dragonewt

3 hours ago, fmitchell said:

I guess I'm just exasperated that there's no single BRP standard-bearer anymore.

D&D-like games have, well, D&D (with the unpopularity of 4th edition giving rise to Pathfinder and the OSR as alternatives).

Food for thought: No such thing as D&D.

12 hours ago, Trifletraxor said:

...unless the poll should change drastically during the coming days.

...if someone goes on a Hero Quest...

More random ideas - how about: Hero Central

Not because of HeroQuest, but because of a theme common to all systems, the heroes in our games, and origins based on the influence of Joseph Campbell. It covers both old and new systems, vendors and worlds, and nods at BRP Central and Chaosium (maybe a bias to HeroQuest). For the general public, potential new users (and those not familiar with the background), it perhaps has a more positive (although maybe self-indulgent) feel to it compered to Chaos Central. However, the name seems to be commonly used elsewhere, and the HERO System has some overlap.

1 hour ago, Mankcam said:

Just an idea to float 

This site is a magical place and has a world of experience and knowledge. How about: Magic World. ;-)

Or on a more serious note, maybe: Chaos Central  (As a reference to Chaosium now, a homage to the origins from Chaosium, and representing all the new and different systems and companies that formed and spread out when the Spike exploded, and now co-exist in harmony - Not Lunar 'harmony', but Arachne Solara harmony, the Cosmic Compromise).

Skoll, do you mind if I see the code and DB schema?

For simple skill mapping:

• For officially listed skills (and ones added to the DB later, such as some commonly used Combat Styles):
  • If the skill is a from a granular system, convert to the equivalent broad skill, at the same percentage. For any other granular skill that also maps to the broad skill, note them, and either: average all the granular skills to know the broad skill percentage, or select the highest (or some other averaging algorithm, that accounts for one at 90% and four at 25%).
    Eg: One Handed Sword attack/parry 40%, Dagger attack/parry 25%, Shield parry 50%, Head Butt 40%, becomes Viking Combat Style 39% (or maybe 50%).
  • If the skill is from a system with broader skills, expand this to multiple skills all set to the same percentage.
    Eg: Blades 60%, becomes Knife attack/parry 60%, One Handed Sword attack/parry 60%, Two Handed Sword attack/parry 60% (Optionally if it expands to more than 3 skills, list the first 3, or 3 randomly taken from the expanded list).
• For custom skills (user created or unmapped), flag the field with the system the entry was created for, and list as unconverted when displaying in another system.
  Eg: A RQ6 Gun Daddy 55% (Combat Style), would be listed for MW/RQ2 as: Gun Daddy (Unconverted RQ6 CS) attack/parry 55%.
  This method can also be used to record custom skills, such as Smell Breath 450%.

Over time, hopefully people will also help add custom mappings for commonly used custom "Broad" Skills and Combat Styles.

Rather than have completely separate tools and data, why not have one data set, calculate differently where required for some output, and store additional data for each system for only where there are differences between systems that can't be mapped or calculated. This in theory might be simpler than managing multiple sets of what are effectively the same data. If an entry has a tag for a given system, use that, else fall back to the generic defaults, or a map could be used to expand a broad skill into a granular set as required.

A simplistic made up example -  Base stats are the same, damage modifiers etc, are calculated per system, hit points and locations are also calculated, for skills store as follows:

RQ2 entry might list: broad sword attack/parry, medium shield parry, dagger attack/parry, head butt attack, grapple, climb, run, jump, throw.

RQ6 entry might list: Viking combat style, athletics.

FYI, these ideas are only brain storming, and would need further discussion.

The programming is not the issue, the main work would be the mapping of skills etc... between different systems (sometimes just a name change, but other cases grouping granular skill sets (eg: RQ2 skills) to simpler skills sets (eg: OpenQuest skills or RQ6 Combat Styles), and potentially more challenging with more abstract systems such as HQ or Fate.

Not that I know of. I was thinking more in the "Generic BRP/d100" mindset.

However, it would be good to have an app or site that can provide stat blocks, ranges and layout that can represent multiple flavours of systems, eg: RQ2 or OpenQuest or RQ6/TDMRQ or HQ2 (yes, other systems using translation and mapping, and the differences between the BRP relatives or BGB options), etc...

And the layouts would have template options, eg: Zorak Zoran war party, with Dark Troll leader (Rune Lord), Dark Troll priest, Two Great Trolls, and about 10 Trolkin. Weapons, armour, and spells would be random based on typical choices for race, residence, cult, etc... Select an A4/letter page output using RQ2 as the target system, and the result would ideally look like a page from Foes (adding treasure factor and ransom). When your HQ friends come around next day, output using HQ2 as the target system.

I am making notes on how I might code this and the DB structure, but at the moment I can't promise anything.

Someone could write an app (cross platform) for that, to randomly generate stats as required, in customizable output formats (eg: a page of trolkin of given range of ability).

However, there are several web-based generators already available.

How do trolls view the Tusk Riders? As Half-Brothers, Darkness Kin, or an Abomination?

Do Tusk Riders share any Troll spirit ancestry with Trolls?

I am guessing it is fine at this time (before the new RQ is out), in the mentioned forum, to discuss running games in Glorantha using RQ2 (original), OpenQuest, BRP, MRQx, RQ6, etc..., as some of us still use those systems (or a mix) to run games in Glorantha.

I am also guessing it will continue to be fine to do so, after the new RQ comes out.

What

What do people do when they want support or help with an older out-of-print version (although this might be extremely rare for HW/HQ1)?

This has been one of the original attractions and benefits regarding BRP Central; even if something is out-of-print, it can still be discussed and supported by the community.

If blindly helping Chaosium undermines what is already at BRP Central, then that effectively undermines the potential for a collaborative environment with the "old" and the "new" coexisting and supporting each other. It would be optimal to maintain a consistent broader support, which in theory will ultimately support Chaosium. Therefore, ensuring that there is fair representation for all parties and products (as originally supported by BRP Central, adding more Chaosium) will help Chaosium. I don't think that there is anything to fear, however the tendency to only focus on supporting and making changes that only consider Chaosium creates a discrepancy and could be misinterpreted as an invasive bias.

All content and vendors need to be treated equally, otherwise this site risks becoming a purely Chaosium site at the cost of removing what the site originally was (not adding to it) and the impact to those who used it for what it was. Note that the title of this thread says "website", not the Chaosium specific forum or sub-forums.

Alienate the users and you have a lesser site, fewer to promote Chaosium and fewer to spend money in Chaosium's direction. Which is not in Chaosium's favour.

Many people want to work alongside with, and support, Chaosium to ensure that it has a healthy an respected future. Just be mindful to not trample the little guys, which while might not be intended, can be the result of unchecked enthusiasm.

If this is to be Chaosium's corporate forum (as opposed to independent), well, it would have probably been a better move to have Triff spin up a second instance of the Forum software and database, and point the corporate forum domain name at that (rather than undermining and losing a lot of good will).

However, from what has been communicated over the last several days in these forums, IMHO, it seems that these forums will be independent, with a focus of supporting Chaosium (together in harmony the rest of the BRP/D100 family) with Chaosium using them as a formal communication medium. Even so, the Chaosium link in the forum toolbar seems a bit one sided.

Is this similar to the way Eclipse Phase uses the occurrence of a doubles to flag a critical or fumble (depending on whether the roll is a success or failure)?

If it is technically easy, start with one main generic Glorantha forum, and add the system/scope specific Glorantha sub-forums if we see a demand for them.

I can see a need for general Glorantha discussions coming under one forum (system independent), however, there will most likely be times when Gloranthan topics will be system specific. How often would system-specific Glorantha discussions occur? Would they occur regularly enough to require separate sub forums?

Is it worth considering a sub-forum for "Glorantha - Other Systems"? I know that conversions exist for Savage Worlds, and I am thinking of using One Roll Engine to run a few games in Glorantha. I still buy the Gloranthan material no matter what system I use.

Something like (depending on demand):

• Glorantha - World
• Glorantha - Rules: RuneQuest/BRP
• Glorantha - Rules: HeroQuest
• Glorantha - Rules: 13th Age
• Glorantha - Rules: Miscellaneous

A pinned FAQ for how to convert between systems would also be good (a Rosetta stone) so that work can be shared between systems and worlds (eg: A Gloranthan creature presented in HQ stats could easily be converted to BRP to use in a Sci-fi setting - cross system and cross world).

They are a lot more than just "BRP". They encompass a wide range of the BRP family of systems, including many closely related/derived systems such as AEON, Revolution, Gore, Delta Green, OpenQuest, and others - most d100 systems. To me this is what BRP Central has always been about (including related genres and worlds in the context of BRP, such as Glorantha). Most people here mix and match a variety of sources (BRP/d100 related systems and many worlds/backgrounds) for their own personalised version of BRP.

This is why the forums are called BRP Central.

I am guessing this means that there is no issue in continuing (now and in future) to discuss and support the wide range of  the BRP family of systems, including closely related/derived systems such as AEON, Revolution, Gore, Delta Green, OpenQuest, and others - most d100 systems. To me this is what BRP Central has always been about (including related genres and worlds in the context of BRP, such as Glorantha). Most people here mix and match a variety of sources (systems and backgrounds) for their own personalised version of BRP.

I can see everything coexisting nicely from a user point of view. However I do need to ask the question regarding what business decisions might occur when there is a conflict of interest. Eg: supporting systems that could be viewed as direct competitors to Chaosium RQ6, CoC and HeroQuest; when these forums are also the official Chaosium forums.

Personally, I see the optimal benefit with them living side by side. They will effectively support each other.

How? Kill them, and take their stuff.

I was addressing the way the term "whine" had been used by others, not by yourself. I am guessing that you felt obliged to use the same word as they used (so that you could defend your stance) instead of using "complaint" because the word "whine" was used by them to invalidate your view by attacking a tone they imposed on you instead of them addressing your reasoning.

I remember seeing this type of single consistent mechanic start to manifest in Mekton 2 and Cyberpunk 2020, over 20 years ago.

Everywhere I look at the moment I see board games being the "in thing". In new and trending cafes as well as traditional RPG B&M stores. This is perhaps similar to the impact Magic the Gathering once had on the RPG industry.

I also see the trend of "gamification" in new RPG systems (most likely to leverage board game popularity), where ROLE-playing takes a back seat to ROLL-playing in RPGs, drawing on the war-game origins and board-game simplicity and trends. This is perhaps the market where the newer D&D and Pathfinder succeed, because that is the audience of gamers (and style of play) that are the majority.

Consider the WoW factor for D&D 4, the "simplification" for D&D 5, the popularity of Savage Worlds, latest War Hammer RPG, and the new Infinity RPG rules. Within those, consider the trend of these games having cards, tokens for "fate" (etc...), special dice, and other board-game influences. In some cases these add to a game from a board-game point of view but actually interfere from a holistic role-playing point of view ("What do you mean I can't be creative and try my idea because I don't have any tokens left?" or "Why does using my character's skill at full strength mean that the enemy gets some more tokens that they use for more resources later on?").

Maybe the pop-culture popular market wants to actually be playing a board game while it is pretending it is role-playing.

How does BRP/RQ (etc...) compete with or penetrate that market?

Why does a genuine and legitimately expressed complaint or point of view have to be dismissed with a thought-terminating cliche by calling it "whining"?

Invisible misdirection or subtle manipulation is the worst kind of violence, because it is not as obvious as "hate mail", and can be hidden by implying it is still "being nice".

Darth Spouse: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." ... "Never underestimate the power of the spouse side."

When I started D&D, the core rules, the boxed set, etc... did not have any setting that I was aware of. We just played a generic pseudo-western-medieval setting, influenced by the generic Tolkien mind-set that existed at the time. RQ2 did have the feel of Glorantha and a more "Conan" feel to it, and the world and hero wars were mentioned, however it too could be used in any setting (but the flavour of play is worth thinking about).

However, the culture and influence of D&D encouraged a war-gaming style of play, with levels and a more abstract representation. So it did not matter what world or background was being played in, the style and approach of play is what usually differed. Hit point tanks, "kill them and take their stuff", killing kobold children because they were not worth the XP to leave alive, etc...

Is it the case that most generic role-players today want a quick out-of-the box all-in-one solution that includes enough of a completeaworld/genre but just enough left undefined for them to fill in the blanks (eg: Tolkinesque with elves and dwarves and knights in armour and Gandalf-like wizards)? What percentage are wanting to be more creative?