The Basic Fantasy RPG roxxorz!

[jdrakeh]

Actually, I don't mind %-based skills. They're intuitive and easy to adjudicate, IMO. That is, I think it's easy for a GM to determine modifiers, etc. with percentages. It's not that much harder with 20 graduations, instead of 100, but I still find it more natural to think in terms like "base 75% chance," instead of DCs. What do you dislike about it, other than the fact that it's "old?"

Also, what do you mean by "exception-based?" If you mean "an exception to a universal mechanic," then I shrug and refer you to RFisher's comments on his pages: Unified Mechanic, Different Mechancis, and Classic D&D: I used to think...

I think the only real issue that may crop up in actual play is that the percentages don't seem to be balanced against the attribute check DCs, which means that a character (any character) may actually have a better chance at performing thief-like skills at lower levels than the actual thief does

I haven't played BFRPG yet, but after a quick reading, this was the single possible problem that struck me with the decision to present thief skills under a different set of rules than those that govern all other actions in the game (including thief skills utilised by non-thieves). It may not pan out like that in actual play.

Or I may have missed something that says performing class skills with an attribute check is verboten (though telling somebody that they can't attempt to hide, sneak, etc seems pretty silly).

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think the only real issue that may crop up in actual play is that the percentages don't seem to be balanced against the attribute check DCs, which means that a character (any character) may actually have a better chance at performing thief-like skills at lower levels than the actual thief does

Yes, that could be a problem. When I've run BFRPG, I didn't use the suggested attribute check rules -- I either used applications of standard rules (like using a suprise check for sneaking) or gave a percentage chance based on the situation (including relative levels, difficulty, class, etc).

 

[jdrakeh]

Yes, that could be a problem. When I've run BFRPG, I didn't use the suggested attribute check rules -- I either used applications of standard rules (like using a suprise check for sneaking) or gave a percentage chance based on the situation (including relative levels, difficulty, class, etc).

Actually, I just snuck a peek at the rules and I seem to be wrong. Thieves begin with a 25% chance of successfully using most skills, while other characters begin with a 15% chance using the attribute check rules. So. . . uh. . . ignore all of what I've said up until now about the numbers being wonky on thief skills

 

[jdrakeh]

I wanted to comment on the above when I got home. What initially looked like a fractured resolution system is, mathematically, quite sound (and nifty). It seems that a thief will always have a 10%-15% edge over another character of the same level and different class who is attempting to do. . er. . . thievy things (specifically, the things that a thief's class-granted skills allow him to do with proficiency). This attention to detail is great.

I'd expect most small-press designers to miss the probability breakdown of the linear d20 roll altogether (C&C has some issues in this department where primes are concerned, I think). Gonnerman didn't. That really impresses me. I personally work toward a concept first and worry about knocking things in line with the math much later in the development phase, but this (the thief skill / attribute check relationship) seems to have been deliberately engineered early in development.

It seems, perhaps, that the Basic Fantasy RPG manages to incorporate much of what made Basic D&D great while simultaneously balancing things out a bit more behind the scenes. And that's hawt. Now doing things like picking locks or hiding won't be limited to thief-class characters by the RAW, though thieves will have a better chance to accomplish those things at the end of the day.

Admittedly, this is kind of a small thing but the devil is in the details -- and somebody obviously paid close attention to details here.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

What initially looked like a fractured resolution system is, mathematically, quite sound (and nifty).

Hmm. I'll have to give that a closer look.

 

[jdrakeh]

Also, while I'm thinking about it, I was under the impression that somebody earlier seemed to think that this thread was started as a deliberate (i.e., commissioned) shill. To be perfectly clear and disperse such worries that may arise in this thread or future threads that I may post on the topic of ths game. . .

I'm not a big fan of the site that birthed the BFRPG. Or most of the things that said site spawns (including those semi-annual raids on the ENWorld General Discussion forum). I'd just assume shave my face with a cheese grater and lather up with hydrochloric acid as I would frequent the site in question (which its members know full well).

When I say that I'm smitten with the BFRPG, it's not because of some behind-the-scenes allegience with the game's creator (though I don't personally dislike him) or the community from whence the BFRPG emerged (which I intensely dislike). It's because this game does a lot of things right. And dammit, that merits some love.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

If you're at all interested in the design and development of BFRPG, you might want to read through this thread in the Dragonsfoot "workshop" forum. There are some other BFRPG threads in that forum, too.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'm not a big fan of the site that birthed the BFRPG.

Whoops. Maybe you wouldn't want to read through that thread.

I'd just assume shave my face with a cheese grater and lather up with hydrochloric acid as I would frequent the site in question (which its members know full well).

I didn't. But I mostly stick to the C&C and Classic forums, there, and I think the 1E forum is where most of the old guard hangs out.

 

[jdrakeh]

If you're at all interested in the design and development of BFRPG, you might want to read through this thread in the Dragonsfoot "workshop" forum. There are some other BFRPG threads in that forum, too.

See my post above I hope to get some non-Dragonsfoot discussion started. Of course, we probably won't have the benefit of frequent participation from the creator, but I also think that there is a benefit to expanding the audience beyond DF's borders (as bitter old sots like myself stand testement to).

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I . . . think that there is a benefit to expanding the audience beyond DF's borders (as bitter old sots like myself stand testement to).

Couldn't hurt. And as you say, BFRPG is a good game. FWIW, I think there's more crossover between forums than there used to be. I'm seeing a lot of familiar screen-names in unexpected places, these days. EN World guys showing up in the C&C forums, DF guys showing up (and sticking around), here. Et cetera.