Aycorn

Actually, I felt none of the RQs satisfactorily clarified whether "sacrificed" POW was gone for good (until your POW was raised) or would gradually come back over the course of hours/days as it normally would. So I always cut priests and cultists slack assumed that it did.

I agree. "Pulp" Cthulhu always seemed a bit redundant somehow, conceptually. The Cthulhu stories were, after all, pulp fiction. I know S.T. Joshi et al foam the the face tentacles at lumping HPL in with the rest of the "Weird Tales" crowd, but I think he was more at home there than many adherents care to admit (and yes, I am speaking as a Lovecraft fan). I'm not sure a "noir" edition is/was ever needed - the 30's/40's isn't that distant from the 20's. A trip through the library 20th century history section, a couple Robert Mitchum movies on the DVD player, and a couple Raymond Chandler or Ross MacDonald books and you've got the facts and the feel.

Nah, I don't debate. I occasionally proclaim...

I'm mystified by most such debates. If people like them, well okay. But I'm unconvinced they actually ADD anything other than to fulfill a personal preference.

That's true. And odd to me. But what have you. These days, when I'm creating NPCs or characters for players to play, or helping someone create a character, I say "start with the personality - who is this person?" and then stats and skills and whatnot flow from that.

That is good to know, and I hope it remains the case. I'm glad to hear Jason is back on board, as well. My blog is http://swordofsorcery.blogspot.com/ ... if anyone is interested

Absolutely agree. I have that experience with books (mostly), quite frequently.

I posted this on my RPG blog, and thought it appropriate to share here - cuz I feel like it needs to be said... I love BRP. I flat-out LOVE it. It is the simplest, most logical, most straightforward, most elegant RPG system I have ever come across. Period. If BRP was a dancer, it would amaze me with its moves every time I saw it dance. If BRP was a musician, it would make my jaw drop every time I heard it play. I’m being a little bit facetious and hyperbolic there, but really that does describe how I feel about it. I love the big gold book. One cover. 300+ pages and its got 99% of everything I need to run any kind of campaign I could want. Say it’s too long, or too overwhelming. Sorry. I don’t agree. And, by the way – I love the Resistance Table, and Strike Ranks. Yes – I mean it. A year or two ago, I acquired a huge cache of D&D books – from original to 3.5. Oh, and Pathfinder stuff, too. I got kind of intrigued. And I decided to not only check them out thoroughly, but, for fun, to convert my favorite old AD&D characters, long ago mothballed, to 3.5/Pathfinder. And also to BRP. It was an enlightening experience. Certainly, 3.5 improves on a lot of things from clunky old AD&D. It’s a lot more streamlined, quite a bit more logical and flexible, and it flows much more nicely. But as I began to adapt these characters, I found myself getting irritable. It’s a lot of work. All the tables, the feats, the skill system, the levels. Why don’t the experience levels and the spell levels of magic-using characters sync up? Wouldn’t it make more sense if a being 10th level meant you could cast 10th level spells? Why is the combat system so damn complicated? It still looks like miniature warfare rules. In fact, it looks more like miniature warfare rules than the AD&D combat system! I would never want to play it. And then I converted them to BRP. And it took mere moments. Because there’s so much I don’t have to think about. Break down the characteristics, calculate derived stuff, assign the skills and – boom – you’re done. Nothing is lost – it’s all there – just a hell of a lot simpler. A few years back I got GURPS Cabal, an interesting occult RPG setting, and looked at with an eye to doing a BRP adaptation. The biggest revelation was the magic system. See, the Cabal magic system is built on occult arcana, and there’s a host of modifiers that will affect the outcome of any spell. It takes a whole (lengthy) chapter to detail it all. And yet, looking at it, I realized that the entire thing could be boiled down to a single, simple table of modifiers. One table. One page. Why do people like to complicate things? That’s another thing I love about BRP. It’s ridiculously simple to add to or subtract from. If you must. Still, I keep seeing posts about adding things, like “feats”. I can’t see the purpose – when I converted those old characters to 3.5 and then BRP, there was nothing in “feats” that couldn’t be covered by skills and skill levels. Oh, “advantages/disadvantages” – I see that one come up a lot. I once gave someone great offense on yog-sothoth.com when I said I couldn’t see any real benefit to adding them to the game. And I can’t. Hey don’t get me wrong – if you really like “feats” or “advantages/disadvantages” – by all means – add them. But you’ll never convince me they’re necessary, or make the game better somehow. Okay, I admit, I’m feeling a little bit like, well, let’s put it this way… Lately I’ve been reading my way through the run of The Dragon magazine. It’s sometimes hilarious to see Gary Gygax’s infamous rants about players monkeying with his game, foaming at the mouth over things like critical hits, hit locations, point-based magic systems, weapon proficiencies, monsters as player-characters, etc etc etc. And how the game was perfect and you would screw it up royally if you changed or added any little thing (of course, strictly speaking Gygax wasn’t totally wrong – AD&D didn’t have a lot of flexibility and any changes always seemed to feel bolted-on) (I should also note that many rules-variants that appeared in The Dragon were pretty awful). Well, I won’t say BRP is perfect. I don’t believe in perfect. But its perfect for me. It’s the closest thing to perfection I’ve seen. I won’t say you can’t or shouldn’t mess with it – actually, it’s a lot easier to mess with than many (most? all?) other systems. But I will say I don’t feel the need. So, yeah, I love BRP. And I’m going to play BRP. And nothing else, really. Because as I said – it can handle any setting or genre I care to throw at it. I hope that Chaosium will continue to support it. But if they don’t – well – for years before the big gold book came out, there was a community out there – well not really a community, just a bunch of us out there in the wilderness - who basically adapted our own versions of it, cobbled together from RQ and COC and Stormbringer, et al. We played BRP even though it was barely on the market. And so, I’ve done it before. I’ll do it again if I must. I love BRP (said it again) and I have great, great affection for Chaosium. But I’ve got what I need if they decide to shut the taps off. And by the way, Chaosium – with all due respect, CoC didn't need "fixing".

Actually, I did a BRP adaptation of GURPS Martial Arts you might look at. It's in the downloads section.

Unortunately, I don't remember exactly where I encountered the alternate Sanity rules. I kind of wrote up my own adaptation but I think it's 99% similar, so I don't feel right posting it. The gist of it was, instead of getting an arbitrary mental illness assigned to you, at a certain level your character is rattled and skills are effected. And then it escalated from there into getting a mental illness. Maybe someone else recalls where this came from. And I apologize to the author for not having a better memory.

I use the Sanity rules that were presented in, I think, Unspeakable Oath some years back. A little more logical than "classic" COC SAN rules.

True, in HPL's stories the books themselves are not innately sinister - but they are in some other authors'. Manly Wade Wellman even wrote a tongue-in-cheek tale where pages from The Necronomicon attack the reader.

I certainly like the cover on "Cassilda's Song".

I second Mike M. All of the Hammer Quatermass films are excellent (despite Kneale's dislike of the the first two), as are the two surviving BBC serials - and all of these are available on DVD. I also unequivocally recommend the three Quatermass serial scripts, which I think are still in print - they read very well. "The Stone Tape" too, is excellent, and that script is also well worth a read - you can find it in a collection of three teleplay scripts with the very odd title "Year of the Sex Olympics", which includes "Stone Tape", the title play (a kind of social sci-fi satire that predicts today's `reality TV' culture), and third teleplay entitled "The Road" which is also superb (I've sometimes thought it would be cool to direct a stage version of "The Road"). I'm not familiar with, but have heard good things about a later BBC mini-series he scripted called "The Beasts". I haven't seen the 1970's "Quatermass" but did read his novelization - not as good as the earlier Q's but still quite worthwhile and full of fascinating ideas. His short story collection "Tomato Caine" is also quite good. A handful of the stories are supernatural. He also scripted an adaptation of "1984" for the BBC which I think might be on YouTube. I know it too was highly thought of. And here's one - Kneale wrote a screenplay in the late 1970's for a proposed remake of "The Creature from the Black Lagoon". I've heard that copies are out there but have never pursued it. I also recall reading someone's brief synopsis of it and, like all Kneale stories, there were a lot of interesting ideas - though I can no longer remember any specifics. And yeah, there are Lovecraftian-like elements in many of these, though I've heard Kneale never read fantasy or sci-fi outside of H.G. Wells. I statted up the alien fungus/vegetable/blob in BRP terms years ago, but not sure if I still have it (if I find it I'll post). One of the great sci-fi/fantasy/horror talents, no question.

It hasn't done me any harm. Illustrations look nice. That'll have to do.

I read all of Smith's Arkham House collections about 30 years ago. Pretty cool stuff. I need to re-read them one day. A handful of his deities that achieved "cross-over" status to HPL - Tsathoggua (again), Abhoth, Ubbo-Sathla, Atlach-Nacha (I know cuz I'm the one statted him), the "womp?(?) (I can't exactly remember the name was based on a monster that appears in the story "The Abominations of Yondo" (I know cuz Sandy Petersen told me so). "The Book of Eibon" of course is part of COC lore, too. I think that's roughly it. I've heard of "In the Realm of Shadows" but not read it (sounds interesting, though!) There are quite a few beasties and concepts in his stories that could be utilized in a COC game. "The Beast of Averoigne" would make a good COC Dark Ages scenario. "The Hunters from Beyond" would work in any era. And lots of his stuff would be harmonious with Dreamlands adventures. I concur with Baulderstone that his sword and sorcery tales would work best with Stormbringer (esp) rules. I've actually long thought about doing a fantasy scenario based on "The Death of Malygris". I know there was a D&D scenario called "Castle Amber" that was based on CAS' stories; and someone out there wrote up a Zothique setting for d20. So there's a start.

I'll second that. In my campaign there's a short list for each individual cult/deity. It could be things as simple as performing the expected rituals, observing the holy days, etc. For a war god it might be every slain enemy dedicated to them ("This one's for you, Ares!!!"), for a ferility god it might knocking someone up/getting pregnant, a successful birth. Building a shrine or temple to any deity ought to earn some points. In my campaign you can also lose Allegiance points by breaking taboos. It doesn't have to be a terribly long list.

I'm getting in very late on this (as usual), but I have to say... I welcome Greg and Sandy back... I am glad there will be a continued BRP, in some form, even if it's a tiny bit different... I have never believed the BGB was too big or overwhelming (though obviously some do) - I always thought it was exactly what it was supposed to be and pretty near perfect... I deeply regret, however, that the latest CoC is no longer, effectively, a BRP-based game. And I think this is a huge mistake. But it's done, I guess (me, I'll play CoC with BGB rules ... sorry gang).

My martial arts rules variant is a bit more down-to-earth, I think. Should still be in the downloads section.

They don't have to show up as an antagonist. I agree with others - look at mythology. They might just show up to add color or interest.

Sounds like you may be creating a lot of work for yourself. For my own burgeoning campaign, I actually did sit down with the original AD&D Monster Manual and made a list. The reason for going with the MM is that I'm building a pretty traditional fantasy world, and the MM pretty much corners the market on traditional fantasy/folklore/fairy tale creatures. The list was of anything that either was an obvious fit, felt right, or I just happened to want it in the campaign. I added in a few favorites from RQ (broos, ducks). I didn't so much convert things as simply note what I was going to use, and then use any already-existing BRP stats, perhaps making a tweak here or there as I saw fit. Again, most of the traditional creatures have already shown up in BRP or one or more of the editions of RQ. I'll add to the list a little over time, as I come across a creature that interests me (already have a few). The main thing I look for in creatures is, aside from the stats, do they inspire and interest me in some way? Can I imagine an interesting and exciting encounter being built around them? If I can't, that's a good sign maybe I have no use for them. Another question is, how similar are they to something I've already chosen? Do they basically do the same thing, have the same powers, stats, skills, weapons as something I've already established? If so, why should I include them (there might be a reason, but its a fair question). A last consideration is: is a monster just a variant on an already existing monster? If that's the case, do I need a whole new set of stats? A case in point for me: I liked the Ettin in the MM, but realized it's basically just a two-headed ogre, with, as I recall, some improved reflexes thanks to the double-noggins. I already have ogres. Since I already have ogres, and have incorporated the RQ concept of Chaotic features, its easy enough to say Ettins are just ogres with chaotic features, a common one being two heads. I hope that makes sense.

The fellow in Hanna-Barbera's "Arabian Knights" cartoon who could assume the shape of any animal by shouting "Size ... of __________!" and clapping his hands. If we were talking comic books, I'd say Doctor Fate, just cuz he looked cool (I recall the Fate stories as generally being inferior to Doctor Strange).

I've recently started blogging again about my developing Celtic-inspired campaign. Here's the newest update: The Green Lands - Part 1 And so, about my campaign. Something I realized some time ago was that, for my purposes in developing the settings, I needed to write (originally three, but now) four books. Basically, I needed to organize my thoughts about the campaign setting, and put it all down in b&w, in order to build it into something special. I needed the skeleton. Really, it was a bit like going back to the earliest days of my RPG experience. When I read the DMG et al, it was like having a launching pad for my imagination. I couldn't wait to get out there and discover my own worlds. Besides, I needed to settle and fix in my own mind how all the rules would fit together. It also gave me something to give my players. When the campaign (finally) gets under way, I'll be telling players - get the big BRP book, the Magic Book, and I'll give you pdf's of the rest. I'm not going to post the four books online, as there's too many copywrights violated - but I'm more than willing to summarize them and post excerpts. And so... The first book is the Player's Book. It's meant to have all you need to get a character up and running and provide necessary info on how the rules will be used. Here is the introduction I wrote for it (thanks to Greg Stafford, from whom I stole some phrases: Welcome to Green Lands, a campaign setting for Chaosium’s Basic Role-Playing system. The Green Lands setting is inspired by Celtic mythology and history. Note carefully that I say inspired. What that means is that it does not, in any way, attempt to be consistent with the world of the historical Celts or Celtic mythology in general. It is a fantasy world inspired by those sources. The druids of Green Lands are not the druids of Celtic history. The cultures are not the cultures of the ancient/medieval British Isles or Europe. It is hoped that this setting captures the feel and spirit of Celtic myth. That is the goal. Seek not for historical versimilitude within these pages, o best beloved. You will not find it. I make no bones about what are probably obvious influences. The three cultures are clearly based on the medieval/ancient Irish (Chaosium’s Pagan Shore for Pendragon gave me the foundation for describing this culture), the Picts (again, drawn heavily from the depiction in Chaosium’s Beyond the Wall, which was also based on the Picts of Robert E. Howard’s stories of Conan and Bran Mak Morn), and the Saxons (again, Chaosium’s Saxons and Vikings! were the models here). GURPS Celtic Myth also helped shape a lot of concepts. As did the Glorantha setting for RuneQuest, from which many ideas were drawn. Other influences include Marion Zimmer Bradley’s The Mists of Avalon, A.A. Attansasio’s Arthurian trilogy, Morgan Llewellyn’s historical novels, Lloyd Alexander’s Prydain books, Evangeline Walton’s novels based on the Welsh Mabinogion, and films such as “Excalibur” and the recent “Secret of Kells.” So, what we have here is an iron-age world, a pagan .world where men have carved kingdoms. from the wilderness, fight with sword and spear and worship many gods; a magical world with. mysterious sources of power which can be. wielded by the brave and talented, and where. strange creatures, forces of dream and nightmare, lurk just beyond the pathways of men. The wild places are filled with monsters. Ancient powers hold sway over ancient territories. Anything might happen. You can view this post in its original context here.

BRP is really the original GURPS, and probably should have capitalized on that, since, IMNSHO, it is much superior to GURPS. In any case, its strengths to me lie in its great simplicity and logic. As I noted in a post on my blog (Sword Of Sorcery: Why I Love BRP (#1)) (and pardon my shameless plug ), there's things I've seen in other games that require pages and pages of explanation, when, in fact, in BRP they could be handled by one simple table.

I think frankly one of the biggest problems with it was that it was not especially well-explained. It needed to be written in a more idiot-proof manner. The original published rules weren't clear, and Sandy's web-published rules were somewhat sketchily-written. I had to read it very closely to really understand how it worked. They are great ideas, though.