Jump to content

Dalmuti

Member
  • Posts

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Retained

  • Junior Member

Converted

  • Location
    Toronto, Canada

Dalmuti's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/4)

10

Reputation

  1. Really. Re-read all of his posts in this thread and find one that actually offers a suggestion other than wait and everything will turn out in the end. Seriously nearly all of his posts apologize for Chaosium or belittle others criticisms and ideas. You disagree? His last post is a good example of being a little harsh and unfair, as well as being kind of a ----. What do you think he is saying here? I think he is discounting mine and others desire for an errata sheet, because our opinions don't matter, there not mission critical. Further they don't matter because his group is fine the way things are, and because his group is fine with it, so should everyone else. Harsh, maybe, but you should be just as annoyed with his condescending remarks as I am. ~Dalmuti
  2. What? Are you some kind of shill for Chaosium? You'll have to excuse my tone but I'm loosing patience with your sycophantic drivel. This discussion is to point out and try and solve the problems of a lack of support from Chaosium for a product we like, and want to see do well. This includes pointing out failures and asking for specific solutions, such as an official errata. But lets address your latest obsequiousness. This is what I would call a False Analogy. (The Logical Fallacies: False Analogy) Just because MRQ did it poorly, which I care neither to agree or disagree with, does not mean Chaosium will as well. This, by the way, is a pretty out of character assessment by you of Chaosium's ability to do no wrong. Could your sinuses have cleared for a moment and you noticed the smell? I disagree. Supporting a product means follow up, it means addressing errors and inconsistencies, it means not being satisfied with your product being "fine". It means not leaving your customers to patch together work arounds for themselves. Other game companies seem to be able to figure this little business secret out and are able to release errata and clarification sheets within a reasonable amount of time, why not Chaosium? They have one official product in the BRP line, one, not dozens, one. To not at the very least correct it's mistakes and inconsistencies is inexcusable and indefensible. This is what I would call an Irrelevant Conclusion or maybe an Appeal to Popularity. The Logical Fallacies: Irrelevant Conclusion<br>(<i>ignoratio elenchi </i>) The Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Popularity<br>(<i>argumentum ad populum</i>) Just because your group is ok with the mistakes and inconsistencies, does not mean the rules are fine as they are. For new players errors and inconsistencies are a source of confusion, for older players it's a potential source for argument as to which rule from which previous version should apply. Sure a lot of us have played long enough to figure it out in our own way but we shouldn't have to, and for $40 I have a right to expect that errors will be addressed. Being an apologist for Chaosium doesn't help them better support the BRP community. Constructive criticism and making reasonable demands does. ~Dalmuti
  3. I'm sorry but I think RosenMcStern and some others have sipped too much of the cool aid here. While I agree that it is a very good thing that there is finally some movement on the third party stuff this is not the only kind of support the community is crying out for. It is true that the system will survive in some form or another for those of us already familiar with it, with or without Chasoium, but commercially it will fail unless it keeps releasing some more support/supplement material on a regular basis and deals with errata and clarifications promptly for that material. I for one would like an official errata and clarification sheet. I'm not talking about fixing misspellings, but rooting out and correcting the errors and inconsistencies caused by the "Cut & Paste" method some of this book suffers from. The system is designed to be easily house ruled, but after 20 years these rules should be rock solid and shouldn't require them. This is not a slam on the writers or playtesters, it not easy to do for this amount of material, but it has to be done and it should have been done already. ~Dalmuti
  4. I'd go so far as to say that if the character is relying on the weapon's skill all the time they actually loose skill. Just mark the skill normally and when experience rolls are made and they succeed then they loose 1% of skill. To balance this the GM should automatically return, not give, one lost skill point for each full battle the character does not rely on the weapon's skill. Another way of dealing with it is to have a familiarity type skill that the player rolls to give up control to the weapon. The base being the characters will or POWx5: a success and the character "lets the Force flow..." (use the weapons skill), a failure and the character interferes with the weapon somehow and their skill is used instead. Regardless, if the weapon is calling the shots, then the character should not increase in skill. ~Dalmuti
  5. RosenMcStern I said in an earlier post that I respect your input and you're definitely in Chasoium's corner in this, which I appreciate. So please don't take this as a challenge, but as a question from someone else that would like to see the BRP succeed. Several of us have thrown out ideas to jumpstart this line, each of them has it's good and bad points for sure, but all of them have the same positive goal. What, other than wait and see, would do with this line to solve the current problems? ~Dalmuti
  6. I believe Rust has already mentioned this but here is a link to the BRC Review of MGRQ Pirates Pirates - D100 Reviews It's very good stuff, with some great flavor adds, though some may be a bit too much for a really serious game. The chapter on Combat on the High Seas covers duels, crew combat, morale, and ship-to-ship combat (and more), which I have found are very useful even outside the pirate setting. The MGRQ rules are also pretty similar to the current BRP, having the same system roots in the older versions of the BRP. ~Dalmuti
  7. I'd argue that Fast Talk is too off the cuff and too impermanent to be the appropriate skill for a Poker Face type thing. Fast Talk is more of a BSing kind of action. It doesn't have to be BS, just that it's presented quickly with the intended effect being to overwhelm your target and get them to agree/accept your point of view before they have the time to really consider it. Bluffing would be Fast Talking with a lie or half truth. A Poker Face is different because, as I said earlier, it requires some time to establish your neutral state (neutral in the sense of whatever demeanor you choose), before it can be effective. It's the same difference in a way as Oratory and Debate vs Fast Talk. The other problem that I see with having it a Fast Talk based skill is that it becomes too generalized. Just because you have a good poker face doesn't mean you are a convincing talker. A side note: I prefer Oratory & Debate over Persuade because unlike Oratory or Debate, the word Persuade implies that a success makes the target do or believe what you want them too regardless of whether or not your idea is reasonable, so it often gets used as an exploit, intentionally or not. It doesn't imply that you need any leverage. By leverage I mean something like information, a compelling story or argument, a thing, whatever, but without it you have no leverage in which to persuade with (note that the "leverage" does not have to be real, your argument could be a lie or false information). With Oratory and Debate it only says that whatever your leverage was, you presented it well enough to be considered. Whether or not they actually come around to your point of view depends on if you had anything to back up that point of view. ~Dalmuti
  8. I would call "Poker Face" a Performance skill, because thats most like what it is. Your not bluffing really, because a bluff is an active thing with a specific purpose, "I have the best cards" for example. A poker face is when you are hiding all your thoughts or emotions from showing through your physical and emotional demeanor altogether. It is really only effective over a period of time too because it works by creating a uniform expression across all reactions, good, bad and indifferent, so as to not give away any change and therefore any way to distinguish any thoughts or emotions. A poker face can be a blank or neutral expression or a happy or sad one, as long as it is consistent regardless of the situation. For example: Poker Face always wears a thin smile and speaks in a mildly amused manner, he never seems to be unhappy or even just neutral. He is confronted with a terrible fact about his work; everyone is actually an alien who eat babies and replaces them with their own spawn! Poker Face heads to work an puts on his normal mildly amused expression (rolls Performance), because he now has to go into work and get proof so as to stop this. While in the records room he sees the girl from accounting, who he had been interested in before finding out she's a hideous tentacled baby eater, he must maintain his mildly amused demeanor or tip her off. Normally she would only need an insight roll to notice something different about a character's demeanor, but because of PFs Poker Face Performance skill she now has to not only succeed her roll but beat PFs Performance success as well. If successful she will notice a difference in PFs normal behavior, if she fails she will not. If she succeeds and she starts asking questions then PF is looking at a Bluff or Fast Talk to cover why he broke from his normally amused demeanor. They way to play it is to have the Character or NPC choose a demeanor such as "neutral" and make a Performance roll for a period of time. If the character is successful then their demeanor hold throughout that period of time, if they fail then treat them normally, if they fumble then they fail but think they didn't or some other effect (such as a bonus to others Insight rolls). The GM would determine if additional rolls were necessary depending on changes in the situation. When someone encounters them they will get a description that includes their demeanor as "neutral" (or whatever the character chooses) no roll is necessary at this point, if anyone attempts to make an Insight roll however they must also beat the character's successful Performance roll (if they were successful). Basically have the Poker Face Performance skill turns an Insight skill roll into an opposed roll. Anyway thats my take on it. Dalmuti
  9. I've been busy at work so missed a few days of responding. I don't disagree, though I do think that if as you say "...a sound business model, some industry clout and the ability to churn-out supporting product at a decent and steady rate to please both fans and licensor.", a licensed product can work to bring new people to your brand, the BRP. I've already made a case and theres no need to re-state it. It does seem though that Chaosium is not any of those things right now, so a push like this would likely fail. I'd go as far to say that even an original setting would likely fail because of a lack of... well, you fill in the blank here.:ohwell: I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread that I was open to doing some layout and design, and even find and work with new artists to help out in a re-launch of the BRP. Even with this recent news I'm still interested, but I will take a wait and see kind of approach for now. I mention this again because this is one thing that I really think will help BRP compete in this new market. Poor delivery (design in this case) really does make a difference, and good design is worth every penny spent. ~Dalmuti
  10. I admit I am no expert in this, however, the company I am with is having no problems at all getting loans for projects. The point I was making is that Chaosium is an established company with a credit history. I, as an individual, am not. A bank will loan money to a company with a sufficiently positive credit history and proven income, even in this current economic climate. Of course if Chaosium is a credit risk they will not get a loan. My comment about getting a loan was to acknowledge that going after a new licensed franchise would be expensive, but that if successful would create the resources required to support the BRP better, which was what this thread was about to begin with. As I believe I said, the point of this exercise was to create a substantial second cash cow for Chaosium, something they would own directly. I have a plan for myself and it does not include starting a RPG company. Don't have to as it's not relevant. What is relevant is that it was a licensed product that had a literary following before becoming an RPG. I don't know how Chaosium got the license from the Lovecraft people, but I would guess it involved raising some money to purchase it. It is my case in point. My ideas, as presented in this thread, are with incomplete information about Chaosium as a company. I have no idea whats going on in their offices, in their balance books, or in their minds, only that they are doing a less than spectacular job of marketing and supporting the BRP. Their doing fine with CoC, but its obviously not enough to fully support the BRP as well. My experience in the creative field tell me that the idea that I laid out has a good chance of working. I could very well be wrong, but I don't think so. In any case I respect your experience and comments and I think I can say we both hope that Chaosium is able to succeed enough to do a better job of supporting the BRP. ~Dalmuti
  11. I'm not sure what to make of a comment like this. If you are referring to my posts I can only say that I have not suggested creating anything or that it is easy, only that if Chaosium is going to have the staff to fully support all of the fan based work and fully support the BRP they need another money making product. My idea, which some are calling advise, is to license a known, popular set of works and apply the BRP system to it. Something that already has a following to draw upon. Chaosium did this in it's early years and it was successful as we can see with CoC, which is a licensed product that had a literary following before becoming an RPG. Look, if we take the attitude that no one can speak out unless they have written and sold a successful role playing game, regardless of what other experience they may have, is ridiculous. It's the classic apples and oranges type of argument ~ "I see you can draw an apple, but since I don't see any oranges in your portfolio I going to hire someone else...". It would likely preclude even yourself from commenting... ~Dalmuti
  12. Not really, interest rates are very low now and despite what you may have read in the paper or on-line news, banks are still loaning out money to business at the same volume as they always have, they are just not being as helpful to individuals. :ohwell: Well, I don't have a name in the industry, Chaosium does, nor do I have the contacts they do. A bank is not likely to give me a large enough business loan for a project like this, and a personal loan opens you up to too much liability, but would likely give one to Chaosium. I would have no leverage when attempting to acquire a licensing agreement to make an RPG, Chaosium would. It would be poor business to negotiate with Chaosium after the fact as I would again have no leverage. Nor would it be good for them as they would not own the license. I also am not suggesting a "side" project I'm suggesting adding a real revenue stream aka. CoC and that would require resources (people) that I alone could not provide without starting a company of my own, which would defeat the purpose of my argument. The truth is I can help but am not in a position to go at it alone. Don't get me wrong, I have no illusions that this is an easy task nor do I miss the potential risks or claim to know everything (or even enough) about this industry. I do know about my industry and I know that Chaosium has some credibly that they can leverage because of CoC and credibility and a good idea can go a long way in any industry. Expecting others to come up with good ideas, and produce them by themselves, to make money for your company is not a winning business strategy. Sure you will make a few dollars here and there, but none of us (or more accurately those that spend their free time to come up with these pretty impressive monographs), just don't have the time and resources to get the really big fish. No matter how many licenses Chaosium gives out they will not reap substantial benefits until they themselves step up and use their brand to acquire another CoC type license. ~Dalmuti
  13. True enough, but that can be said of any business. My point is that it is time for a second cash cow and that can, should, and probably will, be another licensed product. With a new source of income they can better support original products. Chaosium though seems not prepared to take any risks now and the opportunity created with the release of the new BRP is being wasted. ~Dalmuti
  14. Thanks, I didn't think they did :ohwell: My current contract is for the rest of the year, and keeps me pretty busy, but I seem to have more time in the Spring and Summer for other projects. I think I will contact them when the snow starts to melt, but I have a feeling that they are a very insular group and are afraid of loosing control of any part of their baby, even if it means smothering it. So my expectations are low. ~Dalmuti
  15. The name brand is needed to re-start the company brand to compete in the market, not because I really care about the Serenity RPG or whatever. Once the re-start happens all the other opportunities mentioned are possible. But right now Chaosium seems too broke to do a proper job of marketing their product. Thats not to say I don't want good non-licensed games, I do, but I want the BRP to succeed and if that means a couple of high profile franchises then so be it. ~Dalmuti
×
×
  • Create New...