changes to BRP system?

Andakitty: In that aspect we are alike, fast played BRP systems.

I can play D&D, but I think the work it requires for me to prepare a NPCs for a scenario as a DM is a bit too much. Also, D&D combat mostly feels boring too me, unless it is the version used in Star Wars d20, or the high damage of weapons in Dragonstar. Basically, lowering the amount of HPs would make D&D a better game to me, but that is too much work involved to achieve. It changes the whole system.

As far as it goes for Roll high vs TN, I have found this to be an excellent system. Especially since I can allow the players to roll all their dice rolls, without them knowing if they actually succeeded or not. They might have an idea if they did good or not. But they do not know the TN, and as such, they can only guess if they suceeded or not.

That is the only aspect I think is better than the Roll below % of BRP. Because, in BRP, I will have to roll for certain PC skills, in order for them to not know if they succeeded or not.
 
Archer - But while it might be realistic, it lends it poorly to dramatic combat scenes (unless the dramatic in the situation is who acts first), or if you want a more cinematic style in combat, or for that matter if you care a lot about the game being constructed to be a game, not a simulation of reality, where chosing the right option in the right moment is important.

Well, Iam more in the "simulationist camp". I prefer short and realistic combat in RPs. And I dont think that a combat scene has to be "poor" only because it is resolved in a realistic way. I see combat in my games as the moment which can change everything in a characters life. Just a matter of bad luck or the wrong decision and a player can running around without his left hand or even dead. With this in their mind my players choose often not to fight and look for other solutions like stealth, sprinting away, diplomacy or even desperately begging for live. But if combat is inevitable it is great and very intense. The players are biting their nails and using alot of innovative tricks just because they know that it is not sure that they will survive the next few seconds. These special moments I would not call "poor".

I call "poor" if one walks through his enemies like a demigod and brainlessly mawing them down like Bruce W. in every second of his questionable action flics. But maybe you think of different kind of movies than this example if you mean "cinematic".
 
Lord Twig said:
Hmmm... I'm not sure about that.

So mobile guy moves up to enemy. Well now it is the enemy's turn to taken an action, Whack!

Mobile guy attacks. Enemy whacks him a second time.

Mobile guy moves away. That was smart. He got hit twice and only hit his enemy once!

Definitely need more information.

This little scenario is also forgetting the 'free attacks' raction, which presumably means at least one more whack from the enemy as the unfortunate mobile guy engages/disengages. This means it makes far more sense to have your enemies attack you than for you to attack your enemies. (I think Sun Tsu once said something like that).

IME the RQ3 strike rank system seems much better, at least until I've had a chance to test it out.

Cobra
 
cobra,
I am also not sure, if I will like up to 4 combat actions. But its difficult to jugde the system before it is released. Of course we are more used to the "old way" of BRP. One attack/one defense.

But if you look at CoC or RQIII there has been already multiple attack actions in ranged combat and it worked well. Also Stormbringer allows for more than one combat action (riposte and multiple parries)

So maybe one can say that multiple close combat attacks are just the last step of a process which has already started in other incarnations of BRP.
 
Enpeze said:
I call "poor" if one walks through his enemies like a demigod and brainlessly mawing them down like Bruce W. in every second of his questionable action flics. But maybe you think of different kind of movies than this example if you mean "cinematic".

That I do;
- The Three Musketeers
- Crouching tiger, hidden dragon
- Conan the Barbarian

Three movies to represent three different cinematic approaches to combat.

EDIT; Oh, I forgot; Star Wars - The Phantom Menace, the battle with Darth Maul, which is probably one of the things in recent years that mostly have shaped my idea of what a good cinematic/dramatic combat should be like.
 
Enpeze said:
Archer - But generally BRP has mostly been "he who hits first and deals enough damage wins", very seldom have it been a bonk-fest like D&D, where you defeat the opponent by attrition.

Thats one of the reasons why BRP is so close to reality. "First strike wins the most time" is a vital lessen if someone practices a kind of martial arts in real life (except aikido of course which is based on reactions)

No, no, no. It is LAST strike wins. It is just that it is better to strike LAST before the other guy. :)
 
atgxtg said:
No, no, no. It is LAST strike wins. It is just that it is better to strike LAST before the other guy. :)

I can not say that in general, that has been my experience with BRP games. He who first deals damage enerally have an advantage. And if you use a two handed weapon, the first blow you deal an opponent is often also the last.

So, please, explain to me why it would be better to be the last one to strike?
 
Wulf Corbett said:
Archer said:
So, please, explain to me why it would be better to be the last one to strike?
If he's capable of hitting you back, you didn't hit him hard enough.

Wulf

That is true.
But that does not detract from the experience I have that dealing the first blow generally gives you the best chance of being the winner in BRP combat.
 
Archer said:
atgxtg said:
No, no, no. It is LAST strike wins. It is just that it is better to strike LAST before the other guy. :)

I can not say that in general, that has been my experience with BRP games. He who first deals damage enerally have an advantage. And if you use a two handed weapon, the first blow you deal an opponent is often also the last.

So, please, explain to me why it would be better to be the last one to strike?
If you strike last, your opponent is dead. I'm pretty sure that is what atgxtg meant. I think we can all agree that is best.
 
seanwalsh said:
So, please, explain to me why it would be better to be the last one to strike?
If you strike last, your opponent is dead. I'm pretty sure that is what atgxtg meant. I think we can all agree that is best.[/quote]

Yes, I know.
Doh, I am not going to get this discussion on the right foot again do I? because we will be stuck in the "he who laughs last laughs the best" saying, just that it is strike instead of laugh.

Example;
PC1 Init 15 HP 10
PC2 Init 10 HP 10

Round 1 - Example 1:
PC1 Hits PC2 Deals damage (2d8, Greatsword) and gets average of 10. PC2 is down for the count.

That is what I meant. Technically, he strikes both or and last. And it is here where we will end up in the logic of the saying.

Round 1 - Example 2:
PC1 Hits PC2 Deals damage (1d8, War sword) and gets average of 5.
PC1 now has a 50% advantage over PC2.

In both cases, striking first is best.
 
Archer said:
seanwalsh said:
If you strike last, your opponent is dead. I'm pretty sure that is what atgxtg meant. I think we can all agree that is best.

Yes, I know.
Doh, I am not going to get this discussion on the right foot again do I? because we will be stuck in the "he who laughs last laughs the best" saying, just that it is strike instead of laugh.

Example;
PC1 Init 15 HP 10
PC2 Init 10 HP 10

Round 1 - Example 1:
PC1 Hits PC2 Deals damage (2d8, Greatsword) and gets average of 10. PC2 is down for the count.

That is what I meant. Technically, he strikes both or and last. And it is here where we will end up in the logic of the saying.

Round 1 - Example 2:
PC1 Hits PC2 Deals damage (1d8, War sword) and gets average of 5.
PC1 now has a 50% advantage over PC2.

In both cases, striking first is best.
Aren't you forgetting reactions?
For example:
PC1 Init 15, 2 combat actions - 1d8 War sword
PC2 Init 10, 1 combat action - 2d8 Greatsword
(I am assuming for this example that heavy weaponry makes one slower, although that might not be the case.)

Round 1:
PC1 moves to PC2 (Question does PC2 get to react to this? I think probably not.)
PC2 attacks and PC1 parries or dodges - 0 result
PC1 attacks and PC2 parries or dodges - 0 result

Round 2:
PC1 attacks and PC2 parries or dodges - 0 result
PC2 attacks and PC1 parries or dodges - 0 result
PC1 attacks PC2 has no reaction (Alternatively PC1 could move away, again PC2 gets no reaction. This might force PC2 to close the distance.) - PC2 damaged

In this example attacking second wins.
 
Seanwalsh: I was discussing BRP in general, in which you do not have several actions (unless you have high enough %), and where larger weapons do not make you slower (I doubt it will in MRQ for that matter).
And my example actually assumed that the first PC was not a klutz and actually hits his opponent. Any hit with 2d8 of damage in BRP (not discussing MRQ) usually ends up being a killing or disabling blow, that is why it is better to deal the first blow, and why it is better to act first.

If MRQ is going to be different on this, we will have to see. But I doubt it very much. Especially since a good swordsman (100+ %) now can aim at the head with a pesky -40% penalty.
 
No, you are all off track. It's best to NOT GET HIT AT ALL. 'I love my shield'. Or, 'the artful dodger survives to fight another day'.

Seriously, too, it's going to be the PC's with enough skill to utilize -40% and hit somebodies unarmored whatever, not the general run of NPC. It's all good, unless you want to be mean to your players... :twisted:
 
andakitty: So you totally disagree with that in general, getting to go first, and landing the first blow in BRP usually wins the fight?

True, it is best to not get hit at all. But if we disregard defences, which is the only thing that is vaguely a counterweight to this "quirk" of the rules, the one who first deals damage usually wins. And the one who acts first has the greatest chance of dealing damage first (and last to satisfy those who must comment on such things).
 
Just that it is better to win the fight without being hit at all. As to how much damage a character can withstand BRP has always seemed a reasonable simulation...but remember, even a greatsword MAY only deliver 2 points. I guess the other thing I am implying is that it has to be a pretty solid hit. I've seen a pretty broad spectrum of results, and to tell you the truth 'one shot stops' seem fairly rare in my game even given the deadliness of the system. You may have a different experience, thouugh. Also, IN GENERAL, the more skilled combatant will win regardless of weapons used. With the usual exceptions. In one game I had a PC assassin with master level weapon skills (90%+ in this case) jumped by three beginning PC's, and I thought all three of them were toast. Two were, but my assassin fumbled, the third PC criticaled, and killed the assassin. It's more complicated than 'who hits first'...the assassin had everything, faster, more skill, a better weapon, poison, and still got croaked. This is one reason I love the system so much.
 
Archer said:
andakitty: So you totally disagree with that in general, getting to go first, and landing the first blow in BRP usually wins the fight?

True, it is best to not get hit at all. But if we disregard defences, which is the only thing that is vaguely a counterweight to this "quirk" of the rules, the one who first deals damage usually wins. And the one who acts first has the greatest chance of dealing damage first (and last to satisfy those who must comment on such things).

But we shouldn't disregard defenses. THat is what makes the argument.

Othewrwise the go first = wins isn't a "quirk" it is the logical outcome. If you look at real world combat, the victor is typically the first one who gets a solid hit through the defenses of the opponent. True with swords, true with firearms, true with tanks, true with nukes.

This isn't a "quirk" this is just the realization that dead people don't fight back. Hence my "it is the last strike that wins" comment. Once one side has defeated/killed the other the fight is over. Hence the first attack might end the fight, but the last attack does end the fight.

However, going first isn't as dominant as some might think. In all RQ/BRP games defenses make a big difference. Parrying/Dodging and Armor Potection makes a major difference.

Othwerise, in RQ (at least up to RQ3), the guy with the bow would win, because his first attack would go off at DEX SR, typically way ahead of a melee attack.In fact, though, even if you assume the arrow will hit, there is no guantee that it won't be dodged, or that it will be able to penetrate the target's armor and/or shield.

IN RQ, going first is secondary to getting past the defenses. SO, a combantant might be better off delaying an attack in favor of hiting s specific location-pereferable one with less armor, or one that can disable to opponent somehow. The big drawback to 2H weapons is that they require two hands to use. A realtively weak hit that disables a limb can spell disaster for someone armed with a two handed weapon.[/i]
 
I agree, hence my statement in an earlier post that my Stormbringer players quickly learned to ambush, dodge, use missile weapons, gang up, and generally do whatever was necessary to avoid a one on one slugfest. Those get you killed fast, no matter how good you are. Like my pet assassin. This ain't D&D, folks. Even at low levels...
 
Back
Top