Jakob

Just speculating, but it might be that Jason Durall has been busy writing the new Basic Roleplaying Core Book and that therefore, LotMS might be delayed.

So "keep talking and take my money!"

I would expect them to publish the plain text sans layout and maybe sans examples as (free) SRD, while you'll have to buy the shiny version - though I don't know for sure. As of yet, they only have stated that you won't get the shiny book version pdf as a free update to the Big Gold Book - if you want that one, you'll have to buy it.

Now that I've finally learned to stop talking about Magic World, you go on implying stuff ...

Why should the GURPS fans have all the fun if we can be BURP fans?

This would be my preferred scenario - everything from LotMS I've seen yet looks pretty great, and also, Jason mentioned somewhere that he was aiming for his Stormbringer sweet spot of complexity for it, which is just right for me. If this ends up being a streamlined BRP that takes LotMS as its core (which, if I remember correctly, would include passions, relationsships and a - new? - psionics system) and adds in classic BRP-subsystems in a consistent way, I think I'd be totally on board with it.

Damn cool! Now I'm very curious whether this will be based on the BGB, on CoC7/RoL, on RuneQuest: Glorantha, on something upcoming like LotMS, or whether it will be bits and pieces of all of it or something unified and new ... Jason Durall being one of the two designers named on the cover points more towards a RQ/LotMS connection

Oh, wait! It could also be QuestWorlds ...

I want to think that it is a new setting-agnostic BRP corebook (maybe based on the CoC7 branch?), but since the BGB has just moved to PoD, this seems unlkely ... also, there has been too little time since they announced that something like this might become a priority further down the line ... maybe it's just that they're adding the text of the BGB to the BRP SRD or something like that?

I know 😉

I'm still kind of hoping for a new BRP "Core Book" - not necessarily somthing like the Big Gold Book, more a generic, streamlined version of BRP, probably with a fantasy angle in the foreground. Something easy and accesible for the people who just want to play fantasy but with a BRP framework. Yes, there's already OpenQuest, but I would really love to see Chaosiums take. Or maybe they haven't dropped that Chris Spivey Science Fiction RPG after all ... but no, the font of the announcement doesn't really say scifi to me, so I won't get my hopes up.

I started reviewing it on my blog (FS Review part 1), but kind of lost track of it ... I've only read it and really liked most of it, in the end, the equipment chapter stopped my in my tracks, it was just a little to fiddly for my taste. I wouldn't call it BRP-compativle, though the d100 scale and it being basically a skill-based system should make it easier to convert than anything more D&Dish. But you would be in for a lot of work. Regarding BareBones Fantasy: The bones of the system are the same, but FrontierSpace is more complex and crunches the numbers a little differently. Action economy works the same way, though.

I'm still looking forward to that 2nd edition - I really liked a lot of what I've read in the first edition (how skills work, simple conflicts); where it lost me was really that for physical combat, there was no middle ground; either you could use the extremely simplistic basic system, or it was the full-fledged one with armor, different kinds of Hit Points (which partly acted as Strike Ranks, if I remember correctly) and hit locations, which seemed insanely complex to me. So I'll definitely check RD100v2 out, if only to see whether I'll manage to understand advanced combat the 2nd time around!

From all the good things I've been hearing and reading about Lords of the Middle-Sea (mainly that it is trying to hit the Stormbringer sweet spot of complexity, but adding passions from RQG), i think it would be great to develop a more accesible version of BRP from there.

TDM is a business, and as far as I am concerned, it is absolutely legitimate to openly criticise business policies. I know we‘re not talking Elon Musk here, but I did nothing more than: - Point out where I disagree with TDMs business policies (their unwillingness or inability to engage with serious criticism of a product) - State that I won‘t buy from a company with such business policies (and that I am kind of bummed because I expected better from them). That‘s basic stuff. I‘m not calling for a boycott – of course, I expect that people who see things like me and stumble upon my post will consider whether they‘ll continue to buy stuff from TDM. But I also don‘t expect to change the opinion of anyone who sees things differently. In principle, it‘s not different from stating „I won‘t buy products from companies who use singular they“ or „I won‘t buy products from companies who charge extra for the PDF.“ I might not agree with either of these statements, but I consider them legitimate statements to make, privately or publicly. So please, disagree with my statement, and do so publicly, but don‘t try to silence me by claiming that making my statement here was somhow not legitimate.

Since the accusation is out in the open, I'll answer openly and not by private message, but just as a warning: This is going to be boring. I just write it in the interest of full disclosure. First, bookshop owners usually don't get review copies - and certainly not from companies whose books are hard to obtain as a retailer in the respective market. I never received a review copy of any title from TDM; though I did receive a total of 3 free pdfs from the German publisher of Mythras; but those were not for review, they were to aid me with my work as author and translator for them. They also happen to be pdfs of books I've actually bought in print and just don't have at hand. We did sell books from TDM in our bookshop, and that means that I obtained some of them at a retailer discount (which is not as high as you might think, if you take into account the shipping fee). The only reason we haven't been selling them recently is that TDM changed its publishing model (more print on demand), which made it impossible for us to obtain their books. We do sell (and plan to keep selling, as far as I am concerned), the German edition of Mythras. I've reviewed practically all new Mythras books that arrived on our shelves in our newsletter, usually glowingly; again, I didn't receive review copies. I must also stress that we've only been selling Mythras titles at our bookshop because I happen to be a Mythras fan; economically, it makes little sense for us, because despite me championing Mythras, it is a true low-seller, and we would be much better of filling that shelf space with D&D or Call of Cthulhu books. But we do sell a lot of rpgs that don't really, well, sell, and I firmly believe that, in the long run, it is important to offer that kind of broad range, because even if most customers end up buying the new D&D adventure, they still appreciate coming to us and browsing through all that other stuff. So, all in all, I've put a lot of unpaid work into Mythras - as a reviewer, as an author and more recently, as a translator; what I've received for free are 3 pdfs of books I had already owned in print. I'm perfectly happy with that. Frankly, I do not care whether you buy any books translated by me; I usally don't receive royalties for sold copies, except for very few special cases. I am also not aware to be part of some "Cancel Culture"; though I do hope to be part of a culture of respect, and for me, this first and foremost means taking critique seriously and responding in a genuine and thoughtful way; it is a very basic requirement of human interaction to me. TDM seems to be refusing to do this. That is the reason why right now, I don't feel like buying their stuff anymore, on a personal level. Finally, if you think that the whole thing about MP is a "personal vendetta", then you are obviously misinformed.

Still no reaction to the critique by TDM. I'm not knowledgeable about Polynesia, so I really wouldn't know, but what has been levelled on drivethru.rpg and rpg.net pretty much convinces me that there is a problem with this book that needs to be adressed by the publisher. I've told the publishers as much some time ago in an e-mail, and I know that other people e-mailed them around the same time, but there hasn't been any reaction yet. I've bought pretty much everything Mythras (with the exception of the Classic Fantasy line) up to now, but until TDM adresses the whole think in some way, I won't be a customer anymore. EDIT: Yes, I know it is maybe a lot to expect an answer between Christmas and New Year's Eve. I'll just keep hoping that some time around mid-January, they'll say something, anything ...

Here's a short review on my blog: Comae Engine Review And I'll get around to that space battle thing, too ...

Another nitpick: On p. 15, there's a reference to sub-focus rules; I think the're not yet there, or I can't find them. And one thing I'm not quite sure about yet: Is the idea for extended conflicts that they can also be asymmetrical, meaning that the skills and conflict pools might be different for different parties within the same conflict? For example, if two people want to outshine each other in public debate, both would probably use their charisma pools. But if one wants to talk the other into a bad deal, this would probably be CHA vs. INT or CHA vs. POW, right? Also, I think the "Covert" and "Flamboyent" lenses could be generalized - they basically both say: "If you want to use an alternative skill or attack an alternative pool, you can do so, but if you fail, you're at -20 next round. If you win, your opponent is at -20 next round." Though I'm not quite sure if it wouldn't be easier to just say: "If you want to use an alternative skill or attack an alternative pool, you can do so, but at -20 (straight away)." That's basically how I would imagine you trying to talk that mentally slow giant out of bashing your brains out while dodging his blows: Keep attacking his pretty small INT pool with Cunning until he's so confused he'll just stop hitting you to think it all over. One more thing: Do you happen to know the space combat system from Ashen Stars? I think something along the lines would work perfectly for Comae Engine. It has a Rock-Paper-Scissors element that makes sure that all characters are needed at their respective stations - you basically have to rotate between using skills like Gunnery, Pilot, Sensors and deploying defensives, and if you repeat yourself before having cycled through all of them, your tactis are considered to be too obvious, and you get a penalty on your roll. You also get a penalty if one character has to man more than one station, so basically, if you have four characters manning the four main stations, you can be sure that each of them will get their turn to do something useful regularly. Combine this with a body pool for your starship and some special qualities that will give you a better damage roll depending on what skill is being used, and I think it could be a pretty good and extremely simple system. I'll try to elaborate it later on.

Maybe this is something that could be translated into a more general set of suggestions for how to handle damage in conflicts? RAW, the standard seems to be that in a conflict which multiple individuals involved, only the one with the best roll does damage to whomever s/he chooses. However, there are probably cases where you would handle it differently. If you have two parties in conflict, it probably makes most sense to first split them up in 1:1 conflicts. If you have three people ganging up against one person, than it would probably make sense that the one person will only do damage to one opponent, and only if s/he has the best roll of all involved - however, the side that is ganging up might get an extra damage die for everyone who beats the lone opponents roll, but only choosing the highest result of all. If, however, you have something like a snowstorm, it makes sense that it can deal damage to all characters who didn't beat its roll, and that it will probably itself only take one instance of damage at maximum. The same might be true of a dragon, by the way - it could probably hurt all characters with a lesser roll in one round, and would probably suffer no more than one damage roll even if it loses to all. I think there are about two or three possible procedures for damage conflict implied here that could probably be described as options to choose from, depending on the type of conflict and the parties involved. Basically, it boils down to which opponents/opponents can damage multiple characters in one round, which ones can only damage one character in one round, and whether an opponent/obstacle is vulnerable to multiple instances of damage in a round or only to one.

Okay, I‘ve come up with a more far-reaching suggestion to make weapons and armour more balanced and integrate them with the more abstract nature of the rest of the rules. I‘d say that being heavily armored or wielding a heavier weapon than the others that deals more damage is similar to, for example, having a Secret ID or being streetwise: It defines your character and provides them with a mechanical advantage in certain situations. So I‘d say that both should be Tags. That would make weapons and armor more in line with the rest of the system, and it would also mean that – like everywhere else in the Comae Engine – what can be applied to physical combat can also be applied to other arenas. Sure, a battle axe is a heavy weapon, but so could be the trained voice of a military officer barking orders that people just feel the need to follow (for damage against CHA), or a talent to entange others in mind games (INT damage). As an example of how such rules could work: For physical combat, the assumption is that you have genre- and character-apropriate weapons and maybe even light armour for combat; against an opponent who is similar equipped, you will deal d6 points of damage and act at no penalty. Fighting without weapons against an armed opponent incurs -20% and you do only d4 damage. If you want to use armour or heavy weapons to give you an advantage, you can do so, but without an appropriate tag, you will be at a penalty of -20% using heavy weapons or armor. Beyond that, weapons and armor are tags: Tag: Armoured You are in posession of some kind of armor that protects you against one type of damage – either to Body, to Intelligence, to Power or to Charisma. Once you push a conflict using that pool (meaning, your pool drops below 0 and you keep going), your armor kicks in, protecting you – to a degree – from serious damage. All damage rolls against you that attack the respective pool are reduced by -3. Armor counts for one type of pool – physicial armor like a chainmail shirt or a shield protects Body, but you could also have armor protecting your Power (a heirloom of great magical power or simply of great nostalgic value to you), Intelligence (an uncanny ability to focus under stress) or Charisma (a familiy that you know will always love you, whatever happens). (You CAN wear physical armour without this tag, BUT this will give you a -20% penalty to all skill rolls involving movement.) (The whole thing with armour only kicking in when you‘re below zero in one of your pools isn‘t a necessary part of making armour a tag, of course – it‘s just an idea that I like.) Weapon Tags: Heavy Weapon: You posess a heavy weapon (depending on setting this could be a two-handed broadsward, a blaster rifle or a baseball bat with nails in it) that deals d8 damage instead of d6. You CAN use a heavy weapon without this weapon, but at -20%. Sneaky Weapon: Small, concealabe weapons normally deal d6 points of damage; if you have this tag, you are not only assumed to have one, you also deal d8 damage with it when the situation is appropriate, e.g. your attacking stealthily or your fighting an unarmed opponent – basically whenever you can argue that your weapon gives you an advantage. I hope I‘m not overreaching here – it‘s just that I really like how the Comae Engine re-works BRP, and it‘s giving me a lot of ideas!

Going on with some nitpicks: On page 9, Riding is mentioned as an application of the Awareness skill; on p. 11/13 however, it is a Focus under the Move skill. Language focus (p. 13) doesn't seem to work as described within the Comae system. Knowledge and Science skills seem a little iffy to me: Knowledige seems to be more about directly applicable stuff (Acting, Bueraucracy foci), but why then is are the Navigaton and Survival foci under the Science skill, and not under Knowledge?

More thoughts: p. 28, Choosing Skills: Here, it is mentioned that using a skill or focus that is not ideal might mean you incur a penalty. Mabye this should be expanded by penalties dependingon what's at stake for whom in the conflict? Some examples: Physical fight: You wan't to subdue an opponent who's out to kill you without hurting him. This might incur a -20% penalty, and, in exchange, guarantee that if you win, you haven't hurt, but somehow immobilized him/her. You want to get someone to betray the the love of their live (hey, she maybe a demonologist, but she is the love of his life nevertheless!), while the other person just wants you to leave him alone - this might incur a -20 to -50 penalty. I think this is actually more or less implicit in the system as I understand it, but it might be a good idea to make it explicit. Also, with regards to social conflict, it might be important to point out that not every social conflict needs to have a binary outcome. I'm a great fan of systems that just let you make a simple roll to change the attitude of a person towards you, without necessary getting them to do something specific at that point. For example, making a test to make someone "mildly antagonistic" into a "neutral" or even "friendly" person probably wouldn't need to be an extended conflict, just a simple skill test modified depending on how the person feels about you; however, even a king who "adores you" will probably hand over the command of his army for you (though making the king adore your might be a prequesite to even think about running an extended conflict that might end with him handing over his army to you ...). Not sure if I'm making that much sense: The point being that social conflict mechanisms are a great things, but in my experience, GMs might need good guidance in how to apply them. If they are modeled too closely on you win/you lose dichotomy typical of RPG combat, you sometimes get results that just don't make a lot of sense. So, especially in social conflicts, you have to be clear about what's at stake for either side and what is achievable. EDIT: Consequences figure into that, as well, and should also usually be made clear in advance. In the above demonologist example, if you threaten the guy, that might alleviate the penalty, but he will hate and fear from then on.

On first read-through, I really like it! Lenses are a great way to generalize what otherwise would probably be called combat maneuvers over several types of conflict. I'm not so sure about tags, though - they seem like a catch-all for special permissions to do stuff the others can't; on the one hand, most rpgs have something like that, on the other, it seems a little out of place with the more abstract nature of the system. And one very small suggestion: Make armour only apply to damage once the wearer is at zero or negative Body. To me, that would make a lot of sense, because while Body is positive, damage seems to represent more or less exhaustion and loss of momentum, and only when you reach negative body, you actually get hurt in a more lasting way. The latter is what armour would protect you from. Also, it would make armour a little less powerful, but still pretty useful in an unforgiving battle to the death.

Me too. I don't care that much about the rules system, to be honest, I just love the setting, and if you like classic Stormbringer better, I can always hack Mournblade content for it. (But in the end, most likely I'll only be reading for lack of a group, anyway ...).