Mankcam

If you already have the BRP core rulebook (often referred to as the 'Big Golden Book' or BGB on these forums), then grabbing the Classic Fantasy monograph is the way to go for emulating D&D quite well, especially old school D&D. I'm not sure if you can still purchase the print copy through Chaosium (and the shipping costs are expensive if you are not from the USA/Canada), although the pdf version will be available from Chaosium or DrivethruRPG. If you don't already have the BGB, then Magic World is a great buy for the BRP Fantasy genre, its more sword n sorcery focused I suppose. There are a few mechanics I don't consider great, but many who learnt BRP via the Elric/Stormbringer games certainly like this build of the BRP rules. In any case its a good fantasy book with everything you need if you don't already have the BGB. Personally I actually prefer RuneQuest, but its a matter of taste. All BRP games play well in my opinion. Also, regarding Classic Fantasy, I think I read that the author Rod was considering a new version using the OpenQuest variant of BRP. If this version was to come out with the OpenQuest rules self contained then this would be an excellent choice for D&D style BRP. Also, if you can find a copy of 'Age of Shadow' that is a fantasy setting with the OpenQuest rules self contained. I'm unsure if you can get it from Amazon, I think I hunted it down from Lulu.com. The setting has all the high fantasy tropes such as Elves, Dwarves, etc much in the vein of Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms, it could be easily used for what you're after.

I see that there is no Play Instrument or Perform skill, but you are correct in that it will be a specific Art skill in MW, according to the description in the rulebook. The character sheet provided in the pdf rulebook has the Art skill, I'm not sure if its different to the one that you are looking at

...hmmm, well, that idea does have merit actually. I assumed weight would slow down reaction time, but you're right that it is only a contributing factor, and by itself it may not always be an indicator. Considering the Fatigue rules in Classic Fantasy were your creation Nick, how would you expand on that system if you wanted to include modifiers to DEX Order? Would it be -2 SR per every Fatigue Level perhaps, or equal to the MOV penalty, or something along those lines?

Yes, this sounds right on the money. Scrap what I said regarding using Grapple, of course, the Entangle mechanic was there all along...thanks for pointing that out!

Yeah that is another good way to do it, and it works in well with those Encumbrance Levels from Classic Fantasy (which I have recently adopted into all my BRP games). Although I don't think the scale is steep enough. For instance, I think carrying more than three times your Strength value should be a more hefty impairment than -5 SR, you should expect to almost always be going last in combat order if you are carrying that kind of weight. In keeping with the idea of using the Encumbrance Load Levels from BRP Classicv Fantasy, how would it go if you had -1 SR at Light Load, -2 SR at Moderate Load, then for subsequent Fatigue Levels have a -SR value equal to double the MOV Penalty for that Load Level. The scale would look something like this: Unloaded (Below half STR ENC) = No penalty Light (STR ENC) = -1 SR Moderate (STR x 1.5 ENC) = - 2 SR Heavy (STR x 2 ENC) = - 4 SR Extreme (STR x 1.5 ENC) = - 8 SR Maximum (STR x 3 ENC) = - 16 SR Not sure if the values are too high, but you cannot be reduced to any value less than '0 SR', that will just mean that you go last in DEX Order for that combat round. It should work okay...

Yep for halberds I reckon you have a choice of Attacking for damage as usual, or you may choose to Grapple if the halberd has a specific hook designed for this purpose. The dismounted rider would then be Prone for the next round, quite an advantage for the halberd wielder. Sounds like how I would wing it.

Feel free to plunder it if it sounds workable!

Actually I would probably rather go with ENC as opposed to AP, it just seems more logical to me. Some finely made armour, for instance, could have a higher AP value than their standard counterparts, yet not suffer the same initiative penalty in doing so. I'll probably house rule it along the lines of: DEX Order Penalty = Total ENC/2. (Any DEX SR reduced to '0' just means you go last in the DEX Order rather than not have an action at all) It won't work out on the exact scale as RQ6, but it does follow the concept of weight affecting your reaction ability in combat. In RQ3 we could clearly see the difference with wearing armour, as a character with no armour would often attack quicker (and occasionally more than once in a Melee Round) over a heavily armoured character just tankin' along. It kinda gave game balance if someone wanted to play a thief-cutpurse over an armoured warrior. This rule will practically do the same thing, and it'll suffice for my troupe I think. Here's hoping

Does it work verbatim, you do you need to rejigger it somewhat? Ahh, answering my own query now - I don't have the RQ6 book in front of me at present but I'm remembering now that RQ6 does initiative with SR +d10, which is similar to how I run DEX order in BRP, using DEX+d10. In RQ6, SR = (DEX+INT)/2, so yes the score is calculated differently (more realistic actually), but it still ends up on a similar scale so I guess it will work as written. So using this with BRP, the DEX Order Penalty = Limb AP/5. Should port over as written, I'll give it a go. Another good innovation from RQ6!

Query query regarding DEX Order - I may be missing something, so I'll just put this out there. Does wearing heavy armour or holding heavier weapons etc slow down your reaction time (DEX order) in BRP combat? I do like how RQ6 portrays this with their Strike Rank system and want to know if BRP does something similar in the BGB rules that I may be overlooking, otherwise I'll have to port some variation of the RQ6 Strike Rank system into BRP to keep my players happy. My players dont want to change systems, they are used to BRP, but there are a number of concepts from RQ6 that would benefit our fantasy gameplay, this being among them. Any directions on where to find this in the BGB would be appreciated, or suggestions on how others have houseruled this for BRP?

Yo' preachin' to da converted, bruthas !

Very nice. Quite a 'clean' build for BRP, and a good option for those who want a slightly less complex version of the BGB. Should be good when the hardcover print copy turns up on my doorstep!

I love the cover of Cryptworld, very much in the vein of the old pulp horror comics from the 60s and 70s , titles like Creepy Tales for instance. Personally i would welcome a Call of Cthulhu supplement that dresses the system up with pulp Hammer House type horror as opposed to Lovecraft's Elderich Horror, not that it would take much to homebrew it. I think the supplements Blood Brothers had a take on it, i'm unsure. In any case i wish all the best for Goblinoid Games.

Yep, I was mightily surprised with this, having mispronounced the word since the '80s. For the sake of not wanting ridicule from my troupe, I'm gonna keep pronouncing it with the 'J' sound as well

I typically play using BRP/RQ3 rules, (although I do use the combat maneuvers and magic from Legend/RQ3). I'm unsure of why a Parry would be declared before it is required, but this must be a forked road in the combat rules between BRP and Legend/RQ6... I will have a good read of those rules, but it is possible that one of the authors will clarify this before I have a go

I presume it is similar to Magnitude in RQ, that is, the 'Spell Level' is equal to the Magic Point cost. For example, the spell 'Affliction' has a Spell Level of 4 and costs 4 Magic Points to use. If a Priest starting with 7 spell levels (on a roll of beginning 1d6+3), then that Priest could begin with knowledge in, for example, Affliction (4), Agony (2) and Babble (1). That's how I read anyway.

If I use the dice roll method for char gen, I usually get players to roll 2d6+6 for all attributes/characteristics if they have human characters. Just seems to work out better for us not having PCs with STR 6 or DEX 7 etc

Yeah, the way Aspects work in FATE is the best I've seen, and if any Advantage/Disadvantage system is ported to BRP then this is a great innovation to go with. Personally I like to keep the two systems separate, just changing the Magic Powers trappings for BRP Powers to emulate 'Feats' in a Pulp Setting, using the Failings system for SuperPowers if required. But if you are only ever running one system, then porting FATE aspects to BRP is one of the best ideas to run with

Yes, your company has succeeded where RQ3 stumbled - to keep producing Fantasy Earth, and with a realistic bent on it, even the magic is interpreted accurately according to the cultural outooks of these settings. I look forward to you returning to the mythical-historical earth settings; I think it is perfectly married to the gritty mechanics of BRP, and you keep the BRP flames burning admirably. The Alephetar Games books are certainly a valued resource for my BRP collection, the system would fare much worse without many of your titles. Personally I can't wait for BRP Steppes, it should be brilliant!

Yes, very true. Having said that, I do love the Pulp genre and think it can be done well with Mythos games, but perhaps these pulp-orientated rules should be included in an Optional Rules chapter, designed to pulp things up a bit. I agree with you that the default setting should remain challenging and gritty, even with its high death count. It has worked well so far, over 30 years, and I think the system is better for it. This default setting should remain 'Mythos Horror', with 'Pulp Mythos' being an optional play style. I'm now starting to worry that changing the format too much may be the death of a good thing...

Depends on how the stat block looks This is not an eyesore: STR 60% CON 65% Sword Attack 45% This IS an eyesore: STR % 60/30/12 CON % 65/33/13 Sword Attack % 45/23/9...ugh! How they have the sheets recording it is pretty cumbersome. I would have rather had the current attribute (ie 3d6 attribute) followed by the %, like this: STR 12/60% its a tad easier on the eye, and its easy to halve the percentile if you need to. I certainly don't like the character sheet looking cluttered, and at present I make my own so that the sheet isn't filled with all these listed but unused skills. Cluttering a character sheet is certainly not an advancement to my liking, its getting very rulesy for my tastes. One of the strengths of this system is that you can look at a skill at a glance and have a fair idea how good you are, given it is expressed as a percentage. Expressing it written down as xx/xx/xx doesn't have that same simplicity to it. It actually feels like a step backward rather than forwards unfortunately. When it ain't broke, does it need a fixin'...?!!! I will have to have a better look at the full rules, but from the outset its looking a little messy Translating from the current stats to the new stats: GYAA-YOTHN, Beasts of Burden (Lesser Servitor Race) STR % 135/68/27 CON % 70/35/14 SIZ % 150/75/30 INT % 35/18/7 POW % 55/28/11 DEX % 65/33/13 HP 22 AP 3 Build +4 DB +3d6 Bite A% 30/15/6 D 2d8 Claw A% 30/15/6 D 1d6+DB Kick A% 40/20/8 D 1d6+DB Sneak % 50/25/10 Sanity Loss 0/1d8 Not too bad...but still looking alot more cumbersome than the current stat block, there's no way I can quickly read the scores when everything is done in xx/xx/x format, and it just doesn't 'feel' like BRP to me...

Whoops, my bad. I saw Sandy Petersen's name first on the list under the heading '7th Edition Authors'. I thought there must of been some consultation with him. But upon further investigation I see at the bottom of the page they credit Sandy as the original author, and then also credit Lyn Willis. A little bit misleading, other editions have it written more clearly that the original edition was Sandy's work, but this one looked as though he had a prominent role in this edition. I will pay more attention next time. Now...I wonder what Sandy thinks of the changes with this edition?

I've only managed to skim the CoC 7E Quick-Start pdf very briefly...I have mixed views, but I have liked all the editions of Call of Cthulhu so far. These rules depart more than previous editions do from Sandy Petersen's original rules, and given that his original rules are over 30 yrs old then the changes with this edition is only minimal, it looks about reasonably compatible with the previous rules. This is great as none of the supplements suddenly become obsolete (not the case with many rpgs out there, esp the D&D line!). Interesting to note that Sandy Petersen was involved with this edition as well. I don't mind that the core attributes are now expressed as %, it saves time rather than saying "roll your STR x 5%" etc. Its actually easier for newbies to grasp how to measure those traits, rather than saying STR 12, it is easier to understand STR 60% in the same way that you can grasp how good you are at Skills when they are expressed as a percentage. This would have been a great inclusion in the BRP BGB, and the inconsistency with the BGB is the main reason it won't feel right for many BRP GMs out there. I can understand this, given that the BGB is the guidebook toolset for BRP, and now CoC 7E has core attributes written very differently. However I was actually stating NPCs up like this for many moons to save me time during the gameplay, so the idea sure works for me. I'm not sure if I can see any clear advantage for using the Bonus/Penalty Dice mechanics over the current BRP BGB rules for flat bonus/penalty modifiers. It's a big departure from the standard BRP way of doing things, I'm not sure what it achieves better than the current way of doing this. I suspect that it may feel more 'gamey' at the table, and it actually may be fun for playing a pulpy game, although its probably not an option I will bring to my current BRP games, for the sake of consistency. It does feel a bit too variable for me, but if I had new players I might give it a go though. In any case, this was one of those rules where I initially went 'Whattha?!", but it may have its place so I'ld need to see it during gameplay to get a feel for it. The new idea of 'pushing' your roll has been is many a troupe's house rules for some time I expect, just expressed a little differently in different words. Not a bad addition to the core rulebook though. If they were going for major changes I would actually got rid of the term 'Magic Points', and called it something like 'Conviction Points', based off POW or possibly POW+CHA perhaps. It could still be used for Spellcasting, but perhaps these points could have also been available to be used to add effects to certain mundane skills, which would provide a use for those points for non-magic using characters. Maybe you could 'Push' your skills for the cost of a Conviction Point, without having any disadvantage, I'm not sure. It could even be used to power an Advantage/Feats system in a pulpy setting perhaps. This kind of rule change, or something similar, would have been greatly appreciated (Note to authors: its not too late to use this idea, I certainly won't mind! ) I think I would have liked SANITY to be calculated from more base attributes than just POW, as mental coping is such a hard thing to define. Prior to the 1960s, Sanity was viewed as an intangible mental (and spiritual) aspect that was somehow related to one's 'Intellect and Nerves', so basing it off POW for a 1920s/1930s setting was okay. However now that we play Call of Cthulhu in later eras then this definition isn't really relevant and doesn't portray more current views of Sanity. From a more modern viewpoint, Sanity really comes down to emotional state, personality, willpower, biophysiology, culture & ethnicity, trauma exposure, social welfare, and even one's general physical health. Perhaps a more accurate (although convoluted) base calculation could be something like SANITY % = CHA+INT+CON +(POW x2), perhaps? I would have even been open for an Allegiance style system for Sanity to keep some consistency with the BGB, having two opposing facets, 'Resilience' and 'Decompensation' perhaps. If the authors were updating the rules, I feel that they should have taken the opportunity to place more emphasis on the relationship between Core Attributes and Skills, with Attributes having a larger impact on the base chances for Skills, like RQ6 does. Just a thought, no big criticism, but it would have been a good opportunity. I do like the quick previous experience system for skill calculation though, a bit like Magic World in this respect. You can have your skills allocated in no time, which is one of the drawbacks in the current BRP BGB. Perhaps there is an option in the full COC 7E rules for adding 1/5% Attribute Values to particular skills, that would probably be viable and simple. Have to wait and see I guess. Regarding Skills, I actually couldn't find a Skill list in the Quick Start rules, not even an abridged list. I may have overlooked it, but I don't think it was included. For that fact this makes the Quick Start not a Quick Start rules at all really, more of a preview of the new rules for current players. Not a big issue for me, but its not like you can use these Quick Start rules for a game without having the full edition of CoC 7E. So the document would have been more aptly titled 'Call of Cthulhu 7E Preview' instead. One thing I found unusual was that when a skill roll is halved, the authors have called it a 'Hard' roll, whereas in the BGB this is referred to as a 'Difficult' roll. I wish that consistency had been kept with the BGB where possible, especially if referring to the same thing. Just makes it a bit unusual from my point of view, plus players who are used to GMs saying "Make a Difficult roll!' will look perplexed when now requested to "Make a Hard roll!". I understand that RQ6 is different, but the Design Mechanism is a different company, fair enough. I think Chaosium should keep a little consistency where it can within their own publications however. The new Build stat is interesting, but I'm a little unclear with it, I will need to clarify it better I think. Build does change the combat mechanics a bit, and I don't know how this sits with me yet, it may be too much of a departure for me, I will have to look at it further. This could be a sticking point, I will have to see how different the combat mechanics are with having Build involved. I must say I'm a tad concerned here... I don't mind the basic damage chart, that's good for simplifying rules, and certainly good for Quick-Start rules. I was surprised to see that Luck is a value akin to Sanity now, and recorded similarly in a tally. I wonder what the mechanic for this will be like, as it was not included in the Quick-Start rules. I suspect, given its prominence on the character sheet, that Luck will play a big feature now. Interesting to see that it is recorded in a tally, which alludes to the fact that it can be depleted, much like Sanity Points or Hit Points. I think that Luck may even have variable rules according to the game flavour, perhaps you will be able to use it more in a pulpy setting rather than if playing in a gritty setting. I do know that the authors are looking at several types of gameplay styles, and high-end pulp does certainly have a place in a Lovecraftian rpg, given the success of Trail of Cthulhu and such, so it would be wise for the authors to provide this aspect of gaming as well to CoC 7E. I'm certain the Luck score will play a large role here. Should be an intriguing edition when the full rules come out, and I'm glad there are a few changes here and there, although I would have liked a bit more of a 'rethink' on some things, given that the authors were open to altering several facets of the previous rules. Again I will have to hold judgement until I see the full edition, but I'm glad that the changes probably won't make my current library of CoC source books useless. This was a smart move, as the strength of BRP and CoC has been the fact you can pick up old scenarios and resources and use them with whatever core rules you are playing with. Glad to see that is hopefully still the case with this edition. Well I guess its not too long for the full release now, I'm certain these forums will be a hive of activity once its out

As far as the original posting is concerned, setting vs toolkit, obviously both would be good, as BRP tends to attract GMs who are tinkerers. Perhaps a toolkit with a sample setting attached, or two very different sample settings attached to show off various features or interpretations of the toolkit. But if I had to choose, then a setting is best. The setting can become a whole line of books if it is viable. As a GM, having a setting and some campaign scenarios is always a good start. Any GM worth his salt can fiddle with it or pull out various rules to put in a home brew if desired. Settings are also often what captures the eyes of new buyers as well, not so much a system, at least not for many players. I second that Eclipse Phase is a good one for BRP players to check out, although it is good enough to play as is, and with having a core D100% skill mechanic it feels very BRP-ish, and probably is much better left to play as written than to take the time for a BRP conversion. Personally I always wanted something that was a cross between Traveller and RuneQuest, its a wonder Chaosium hasn't done at least one official book along these lines in recent years. I never bought the BRP Worlds of Wonder box back in the '80s, so I never saw FutureWorld from that set, but in any case there were no expansions for it unfortunately.

Actually, in Medicine, an illusion is a perceptive misinterpretation of a real stimuli, which often occurs with hypervigiliant states of mind, or distorted perceptions due to fatigue, substance misuse, or other mental disorder. So someone could believe for an instant that a person was climbing in their room at night, when in fact it was only a shirt handing on the windowsill, for example. The "I thought you said something" phenomenon. If someone perceives a stimuli in the absence of any real stimuli, it is called a hallucination. Similar to the above, but obviously a persons mental state is more impaired. Causes include delirium, excessive intoxication, or exacerbation of features of chronic mental disorder. So in my game terms, it would it an easy % roll for creating an illusion; a normal roll for creating a phantasm (hallucination); and a difficult % roll for actually 'cancelling' perceived reality, such as causing obfuscate or invisibility effects. Note that I am using the BRP Magic System, and applying this to the Illusion Spell from the Magic Chapter in the BGB. In RuneQuest, illusions are handled differently, such as using the Folk Magic 'Ventriloquism' spell from RQ6, for instance. I can't remember if RQ6 retains the Phantom (Sense) spells for Sorcery and Divine Magic as they were presented back in RQ3 or not, but from memory all illusionary magics in RQ were a bit cumbersome as they only covered particular senses, and cost alot of Magic Points to create a typical high-fantasy style illusion, to the point where it was often better to spend those points on another spell instead. I did like the whole 'build' idea of combining different spells to create the illusionary effects, but the magic point expenditure was not relative to the benefits of casting other magics. I do remember, however, that they did not cause any perception effects, but instead they were actually temporary reality, so they were more like Creation magics rather than Illusion magics. I remember a weird scene where the troupe's sorcerer 'cancelled' an opponent, causing him to cease from existence temporarily by using all the five Phantom Sense spells and saying that part of reality pertaining to the opponent was temporarily not there. It was very cool, but ultimately a huge waste of magic points as the opponent simply came back into existence at the end of the spell duration, and the other player-character with the broadsword slew him (using no magic points). It stuck out as a fun scene, but was an example of how cumbersome the Phantom Sense spells were... hence why I use the BGB Illusion spell now, its so much simpler... I will have to have a good look at RQ6 again to see how they have handled the whole illusion thing