Atgxtg

Cthulhu is just a big Walktapus.

Gives us some gold ol' Glorantha magic and it's all Glorantha.

I don't even think it would take the Gloranthan dieties, the followers could do it.

Of course, if we allowed for the EC mythos, then I'd say an incarnation of the Eternal Champion would show up and win the fight.

Gloranthan Gods. Just check stats for, saty, the lowley Crimson Bat against some of Cthulhu Mythos heavies.

Wow!

Soltakss, I disagree with you on this.

I think separate forums for BRP setting/sorucebookls makes a lot of sense. Where or not they get thier own forum we will still get the threads about triremes, etc. Better to seapate things so that people will be able to fihnd the stuff for settings that interest them. That way the fantasy fans won't have to wade through the Sci-Fi or Superhero threads.

There is another RPG site that I visit that actually gives a different section in each forum for each RPG. In part because the parent system was used for several settings (ala BRP) but also because one of the settings has been written up for several RPGs.

Using BRP history as an example, I7d much rather see stats for, say, Elric! kept separate from pretty much any other BRP section. Reason being that a 100% weapon skill is Elric! isn't the same as a 100% weapon skill in Strombringer or RQ.

At least by sectioning things off, the people who don't want to read about triremes won't have to see it.

I7m for option 3. While GLoratha has been a big part of the game's past, it is pretty obvious that we probably won't be seeing any more Gloratha stuf from Chaosium.

So until such time as Gloratha becomes relevant to BRP, lets not star a Glorantha forum, and just post whatever works it's way up in the normal course of operation. Otherwise, we will need forums for every other BRP setting and spin off.

Do we want a Elric forum? Or maybe one for Chaosium's version and another for MRQ's version?

I think it is better to wait and see what actually ge's discussed rather than trying to anticipate.

I don't know yet - I'll let you know when I get there.

Does this poll warrant an experience check?

Only if you make the SAN check, AND Triffle got the dice roller up and running.

I suspect that your polls might be more meaningful here, since Triffle is asking asking what sort of changes we want. Polls for that sort of stuff seem sort of natural.

Probably one of the biggest ironies about BRP is that it'S grim and gritty approach apparently didn't suit Glorantha, either, at least according to both Greg Stafford and Steve Perrin.

So what's the benefit of getting your Stupid Poll skill at 90%? Do you get to split your polls?

Well, I for do see the possibility of D&D being dethroned one day. 3.0 was made in part because AD&D was slipping. The game didn7t have the dominance of the RPG field that it had in the 80s. In a way, CCGs such as Magic have alrready dethroned D&D. So it could happen.

But, thanks to OGL, the system has become somewhat independent of WotC. For example it is actually possible that 3.5 might beat 4.0 in sales.

RPGs are always vulnerable, as they need to constantly see new products to stay alive. That is the dictonomy between business and gaming. RPGs that are no longer being supported don't Count from a business standpoint, as they are not generating revenue.

But, as differernt gamers have different styles of play and want differernt things from an RPG, it is probably better if the masses don't flock to BRP. Otherwise Chasoium might end up altering BRP to please the masses and generate sales. I've seen what RQ looks like when rewritten for the D&D crowd, I7d rather not see it again.

I'm for waiting on different forums until such time as there is a reason for them. I could see eventually creating a forum for Glorantha and/or MRQ, in terms of how such stuff could be used for/with BRP (i.e. if someone wanted to covert something like MRQ Lankhmar over to BRP).

But I don't see any reason to set up such forums at this time. Wait until we have a few legitimate BRP settings and forums first.

Yuk, I think the new name is a misnomer. A sixteen page booklet could be Basic Role-playing. But the new game is more like "Advanced Role Playing".

Even the "Chaosium Role Playing System" would sound better.

Runebringer?

Call of Percentiles?

Hey I hope if come off. There are several advantages to joint BRP/MRQ projects. While the mechanics work differently, there is enough similarity in the stats to make dual products more more feasible than the ICE/HERO, Interlok/HERO, and D&D/L5R products of the past.

With a general conversion document, it would open up all the old stuff for mixing with the new. It could be a big win for the BRP community. Even Mongoose would benefit, as it would help to win back the RQers who have rejected MRQ.

And Chaosium was the crazy company that produced Thieves World, requiring cooperation with over a dozen different RPG companies.

But....

...Mongoose isn't run by a bunch of easy going Californian hippies.

I think we have a better chance of seeing Windows/Linux software.

I7ve found that BPR is easier to teach to those with no RPG experience that those with a lot of experience in a different system, especially D&D.

What happens is that novices listen. Experienced players figure that they know what they are doing, and tend to bring along a bunch of preconcied ideas that don't necessarily make sense outside of the confines of their former RPG. When things don't work they get frustrated and blame it on RQ/BRP rather than accepting that they need to adapt their style of play.

For instance, D&Ders have a habit of conducting head on charges against missle troops. In D&D it works, since most grunts don't do much damage and D&D heros have lots of HP. In RQ, two or three arrows will stop anybody who doesn't have heavy armor and or Protection up.

Likewise D&Ders have learned through years of experience to keep slugging away an never surrender. This makes sense for a game where prisoners tend to be tortured and eaten. In RQ, there are times when throwing down you sword and annoucing your ransom (or vice versa) is the best option.

To quote Yoda, "You must unlearn what you have learned."

On the other hand, when RQers play D&D, they might be a bit cautions, but some of their experience seems to cross over. In my local area, I'm the best player at handling mixed fighter-wizard type characters. I did a job on a D&D campaign with a bladesinger, and I owe it all to RQ and Glorantha. RQers integrate swords and sorcery better.

Well, I thingk that any new setting sort of needs to be good anyway. But, since Glorantha seems to be a "no-go" for BRP, Chasoium is going to need to prodcue at least one setting.

IF I were them, I'd revive Questworld. It would solve a lot of their problems and has no drawbacks.

If this was 1983 I'd say, sure they can do it. Now? We will just have to see what the current staff is capable of. I'm looking forward to the Roman Sourcebook that Pete is working on.

But I think it goes without saying that if the quality of the new BPR stuff sucks, then even us devotees won't be buying it, and the system will disappear from the shelves again.

Enpeze,

The way Prince Valiant's cions thing worked (to the best of my reccolection)

-Each character had two stats Presence and Brawn, and divided up six points between them.

-Each character had 9 points to assign for starting skills, also on a 1-6 scale.

-When you did something you would toss a number of coins equal to your stat or stat+skill, if applicable, and count the number of heads. If you beat the difficulty, you won. Typically you could add modifers, like bonuses for equipment.

-A roll of all heads was a complete success and let you toss another coin (this was open ended).

-I think all tails had some some of "fumble penalty", usually making a bad situation worse, but I'd have to check.

-For opposed resolution, both sides would toss coins and compare the results. For an extended test, like combat, the loser would take the difference as a loss of coins. When one side was out of coins they were defeated.

Coins were chosen because anyone could play, since pretty much anyone has some spare change in their pocket. And a set of pennies is sure cheaper than a set of dice.

As for BRP being one of the simplest games ever...

I think you might be tinting those glasses a little because you are so familiar with BRP (actually RQ. BRP is a fiction, but that's another topic). I used to run into a similar problem when trying to teach RQ/Strombringer/etc. to D&D players. Character generation took forever, people kept complain how hard the game was, and how AD&D was easier to understand. AD&D is actually one of the most complex RPGs, as virtually every game mechanic was tacked on with it own rules, rather than a unfired sysem, but to those guys, it WAS easier. Especially as each of them had a set of rule books on hand for reference, while we only had one copy of RQ to share among everybody.

I'm a big fan of RQ and it's variants. That said, hands down Prince Valiant is an easier game, and a much better "pick up" game for non gamers to get. Try rolling up a character with your nephew and his friends, and running an adventure in a afternoon

About HeroQuest,

Actually the HeroQuest system is simple. The explaintion of the rules isn't. Glorantha isn't simple either. People who are told that they are playing one of King Arthur's Knights, or a Viking, have some idea of what that means. `People who are told that they are playing a herotland weaponthane and follower of Orlanth Vingot, don't have any thing to go one, UNLESS they are familiar with Glorantha.

Another reason why HQ seems hard to understand isn't that it is counter inuitive, but that it is so differernt from what you are used to.

Storytelling Game,

The big difference is that with stroytelling RPGs the players usually have a lot more input into how the stroy unfolds. In a tradial RPG adventure the GM write (or buys) the adventure. The basic plot is set out and the isn't much the PCs can really do other than roleplay how their characters react to the events.

With a storytelling RPG the PCs have some sort of ability to add or alter the story. For example, in Prince Valiant, the players can occasion GM stuff and ahave certificates that allow them to chage the flow of events or add new elements to a story (i.e. "The villian's girlfriend falls in love with Joes character and unlocks the his jail cell, and gives him his charmed sword!".)

This can make the story more dynamic since it becomes more of a clloaborative effort, and this can enhance the session, since you can get a lot more good ideas from six people then from one.

I'd recommend looking at an RPG called FATE. Especially the Spririt of The Century RPG. Check out the SRD. IMO it actually pulls off what HeroQuest tried to do, but failed.

As for teaching the RPG

I think the point that your missing is that teaching something is a long term thing. Yeah, you give the players the game in increments, if you are expecting them to play again next week.

But what would you do for people you just want to play something "today", and might never game again? That is where Prince Valiant shines. Because there is so little to it, people who haven't played before can pick it up and start playing.

Softakiss,

Sorry, but I think what you fear is the future for BRP. I just do see that much cooperation or cross platform stuff happening. Most of the die hard RQ groups and forums said "no thanks" to MRQ a year ago, and dual stat sourcebooks and supplements would probably only work if produced by a third party publisher, assuming that they would be allowed to do so.

Fragmentation of the RPG community is not a new thing. The RQers and the D&Ders have rarely seen eye to eye on things (not surprising considering the differences in approach between the two systems). With each splintering off of Glorantha and/or RQ the systems fanbase has split more and more.

As for Nick's policy, well Mongoose put some restriction on stuff that I submitted for Sign& Portents last year, too.. The days where magazines, even fanzines support more than one system or company are long gone.

Don't get me wrong, I wish both camps could all just get along, but I think the MRQ playtest fiasco proved that they can't. Unfortunately the RPG community isn't a community anymore as much as a business.

Heck, quite a few people here are those who had high hopes for MRQ and used to post on their forums and now have given up on Mongoose. I one of the few who still post at Mongooses site, and I've been one of MRQ's more vocal critics since the beginning. Once I was considered the radical extremist on the MRQ fourm, now I considered the moderate!

I just don't see any peaceful cooperation in our times. Probably the best thing that can happen is for both camps to ignore each other.

Really? Happened this Prince Valiant story at a con? He refused to explain BRP rules to newbies? Because he meant that they are too complicated? Wtf.

Prince Valiant was an RPG that Chaosium relased in the late 80s. It was based on the Hal Foster Strip and used an Arthurian Setting. The rules were fairly simple (tossing coins).

In the book, Greg explain just how he game came to be. The story went that some freinds of his (non gamers) were over and wanted to do something. Somebody said something like "Hey, Greg's written a lot of games, why not play one of his?". The Greg sort of got caught trying to deal with the situation. Something like RQ, Pendragon, or CoC is not the sort of thing where you can get a bunch of newbie up to speed to be able to play for the afternoon. So Greg wrote up PV as a RPG with a shorter learning curve.

I think he decided to stick with that trend, especially since he is more into storytelling than simulation (PV was "the storytelling game"). HQ does appear to continue in the same trend. Even BRP originally was a simplification of the RQ rules to reduce the learning curve.

I think Steve Perrin and Ray Tourney are more resposible for the RPG system we all love than Greg Stafford.

I also think Greg had a valid point. Much as I like RQ, it's not the system that I'd grab for a one shot or a pick up game. By the time everyone got characters together and understood the rules enough to be able to play, it would be time to quit. Remember, we're not talking newbies, but people with no RPG experience whatsoever. The ones who ask "Which one had a hundred sides? What's a damage bonus? What to I roll to hit with a sword? Where is that on the character sheet? What does this [%} symbol mean, can't I attack at my full value? What do you mean I didn't hear that? I'm sitting right next to you? It takes a WEEK to get there--should we come back next Sunday?!? What's a hit point? Can I buy more? I rolled a 47 did I hit? No I don't know what my skill is, how can I tell? Oh, is 40% good? Did my 47 hit?"

etc., etc., etc, etc.

Having been then and tried that, I can see his point.

Not to many people were fond on my posts. I generally don't make a good first impression or something. I seem to be a catalyst and provoke some very strong reactions. A lot of the people I chat with now are those that I met on opposite sides of an argument. I guess I just don't think quite the same way as most people or something. :confused:

Ah, naa. playing gate guardians with lazguns was not our style. Back in the 90ties we were proud dystopians.

It was the only WoW setting that I never ran. I pulled it out and looked at it the other day, and it turns out the game is actually better than I gave it credit for. With a little effort, it could be the foundation of a decent SF game.

Judges Guild seems to be focusing on D20 right now, maybe they can persuaded to do other systems also.

They always were primaily a D&D company. But they were also one of the few (okay, okay really the only) 3rd party publishers for RQ2. Paul Jaquays has always been one of the more talented people in the RPG field. Strange that Kevein Siembada Palladium has done so much better than JG.

I guess Greg Stafford is not the biggest BRP fan anymore. He seems to prefer the HQ game. And Steve Perrin wrote some interesting posts on rpg.net after the release of MRQ, where he complained that he didnt get a cheque from Mongoose for MRQ. Mongoose posted too and then sent him the cheque. (really big cinema )

No, but that goes back aways. Probably to Prince Valiant. The story Greg gave in Prince Valiant was that some people stopped over (non gamers) and wanted something to do, said "Hey Greg, why don't we play one of your games?", and Greg had to say no, as it takes too long to learn enough BRP to be able to really play it to make it worthwhile as a pickup game.

I think a big problem too was that the guys at Mongoose didnt understand the spirit of BRP at all. They have been in their little D&D tainted world and where too overconfident to be able to make a "new RQ" without much effort. At least it would explain why they didn't hear at the playtesters comments. Many of them seem to be not very long in the hobby or in game designing at all. I mean I dont design an elegant piece of clothing for Armani if I am a trainee from Walmarth, no?

I think that the fundamental problem was that the guys who wrote MRQ were not RQ/BRP players. I mentioned that way back when on the Mongooose boards, and thus started the flame wars. Practically every change makes the game more like d20. If you have people used to writing D20 stuff work on an RPG, it is no surprise if it has a strong d20 feel to it.Take a look at magic. In RQ, everybody knew some magic, and usally had at least Heal 1 by the time they got through character generation (or spend tham money from the CHA loan). In MRQ only dedicated spellcasters start off with any magic, just like d20.

Nothing Mongoose changed made RQ feel "less" like d20. I wound't say they were inexperienced, just that a lot of the experience wasn't applicable. Many RPGs were D&D derived, so if you are familiar with D&D, you have a grasp on how those game work. RQ was one of the exceptions. It is very alien in concept to D&D. THe playtest drafts did have some RQ savvy input, but it got dropped. D20 gamers tend to have different priorities than RQ gamers.

I heard that 4.0 (again, maybe it needs it's own thread) was going to be very similar to the new Star Wars rules. WotC is trying to simplify things as 3.5 got over complicated with all the tacked on stuff.

Plus it give WOtC a chance to make some money selling the core books again. From what I hear the OGL has backfired on them a bit. They didn't wind up with the early 80s level of market share that they thought OGL would have provided. Between pdf and large 3rd party companies like Mongoose, the majority of d20 products are not produced by WotC.

THat's no nearly as bad as what Mayfair did to CHILL. Someone got the idea that it would be "cool" if the game looked like it was written by an inmate in a pscho ward. SO everything was written is some wacky scribble font, with erraqtic size, lettering and spacing. It might have looked cool and artsy, but made it a lot tougher to actually read the book. :mad:

Sorloc,

I have and ran C&S (the original red book edition, no less with the 4 point text). While not a bad game, it was level based, and had increasing HP. Character creation was a nightmare. THe game used a d20 scale for stats (there were around a dozen or so), and players rolled a D20 for those stats. As bonuses and penalties for stats were large, it usually meant that any character tended to have at least one stat that was so low as to be crippling. I.e> mute, bedridden, pyschotic, etc. I think less than 10% of PCs managed to get through character generetion with something that was playable. My all time favorite was the character that someone rolled up with 20+ Str & DEX, great social status, horoscope the works. Everyone was getting excited about the guy, and he was looking like they were gonna adventure with their very own William Marshall, until we got to PYSCHE and it turned out that he was homicidal (the high social status meant more inbreeding), and went on rampages. I think he triggers were darkness and blood.

Pendragon also gave a lot more info on actually role-playing in a fedual setting, although C&S certainly did more towards that end then any other RPG that had come out prior to it.

Come to think of It, I think I have (or had) pretty much every one of the FGU games you mentioned. Flashing ABlades was probably my favorite of the lot. It even went out well with the local D&D players.

THere were quite a few little companies that used rto produce good stuff back then. Most still exist in some sort of undead state. Judges Guild being another one, and one that would be of interest to RQ/BRP fans.

Swordbearer. That was FGU, wasn't it?

Yup. I still have that. It was also somewhat BRP derrived, although it had a horrible flaw with the parry rules (get your weapon speed up high enough and you don't need to make the parry roll).

Enpeze,

I wasn't thinking of a rewrite so much as paragraph in the new/improved spot rules. Something like the SB5 brawling rules wouldn't be too bad.

I think we are pretty much onthe same page. The important thing is to get BRP out of the shelves where gamers can see it. Then worry about alterations and upgrades.

As for why MRQ came out the way it did,

Well, I had heard from some people from the playtest groups as well as some Mongoose employees that the rules were much more BRPish up until the last draft, when Matt Sprange rewrote everything. I also heard that pretty much all the complaints about the system were pointed out by the playtesters, too. If you can mug a playtester and look at some of the playtest drafts you will see a RPG that looks a lot more familar. MOngoose orginally advertised the game as the return of RQ, and played up the involvement of Stafford and Perrin in the desgin on the new edition. I don't know why Stafford doesn't write anything for MRQ, or why Perrin left the playtest. But neither had a hand in design of the game as originally advertised.

And yeah, you can tell what RPG system Matt is used to writing for. I think a LOT of the changes and problems weren't so much by design but fallout form removing all the checks and balances that the system had. Steve hid a lot of the plumbing for RQ away. Tweaking one part of he game almost always lead to unforeseen changes in how other aspects of the game played out.

I think there is a point about dated RPGs. Chess did change an evolve over centuries. Newer RPGs often have new options and such that the designers of eariler games would have used if they had thought of it I seriously doubt we have all those neat polyhedrons to roll if Gygax and friends had ever though of using mutiple D6 the way Hero, GURPS or WEG did. Or an AC system, and increasing HP for that matter.

BTW, Maybe the D&D thing should be spun off for it's own topic? There is certainly enough to say about it, especially with it's new RQ inspired skill system..

Really? no SF game? I guarantee you, its an interesting experience. We played over several years traveller and a Cyberspace (ICE) campaign with BRP rules. It was a blast. (in the truest sense )

What? You didn't use FUTURE WORLD???!!:D:D

Burn the heretic!