Comparative Systemology

[threedeesix]

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.

There are other factors that come into play that you may not be thinking of. Jason brought up the point of armor, which is a good one. But you also have to take into account that the attacker with the .22 can only do 1D6 damage per 5 DEX Ranks. Even assuming he has the higher DEX and shoots first, it will only be for 1D6 damage. More than likely, the target with the .45 will get the next shot for 1D10+2.

Throw in the optional Hit Location rules and even a low damage roll with the .45 to an arm or leg is more than enough to cripple it and a crippled location pretty much eliminates most targets as a threat.

Rod

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

...
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.
...

Yes, but will the aforementioned BRP monograph still be available when final BRP will be out? If not, possibility does not exist.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by Kloster

Yes, but will the aforementioned BRP monograph still be available when final BRP will be out? If not, possibility does not exist.

I suspect that as long as they have copies in stock, it'll be available, and that some BRP edition of it is a likely candidate for publication before too long.

I've encouraged people time and again on this forum and elsewhere to pick up the ball and roll with such a project.

[SDLeary]

Originally Posted by Kloster

To cite the exemples you gave:

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

Silly question. If you were the GM, why would you have to do the required calculations on-the-fly? Wouldn't you do this in pre-game prep? And if you are the player, wouldn't these calculations be done during character gen?

I can understand it being an issue if you are just doing a pick-up game, but for a planned game/campaign it shouldn't be an issue.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

I suspect that as long as they have copies in stock, it'll be available, and that some BRP edition of it is a likely candidate for publication before too long.

I've encouraged people time and again on this forum and elsewhere to pick up the ball and roll with such a project.

And if anyone does, could you please not forget to shoe-horn the Pendragon 4e magic system in there? Thanks much!

SDLeary

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by SDLeary

And if anyone does, could you please not forget to shoe-horn the Pendragon 4e magic system in there? Thanks much!

SDLeary

I don't know this one, but why not. In fact, I think that for completeness sake, all systems present in previous BRP games should be included, if only to be able to convert those old games to the new BRP.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by SDLeary

Silly question. If you were the GM, why would you have to do the required calculations on-the-fly? Wouldn't you do this in pre-game prep? And if you are the player, wouldn't these calculations be done during character gen?

I can understand it being an issue if you are just doing a pick-up game, but for a planned game/campaign it shouldn't be an issue.

SDLeary

I'm not speaking of player-characters. Chargen is what it is.
When, speaking of the GM, I'm saying 'not easy on the fly', I mean that there is a mandatory extra phase during preparation, for converting all NPCs, like I have today when using some SB or Hawkmoon supplements for RQ. In this case, there is an issue, and the issue is extra time and extra work for the GM.
If using the top-down approach, instead of bottom-up, this extra phase is only 'ignore what you don't need', which don't take time.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by SDLeary

And if anyone does, could you please not forget to shoe-horn the Pendragon 4e magic system in there? Thanks much!

SDLeary

Would need to shoe-horn a trait and passion system (either Pendragon,s THieves Worlds' or Prince Vlaiants) of some kind to make that work.

[lawrence.whitaker]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Would need to shoe-horn a trait and passion system (either Pendragon,s THieves Worlds' or Prince Vlaiants) of some kind to make that work.

Personality traits are presented as an option in BRP, based on D100 rather than D20, but they are there.

[Joseph Paul]

Jason wrote:

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.

Well what Chaosium solicited does not seem to be satisfying the cravings of some of the fan base. Of course once it hits the stores we all may find that it does handstands.
I can also certainly see that those who have paid for BRP0 are probably already pretty much in agreement with what has been wrought so this dichotomy shouldn’t be a surprise.

I do have most of the legacy source material and your assertion that you did not want to be innovative at this point puts a pretty good limit on what might change. I don’t think that my criticisms have been out of line or substantively off base about what the BRP0 rules actually allow.

Concerning fire arms:
Jason:

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

Well I wouldn’t mind a 2d10+4 Barret but an average damage roll of 15 is just survivable by someone with 6 pt armor (and no I don’t think that is right either). People pick up large caliber hand guns because they will presumably be better at stopping a target right now. The damage for the .22 plus the high rate of fire made this gun perform better in that role than the .45. This is why I suggested reducing the damage for the .22. You get more believable results and more believable use out of it ie a stealthy weapon or one used for pests like snakes. Alternatively kick the .45 up to RoF 2. That way it will also outperform any RoF 3 1D8 automatics in the .32 range.

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.

Most gamers aren’t willing to bet on a 20% chance of an impale as a means of coping with a threat. Given equal skill the .22 is putting more points on the target than the .45 is in any given combat round. Under CoC rules it also has three separate times to roll a special or critical- of course that may change in BRP. If you know you will face body armor that changes things. In the time frame of the .45 and the .22 it is only recently that body armor for people has become much of a possibility. That is why the 1920’s players were choosing the .22 as the more effective weapon. It was purely a function of the way that the game chose to model firearms. Want a different result, change the model.

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.

So a big guy with a 3D6 halberd and a 1D6 DB can penetrate a WWI tank on a good roll? Hmmm that doesn’t snap your suspension of disbelief? It does mine. What happened to the idea of BRP games being gritty and realistic? The modern tank has 24 AP and can be damaged by an average shot from a French 75 HE shell. Since 6” of armor (that is 6 times the 19AP in a steel plate minimum for a bad model of armor thickness) is pretty common on the 1960s-70s vehicles ie not really modern, I have to think that this is another symptom of the game straying further from its realistic roots.

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 say that like it is a bad thing. I do not think that being internally consistent with the modeling can be bad for a game. It is inconsistency that makes for a bad game. I think that Atgxtg captured my position on this when he wrote:

“I tend to believe that some "crunch" is important in RPGs, just to keep thing internally consistent, but that most of the "crunch" can and should be transparent in play. For example, a game could have a formula that is used to calculate weapon damage dice, APs, Hit Points, ship's performance stats and whatever, but the players don't need to know them. They just need to know the final numbers and what dice they need to roll.”

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?

Because I don’t think that it is a bad thing to express a dissenting view about the design phiolsophy of BRP. I am not alone in being less than satisfied with the choices that appear to have been made. Questioning them promotes dialouge about what different sections of the fan base want from a game which may prove valuable for future supplements or revisions.

From earlier:

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.

Except that it is not internally consitent with the modeling of many things that will be part of those new intelectual properties. I don’t think that wanting a tank that functions like a tank is too much to ask of BRP. Nor do I think that creating the systems to do so would break the game. As stated in Atgxtg’s quote above it doesn’t have to even be present in the game as long as the end results are. I certainly don’t want what we had before which was a mess of variant and sometimes contradictory rules spread through several different game sets or supplements.

SDLeary writes:
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.

I am assuming that is from the BRP0?I didn’t have a problem with the speed of the succesive attacks for a .22 but with the damage from it making sequential succesful attacks more deadly than the .45 and the low rate of fire for most of the larger caliber pistols. What is the paradigm for a combat round? Is it set or elastic? Either way most of the firearms rules defy the experience of many moderately skilled shooters. Ultimately this can be traced back to the legacy rules in CoC. It appears that they were intentionally crippled to make sure that players brought the right attitude to the tableie investigate don’t detonate! This bias is inappropriate in a game that is supposed to be generic enough to be a vehicle for other games because it certainly precludes many historical settings, as well as modern and Sci-Fi adventure, from functioning as their genres demand.

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

So you are agreeing that the dynamite shouldn’t be –half- the damage of the four times larger explosive correct? Is there a formula for expressing a quantity of explosive in dice of damage? If not why not?

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 seem to have been unclear about my point. I am not griping that the steel plate is not RHA but that there seems to have been -no- standard selected to use for calculating what the value of the armor should be. Like you I would expect a modern tank to have much better protection than that offered by 1” steel plate. It actually has all of 5 points more. Lets look at that a bit closer- the last tanks to use homogenous steel armors instead of composites have 150mms or more of steel armor that is hardened. Tell me how only a 5 point increase is justified with a 6 fold increase in thickness in materials that are far and away better at stopping penetration than 19 AP 1” steel plate? With AP=24 you can damage such a vehicle with a WWI 75mm explosive shell (avg dam=35pts)? Does that seem right to you?

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.

I disagree that BRP was never designed as a world model. All RPGs model the world (real or genre limited). The systems involved in chargen model human attributes, the combat resolution mechanics model combat, the skill system models the use of skills etc. There are certainly abstractions in the models but they are still models. There are several genres where the examples I have cited are definitely not fun for the players.

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

True! However models that are based on some sort of actual research will fare better than ones that handwave such essentials and dismiss the attempt at accuracy as being unimportant to the play of the game.
SDLeary

Triff wrote:
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.

Actaully Simon was responding in a new thread to a question I asked him. I thank him for his frank and earnest posts here, they have been most informative. Actually I would like to thank everybody for their very civil responses.