehicles, though. You should still be able to "kill" an 18 wheeler with rifle bullets. It's armor is more a function of its structure than actual armor.

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

I'll admit to considerable frustration with the "I don't have it, but here's why it fails" opinions, so maybe you'll understand why I get peevish with the fact that the most vocal critics are those who don't seem to actually have copies of Edition Zero, or were hoping for RuneQuest 3.5 instead of the book that was solicited.
...

Hello Jason,

As I have already explained, I'm not buying BRP edition 0 because, counting shipping and handling, it is far too expensive, and I am saving my money to buy it in a store when final version will be released, not because I don't like what you've done. As I can NOT have this edition 0, I am basing my judgment on the explanations YOU gave.

I would have preferred having RQ 3.5, but I knew from the beginning I would not have it, and this is not my point. I would have preferred having BRP more based on RQ and less on SB because I think RQ is a better game than SB, but I know since month that I would not get that, and this is not my point. What I told is that I would have preferred a top-down approach, with a maximum of rules by default, and optional simplifications, because I find simpler to remove what I don't use than having to add what I want and is not default.
To cite the exemples you gave:

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

• Hit Points Per Location in addition to general HP... not much conflict there
• Fatigue Points and Sanity... easy enough to add... this seems easy!
• Armor per Hit Location is easy enough to add, but what if the GM wants random armor?
• Heroic Hit Points doubles HP, and causes a double value if you want to have normal HP also represented
• Splitting Attack and Parry Skills... hmm... now each melee weapon skill has two values - what if I only want to use one? Do I average them, or just use attack?
• Skill Category Modifiers - should they be presented and not added, or should they be included and GMs not wishing to use them must subtract the values from existing skills?
• Simpler Skill Bonuses - hmm... these don't really mesh with the above easily, do they?
• Increased Personal Skill Points, Cultural Modifiers, EDU/Knowledge rolls, etc. - do I add these for GMs who want to use them, and make GMs who don't want to use them remove them, or do I put them in a block alongside each NPC writeup?
• Skill Ratings Over 100% - hoo-boy! Do I want to play Elric! style, with NPCs with attack skills of 300% or more, do I want to keep things simple and say that 100% is the top? Does each skill have two ratings, based on where you want to put the limit? Over 100% and under 100%?

If the supplements, which are, like I said, my main points are using only core rules, I have to:
- calculate all the location HP (not easy on the fly).
- calculate the SR (not easy on the fly)
- put armor on each location (easy, if we assume no variation).
- calculate FP and SAN base and remaining (not so easy).
- generate a separate value for all melee weapons (easy).
for each npc.
- check which variable armor I should use (easy, not fast)
With the top-down approach, you have all of this printed, and those who don't use the options:
- ignore the locations HP, as the total HP is also given (doubling is easy for heroic).
- Ignore the SR, and just use the DEX rank.
- ignore the armor value for each location, using only one (probably torso or abdomen, if a specific value is not given).
- Ignore FP and SAN if not using them.
- Use only attack value for melee weapons (parry for shields) and ignore the second value.
- Same problem for variable armor, but value can also be printed.

This is what I have explained..

Runequestement votre,

Kloster