Q&A with the new BRP Author

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by soltakss

The trouble here is that everyone is discussing what they think will be in the D100 rules, or what was in RQ or Magic World or some other system, rather than what's going to be in the rules.

Hopefully it will come out close enough to Christmas for me to use Christmas money, or close enough to my birthday for me to use Birthday money so we can discuss what's actually in it.

True, but considering that only a select few have seen the new BRP rules, it would be impossible for us to do otherwise. That why we have this Q&A thread and are pestering Jason.

It also why no one is jumping in to write a supplement for BRP yet.
It's like a new movie, where we've seen the original, but don't know what will be changed in the remake. (Not the best analogy, since remakes are rarely up to par with the original, and we have higher hopes than that for BRP).

[Sorloc]

Originally Posted by TRose

For my 2 cents on which magic system for BRP. Although I plan on using The spirit /divine spells from Runequest and Sandy Petersen's sorcery system , I will look at other systems as they come out. I dont mind different sorcery systems as I have always felt there should be different schools of sorcery out there. I Just want to see a sorcery system that is balanced so the non magic specialist dont wind up as a cheering gallery for the finger waggers . If the System is such that a experienced Mage type can easy defeat 3 experienced non mage types and not work up a sweat I probably wont like it.

And I want exactly the opposite.
I have always cast my vote with the systems that don't create some arbitrary 'balancing' factor against spellcasters, such as Ars Magica and RuneQuest.
The same would go for psionicists and supers as well.
Those who have powers (magic, telepathy, mutant abilities, etc.) are simply superior to Mundanes.

Creating an artificial system to handicap those characters (higher skill costs, restricted equipment, having to wear a pointy hat) is simply asinine. There is never any good reasoning behind it besides "we have to do this so that the player who chooses to play a fighter won't feel bad because the mage has more powers."

Tough.
Shouldn't play a straight fighter then.


I never saw any problems with magic vs nonmagic in RuneQuest, wether I was playing a sorcerer, a priest, or just a guy with a few battle magic spells. You do what you do. If you don't like playing that character, then play a different one, not take power away from someone else.

As for armor, all armor restrictions are simply artificial attempts to handicap a spellcaster. You can justify it any way you want, but that's still all it is.

Same goes for Supers, but you don't lend any credence to the player who is playing a normal and is complaining that the mutants have too much power - they shouldn't be able to use certain equipment, like airplanes or armor, because they have superpowers.
Why listen to the same argument when it concerns spellcasters / telepaths?

In a point-based system, the point is moot - you get what you pay for.
In most other systems, you must pay DP or XP for both the spells and the ability to cast them, and sometimes even the ability to modify and target them. Paying the DP there lessens the DP you have available for other things, like weapon skills and riding skill and such, but many systems (and GMs) aren't satistfied with that, and increase the DP costs for those skills for spellcasters as well, virtually guaranteeing that spellcasters won't ever be good at combat as well.

As Denny Crane would say, "Namby-Pamby."

[Nightshade]

Creating an artificial system to handicap those characters (higher skill costs, restricted equipment, having to wear a pointy hat) is simply asinine. There is never any good reasoning behind it besides "we have to do this so that the player who chooses to play a fighter won't feel bad because the mage has more powers."

To be blunt, this is nonsense. There can be all kinds of setting based reasons. If you have rare mages in the setting, and magic is that attractive, why would it be rare? Its fine to have it be common if you have a setting like Glorantha where magic is assumed to be epidemic, but if you want an uncommon or rare magic setting (where its only the purview of specialists), one way or another, to not have the system show a reason for that makes for an irrational setting. Either its hard to learn, has limited availability (and this has to be enforceable in some way) or has side costs few want to deal with.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

To be blunt, this is nonsense. There can be all kinds of setting based reasons. If you have rare mages in the setting, and magic is that attractive, why would it be rare? Its fine to have it be common if you have a setting like Glorantha where magic is assumed to be epidemic, but if you want an uncommon or rare magic setting (where its only the purview of specialists), one way or another, to not have the system show a reason for that makes for an irrational setting. Either its hard to learn, has limited availability (and this has to be enforceable in some way) or has side costs few want to deal with.

I can't see any way that isn't clunky to support the first two in the mechanics though. Hard to learn could lead to different types of skills, something that's never been in BRP and I'd rather we didn't add. (I can see the argument for easy vs. hard skills, but don't want to deal with the added complexity myself.) Limited availability is perfectly reasonable within a given world, but that's strictly a gameworld decision and should not be tied into the rules in any way IMO. Plus, I don't have any problem with mages being very rare in the world, while being quite common amongst the PCs.

The only tradeoffs I really don't mind are encumbrance and minimum INT/POW/CHA. There's plenty of presidence for magic being enhanced by being naked, or nearly naked, for that to make sense the encumbrance penalties to make sense. The minimum INT/POW/CHA stats have the advantage of clearly offering an ingame reason for magic to be rare, but have the disadvantages of feeling arbitrary: why should someone with POW 16 get magic, but someone with POW 15 not have it?

I do like the idea of making magic inherently dangerous. Make it so that anyone can dabble in it, but only those who are strong or foolish are willing to risk the consequences. Corum had a nice stab at doing this that read very nicely. I hear good things about the MRQ Elric/Stormbringer take on this, but have yet to read it.

[Jason Durall]

At this point, it might just be easier for me to answer questions in other threads.

This one has gotten overlong and too bogged down with arguments beyond the scope of its original intended purpose.

[RMS]

I'm sure I'm not that only one who doesn't pay attention to the specific thread title when replying, but just replies to a specific post or two...at least that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it!

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

At this point, it might just be easier for me to answer questions in other threads.

This one has gotten overlong and too bogged down with arguments beyond the scope of its original intended purpose.

I apologize for contributing to that, Jason, but the truth is, threads do spawn side discussion; I can't help but think this was to some extent, inevitable. Unless it was set up so that no one would respond to anyone but you (and how that would be enforced I can't imagine short of our boardmaster simply deleting all ones that did), it was just going to happen.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by RMS

I can't see any way that isn't clunky to support the first two in the mechanics though. Hard to learn could lead to different types of skills, something that's never been in BRP and I'd rather we didn't add. (I can

I don't see any intrinsic problem with it myself.

see the argument for easy vs. hard skills, but don't want to deal with the added complexity myself.) Limited availability is perfectly reasonable within a given world, but that's strictly a gameworld decision and should not be tied into the rules in any way IMO. Plus, I don't have any problem with mages being very rare in the world, while being quite common amongst the PCs.

Any magic system makes gameworld assumptions; I don't see this as any worse than many others automatically built into a magic system.

The only tradeoffs I really don't mind are encumbrance and minimum INT/POW/CHA. There's plenty of presidence for magic being enhanced by being naked, or nearly naked, for that to make sense the encumbrance penalties to make sense. The minimum INT/POW/CHA stats have the advantage of clearly offering an ingame reason for magic to be rare, but have the disadvantages of feeling arbitrary: why should someone with POW 16 get magic, but someone with POW 15 not have it?

You can always make it so that those with lower values can use it, but at a penalty (perhaps a substantial one); that's the way some weapon attribute requirements work in some versions of BRP.

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I apologize for contributing to that, Jason, but the truth is, threads do spawn side discussion; I can't help but think this was to some extent, inevitable. Unless it was set up so that no one would respond to anyone but you (and how that would be enforced I can't imagine short of our boardmaster simply deleting all ones that did), it was just going to happen.

Oh, I'm not cranky or anything... it's just at 29 pages and counting, this thread has wandered so far over the place that it's not entirely useful as a resource any more.

I prefer more focused threads (with specific titles) that are easier for searching later, rather than having to remember that X was talked about on page 14 of a particular thread (whose title may not reflect the particular subject).

So, from now on I'll just duck out of this thread and answer questions in any new threads, as it'll be a much more useful resource in the future.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

Oh, I'm not cranky or anything... it's just at 29 pages and counting, this thread has wandered so far over the place that it's not entirely useful as a resource any more.

I prefer more focused threads (with specific titles) that are easier for searching later, rather than having to remember that X was talked about on page 14 of a particular thread (whose title may not reflect the particular subject).

So, from now on I'll just duck out of this thread and answer questions in any new threads, as it'll be a much more useful resource in the future.

I can certainly see your point.