Thalaba

It's not about how big or small your thingy is - it's how you use it. :innocent:

(ducks)

Ah yes, that sounds right. I didn't know the knights crusaded in the baltic, though.

I would definitely be interesting in seeing Stupor Mundi as a BRP product. I have good friends who live in Swabia and have visited Hohentwiel and other such castles. Interesting place and period.

There is a very logical explanation for it not being in the upcoming section (yet) despite the fact it has been in playtest for a long time. Can't you imagine it?

I can imagine umpteen explanations, but I wan't really asking about why it wasn't there - merely what it was....

I just got the definitive ok for it by Dustin, I will send the blurb to Trif tomorrow, along with the cover.

...which I can happily wait until tomorrow to learn. I know I've heard mention of the title before. It's probably the officially re-named Interplanetary.

I missed this: What is Crusaders of the Amber Coast? The schedule says it's for BRP, but I can't find a mention of it here in the upcoming section.

Thalaba

I began roleplaying in the early 80's, but I was first exposed to BRP through CoC in the late 80's sometime. I played a Scottish Archaologist who almost got eaten by Dagon, but luckily his buddy the Private Eye fumbled his attack with the antique sword he had taken from the mansion and cut my leg off. Dagon ate my leg, but the rest of me got away to investigate again!

Later (maybe 1990?), I picked up a copy of RQ3 (had always been attracted by the cover art of the box, and also Apple Lane and Snakepipe Hollow, but had never seen any of those products in my local stores, only in Dragon Magazine). I had no idea it was a related system to CoC at the time. I was amazed, in reading through it, that a system could be so sophisticated, logical, and concise at the same time. I brought it to my group and discovered another player had played RQ2 and loved it, so we picked it up right away and it's been my game of choice ever since - almost 20 years, now!

Another would be to simply introduce a mook rule or rules. For example, the first hit that gets past a mooks defenses, and they are out. Mooks (common ancient/medieval foot) tend to have little drive after being wounded and fade away.

SDLeary

Yep - but that's so simple it doesn't even need a rule. I did exactly that recently in our RQ3 campaign when the players fought Johdhara the Monkey God © and his fifty monkeys.

There is definitely a market for gritty. There's also a market for cinematic. BRP is a universal system. It can do both. One way to make BRP popular is to write material that caters to all large market segments. I don't have to like the cinematic supplements. You don't have to like the gritty supplements. But we can all like BRP.

The two multi-adventure monographs both have cinematic adventures in them BTW.

Thalaba

You could potentially add on optional rules to produce more of a cinematic result, but its to some extent working against a lot of the basic design.

I think the basic design of BRP probably deserves more credit. There are probably a lot of ways to make it cinematic without changing too much. Sure, that's not what it was originally conceived for, but it's pretty robust and you can change a lot of things.

For instance, change the way hits work. Hit points are calculated normally, but weapons and other damage effects do only 1 to three hits. A mook will do 1 hit, a fall 1 hit, and so on. A major villain might do 3 hits, a minor villain 2 hits. That's it. Trying to swing on a rope and fail? 1 hit. and so on. Mooks can only take 1 hit. Now, that's sounding cinematic already, don't you think?

Thalaba

I'm not sure why BRP can't be cinematic - isn't that more a case of how the game is run with maybe a few things like traits thrown in?

Rather than say 'BRP can't be more pupular because it's not cinematic', shouldn't we say 'Maybe BRP would catch some new players if there was a cinematic setting published'.

What bare mechanics are required to make a game 'cinematic'? I always thought cinematic' was just a catchphrase that means 'the players can do unrealistic (but cool) stuff without the gm or the rules getting in the way'.

But they certainly can't call any game "RuinQuest" - that name's reserved for my upcoming BRP-clone RPG...

Or RuneQuetzal, reserved for my South American game.

If the guy who invented the wheel had patented it, we would still be living in caves.

Hmmm... <Wonders: What if the guy who invented the patent had patended it? >

I would say that given the enormous scope of of information, Jason made a splendid effort collating it and weaving some structure in. It is only after this effort that we now have the chance to review the whole and have the opportunity to reflect accordingly. It is easier to see where changes can be made once the initial effort has been made.

Agreed!

In my career (a design career, nothing to do with gaming) I have learned that it is far easier to criticize someone else's work than it is to perform that same work. The very reason that it is possible to find errors or confusing things in the BRP book is because Jason did such a great job of putting it together that those few things stand out as exceptions.

When I first started my current campaign (before BRP came out) we were using the RQ3 rules, of which I had the only set. When BRP came out, I wanted to switch so my players could buy the book and find it useful. What I did was go through both books, taking out the spot and combat rules from each that I liked best and putting them together into a single players rule-set that covered the basics. And I can say that it was a very dry process. The fact that Jason had the stamina to produce a rules document so large and well put together frankly amazes me, now.

Congratulations!

Sounds great - nice blurb! - sounds like something I'll be getting!

One thing I wasn't at all sure about was how to balance Luck and Idea roll bonuses/penalties with skill bonuses/penalties. I gave them +/-5% and skills generally +/-10%, but I'm curious what people think about that. Skills can be raised relatively easily, but your Luck and Idea rolls are fixed (again though my Advantage/Disadvantage and Renown systems will allow them to be moved up or down).

For what it's worth, I tend to restrict luck rolls more than usual because I don't think luck should be a factor in player's decision-making. I keep luck at POWx1%. In terms of your system, I might allow a +10% bonus once, somewhere along the lifepath in a rare place (like a star sign), but no more than that. As I recall from the rules, a luck roll can be made to hit an opponent in utter darkness instead of a weapon skill, for instance. It seems to me that this chance should be very low.

As far as Idea rolls go, I only use them in one instance - when I think the character would know something the player doesn't, or would remember a previously known fact that the player can't. Otherwise I have little use for them.

Remember that you will give giving and taking away characteristics already. In light of this, giving bonus or penalty to 'idea' rolls and other characteristic rolls is probably redundant.

Thalaba

Those Birth Omen stories are great!

Agreed - your setting is off to a great start.

The bonuses seem trivial, though, and don't do them justice. Maybe something like +30% instead?

<raises eyebrow like Spock being asked to dance in a bar>

I wouldn't go higher than 10% - I think that's plenty generous. I'm sure you've got way more things still to happen in the lifepath. You've got to think about all the cumulative skill gains. When the life path is through, what's the maximum you want to give to someone if they consistently get a bonus to riding? If you gave 30% on the omens table, and 30% on the childhood table, and 30% on the teen table, and then the guy stacked it full, he might have a hell of a lot of skill in ride. I think the trick is to finish the whole lifepath and then go through it randomly several times to get a sense of what's average, but also go through it with a min-maxing eye to see if this pushes the boundaries too much.

BTW have you seen Artesia's life path? I really enjoyed that one and would recommend it as a model.

My two cent

No one can please everyone. Genre? System complexity? Adventures book, Campaign book? Historical? Hucrony?The only thing you can try it is to make the Thing «beautyfull». Good cover, good contents, good illustrations, full quadricromy, plenty of supplements. Put energy and money in it, if you trust it.

Then wait for buyers...:cool:

I agree that art and appearance is important. Those are the things that get the potential buyer really excited by the book (judging it by it's cover an all that). Of course, if the book's not on the shelf to begin with, it doesn't do much good.

Two new words for me, BTW - bolded above. I especially like the second one - it sounds like the illustration and layout version of surround sound! Borrowed from Italian, I presume?

Good one. Yes, these are needed! On Chaosium's poll evidence two should be enough for starters: Fantasy and SciFi.

Question 1: Should the options be the same in both genres, for common simplicity?

Question 2: Would we ever be able to agree what options to use??

We as a group probably would not agree which options are our favourites, but I'm sure we could agree to what the pros and cons are for the various options. The material needs to be presented in a non-judgemental manner, explain what each option does, explain what it gives versus what it costs, and then make a recommendation on its use for a given game style.

Some options are genre independant (point based character creation), while other (splitting attacks and parries) will have more use in a hand-to-hand fantasy setting than in a sonic blaster sci-fi setting. Within fantasy, some options give a grim and gritty feel (hit locations, etc.), some a more heroic feel (dodging missile fire, major wounds), and so on. A lot of this already exists in the book in the settings section, but maybe it just needs to be presented differently.

I'm curious to know if any new people would find this helpful?

Akrasia's comments echo two things we already know. There's a poll on the Chaosium website that asks what genres people would like to see supported by BRP. Fantasy and Sci-fi are tied for first place, while horror, historical, and the rest are all tied for second place with half as many votes. Fantasy and Sci-fi should be the priorities, regardless of whether there is a lot of it out there already. Whoever produces it should just be sure to make it unique. There are a lot of vanilla fantasy settings out there - I'm sure there's a market for fantasy of another kind (S&S as Akrasia says, or something re-imagined).

RuneQuest, sadly, doesn't count as a BRP setting - it's a Mongoose setting. BRP should have it's own, and it needs to be good enough to compete.

The other thing that Akrasia brings up is that the BRP book is daunting for all it's options - hard for a newbie to get into. This is also evident from a number of threads we've had here started by interested new people who've asked for help in choosing their options. This leads me to something we can do as a community - prepare a number of primers on how to use BRP (the core book as written) and select the best options for emulating various settings. These could be titled "How to create Fantasy with BRP" or somesuch, and put up here and maybe on the Chaoisum site. These needn't be long, but would help new people get on their way to running a BRP game. Any thoughts on whether that might help?

Thalaba

But I really would like a system to use off the shelf.

Everybody want this, and almost nobody will get it.

Pretty much everybody who plays games in the BRP family wants something just a little different from the next person. The only way to get your perfect BRP game off the shelf, sadly, is to write it yourself and put it on the shelf. Either that, or stick with something like BRP that can be tailored to many people's tastes. It is both a strength and a weakness of the system, I think. BRP really is a game for self-starters and do-it-yourselfers. I think you yourself pointed out in the other thread that was a reason it didn't attract more people.

Heck, one lousy split-infinitive and I'm declared incomprehensible! It's not like I'm challenging Atgxtg for his "Most Amusing Typo's" Crown, or anything. (Still not figured out what his name was supposed to be, btw. )

OK, I guess it doesn't make much sense until you've followed that link, downloaded the magazine, and read the preview article. But I recommend doing so.

Actually, I was referring both to your sig and to your premature enthusiasm. Imagine, reaching for your chequebook before reading independant reviews and thumbing through a copy. Sheesh. No wonder there's so much mediocre product* in the industry if people are willing to go out and spend money on just any old thing that sounds vaguely interesting. If we made purchases based more on quality, we'd have higher overall quality in gaming products. (Same applies to movies, BTW - don't get me started on Hollywood).

While the article does make it sould like MRQ2 will be an improvement, I didn't see anything in that article about bringing back strike ranks (the real strike ranks), characteristic rolls, or resistance rolls, so I don't really see any improvement over what I'm currently getting with BRP, for my money.

Doesn't Atgxtg stand for "Axe-to-grind-something-something something"? :confused:

*not suggesting any particular product here.

Is anyone else having trouble reading this thread? It just looks like gibberish on my screen...:ohwell:

Actually, this was one reason why I was reluctant to enter into Chaosium's license agreement when I was looking at producing something myself - I seriously doubted my ability to fulfil the ongoing publishing commitment which was built into the license. It's kind of ironic (and endearing, of course!) that Chaosium itself doesn't really operate in the same spirit ...

I have thought the same thing. I'd like to do something with my campaign setting, but it's much too big and involved for a monograph, and frankly deserves better treatment than the $250 payment would warrant. But it would probably take me more than a year to bring it out (especially now that I've committed to another project) and there's no way I could produce enough documents in my spare time to satisfy the requirement. What's more, I have no publishing experience and I dislike jumping into things I know little about.

I rather like the idea of a BRP Publishing Collective where one could get advice and expertise. If such a 'collective' had a license from Chaosium, then individual amateur authors wouldn't have to worry about producing enough to satisfy the license as the collective could take care of this. Perhaps Chaosium would even agree to produce and retail the books. Authors and artists could contribute work, and perhaps a profit sharing deal could be worked out for payment for all who contributed. Sure, people still wouldn't get rich, but it might be a better alternative than the monograph route.

Or, perhaps simpler, the small companies that do have a license and are willing to accept work from outside authors could advertise the fact. To my knowledge Alephtar is the only company that seems willing to do this. This would at least facilitate the production of new material that could hit the normal distribution channels.

Back to the original question: How could BRP be more popular?

So far I think we've got three suggestions that are sticking: 1. More support product in the shops, and 2. A small, easy to distribute primer to hand out to newbies, and 3. Get the Quick Start Guide into broader distribution.

Any other suggestions? Could Chaosium sponsor people to run games at the local game shops, pimping the product? How about making the core rules really cheap - would that promote people to get it and then encourage sales of the support material? How much has Gurps made off the sales of their core rules compared to the support material? Any insight into this?

Thalaba

PS Vikings was one of my favourite supplements ever!

I looked for this in my RQ3 books, too, and couldn't find it there, either. I'm pretty sure that we used to play that it would take a full week (50 hours) to learn a new skill from scratch, but that must have been a house rule. One place (now that I think of it) that I forgot to look was in the soercery section (RQ3) where there might have been something about learning a new spell. Since sorcery spells are skills, this might be applicable.

The drawback to Threedeesix's method is that someone with a negative skill modifier can't learn new skills in that category.

CoC 6th Ed. declares that all people have at least a little knowledge in everything so they eliminated 00% skils in favour of 01%. This probably doesn't make sense in all settings, though.

Rust's method sounds good to me.

Sorry I can't be more help.

Thalaba

As soon as I get out of my turkey coma (assisted by plenty of Scuttlebutt 10 Below - Beer Styles ) and good sweet German red wine ) and get done with the 2009 black hole of hours (a service desk implementation for a local college )

I'm thinking of doing something with OpenQuest as well...(more to come).

Will you be changing your name to "natural-oh-one" anytime soon?

Er..because OpenQuest is a brilliant piece of d100-machinery, completely free?

And it is mentioned as an alternative to BRP in virtually any forum discussing said game?

And this is a compliment:)

Case in point: See this recent RPGnet thread: BRP vs MRQ - RPGnet Forums

The question is BRP or MRQ? The very first answer recommends OpenQuest as the best alternative.