Gollum

As a French fan of Call of Cthulhu, and a buyer of Sans Détour's products, I find that decision sad but fair.

We are duscussing about it on a French Forum (the Blach Book Editions' one) and none of us do understand why Sans Détour didn't pay the royalties during so much time. We are waiting for Sans Détour explanation, hoping there will be one rapidly. 

I personally think that Chaosium was very, very patient and thank you for that. 

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 3:32 PM, klecser said:

This. And we may be splitting hairs at this stage. At the end of the day, all editions can be played.

Yes, I totally do agree. Maths never have been a true problem with Call of Chtulhu's rules.

17 hours ago, drablak said:

Thank you @Gollum for the welcome and the link to the videos by Paul Fricker! I'm just now coming back from my local gaming store with the Keeper rulebook and screen and the investigator handbook. The videos from Paul Fricker and also those by Mike and Lynne on Mask are all very good. I'm looking forward to running CoC games.

You're welcome. I'll have to look at Mike and Lynne's videos too.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

I find this exactly reversed, personally.  I can do x2 and x5 in my head without a glitch (or x3 or x4 for that matter); /2 usually also, but /5 (and /3 and /4) not as swiftly (yes, I know /4 is just /2/2, that's how I math it if I gotta; but it's slower).

Dividing is a distinct slow-down at the gaming-table.  And I'm probably the most adept at doing such math in my head, it's worse for others (some of whom will whip out their cellphones for the calc-app).  I understand this is generally the case -- multiplication is easier & faster (particularly for mental math off the cuff) than division.

So I prefer STAT x DifficultyMultiplier  BY FAR  instead of STAT / DifficultyDivisor.

Yes, multiplications are easier and faster to do in mind than divisions, as well as additions are easier and faster than subtractions.

But, precisely, with Call of Cthulhu 7th edition, you do none at all (except adding dice when rolling for damage). Half and fifth values are calculated in advance and recorded on the character sheet. So, all what you have to do during game is comparing numbers (bonus and penalty dice even replace bonus and penalties that you had to add to the skill in the previous edditions). 

7 hours ago, drablak said:

@Videopete Thanks for the mention of Seth Skorkowski review! I checked it out and it is very informative (and entertaining)! I'm definitively making the jump as well, although it is less of a jump in my case, since I do not have any prior edition.

You will have a lot of fun. Welcome in Call of Cthulhu!

Also look at the videos mentioned just above, if you want to. They are very well made. I'm not an English native speaker and still did understand everything immediately. Paul Fricker is an amazing teacher.

On 11/23/2018 at 10:57 AM, Videopete said:

So it took two things for me to make the jump. One was the fantastic Seth Skorkowski  9 part review, that goes very much into the weeds and depth for me to make that decision and the fact that I know that there is a Korean Call of Cthulhu edition I can get for my wife. 

And you did the good choice, in my humble opinion.

Call of Cthulhu 7th edition gives the most flexible rules I have ever seen. Its rules can appear more crunchy than before but it's not true, actually. Rules wasn't that simple in the previous editions, especially when dealing with combats (grappling rules were quite complicated, for instance). With the 7th edition, everything has been streamlined and use the same mecanism, no matter what you do : trying to punch your foe, to knock him down, to pin him on the ground, to push him through the window... It is simple, fast, and makes sense because the result will depend on your size and strength compared to his ones.

Likewise wound and healing rules are much more realistic than before and remain very easy.

Finally, if you want to be sure to understand the rules correctly, they are explained by Paul Fricker himself in several short videos. Here is the first one:

Have fun.

In call of Cthulhu, APP can be interpreted either as beauty or as magnetism. It's up to the player (or the GM, for NPC) to decide which one is valid for his high APP (or lacking for his low APP) character. 

Of course, a character can have (or lack) both.

Merry Christmas to you and to everyone else too. And a happy new year, full of amazing BRP games! 

In Call of Cthulhu 7th edition, hard successes (1/2 skill) and extreme successes (1/5 skill) are not really different qualities of success, because there is no qualities of success (except for combat attacks, where an extreme success still allows to get a damage bonus).

The general rule is only to know wether the goal of the Player Character (what he wants to achieve) is successful. So, hard and extreme successes are just here when there is a Non Player Character who resists (to achieve his goal, the PC must then get a better success than the NPC) or when the difficulty of the action is harder (the GM then asks for a hard or an extreme success).

Thus, a hard success doesn't bring anything more than allowing to succeed a hard action or to beat a NPC's normal success. Ditto, an extreme success (for anything else than an attack) doesn't bring anything more than allowing to succeed an extreme action or to beat a NPC's hard success.

When I first read that rule, I found that it was a pity to drop the different qualities of success. But now that I understand it better, I find it great! It avoids specially successful defenses which have effects on the attacker, allow an immediate counterattacks, and so on ... Brief all those things which slow down combats.

What if the player wants to immediately counterattack or make his attacker fall down? Simple. He just has to tell it before rolling and to get a better success than his foe. If he only gets the same success, the attacker wins (while someone who contents himself with normally defending will avoid the blow with the same success than the attacker). But if he gets a better success than the attacker, he wins, which means that his counterattack is successful (he inflicts damage) or that he makes the attacker falls down.

It's hard to make a simpler but still more living combat system. Every combat option (making fall, pining, disarming ...) remains possible with only two rolls (one for the attack and one for the defense or special maneuver) and a mere comparison of the results.

Needless to say that I would like the possible future revision of the BRP to use that system!

Just note that Call of Cthulhu 7th edition disconnected POW and Luck. The future BRP edition (if any) may follow that manner of handling things. 

2 hours ago, Mankcam said:

That's pretty much what I do for PCs with all BRP games; just make every core characteristic generated with 2D6+6. Works well.

It is what Basic, the french edition of BRP, chose. The only problem is that it gives a quite high average (13). Now, with the BRP system, skills are much more used than characteristics, so it is not a real problem. 

In my humble opinion, Luck is tied to POW because POW is the ability with wich the character imposes  his will to the world. As psychologists say, someone lucky is actually someone optimistic, that is, someone who strongly considers the world as good for him, while someone unlucky is someone pessimistic. It's more a matter of faith than a matter of external events.

Now, for Will rolls, I fully do agree with Colin. But slightly differently. To my mind, there are two kinds of will. 

The POW based one: you want and you are sure it will happen like that (I resist my urge to eat that chocolate just because I want it, for instance). 

And the INT based will: you do  something because you know that not doing it would be bad for you (I resist my urge to eat that chocolate because I already ate too many chocolates and I know I will be sick if I eat that one more).

So, for the moral situation I would mainly use the POW based roll. Unless the NPCs know that fleeing would be worse for them (being killed by their side for desertion...).

Now, Colin has a good idea too. An Idea roll before the Will roll is interesting: some NPCs may be too stupid to realize they will loose the fight and be slaughtered. 

On 29/08/2017 at 6:17 PM, g33k said:

Umm.  You yourself cite GURPS here.  That's even worse than "BRP" (and doesn't seem to have hurt SJG's product); names like "Unisystem" and "OpenD6" aren't much better!

Yes. GURPS sounds strange ... But, as it is said in its rules, it was originally a joke, a code word to describe the game while Steve Jackson was designing it and searching for a better name. But he never found a better one.

I fully do agree with Mankcam. A new edition of the BRP, more consistent (and consistent with the 7th edition of Cthulhu) would be welcome. Having said that, I don't think that changing the name would be a good idea. People know that the BRP is Chaosium's Roleplaying game, and it does exist since dozens of years. So, going on with that history is the best think to do.

BRP is also the Basic RolePlaying Game because it inspired a lot of other RPG ... Including GURPS.

19 minutes ago, Thot said:

There basically is one for firearms. See the OP.

It does not work for energy weapons, at least not in a way I have found yet, but for firearms, yes, it does. The formula in the OP works for a Derringer, a Colt or a tank gun alike.

And that is practical and useful.

Yes, you're right. I was speaking about guns compared with other kinds of weapons ... Revolver, medium, 1D8; Longbow, 1D8+1+½db. Sorry for not having clarified it

Quote

Yes, of course RPG's are simulators, in that they are models of the way the game world works. They don't need to be very precise in their simulation (so for many weapons and damage types, a guess for damage will do), but they do deliver consistent results that allow for planning and are generally thought to be somewhat mirroring the way things work in the real world.

They could be named "simulators" because they give plausible results for a fictional story, yes. But they are not simulators in that their purpose is not calculating what would really happen, like scientific simulators would do it. Light club, 1D6+db. Pistol, medium, 1D8. In reality, a medium pistol is far much more dangerous than a light club. Especially when dealing with armors.

Quote

No, the reason is because it is a complicated and difficult undertaking, and each type of damage would require different formulas. It is just easier to go by gut feeling in many cases, while getting just-as-good results.  But for firearms, it is more practical to have a formula.

Yes, I fully do agree here. But you also have to take into account the type of bullet. The FAMAS, for instance, uses bullets with hollow points, which increases damage inside the body ...

Sorry if I repeat what has already been said (I just read this thread diagonally) but, in my humble opinion, magic can perfectly be sufficient to face modern weapons. Just think about well used spells like Control, Dark, Invisibility, Lightning, Seal, Unseal, Teleport and so on. It could really surprise and disorganize a modern military squad. Especially if the monsters use these spells in a vile and treacherous manner.

Yes. There is no link between damage in a roleplaying game and the number of joules. GURPS - which you also know - may be closer from such a manner of calculating damage but, even with GURPS, there are a lot of problems like that. For one simple reason: roleplaying games are not reality simulators. They are designed to have fun. So, damage that weapons inflict are just calculated by comparing weapons with each others and with average Hit Points of a character.

A broadsword inflicts 1D8+1+db damage (8 in the average, for a good warrior with +1D4 bonus) because the authors wanted it to kill a man in about two blows and to often make a Major Wound. A shotgun inflicts 4D6 (14 in the average) because authors wanted it to kill a man in one point-blank range blow. And that's also why an assault rifle only inflicts 2D6+2 damage (9 in the average): to let victims have a fair chance of surviving the first shot ... Suppose you are playing a soldier, in an open war. A foe is aiming at you and pull the trigger ... If damage was calculated by a joule formula compared with broadsword, it would just be zap, you're dead ... and it wouldn't be fun at all.

Note that it wouldn't really be realistic either, actually. Sometimes, people survive assault rifle bullets. And sometimes, the first strike of a broadsword kills.

So, that is why roleplaying game authors prefer comparing weapons with each others and with Hit Points rather than using a joule/momentum formula. And they also do it because it is much more easy!

Great!

Though it is a bit strange that there is no guest for GURPS, Hero System, Savage Worlds, World of Darkness ... But it may be not so easy to reach them.

14 hours ago, Rick Meints said:

Because we do the softcover BGB as a POD title we have no plans to do anything other than keep printing and selling it as is.

Thank you very much for that answer. This is a comforting news.

3 hours ago, Baragei said:

Fair enough. For what it's worth, I agree with your stance here. Your resources will probably be better spent focusing on self-contained games. Still, I don't want to see the BGB go the way of the dodo, because it is an excellent core book. So I hope you keep it around. 

I fully do agree with Baragei. Please, don't drop the big golden book! Some people like truly universal games (where the rules remain the same even when you change the game world).

3 hours ago, Rick Meints said:

We have looked at a very distilled down version of "core" BRP rules applicable to any genre, and have referred to it as "BRP Essentials", but we currently see that material as something that may just get provided to authors as opposed to being a published product. We MIGHT publish BRP Essentials some day, but we're not 100% sure how much of a priority or a necessity it will be. In some ways, the Call of Cthulhu QuickStart already does a lot of what a BRP essentials would do, plus we WILL be publishing a RuneQuest Quickstart in the first half of 2017 and it will do likewise.  

As ColinBrett, just above, I'm a bit surprised and disappointed to read that ... The official announce about the 32 pages BRP Essentials sounded to tell the contrary ... But no matter. what you wrote here has the merit to be clear. So, since BRP Essentials is mainly a working base for authors, it is not worth waiting for it anymore.

Thank you very much for that important precision.

7 hours ago, g33k said:

That said... while I don't think anyone ever "doesn't game" because they're waiting on an edition, they might decide not to buy a product because a newer edition is expected RealSoonNow...

Yes. That's exactly what happens with me!

I'm not buying anymore any BRP product, waiting to see what BRP Essentials will be like. The only Chaosium book I have bought since BRP Essentials announce is Call of Cthulhu Keeper Rulebook, because most of my campaigns are Cthulhu games. Until now, I played them with the big golden book rules (I know, it's a bit weird; but, actually, I like to use the same rules for all my games instead of having rule alterations that confuse players each time we move from one game world to the other). And, now, I am seriously looking at other publishers' products ...

I would like to be the only one to think like that. If I was, Chaosium would keep all his BRP fans. But, sadly, I would strongly argue the opposite.

12 hours ago, K Peterson said:

Does any gamer actually do this? Sit and fidget, wring their hands, and wait impatiently for the authoritative release that'll take them to the BRP promised land? Does this year-long 'delay' really impact anyone's present gaming, or prevent them from running the campaign that they desire to run now?

No. And that is precisely the problem!

BRP Essentials will have to be very good once it will be published out, because most players will already be playing another version of the game. Making them come back to Chaosium BRP rules will very be hard. An extremely difficult roll, to speak in Call of Cthulhu 7 terms.

11 hours ago, g33k said:

NOBODY can buy the BGB, it's out of print.

If you go on Chaosium website and click on "Basic Roleplaying" (in the left margin), you immediately go on this page.

http://www.chaosium.com/basic-roleplaying/

Nothing says that a new version is coming or that this one is not anymore supported. To the contrary, the big golden book (or its PDF edition) is presented as the latest version. You can buy it. And once you clicked on "Add to card", Several other products for this "old" version suddenly appear as "You may also like ..." They are good and they will surely be compatible with the new version. But it adds some confusion to the mystery of the future BRP Essentials ...

11 hours ago, g33k said:

The complete lack of any mention of CoC7 as a core/foundational material for BRPE (from any official source (that I have seen), as opposed to outsiders like you and I (and most of the rest of us) speculating (OTOH, maybe we in the peanut gallery are a source of amusement, betting-pools, and what-have-you, in the MD/C Virtual Office)), and repeated mention by Official Folk of prior "BRP" titles and RQ, gives us a pretty-definitive idea of the "rough" space where BRPE will sit.

This argument is a very good one.

To be clear, I'm not at all claiming that I am right when I say that BRP Essentials should be based on Call of Cthulhu 7. I absolutely don't know. It's not even a speculation. It's just what would, to my humble point of view, be the better idea. For several reasons.

1. First, because it is the simplest version of the BRP system.
2. Second, because it is a very good one, with a lot of new interesting rules.
3. Third, because "RuneQuest Essentials" already exist. They are even several versions of it, published by other publisher. So, doing one more would not be the best idea.

59 minutes ago, g33k said:

From the elements above the "===" break, we can clearly see that it's NOT going to be based on CoC7's core engine (although it may import some snippets of those rules), so speculation that direction is pointless (unless you ardently wish it to use the CoC7 core, and feel the need to gnash teeth & rend garments, of course... then, gnash and rend away!) .

Nothing in the link you gave clearly show that BRP Essentials will not be based on Call of Cthulhu 7. It just shows that Mythic Island won't. But since Mythic Island is based on RuneQuest as well as on BRP Essentials rules, we can't be sure. What comes from RuneQuest? What comes from BRP Essentials? We do'nt know ...

Note that you still may be perfectly right! The problem is precisely that, until an official author or publisher tells it clearly, all we have for the moment are just conjectures ... And that is what makes me grumbling a bit. More than one year of conjectures begins to be very long.