BRP Issues List

[Sunspoticus]

Hi, as a concerned BRP Ruleset owner/GM and a software dev too, I've seen tons of messages about problems with this ruleset. I think we can all agree this ruleset needs some serious updating. This post is an attempt to collect all issues in one place for SmiteWorks et all to look at and address.


Please add bugs you have seen & steps to reproduce the bug/error.
Wishlist items are valid as well. That will give the devs an idea of what us customers want

I'll start off.


Update underlying UI (dynamically sizable windows, proper image scaling better character minis, character status on tokens)
Re-write Ruleset against CoreRPG model. (I have begun this actually).
Add other basic BRP content to either base ruleset -OR- as seperate modules
Convert Call of Cthulu to BRP basis
MagicWorld extension
Merrie England extension
The Laundry extension/adventure modules

[Blackfoot]

One problem I found was that Characteristics didn't link to weapon attacks (I can't remember about other skills). This is a problem because it means that effects and spells that enhance characteristics don't automatically enhance the linked abilities.

[wbcreighton]

I have a couple of questions question regarding BRP and the d100 family.

Are you rewriting the ruleset for SmiteWorks or Chaosium ?

Is it possible to write a d100 OGL engine ruleset on top of Core ? Which would allow extensions to be written to modify the ruleset to work for BRP, Openquest, Legend, CoC, Runequest 6th, etc.

[Stollesson]

My wishlist


Shields should have a own category in the weapons list.
Have both armor and weapon list on the same page in the PC-form for smother battles.
In the combat tracker on the player side you can today only do a hitlocations roll for melee, needs one for missile weapons to.
Be able to do a correct hitlocations roll from PC-form depending on who they have targeted. Then the players don't have to see the combat tracker at all.

[RosenMcStern]

One problem I found was that Characteristics didn't link to weapon attacks (I can't remember about other skills). This is a problem because it means that effects and spells that enhance characteristics don't automatically enhance the linked abilities.

This ruleset is really not automated to the point of taking into account cast spells. At this stage, you are explicitly supposed to do the calculations yourself when you enter combat after receiving a spell.



Convert Call of Cthulu to BRP basis


This really is something that should be done ONLY with Chaosium approval, so it cannot be marked as an issue. My guess as a Chaosium licensee is that they would prefer Call of Cthulhu and BRP to be kept as two distinct entities, for commercial purposes. But really, any official answer for this must come from Chaosium - either through Smiteworks or directly.



Merrie England extension
The Laundry extension/adventure modules


Even more complicated. These two are third party licensed products, and require permission from the publisher, too. In specific, Merrie England would require permission from me, and from Simon, the author, as well. A permission that - I wish to be frank - I am not willing to give, for the reasons explained below.

An extension has been in the making for BRP Fantasy Europe for several years, covering products such as Merrie England, Stupor Mundi and Crusaders of the Amber Coast. It might even include the multi-scenario campaigns from these supplements as loadable modules, and in fact half of the campaign for Crusaders is already converted to Fantasy Grounds. Work on it was interrupted because of the instability of the underlying ruleset, particularly after the arrival of the shining new CoreRPG that potentially solves all of BRP issues.

Be warned, however, that such products would not be "free" products but come in the same format as the BRP Rome/ Veni, Vidi, Vici additional content pack, with additional weapons/skills/spells and each individual scenarios as loadable plug-ins.

Edit: I forgot to add, I fully support the efforts to port BRP to the new Core ruleset. I would contribute myself if time was not an issue.

[Shaun]

Great to hear that somebody’s going to take a look at updating this ruleset. I’m new to FG but have a looong history with BRP/RQ.

My main gripe with this ruleset at the moment is:

You can't create an NPC "Race" template with default armor points, which makes it impossible, for example to use wandering monsters/random encounters with randomly rolled stats and hp. If you select one of the standard hit location tables on the combat page for an NPC (eg: “humanoid”), as soon as you select “Race” on the creatures main page (in order to get the randomly generated stats) the armor and hp locations disappear from the creatures combat page and AP don’t appear in the combat tracker.

Other features from the more sophisticated rulesets I’d like to have in this one are the auto-rolling tables, and more details in the “item” creation options, and more drag n drop functionality for things like equipment lists would be good.

I've also sporadically encountered a glitch that NPC damage bonus sometimes doesn't get rolled, but I've not been able to pin down under what circumstance it happens.

Ideally, since one of the most appealing things about BRP is its flexibility for use in very different settings, I think this is the area that needs to be the main focus of an approach to updating it, rather than providing ready-made extensions for different settings, which may well, as already mentioned, present copyright issues. What’s needed I think is a ruleset with easy to customise lists skills, equipment, weapons, armor, etc.

If the ruleset gets entirely rewritten, I wonder if it would be good idea to base it on Legend since its OGL? If the new version fo the ruleset were easy to customise, GMs could then make changes to suit whichever d100 rules they’re using, and no permissions or royalties would be involved.

[Blackfoot]

This ruleset is really not automated to the point of taking into account cast spells. At this stage, you are explicitly supposed to do the calculations yourself when you enter combat after receiving a spell.
This is something that other rulesets do and is not all that difficult to implement.

[RosenMcStern]

This is something that other rulesets do and is not all that difficult to implement.

Certainly not, but it would constitute an addition, not a porting.

Moreover, the "standard" magic systems are there more for reference than for actual use in play. Practically all supplements use personalised magic systems, so a "built in" implementation of the magic in the BGB would have a very limited use for most campaigns.

[Blackfoot]

Certainly not, but it would constitute an addition, not a porting.

Moreover, the "standard" magic systems are there more for reference than for actual use in play. Practically all supplements use personalised magic systems, so a "built in" implementation of the magic in the BGB would have a very limited use for most campaigns.
Huh? We'll have to disagree on this point. Anyway the thread was about issues in BRP, lack of functional effects for stat adjustments is one of them.

[Shaun]

Another glitch I've just remembered: If I have exported a module including NPCs, sometimes when I open that module, particular NPCs will have weapons entries added to them from other NPCs. Not a major issue, but can be annoying. I also sometimes get a script error message when activating the BRP rules modules, although they still seem to load ok.

I think the main priority on my wish-list would be the auto-rolling tables, is there anybody with knowledge of how this ruleset works who can suggest how that might be added to the current ruleset as an extension, or by adding/changing some code somewhere?

[RosenMcStern]

I think the main priority on my wish-list would be the auto-rolling tables, is there anybody with knowledge of how this ruleset works who can suggest how that might be added to the current ruleset as an extension, or by adding/changing some code somewhere?

My (alas limited) experience in tinkering with corerpg-based rulesets suggests me that it would not be impossible to simply take the rollable tables module from corerpg and graft it into BRP.

[damned]

You never know... Sunspoticus and Blackfoot both have the experience I think to create an extension to load CoreRPG tables into an older v2 ruleset... not saying they have the time or the desire to or anything... just they are active in this thread and well you never know your luck in a friendly forum... Its quite possible some of the others in this thread do too...

[Blackfoot]

It's my understanding that Sunspoticus intends to port the ruleset to CoreRPG,


Re-write Ruleset against CoreRPG model. (I have begun this actually).

if he does, tables will be a 'freebie'. I have them in my Champions ruleset without doing any extra work.

[damned]

It's my understanding that Sunspoticus intends to port the ruleset to CoreRPG,

if he does, tables will be a 'freebie'. I have them in my Champions ruleset without doing any extra work.

Great point Blackfoot.
Go Sunspoticus!

In the meantime though - if anyone wants to dabble in making the Tables work in BRP...
The Tables files look fairly portable - but you need to code the additional Icons and Window Launcher for BRP...

[Trenloe]

but you need to code the additional Icons and Window Launcher for BRP...
And the XML templates used...

[Blackfoot]

Didn't the Tables already exist as an extension for another ruleset (before they were added to 3.5/PFRPG)? It seems like tweaking that would be the easiest way to go.

Here we go.. Universal Tables... I believe that did it no? I have no idea where it is relative to the current BRP ruleset... but.. it's a start.

[Trenloe]

Didn't the Tables already exist as an extension for another ruleset (before they were added to 3.5/PFRPG)? It seems like tweaking that would be the easiest way to go.

Here we go.. Universal Tables... I believe that did it no? I have no idea where it is relative to the current BRP ruleset... but.. it's a start.
This will be a good example of how to put a table extension together. Although I'd recommend trying to use the CoreRPG code if at all possible - there have been a lot of updates to the table code in CoreRPG since this extension came out (use any number range not just dice rolls, allow drag/drop of links, etc.).

[Blackfoot]

I was thinking this might just 'work' until Sunspoticus was finished implementing CoreRPG in the BRP ruleset.

[Trenloe]

I was thinking this might just 'work' until Sunspoticus was finished implementing CoreRPG in the BRP ruleset.
Yeah, it should work as it is non-GUI based - i.e. it is purely command line driven.

[Shaun]

Thanks guys, that ext works perfectly :) It ain't pretty but it gets the job done....that's one wish crossed off my list

Is there any mileage in looking at the CoC ruleset for ideas as to how to do the revamp? I got a copy of this just in case it was a more up-to-date implementation of a d100 system (which it is), but it's too basic and too tailored to CoC to be much use for a flexible d100 fantasy game, but maybe there's a starting point there? I imagine that the main headache with BRP/RQ is handling the hit locations, strike ranks and action points in the combat tracker.

Ideally it would be nice to have the option to use whichever flavour of RQ/BRP rules you prefer (I'm sure a lot of people would like to see RQ6), but perhaps this is more hassle than it's worth, maybe vanilla BRP is the best generic middle-ground. At the end of the day it doesn't matter too much if people are going to customise it to their own setting anyway, so long as there's an underlying system that works.

[damned]

I would think that the vanilla BRP would be the best way to go and if people really need another variant they would need to build an extension.
Or as someone mentioned earlier... in this thread or elsewhere... there is legend...

Thats great that you have basic tables functionality.
If you get time and you are curious you could try and see if you can incorporate the more complete tables as an extension.... :)

[RosenMcStern]

Ideally it would be nice to have the option to use whichever flavour of RQ/BRP rules you prefer (I'm sure a lot of people would like to see RQ6), but perhaps this is more hassle than it's worth, maybe vanilla BRP is the best generic middle-ground.

I stress it again - it is not a matter of technical issues only. BRP is a licensed ruleset, and is technically the property of Chaosium. Changing it into something that can natively emulate the d100 variant published by another game maker would not be a "best business practice". I doubt Chaosium would consent to that, so extensions that make BRP => RQ6 or BRP => OpenQuest will have to be fan-made materials. It might even happen that these extensions be banned from hosting here on fantasygrounds.com - I suspect it would be Chaosium's right to ask for this, even though I doubt Charlie would actually ever issue such a ban.

The proper way to go would be to have two separate baselines, one OGL-ed for use by anyone (it could be made out of OpenQuest or Legend) and another one that reflects the original BRP ruleset and its functionalities. I see cross-pollination as "legally unadvisable". A lot of work, but probably necessary.

[Shaun]

I stress it again - it is not a matter of technical issues only. BRP is a licensed ruleset, and is technically the property of Chaosium. Changing it into something that can natively emulate the d100 variant published by another game maker would not be a "best business practice". I doubt Chaosium would consent to that, so extensions that make BRP => RQ6 or BRP => OpenQuest will have to be fan-made materials. It might even happen that these extensions be banned from hosting here on fantasygrounds.com - I suspect it would be Chaosium's right to ask for this, even though I doubt Charlie would actually ever issue such a ban.

The proper way to go would be to have two separate baselines, one OGL-ed for use by anyone (it could be made out of OpenQuest or Legend) and another one that reflects the original BRP ruleset and its functionalities. I see cross-pollination as "legally unadvisable". A lot of work, but probably necessary.

Hence my earlier suggestion that it might be worth considering using Legend as the basis for the ruleset, thereby avoiding licensing issues and presumably halving the retail price. Other iterations of d100 could then be incorporated by a generic extension like the current MyQuest.ext. So long as the modifications to use a proprietary rule system is done by the individual GM for a system they legitimately own, there's no legal problem.

Just throwing suggestions into the pot anyway, since this is the stage at which anybody tackling the rewrite of the ruleset will need to make some far-reaching decisions....

[Shaun]

If you get time and you are curious you could try and see if you can incorporate the more complete tables as an extension.... :)

Curiousity I have an abundance of, time not so much unfortunately, and after taking a look inside these rulesets, it looks pretty daunting to unravel what's going on. I have zero knowledge of Lua, and the way FG & CoreRPG has been put together doesn't seem particularly clearly documented for a beginner to get to grips with. Possibly it's best left to those who already have the expertise to do the job (although if anybody can point me in the direction of some sort of reference document explaining what component file does what I'm curious enough to investigate further). I think RosenMcStern is right that the tables in CoreRPG can't simply be lifted out of there and transplanted into BRP, CoreRPG seems to implement everything very differently to the earlier BRP ruleset, and the ability to make these tables must depend on functions buried deep in the CoreRPG ruleset hence won't work in BRP (if you create a table in CoreRPG and export it as a module all you seem to get is the formatting of the table and its contents, not anything that actaually makes it work)

[Trenloe]

although if anybody can point me in the direction of some sort of reference document explaining what component file does what I'm curious enough to investigate further.
Info on the CoreRPG ruleset file locations and modifying a ruleset: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?20651-Modifying-the-CoreRPG-ruleset

Some eveloper info in the Wiki too: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/Developer_Guides

Start here - has good baseline info and links to XML and LUA reference material: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/modguide/

This is a little old, but still has very valid info, just not relative to later ruleset layouts: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/filelibrary/community/Anatomy_of_a_Ruleset.pdf

And for base API reference: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/refdoc/

[Shaun]

Info on the CoreRPG ruleset file locations and modifying a ruleset: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?20651-Modifying-the-CoreRPG-ruleset

Thanks for these, it all looks pretty daunting to the newcomer, but if I get the time to put into it learning how to do this stuff it might well be interesting. Have got a copy of "Programming in Lua" as a starting point ;)

[Shaun]

A few more thoughts and suggestions:

Broken or non-existent stuff in current ruleset:

“+1/2 of damage bonus” for NPCs doesn’t work (adds +1 point instead) – seems to work fine for PCs though
Missile hit location tables don’t appear in combat tracker for NPCs
Although you can rename and delete characteristics in the MyQuest extension, if you do so it can screw up the workings of the ruleset, presumably because the characteristics are still referred to by their original names elsewhere (EG: if I delete EDU or rename POW, skill bonuses don’t work on the character sheet despite changing all references to them in MyQuest)




stuff previously mentioned:

hit locations info disappears when you select “Race” in NPC template, making it impossible to define a race template with default AP
hit locations disappear entirely from combat tracker if you select “custom” hit locations in NPC profile after selecting “race”
NPC damage bonus (possibly) intermittently not working



desirable features for a version of new ruleset

ability to turn off hit locations for NPCs and use general HP instead while still using hit locations for PCs (and selected NPCs if possible)
ability to rename or remove characteristics without causing problems to the ruleset
better indexing of rulebook with easily accessible links to most often used sections and tables
auto-rolling tables
alternative default desktop/skins
easy to customise extension (like MyQuest.ext)
More detail/features needed in Strike Rank info in Combat Tracker – Currently the Strike Rank field in Combat Tracker only displays characters Strike Rank modifier, doesn’t include weapon SR, making it necessary to add each individuals weapon SR manually, which makes the automatic calculation of this field a bit pointless, it needs to at least be possible to specify a default main weapon to be included in the calculation. If only the characters Dex & Siz modifiers are to be calculated, it would make more sense to include this as a field on the character sheet along with damage bonus, etc. Ideally, the weapon field in the Combat Tracker should be able to accommodate a couple of weapons which can be selected as the weapon currently in use, and then automatically add the weapons Strike Rank to the calculated field

[Claus]

Are any one working on integrating targeting between maps and combat tacker - like the functionality, there are in some of the other rule sets?

[KPhan2121]

Here are some things I've noticed
- The ability to export and import characters is not available
- Weapon and Martial Arts skills don't save to character sheets after you close the sheet
- You can't resize any of the windows, so it's difficult to use grid-based combat, the armor page is cut off around where modern armors are
- There isn't an option to use variable armor values
- You can change NPC initiative but not PC
- The way Initiative works in the rule set should be reworked, since everyone can take an action every 5 initiative.
- Some automation with the combat like the cumulative -30% penalty to defense rolls.
- The ability to add character portraits to PC Sheets

[Blackfoot]

I believe adding character portraits has always been a Player Only feature in BRP... (a long standing complaint of mine)

[KPhan2121]

I believe adding character portraits has always been a Player Only feature in BRP... (a long standing complaint of mine)

Really? My players tell me that they can't change theirs. How do you change the portraits?

[Blackfoot]

Open Campaign
Log in as Player
Create New Character or select existing one from PCs
Open 'Pics'
Click on Portrait
I just tested it and it worked fine.