Aycorn

I was wondering how this works. Well, I actually have a role-playing blog of my own, so I suppose I'll connect that blog and this one. More to come.

Easy enough to ignore it. That's what I plan on doing.

They appear to have missed the "late summer 2011" date.

Agree with the general trend here about "railroading," but, looking at your player's e-mail as quoted in your post - YEEESH!!! Someone needs to lighten up.

Now those, I thought were excellent, and, in fact, I've adapted them for my own COC campaign, with a few tweaks.

God ... sounds kinda nice.... Anyway, back in the 80's, Dragon had a one-shot scenario about some boy scouts exploring a haunted house. As I recall, they got a lot of flack for it from "serious" gamers. I've always thought it was a cool idea and have long toyed with doing something similar for BRP. A "Hardy Boys" might well fit.

Sorry Gianni - hadn't seen it. Probably cuz most of the D&D sites don't link to a BRP site. I'll add a link on mine. Thanks! A.

Shameless self-promotion dept: I've been enjoying reading "Grognardia" and similar blogs, but thought it a shame there weren't any BRP-related grog blogs. So I started one. Eventually I'll be posting info on my "Celtic" campaign and other BRP games up there. If anyone feels so inclined: http://swordofsorcery.blogspot.com/

This simply takes me back to my own personal rule: only play with mature friends who you know aren't going to be bozos. Period.

RuneQuest - with a group of kids older than myself at a local library where they allowed us kids to use a room on the weekends. I was entranced - this was what I had been yearning for. It had everything I felt D&D was missing.

The simple (and sarcastic-sounding) answer is: as much as you need and no more. You want enough detail to be able to respond to questions or situations your players may think of, and to give your setting versimilitude. On the other hand, it's all too easy to get bogged down in details that hold no interest for the players and no relevance to the game. That means you're spinning your wheels. The players may never even see it. I know Sandy Petersen once wrote that a lot of times his private scenarios covered one side of one sheet of paper, and unimportant NPC's had no stats (i.e. a guard at a door who was just there to be killed or knocked out anyway). Now, obviously in a published thing, it needs to be very detailed because that's what's expected. But those published things are worked on over time, and often by multiple authors. You (or I) may need something soon, and be working alone. I once read a book on writing that gave a good analogy - I could probably look it up if anyone's interested - but in a nutshell, it suggested you imagine you're drawing pictures with a child. You sit down to draw, say, a barnyard. If you sit there and draw a fence, a barn, a rooser, a cow, a tractor, a farmer, etc ... that kid will get bored very fast. So you draw a fence and maybe a rooster and then you say to the kid - "okay - you draw the rest." It works the same way. The reader (or the player) needs room for their imagination. Those are my thoughts, anyway.

Just downloaded this a couple nights ago. It's a real labor of love - thanks for doing it! I look forward to Vol. 2.

Perfectly valid since Wagner wrote a Kane/Elric crossover.

Sounds very cool. Like the old "Skull The Slayer" comics from the 70's.

For my pseudo-Celtic campaign, I've basically reinstated Divine Magic, having it work like Sorcery but keeping the "sacrifice POW for spells" aspect. You have to have a certain amount of Allegiance points to a god (I'm debating 30 or 40) in order to be able to get Divine Spells from it. I don't really have cults built around individual gods, per se. The Druids, for example, are more like a cult in and of itself that allies to all the gods, with individual members choosing to pursue their own relationships to particular deities.

I've only read the final two Potter books but I thought they were excellent. Someday I'll read the rest of them. I have nothing but respect for Harry Potter - it's got kids interested in reading, the stories seem to be very good and have real depth, and its something that got mega-popular for no other reason than that a lot of people really liked it. Can't knock that.

Sorry, I fumbled my "Resist Sarcastic Response" roll. Seriously I'm looking forward to "Classic Fantasy" myself.

It's straight up and descriptive, probably very good marketing-wise, if, admittedly, not as cool or aesthetically pleasing as the others. People will have a pretty good idea from the title alone what it's all about. :thumb::thumb:

If, for some reason, BRP: Classic Fantasy gets nixed, I think you should insist that it be titled: "BRP: Spawn Of Fashan"

I love it. Last year I read David Drake's "Old Nathan," which takes place in early colonial times, and thought "Man ... you could make an interesting campaign setting out of this!" Good luck with this one as I'd love to see it.

Yeah - not to come off as a jerk, but I love BRP, have since I first played it, and I'm really not interested in what it's detractors have to say. I'd rather converse with people who share my interest and enthusiasm.

Thread looks like another excuse for D&D devotees to whine about RQ: "Waaah ... you can kill yourself with your own weapon .... waaah ... it's got ducks ... waaaaah ... the rules are (clunky/broken/suck/insert negative of choice)."

The Mist Giant!

Notoriously bad books by Neil Hancock. I confess I've read and have a soft spot for the first two. They're quite wild - funny animals up against brutal orc-like baddies, swords and sorcery mixed with gunplay. Long stretches of bad writing rubbing up against shining moments of really good writing. Very, very weird.

I too will join you guys undercover. I think that "Lord of the Rings" is a great story, but I don't think Tolkein tells it very well. It not so much that I find his writing grandiose - I merely find it rather flat. He doesn't have the ear to pull off grandiose. He has trouble with characters (only Gandalf, Sam, and Gollum really show much personality) and, as I think Fritz Leiber pointed out, he lacks a good, powerful, scary villain (Saruman's offscreen almost entirely until the epilogue, at which time he seems merely petty, and Sauron is off-screen for the entire story). He also grinds the story to a halt at least twice, once for a tiresome detour into the happy land of that insufferable Tom Bombadil, and then an even more tiresome detour into the entire history/sociology of a bunch of talking trees! Now, this will really get me lynched, but I'll say it: I prefer the recent films to the book. I loved `em. Loved every minute of `em. But I agree that, even if LOTR isn't the BEST fantasy novel, it's still a great one in it's way (flaws and all) and it is absolutely the most famous, celebrated, and influential. Also agree about "The Hobbit."