auyl

Personally, I'm not a fan of the monographs. With a few honourable exceptions they are of poorer quality and production standards than hobbyist works that are given away for free. In my mind, they are emblematic of Chaosium's failings over the last decade or so. If some of the best remaining content can be repurposed into high quality, well produced books then that, I reckon, is the best thing for them.

As was said by others they weren't meant to be high quality but rather test beds for possible material. As is the case with any company, I've seen official books that were not worth what I paid for them and should have relegated to a monograph comparable publication. I still support monographs because they allow for more possible material at a lower cost.

That's why I incuded the Heroic Hit Points option. Indeed, in almost all the games of MW I've run for my own group, we use the HHP option. In addition to letting PCs stick around a lot longer, it makes Major Wounds much more rare on them.

Of course, I also use the Mook rules where cannon-fodder NPCs have CON/2 Hit Points. I just like running games where the PCs are Big Damn Heroes .

I do the same in my Legend campaigns. Heroes have more hp while the typical enemies have the standard. Just makes heroes more well ... heroes!

I really like this and am going to use it.  I will probably increase it 1 point instead of 1d4.

I like the concept of this rule as I realize Magic World is meant to be gritty but I've always like cinematic high fantasy so higher hit points have always appealed to me. I might do as Chaot suggested however and increase the hit points by 1 instead of 1d4. And I'd personally make them like Chris said, have them have to heal the major wound naturally and have to pass a Constitution improvement to do so.

Though they vary, quite a few of the monographs I have are better in content and art than the few Chaosium-produced BRP products of the last half a dozen years.

 

The question should not be "do we get rid of the monographs?", but "how can we produce Chaosium BRP products that are actually professional?".

I would agree with you. Some of the monographs I have are actually better than some official products, but on the same token, some are not. But I would like to see the line improved and expanded upon just as you have said rather than scraped altogether.

I thnk Ben Monroe is currently thinking about this subject. Very carefully. I doubt they have made a decision yet. And when they make it, it will be based more on an organic strategy about quality standards than on fan input. Yet I doubt that what you write here will be thoroughly disregarded, so a little more "Huzza for the monographs" will do no harm

Huzzah!!!

The person calling in many cases was the author.

If that was you, I get that can be frustrating. I've personally had to deal with that from another company that will remain unnamed. However I don't see that as a reason not to do the monographs. All small staff companies have issues with tracking stock, some even losing track of unthinkable amounts of monies worth.

I'm intrigued by this and where it could go, unfortunately I don't really have the time. I might be willing to give this a go if I'm writer-blocked on my other major project, but no promises.

It wasn't a matter of the software keeping track or not, it was a matter of them not wanting/caring to give out that info.

Alright, that makes more sense. I can understand them not wanting to give out that information especially if it isn't favourable. For instance, saying that a product is selling well (if it is) is fine, but saying that a product isn't selling at all wouldn't be the best strategy. I personally wouldn't spend the energy saying how poorly an item is selling to just some random person who is calling, but would rather use my business skills to upsell that product instead.

Perhaps a good compromise solution would be to allow them to continue but as PDF and POD  products only ?

This is pretty much what I was thinking as well. Don't stop them from coming in, but let people buy them as they want them, that way there's very little to do but hopefully pay the contributor. Again, that can be difficult at times, I understand that, but DTRPG records how many of each item you've ever sold, so if they stick by the $250/500 unit pay rate, they could easily keep track of how many of each are sold.

Hey all, just a reminder that this is the final weekend of Solace Games' sale on PDF's and POD titles.

PDF's are 50% off and POD are 25% off all in celebration of Free RPG Day tomorrow!

Get your titles here!

I've hear a few complaints about it taking far too long to get monographs publushed though. Thats got to put potential authors off. Pretty much why I do everything for free. (that AND my works not as pretty)

True but we don't know what will happen with the change in leadership. Things might get done sooner. I just don't think they should abandon the monogrsphs altogether.

The monograph idea was interesting and it did allow a way of getting non-Cthulhu content out there when the company was really struggling, but it dragged on too long.

I disagree, I love the monograph idea. True, they may not be as top quality as the regular books, but they are some real gems in it for instance Basic Fantasy. It allows emerging writers to get work out there with very little work for Chaosium and allows for an almost unlimited idea stream for the games and the company to work with.

I hope they continue this idea.

I don't restrict the use of electronic items at my gaming table but I prefer to use dead-tree books myself, I just find it easier to reference a book since I usually am able to remember where things are in a book a rather than an electronic one.

I too would love that, but I have a feeling that new BRP & MW supplements and settings are going to be few and far between while the retrofit is going on; indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if pickings remained rather slim until after a strategy and direction is worked out for the BRP line. I'm not trying to be a daisy-downer just giving vent to my own suspicions.

Meanwhile fan based projects might be the only way we see "new" material for awhile...like clarence's BRP Starships 2.2 or Trifletraxor’s Manual of Monsters 1.2a...and the forum's d/l section might become an even more important resource than it already is .

I don't doubt that you're right. Too bad 3PP don't get as much in the way of sales compared to Chaosium itself that they could take the job of publishing.

I'm thinking of renewing my license now that there is new leadership and focusing on BRP/MW

Although I'd prefer BRP then MW anything outside of CoC would be nice

In fact I might even suggest taking a page from Evil Hat, and producing these books in Digest format; this of course would force them to be longer, but would also allow them to translate into the various e-pub formats a bit better. It would probably also reduce the printing costs. (Personally I prefer full layout, multi-column books, but can see the appeal of this format and the possible cost reductions associated with it.)

 

Produced in Digest, either in paperback or hardback, they could be soled individually, or perhaps in special editions in a sleeve. Core, Super World, Future World, Fantasy World... sounds like a familiar product.

 

...

 

Perhaps Malleus Monstrorum gets produced in this format as well and becomes BRPs monster resource.

 

SDLeary

With my gaming company I used to do projects in 8.5x11 but didn't really care for it. I preferred the Digest format so if BGB's various companions were Digest that would suit me just find.

Malleus Monstrorum is more for CoC than for BRP in general. There are lots of unique monsters you could bring into a BGB supplement than a CoC one. So yes, Malleus Monstrorum could make a monster resource, I would rather see it stay as a CoC one and come up with something specifically for BGB.

If they can bring more MW out I'd be happy. I also wish they'd do more with Nephilim but that's wanting too much I know. But more general support for BGB would make me the happiest. I'm thinking once CoC 7e is done and some books for it are out the new team will give BGB some love.

I'm glad there is such a shift at the Chaosium offices. Charlie was a great guy don't get me wrong, but I still think it was time for a change.

Hopefully Greg and Sandy can get the ball rolling again and I can put my faith back into the company. Would like to see other lines supported other that just CoC and with these changes maybe we'll finally see these kinds of products!

Actually, I might go the other way... a smaller book. Something that provided a sold general foundation, one type of magic/power, some basic tech, etc.

I would then put all the fiddly bits, such as hit locations, passions, personality traits, other magic system, a build power system (superpowers?), etc. This would be the BRP Companion.

The biggest trick here would be to determine what went where. But it would rekindle the tradition of a base game, then a companion volume (or volumes). It appears that Magic World is using this model, and I think it should be brought back out to the rest of the line.

SDLeary

I'd prefer a book about the size of the BGB. An all inclusive volume that allows for greater sandbox. If not that then separate volumes for different base genres.

Well here's a thought, instead of redoing what's already been done... what if Chaosium made a companion to the BGB?

 

Throughout the BGB there are several allusions to an expansion of BRP; indicating a second/additional book featuring more powers, spells, creatures, optional rules, etc. 

 

It wouldn't need to have the system in it so there's more room for settings as well. 

A companion would be good. If it offered alternate rules and like the core book said, more powers, spells etc. then I would put money down for that.

My two cents, from the fan/user pont of view.

As I recently posted on the Chaosium RQ google group, a new edition of a beloved game is really needed, and not just "a marketing trick", when there are bits of the rules that almost everyone, or at least a majority of fans of the game, do not run as written but houserule. Dodge in RQ3 or armour penalty to attack rolls in MRQ1 might be an example.

 

Is there anything in the BGB that the majority of people here feel the need to change/complement/houserule? If the answer is yes, then a new BGB could be useful.

 

If the answer is no and the idea of a new core manual is just to "put in all those new rules in CoC7 that sound cool because they are new"... well, my opinion about fixing what is not broken is well known.

I started playing the d100 system with CoC6E and BRP but liked the RQ6 and Legend rules more to my liking. If they adapted similar rules for BRP I'd be all over that. However, I know people like the rules as is, which I'm not saying are bad, there's lots of good stuff in the BGB that I'd like to see in RQ6 and Legend but obviously for licensing reasons it won't happen.

I kind of wish they would have done CoC 7 like WotC did D&D 5. Run all these changes by the players before they went for it. And certainly before changing everything over, wait for it to come out and get players feedback.

Unfortunately they only did what seemed like a limited playtest where the only ones playtesting where ones who were going to tell them how great it was no matter what.

On the yog-sothoth forums there was a lot of disagreement with the new rules. A majority of people who saw the rules (I take it illegally) but weren't invited to playtest didn't like them.

If they did an open playtest and did surveys like WotC did they would haveca system everyone liked. In fact WotC was putting out questions before the first plsytest even went out.

Yeah, I REALLY don't want the supposed 'fixes' of CoC 7 backdrafting into core BRP.

Adding stuff in as optional at some point?  Meh... none of the changes to CoC struck me as 'ooh shiny!' but as long as they're clearly labeled 'optional' it wouldn't bug me.

Moreover I didn't like the subtle shift in language I picked up on while reading CoC 7 that, IMO, was pushing a more 'narrative'/'cinematic' direction... I'd hate to see BRP chase after the 'cool kids' like Fate and Savage Worlds instead of supporting the style of play it already excels at.

I've personally always enjoyed the high role-playing aspect of any d100 system, but I wouldn't mind seeing some alternate rules to the BGB to make it more cinematic if one wanted to.

I'd prefer BGB to stay as is. Still not sure how I feel about CoC 7e. Will probably have to play it more to get a feel for it.

I prefer FtF. I've done the whole Roll20 and Skype gaming and didn't care for it. Don't get me wrong, it's a handy tool if you're in a secluded place or else don't know any other gamers in your area, but it just wasn't the same for me. I've always preferred to roll dice, mark the advancements and defeats on my sheets and recently making 3D card stock buildings for the miniature part of the game.