Greg

35 minutes ago, Alliante said:

 

I love me some "Lorem ipsum!"

31 minutes ago, clarence said:

Hey Greg, I’m so happy to hear you enjoy Comae Engine! And good questions : )

I have a structure for my rpg pdf's wherein each folder is by game or publisher. I used to keep M-Space stuff in the "Mythras" folder. But, with the release of the Comae Engine, I promoted your works to their own "Frostbyte" folder! That's high praise from me! 😆 You'll really know you've arrived when one of your games gets its own main folder. M-Space is close! 😁

1 hour ago, clarence said:

The simplest solution is to drop overnight pool top up. The entire hike is one long conflict, with a single roll every day. If pools drop to zero, extra rest will increase the pools. This is how I used to run multi-day conflicts. Very intuitive and quick, but it breaks the “pools restore overnight” rule. User friendly overall, but special cases are always problematic. 

Which option sounds best to you?

I was thinking along the lines of this third, "simplest" solution. What do you mean by, "special cases are always problematic?"

17 minutes ago, clarence said:

If it fits with the story I would reduce the same pool when several conflicts follow each other. It’s a bit like old-school D&D, where magicians (or clerics?) had to save spells and POW to make sure they had some left at the end of the scenario. 

This means the GM has to be careful with the number of Extended Conflicts being thrown at the PCs. So, picking the lock might be kept for the thrills. Being knocked around might be a simple opposed skill roll (with a straight -2 BODY for those who fail). And I would probably not use sanity for the stress of picking a lock, but keep that for the terror inside the crypt. 

Being chased by a ghost could probably be a POW or INT contest if you want, to illustrate the courage or wits needed to trick a ghost. Simply because outrunning it might not be possible. 

As for nested conflicts, there’s a sidebar in M-SPACE about that. It should be applicable in Comae Engine as well. In essance, a successful roll makes the dependent (or sub-conflict) roll more likely to succeed - or a failed roll might make the dependent roll impossible. 

Maybe I am pushing the mechanic too hard. Call of Cthulhu, for example, has Hit Points and Sanity Points, both of which restore rather slowly. To model this in the Comae Engine, I would keep HP and SAN pools as their own things, and, when using extended conflicts, create standalone pools. I just like the idea that quicker, minor extended conflicts can play a role in what is essentially a drawn out extended conflict. But perhaps that is over-complicating things.

I am absolutely loving this system, Clarence.

I need some guidance.

Let's say that Gronk and Thag are wandering upon the countryside and they come upon a town. The go in for a meal and meet a wizened stranger whom they find out knows where there's a tomb with treasure. Eventually, they get the location out of him and make a six day trek through the wilderness. They arrive and find the main door to the antechamber open. The go in and are instantly attacked by a tentacled monstrosity. They fight and win! They find a door on the opposite wall, so they set about picking the lock. After a few minutes, the lock springs and the door opens. Their eyes fall on a veritable hoard! However, a mists begins to materialize and a deep moan is heard, "Whooooo dares to dissssturrrb my ssslummmmber?!?" Gronk and Thag each grab an armful of treasure and high-tail it out of there. They are pursued by the malevolent being, but lose it before they get to the distant woods.

What Extended Conflicts do we have here?

1 - Getting information from the stranger - let's make this a drinking contest. Thag outdrinks the stranger after 4 rounds.

2 - The six day journey - let's make this a map reading contest. The hike isn't easy, but the boys get to the tomb before getting lost.

3 - The tomb guardian - a traditional combat... And, it is a horror, so we begin a sanity conflict.

4 - The lock - as suggested in the rulebook.

5 - The apparition of St. Bernard - The sanity conflict resumes and Thag is spooked to 0 points in his pool - thus the hasty exit.

6 - The chase from the tomb - This is an all out speed contest. Seems some wind rose up that didn't effect our solid bodied heroes, but blew the vaporous apparition off course.

Now, my first question - How do you handle different contests that require the same point pool, and may even be "nested." For example, the boys get knocked about a bit in the antechamber. My instinct is to use the same pool when the chase begins as the Body is affected. Maybe the lockpicking contest was won, but it was stressful enough to sap a few sanity points in the form of anxiety. I am looking for a reliable mechanic to handle a bit more complexity. Maybe call the minor contests sub-contests?

My second question - you state in the rules "Lost Conflict Pool points are restored to their full value after a good night’s sleep." - but how does that jive with "round duration?" For example, the six-day journey is one long conflict. We wouldn't want to restore the points each day. Instead - the points are restored when they reach their destination. 

Any thoughts? Just trying to grok it all.

13 hours ago, leftwingpenguin said:

A minor point, but pretty important to some: Would you consider changing the text under "Gender" in the character creation section to something that doesn't imply that male and female are the only two genders that exist? If you're looking for a suggestion for how that might look, I would suggest: 

 

You'll notice that a change was made in the BRP:UGE PDF versions before it went to press. It now reads, "Choose your character's gender and write it in the correct space."

While "neither" is defined in some dictionaries as meaning "not the one or the other of two or more", it is most commonly used for just two choices. I agree it is a simple change to make! 

The ORC states "Licensor hereby authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so."

Does this mean I can post reformatted text of the rules on a website?

I would like to begin with something like quick start rules and then bolt-on some additional rules from the BRP:UGE.

If I use the text of the BRP SRD from 2020, can I share my work under both the BRP OGL and the ORC?

Or, has anyone created a quick start version of the BRP:UGE? 

Or, can Chaosium release the SRD under the ORC as well?

14 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

Well, sure.  If you need to be right.

!i!

Just trying to engage in the conversation.

56 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

I think the real promise of Schmidt and Eno's Oblique Strategies is that they're functionally evocative regardless of the medium.

Imagine music as a series of disconnected events.

Okay, that seems rather specific to a particular medium.  But using music as a metaphor, we might view plot structure (literary or RPG) in this light, like Burroughs' cut-up technique.  Don't be afraid to get a little art on your clothes.

!i!

Sure. But (a) this is an RPG discussion site, so no foul in riffing on them for a particular purpose and (b) I'd argue that mine aren't too bad no matter the medium.

Another gorgeous product. Happiness for me is a exploring a new take on the BRP system! I get such a kick out of seeing how good game designers adjust the knobs and widgets or even add a little something new. Thanks Lynne and Paul.

Are you planning on making a product for BRP like "Dungeonesque" was for D&D 5e?

I always like to explore new ways to inspire creativity. Thanks for the post.

I like the example of the album, too. A great example of "creative limitation." Or, as Orson Welles wrote, "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations." 

For those who don't want to click the link, here are some examples:

• Don’t be frightened to display your talents.
• Take away as much mystery as possible. What is left?
• What would your closest friend do?

Maybe we could create a list of more RPG-centric prompts? I am no Brian Eno, but for adventure prep, maybe:

• Show. Don't tell.
• What does it sound like?
• Is it fun?

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

If on the other hand you mean that there are skills that exist but aren't readily avialble or promoted, then I don't really see the point of two lists. It just means you have to keep track of two lists instead on just one. Again I'll raise the character sheet. In most stand alone BRP games, 95% or so of the skills in the game are listed on the character sheet, and players only have to write in particular fields of expertise [i.e. Science (Biochemistry) or Science (Astrophysics). So they don't need to write in a lot of stuff. 

Rivers of London provides and example of what I am talking about.

These are the lists:

And they are represented on the Character Sheet thus:

I just find this so elegant, and am soliciting feedback to learn if there are any significant drawbacks other folks have experienced.

19 hours ago, Ravenheart87 said:

It has been there right from the beginning in RuneQuest, though it wasn't called like that: a 00% percent base chance is essentially the same as a skill being "advanced/expert".

Great point! I missed that perspective.

17 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

• If you have one skill list (short or long) and one character sheet with the skills listed  then everybody who plays the game all use the same list and there is no chance of a player in a gaming group using the wrong list during chargen or play, and no need to adapt any adventures or character write ups for any alternate skill lists (i.e. what happens when a character is a botanist with Botany 60%,  but Botany isn't on the other skill list). So having two lists means GMs will need to work to avoid confusion with their players, and authors will need to cover all options.

I think you may have misunderstood me - I didn't mean two totally separate lists, but one basic list with common skills, and another list (in the ruleset) from which a character may choose during chargen and fill in on the character sheet. So, for example, all characters would have access to Natural World, but the botanist would have access to Science(Botany).

To another point you made, there are many times I have read a scenario and an NPC has a skill not included in the ruleset's "official" skills list.

16 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

And would add that I prefer when they are bundled in skill categories (communication, knowledge, etc.) because it makes zooming in the right skills much quicker in my experience.

I have found that confuses players. I like to use category modifiers also, but an alphabetical list of all skills has been easiest for folks around my table.

Love that we can turn the background off for printing!

That's what you call playing the long game: "I'd love my own RPG. I think I'll write a series of great books it can be based on!"

Good on ya, Ben!

I wonder if he still has his original D&D box set...

I am still thinking of the BRP-OGL which was summed up as "Just don’t try to create a retroclone of Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, Pendragon, or other Chaosium games." My understanding of the ORC from the comments so far is that I could indeed use the text of the BRP:UGE, add mechanics such as bonus dice and pushed rolls as long as I use my own wording. Not saying that I intend to do this - but I could then, indeed, create a game that is darn near a clone of CoC.

What I would like to do is create a game that has the base rules of BRP with a few modifications (such as revising the damage modifier), some selected optional BRP rules to be understood as base rules (such as the EDU characteristic), and some other mechanics (such as pushing a roll); all formatted in A5 size!

My quest to understand the legalities is only to know whether or not I can share this with others.

I have a few questions as well:

1. Will there be someone specifically at Chaosium we can ask what is permitted once the ORC is "live?"
2. Can I alter some BRP mechanics such as reducing damage modifiers (i.e. -1D4, -1D2, None, +1D2, +1D4...) and removing a success level (i.e. Special > Success > Failure > Fumble)
3. I would like to split skills into Basic and Expert ala Mythras and Rivers of London. Can I do this irrespective of any license given that multiple systems do this? (Same question for "pushing" a roll - CoC 7e does this, but so do many other systems).
4. If I alter the system with relatively minor tweaks as 2 & 3 above, is it still "BRP Compatible?"

My main confusion is how ORC will function - it seems to fall in between the Design Mechanism's Mythras Gateway License and the OGL.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

Interesting thread.

I was a bit dismayed at all the errors included in the initial PDF, especially the known errors noted in the BGB's errata. It makes sense if, according to @g33k, it was a quick turnaround to get on the ORC train. And, thanks to g33k, I am considering creating a post-OGLpocalypse scenario for the new BRP ☺️.

I think I understand where everyone is coming from. There was an unfortunate shift in tone at one point in this thread. 

My 2 clacks? I am very glad that Chaosium cast a Resurrection spell on the BRP line. I am very appreciative of the BRP community (we are all us, after all). I seek to help out where I can because (1) I am passionate about the products and (2) I am pretty sure ain't nobody getting rich off of them.

2 hours ago, Jason D said:

To me, they always seemed unduly crunchy.

One of the things I love about BRP as a system is that it's easy to intuit answers or results, so having to look up specific modifiers and exact numbers of people or square footage affected per skill quality result worked against that.

Those numbers also felt relatively arbitrary and didn't add a lot to gameplay, so they were an easy thing to trim. I'm a big fan of high-level guidelines rather than very specific exceptions.  

They do indeed add crunch. I use the “Effects” for helpful guidelines. I would offer that, if you are using five levels of fumble/failure/success/special/critical, you are already committed to crunch. 😜

The Big Gold Book will always have a special spot in my heart. I didn't play RPGs for years but came back to the hobby just after it was released. There was the newness for me of the one-book toolbox format plus the nostalgia of the familiar rules I had played and loved. I would even go as far as to say that it is my favorite RPG book of all time (and I own hundreds).

Having said that, the new version is a very nice addition to the library, and, of course, subtracts nothing from owning the previous masterpiece. I immediately notice cleaner writing; a nicer layout; and beautiful, colorful, evocative artwork. I see there are a few new bits and bobs as well.

@Jason D - I did like the the "Effects" section in the BGB's skills descriptions. Any thoughts to offer as to why that was taken out? 

Kudos to all at Chaosium. You continue to turn out great products.

Well, the special sauce is NOT the Resistance Table. 😉

2 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

We kindly ask that you do not refer to simple formatting issues or typos as "errata". Regardless, you are welcome to point out these things so they can be corrected over time.

Sorry, Rick. You are correct of course. 

After a  quick read, I see no difference between this and the Quick Start document, save the Poison spot rule at the very end. Are there any substantial differences you've all found?