Jason D

It's probably best that I don't. That way, there are few preconceptions about it when it shows up.

Remains to be seen. I saw a new cover sketch almost 7 weeks ago that had a lot of promise, loosely based on a detailed concept I suggested. There was some feedback to the artist - I'm not sure if it was acted upon, or what the artist's finished art style looks like (he had a name unfamiliar to me, and I couldn't find any examples of his published work).

The hit locations in CoC were, if I guess correctly, emphasizing firearms as the primary weapons, or larger than human creatures swinging down at humans (both favor hits to the upper body over the legs). I chose the hit location rules from RQ, as they emphasize a spread one would achieve in hand-to-hand combat. I've since added the "missile fire" hit location chart to the edits that Charlie is now integrating into the manuscript, so you've got the best of both worlds.

Why yes, I do...

Less use of that one, because the copy of WoW I've had for the last two decades was missing that booklet... and I only found a copy of the FW booklet a few years ago.

Worlds of Wonder

My notes have: - the word "Maneuvering" crossed out - "Handling" circled with an arrow pointing to where "Maneuvering" was - the "Handling" column crossed out entirely I will confess to having brought over the Call of Cthulhu chase system as-was, and during my big edit realized that there was no real use for the existing "Handling" values.

No idea, as I've not read Doc Smith's stuff. But I suspect (based on a quick visit to Wikipedia) that it's pretty different from what I'm writing.

No, the info is legacy and I'm clarifying it in the edits I'm giving Charlie. The two values are being conflated into one, a straight percentage modifier for the appropriate Drive/Pilot skill. It'll be called Handling.

The 1920s default is not set in stone at all, and was mostly as a easy way to tie it in with Chaosium's flagship title, Call of Cthulhu. (So someone could, with a little bit of work, run an Interplanetary game using the CoC core book.) I'll be providing a short guide to running it in any period from Victorian through modern.

It's a holdover from the Call of Cthulhu vehicular system, and one I'm streamlining (into one attribute instead of two). I'll be posting some form of errata after every last scrap of edits are submitted and integrated into the manuscript.

Edits may cause page #s to shift somewhat, so I'm letting Chaosium handle those issues. Got it! Thanks!

This is the last post I'll make to this thread, as I'm going to significantly reduce my presence on these forums with the completion my BRP edits. However, I just had to reply. This is likely a bit more blunt than I am usually, but I've been on a high simmer for a while and need to release some steam. It's interesting that you say "that those who have paid for BRP0 are probably already pretty much in agreement with what has been wrought" - aside from a handful of vehement (and in some cases, uninformed) critics like yourself, the response has been positive. There have been requests for clarification, and some helpful suggestions or even useful criticism, but overall, folks seem pretty happy with the game, even in the pre-edited version they've got. I'm not thrilled about the release of Edition Zero, but on the bright side, it has given me more sets of eyes to catch last-minute corrections and make some useful clarifications outside of the playtest and Chaosium's own editing/proofing processes. I don't know if it's one of your intended goals, but the primary result of all of this intensely negative feedback based on a game book you still haven't seen has made me reevaluate my own availability and willingness to discuss the development of the game in a public forum. If someone were to approach me with advice writing materials for BRP, the first thing I'd tell them is "You will not be able to please everyone, and knowing that, you should probably stay off the forums altogether. Don't even read them." Over the past month, I've seen several potential authors tell me they've seen the response here and lost interest. Rather than thinking "I'd like to write for that game line", they're thinking "What's the point if the fans will hate it before they see a word of it? Who needs the hassle?" And I can't really say they're not right to think so.

Pendragon is now owned by Arthaus, a subsidiary of Sword & Sorcery, which is a subsidiary of White Wolf (now a subsidiary of CCP Games), through some sort of licensing arrangement with Greg Stafford.

I suspect that as long as they have copies in stock, it'll be available, and that some BRP edition of it is a likely candidate for publication before too long. I've encouraged people time and again on this forum and elsewhere to pick up the ball and roll with such a project.

Please keep this thread on topic.

I'll admit to considerable frustration with the "I don't have it, but here's why it fails" opinions, so maybe you'll understand why I get peevish with the fact that the most vocal critics are those who don't seem to actually have copies of Edition Zero, or were hoping for RuneQuest 3.5 instead of the book that was solicited. Now give the foe 6 points of armor. Which weapon would you want to use against him? Furthermore, an impale from the .22 does a max of 12 points of damage, which may or may not put someone down in one shot. Compare that to an impale from your .45, doing a max of 24 points of damage. Very few humans can survive that shot, even if armored. The vintage tank (from around 90 years ago) has 18 points of armor. The modern tank has 24. Missing from the table is a footnote that special successes from hand weapons (longarms, etc.) do not affect vehicles, and that criticals only do at the gamemaster's discretion. You're correct. Making BRP more crunchy was never a design goal. At no point did I think "You know, this needs to be more complex." You've said you're unhappy with what you've heard about the game. You've made it clear that the direction of the game is not for you. From all indications, you don't seem like you're going to buy it. At the risk of alienating a potential customer,why are you still posting on threads about the new BRP game?

Let's stay on topic and not get into digressions about particular weapons. That's exactly what I specified in point #c. Thanks!

Two examples of why to use cooperative skills: Increased chance of success: For example, Susan (skill 20%) successfully aids Mathias (skill 75%) in a cooperative task. Mathias now has an effective skill of 85%. This raises his chance of a special success from 15% to 17%, his critical chance increases from 04% to 05%, and his fumble chance drops from 99-00% to just 00%. Indirect assistance: Mathias (Pilot 15%) is on the ground, in an air traffic control tower. Susan (Pilot 25%) is at the controls of an airplane, trying to land it after the pilot was shot in a terrorist attack. Over the radio, Mathias offers advice to Susan on the situation, including giving her what advice he can based on weather conditions and an outside appraisal of her approach. He makes a successful Pilot roll, raising Susan's Pilot effective skill from 25% to 35%. She is immensely grateful for this increased chance to land the plane successfully.

The assumption is that the higher-skilled character is essentially saying to the relatively unskilled character "Okay... you don't have much skill... but here's exactly what you need to do if you want to help me." It could also be regarded as offloading "busywork", enabling the higher-skilled character to focus on execution of the primary task at hand. For example, a master chef might ask for unskilled assistance chopping or performing some routine task while he or she works on the stuff requiring a high degree of expertise. The low chance of a character with a skill of 10% or under successfully being able to contribute to a cooperative task is the balancing factor. If the GM feels it's not plausible, then he or she is free to rule that a character without an appreciable skill cannot aid in a cooperative task, as is stated in the first sentence of that section.

Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.

This is cross-posted (and slightly clarified) from another thread, but the momentum of discussion there has made it already unlikely to achieve my specific goals. There have been a mix of responses about the weapons tables, particularly those relating to modern firearms. So I'm asking for useful feedback, in a format as specific as possible. Useful feedback: "I think the sniper rifle needs to have a higher minimum STR score... perhaps around 12. You might then include in the description of a bipod that it lowers the STR requirement by 5." Useless feedback: "Dump the whole table as a failure." ______________________ Assume these requirements: a) No significant additions to the list of weapons provided (other than the missing plasma pistol and dagger) No alternate or variant systems (ammo types, etc.) c) Keeping things generic - no stats for individual calibers, models, etc. The rules aren't just reflecting "right here, right now" weapons, but those from as much as 125 years plus or minus. d) Assume that the rules "work" as is (range, etc.) and changes should be working within the rules rather than alternatives or extensions e) There must be a strong level of compatibility with Call of Cthulhu What specific changes would you make to the weapons stats to have them better reflect a balanced and playable system? For example, by this I mean accepting that you can only fire a heavy revolver once per combat round (12 seconds), etc., just as with the .45 revolver in Call of Cthulhu. This is your chance. In most cases, the weapons stats were drawn from a wide range of existing BRP products, averaged or balanced to achieve the aforementioned goals. Some numbers were admittedly devised from whole cloth, though research did go into the process. I'm not really interested in arguments or criticisms or a lengthy back and forth on the various merits of suggested house rules or why exactly I suck as a designer. Note also that a great many footnotes disappeared from the tables I turned in and the layout of the manuscript. I'm working on getting those back where they're required. But for now, assume they don't exist and make suggestions as appropriate. I'm trying to get the edits to BRP wrapped up this weekend (end of day Monday, January 28th at the latest) so I can have it done and in the pipeline for Chaosium.

As I mentioned, I'm looking for very specific examples of values to change in an attempt to appease BRP loyalists who find faults with the table presented. A criticism of my methodology in the form of a sentence-by-sentence rebuttal of my post seeking such feedback is not particularly useful. "Dumping the whole table as a failure" is not an option, especially when many of these values came directly from (or were derived from) Call of Cthulhu and related products. I do not mind critical feedback at all, but frankly, I'm after useful information here. I could not have made my request more explicit. I'll start a new thread with a repeat of the request.

At the risk of dragging this out even further, you keep saying the same thing over and over again. To be clear, though: Chaosium no longer has the rights to produce material for RuneQuest, though the system (BRP) is still theirs. As it always was. The publication of the BRP monographs were specifically aimed at retaining their intellectual domain over the BRP system when Avalon Hill let it lapse. I suspect that they felt this was adequate enough precaution until BRP came out as a standalone product. Mongoose Publishing has the rights to produce something called RuneQuest. They chose to make a game derived from Chaosium's BRP system. Shouldn't any ire at their handling of RuneQuest be directed at them? With the rights to ElfQuest back in the Pini's hands (or so I am told), the rights to Ringworld tied up with movie/miniseries rights, Eternal Champion at Mongoose, that leaves the "compatible with Chaosium's games" list at Call of Cthulhu (and maybe Nephilim... I'm not sure about the status of that license). You seem to be assuming that a goal of BRP was to replace RuneQuest, for an audience who don't like Mongoose's version. It wasn't. It was proposed and work begun before Mongoose even began talking to Greg Stafford about RQ. Backwards compatibility, though welcome and accommodated wherever possible, was not a primary goal. The goal, as has been stated from the very pitch I gave Chaosium more than three years ago, was to create a solid and consistent BRP platform by which to make new games and develop new intellectual properties. From the introduction:

At the risk of trying to achieve something positive out of this thread, here's a proposal: Assume these requirements: a) No additions to the list of weapons provided (other than the missing plasma pistol and dagger) No alternate or variant systems (armor types, etc.) c) Keeping things generic - no stats for individual calibers, models, etc. d) The rules "work" as is (range, etc.) and changes should be working within them rather than alternatives e) There must be a strong level of compatibility with Call of Cthulhu What specific changes would you make to the weapons stats to have them better reflect a balanced and playable version of reality? For example, by this I mean accepting that you can only fire a heavy revolver once per combat round (12 seconds), etc. This is your chance. In most cases, the weapons stats were drawn from a wide range of existing BRP products, averaged or balanced to achieve the aforementioned goals. I'm not really interested in arguments or criticisms or a lengthy back and forth on the various merits of suggested house rules. Radical changes or new systems would require playtesting, and I'm not going to push forward material that hasn't been playtested. That way would be... weasely. Values like STR/DEX, damage, etc. are fair game. Note also that a great many footnotes disappeared from the tables I turned in and the layout of the manuscript. I'm working on getting those back. But for now, assume they don't exist and make suggestions as required. I'm trying to get the edits to BRP wrapped up this weekend (Monday at the latest) so I can have it done and in the pipeline for Chaosium. I've recently had a massive family tragedy to deal with and want this book done and as many people happy with it as is humanly possible. Also please assume I'm not an idiot. Many of the comments upthread have been extremely insulting and that's the reason I've stayed out of this thread. (And as a bit of background, though I've not been in the military and my exposure to automatic/heavy weapons is limited, I grew up in the rural Pacific Northwest where: everyone had a rifle rack in their truck; hunting was a part of childhood; and at any given time my father had at least a half-dozen rifles/pistols/shotguns on hand, and my grandparents more so.)