Attribute Maxes in BRP0

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by badcat

You say SB1 is your favorite version of BRP? Then, just out of simple curiosity, why didn't you use it as the basis for the new book instead of SB5?

Because when I began writing BRP, the two commercially available editions of BRP were Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer (5th edition). Chaosium had also received the rights to the non-Glorantha system for RQ3 back from Avalon Hill (or whoever held the rights at that time).

The logical conclusion was to make a game compatible with the in-print Chaosium games (and their source material), and using the RQ3 material where appropriate. Other materials (Worlds of Wonder, Ringworld, Elfquest, Thieves World, etc.) were used where aspects could enhance the BRP book.

Using an out-of-date version of Stormbringer didn't make any sense.

[badcat]

Tywyll, there is a culture in 3.5 that says the players should control the game more than the GM. Yes, really. So most everyone around here plays and has learned to play in that sort of culture, where the 'build' is more important than playing. So a lot of these new generation gamers expect to be able to use every trick and option in the rulebook. And D&D 3.5 is so inter related it is difficult to separate out parts of the rules...and that is how they expect any game to work. Ergo, a simple base game with house rules is an easier sell, if you want to try to introduce an older style of game, whether it be D&D or BRP. Or at least, that has been my experience lately. And 3.5 is not the only currently popular game with an emphasis on 'stuff' and 'kewl powerz' over actually playing a game. Look at Exalted.

OK, Jason, that makes sense. Now I just have to decide if it is $40 worth of useful to me. Thanks for the effort, though. I believe it will be far, far superior to the upcoming 4e no matter what.

[Lord Twig]

Originally Posted by badcat

Tywyll, there is a culture in 3.5 that says the players should control the game more than the GM. Yes, really.

I disagree. It says that the players should control their characters more than the GM. And what's wrong with that? Its my character, I should be able to do what I want with it and the character should grow in a way that I want.

Originally Posted by badcat

So most everyone around here plays and has learned to play in that sort of culture, where the 'build' is more important than playing. So a lot of these new generation gamers expect to be able to use every trick and option in the rulebook.

Again I disagree. One of the first things done when joining a new game is to find out what resources the DM allows and what he does not. That control is ultimately up to the DM. After that the players can use whatever resource that the DM allowed in the first place. Or they might convince him to allow something else, but again the final decision is up to the DM.

Originally Posted by badcat

And D&D 3.5 is so inter related it is difficult to separate out parts of the rules...and that is how they expect any game to work.

Well, yes and no. In the core rule it would be hard to remove magic, or magic items or feats, because the game relies on those being there. But it would be easy to remove prestige classes or not include any of the hundreds of supplements. They are just not needed.

Originally Posted by badcat

Ergo, a simple base game with house rules is an easier sell, if you want to try to introduce an older style of game, whether it be D&D or BRP. Or at least, that has been my experience lately.

Well I can't argue what your experiences are. Everyone has their own. But like Tywyll said, it shouldn't be much harder to say "Here are the optional rules we are using" instead of "Here are the house rules we are using".

Originally Posted by badcat

And 3.5 is not the only currently popular game with an emphasis on 'stuff' and 'kewl powerz' over actually playing a game. Look at Exalted.

Don't really understand this here. What's the point of having 'cool stuff' if you don't get a chance to use them? Having cool items or powers gives you one more reason to want to play. Honestly I find games where you play a 'regular joe' deadly dull. Probably why I never got into CoC that much.

Originally Posted by badcat

OK, Jason, that makes sense. Now I just have to decide if it is $40 worth of useful to me. Thanks for the effort, though. I believe it will be far, far superior to the upcoming 4e no matter what.

Amen to that!

[badcat]

Control the character, and what the character can do, control the game.

As for the rest, I am speaking from a standpoint of frustration. Thus my nervousness about allowing some mechanics that look unnecessary to me, and I don't enjoy the games I have tried recently. Could be I just haven't met much in the way of compatible gamers lately. I do know I would just rather not game with the groups I have encountered. Heh, I don't even think the local RPGA group is playing the game correctly...mostly just a lot of handwaving....after the fun part is done (making the characters with all the kewl powerz). All I can do is shake my head. And bow out gracefully. And try not to throw up. Could be I am just burned out on rpgs, I suppose.

Right now I am thinking about running Talislanta 4 (assuming the existance of people around here who want to play it). It has a stat + skill dynamic that looks workable, no levels, and the rules don't include a lot of hard to deal with options that are difficult to separate from a good game. The stat IS the stat bonus. That's nice. Only thing is, it uses that damn D20.

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by badcat

I think that is the same thing.

For 3D6 stats, or nD6 stats, then yes.

However, inhumans have different characteristic dice and even humans may have 2D6+6.

So, an RQ centaur with 3D6+3 DEX has Species Max of 24 using the 7/die + extra approach, 25 if you treat the +3 as an extra die or 27 if you use Max Rollable + Min Rollable.


Max Rollable + Min Rollable normally gives higher species maxima and is easier to work out, which is why I prefer it.

As I intend to houserule BRP to death it doesn't really matter to me.

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by badcat

As for the other thing, about houserules? Most people around here play D&D, which game has the philosophy of empowering the players with 'builds', without much regard to empowerment for the GM. That leaks over and when they make a character for a different game they often bring certain expectations of power level and so on. So I find that it is easier to sell a game with a simple base. The new BRP book has a simple base, but a lot of tinsel (options) too. I guess my main concern boils down to my comfort level and being able to draw players without the game turning into something I don't enjoy running or playing anymore.

If you want to build a character then BRP is probably one of the best systems to do it, certainly if you include some things from RQ as well.

Looking at Fantasy Settings rather than other genres, you start off by choosing a species, then a background, then a profession. You are generally not restricted that much by species as to which background/profession to choose nor by background as to which profesison to use. Once you have your species/background/profession you allocate skills to the PC based on that set. You can also allocate other skills with GM approval. I don't know much about the Powers Section as I'd use the RQ Magic System, but I am sure that you could build spells/powers/abilities with ease. From RQ you have a whole host of magical items and equipment that you could use to add character to your PC and I would assume that BRP would eventually have a similar host of nifty things to add on/use.

Unlike classic AD&D/D20, BRP doesn't have classes so you can mix and match things. BRP is very flexible in character generation, especially so if the GM allows you to have had different professions or allows different skills to be taken up if your backstory specifically refers to them.

So, BRP is no worse a system for building characters than D&D/D20.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by soltakss

So, BRP is no worse a system for building characters than D&D/D20.

I thought badcat's point was he didn't want players to have such fine control over character generation. From that pov, you're saying "BRP is no better a system for building characters than D&D/D20" - which doesn't sound nearly so good. And surely some mistake? BRP is always better!

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

I thought badcat's point was he didn't want players to have such fine control over character generation.

I thought his point was he did want players to have such fine control over character generation.

It's funny that two people can read the same thing and interpret it in different ways.

Originally Posted by frogspawner

From that pov, you're saying "BRP is no better a system for building characters than D&D/D20"

That's probably right. It's definitely as good and because it is classless it has some points that are better, unless you prefer classes in which case it isn't as good.

Originally Posted by frogspawner

And surely some mistake? BRP is always better!

Different perhaps, better at some things certainly, better overall? You'd have to look at sales figures to decide that one.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by soltakss

Different perhaps, better at some things certainly, better overall?

Good God, man! Listen to yourself - you're arguing in favour of D&D! Snap out of it! Snap out of it!

[badcat]

I don't mind players having some control over making a character they want to play, my problem is the WOTC philosophy of taking control of how they run the game from the GM and 'empower the players', making the game more rules driven altogether (and my resistance to anything that may take BRP in that direction). Also, the games of 3.5 that I have sat in on have been about more about 'my PC is a better build than yours' than embarking on an adventure the GM is running. Lots of things like that, not just the way the pcs are generated per se. Myself, I prefer a mix of choice and randomness and usually do it about like soltakss, sure. If you could see some of the RPGA 'games' I have recently you would understand, I believe. So like I said in another recent post, mostly I am expressing frustration. Not that I like the most recent versions of D&D when its done according to the rules, either. But WOTC stated that Eberron was designed to use all the published rules for 3.5, and it is a pain even at the RPGA thingies.

Back to our regularly scheduled BRP talk...:focus: