NickMiddleton

Paizo are a model Chaosium should treat with caution - they (Paizo) are SUBSTANTIALLY bigger, they have multiple revenue streams that legitimately cross fund, multiple lines that exploit the same assets and a base subscription model that gives them much greater stability in their revenues. And the spine of their Pathfinder lines are the adventure paths, NOT the setting material that spins out of them. They may sell more of the latter, but they have the market position they do, and the interest in all that material, because of the adventure paths IMO. Now that word of caution sounded, I think the last observation is telling. Regular adventure support has been the foundation of just about every commercially successful table top RPG. And whilst a compelling / popular setting is a HUGE asset, they are expensive to license, challenging to create and for every "RAW, only in setting X" gamer there's at least one "make it all up myself" and one "desperate for material to adapt" gamer... I'm not sure about truly "generic" adventures, but accessibility and adaptability are key. If an adventure is too generic it won't appeal; if it is tied to closely to a specific setting and lore it narrows its appeal. The joy of what to me were the best adventure products Chaosium did in their "Glory Days" was that they were sufficiently strong to stand alone (or be worth adapting to a home setting) but sufficiently versed in lore to be worthwhile extensions of their settings: Griffin Mountain / Island; Arkham Unveiled; Sea Kings of the Purple Town.

Only small ones "Note that softcover, premium color books that are less than or equal to 48 pages will be saddle-stitched. Over 48 pages will be perfect bound." http://www.drivethrurpg.com/pub_pod_cost.php Cheers, Nick

Personally, I always return to the original Arkham Unveiled (for Call of Cthulhu); Sea Kings of the Purple Towns (for Stormbringer 4th edition) or The Traveller Adventure for GDW's Traveller. A place that inspires me as a GM; that is intelligently statted and described so I can re-use the material ; with adventures that are appealing and upon reading I want to run them. I know lots of people online who say they never run pre-written adventures (and I've met a few in real life)... but the VAST majority of people in my experience, even if the don't run pre-written adventures verbatim will pull elements (floor plans, NPC stats, encounter ideas; neat plot ideas or locations) from them or use them as the skeleton from which to build / tailor their own specific creations for their players. In a nutshell - material that supports PLAY. I know Ben / Chaosium have a bunch of material in various stages of preparation for release (one of which is a bestiary) - the question now is what resource there is for MW (& BRP) releases, so what takes priority and what gets deferred (or dropped entirely). As I wrote in my notebook earlier today: What does Chaosium see as the most viable products for them for MW (& BRP)?What products would Chaosium like to see 3rd party publishers pitching for MW (& BRP)?What things would Chaosium like to see fans producing for MW (& BRP)?Cheers, Nick

Err "straight up" I suppose. I use BRP BGB "difficulty" (Halve skill for hard tasks, double it for easy), because I have since sometime in the late 1980's / early 1990's#; I tend to let players suggests a special effect alternative to boosting their damage on specials and criticals and sensible (circumstances and weapon appropriate) suggestions usually get allowed. I don't kill characters on 0 THP, I generally have them dying and needing IMMEDIATE medical intervention and then extensive recovery time. But to be honest, that describes the baseline BRP I use for MOST things... Nick #my memory is I was doing it before the Keepers Companion for Call of Cthulhu that contained it as an optional rule and Elric!, which applies it as a spot rule in various circumstances, but that may be a constructed memory...

1. No 2. No 3. No don't get me wrong, I will be ECSTATIC to see Worlds of Wonder, Questworld and other elements of Chaosiums back catalogue officially available once more. And to see Chaosium truly embrace PDF and PoD distribution. But I want the BRP BGB and Magic World to continue as supported lines as well. Nick

Marcus, just read the PDF. WOW. I really like this. It has atmosphere, loads of potential and I really like that whilst blending some currently popular themes (undead, post-apocalyptic; moral complexity etc) it ALSO has a tight focus geographically; the premise allows PLAYERS to discover the world with the characters and the premise is flexible enough to allow me as a GM to shape the campaign in various directions.. Can't wait to see more! Cheers, Nick

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?762340-Moon-Design-Joins-Chaosium-Ownership-Group&p=19249509#post19249509 Ben remains at Chaosium and is optimistic. More details will hopefully follow when folk have returned from GenCon. cheers, nick

Paolo makes some good points. I am however minded that my subjective impression of the successful RPG's of the last decade or so (Mongoose Traveller; Savage Worlds; Paizo's Pathfinder) and the the crop of recent games that seem to be doing remarkably well (D&D 5e; Monte Cook's Cypher; Green Ronin's AGE) all are either explicitly generic / setting free or at most strongly tied to one IP as a "default setting". What exactly Chaosium are doing with BRP is currently unclear - but "killing it" (removing it from sale entirely) would be, in this day age, inexplicably stupid. Hasbro / WotC seem entirely relaxed about pretty much EVERY prior edition of D&D still being available (http://www.dndclassics.com/), along with huge volumes of support material for every prior edition, and they were late to the party compared to most publishers. Chaosium doing ANYTHING else would seem to me to be massively foolish. Keeping BRP (and any of its supplements they have suitable rights to) at least available via PDF (and potentially PoD as well) is a low overhead revenue stream that ALSO continues support for a segment of their current customer base that might otherwise stop spending money with them. As for the rest? I care a LOT about BRP and Magic World# and whilst I remain very fond of CoC and RQII/III I generally now run games that would have used those systems using the BRP BGB and options to suit. I've looked at RQ6 and CoC 7e and neither are to my taste. So if that's the direction Chaosium are heading in the future its quite likely I'll be buying significantly less of their products. Which is kind of sad, but these things happen. Hopefully we will get more detailed information soon! Cheers, Nick # I have a tiny, tiny stake in both (I had a BRP monograph published by Chaosium and I contributed to one of the Magic World supplements that's been released, and another that's in the works); I helped play test BRP and commented on Ben's manuscript for MW; I also ADORE the MW version of D100 / BRP - it's by far and away my favourite incarnation of the game I call BRP which I've been playing since the late 1970's in various guises and which is now the grammar my brain uses to express RPG ideas. Almost every game I run starts as a subset of the BRP BGB that looks VERY like Magic World and then has bits added or subtracted to suit...

I use them an an ad hoc basis when the action scene is sufficiently complex that I think it benefits the game. Most of the time, characters and NPC's having the same information about everyone's intended course of action doesn't matter, but occasionally, peoples intentions and readings of the situation can be really important. Mind, when I do use Statements of Intent, I do them in REVERSE order of INT - so the smartest person gets to declare LAST (after everyone else has announced their plans); and then resolve actions in DEX rank order. But most of the time I don't bother with statements at all. cheers, Nick

Looks good! Cheers, NIck

There is no comparison really - Ringworld is a game crafted to evoke a specific licensed "hard SF" setting in some detail; Future*World was a "sample setting" design to show case how one could capture more pulp / Space Opera SF adventures in the Worlds of Wonder framework. One is about carefully tailoring the Chaosium house rules to the setting of a specific novel, the other about providing a sample base setting and basic generic rules for people to adapt to settings of their choice (and possibly invention). I'm very fond of Ringworld, but I think even at the time it was a mistake to try and tackle something as both huge and specific as the ring world in an RPG. And, as my Outpost 19 monograph demonstrates, I always though Future*World deserved more exposure. A quick and dirty SF game is remarkably easy to throw together with Future*World, provided one is prepared to hand wave some of the intricate gear-head stuff and focus on other things. Cheers, Nick

Face to face. Theoretically, I have two regular groups. Wednesdays a group associated with my FLGS meet in town at a pub and play a variety of RPG's (done one guys homebrew, Shadows of Esteren, Cypher in Golarion - I'm about to start running a Space: 1889 game powered by BRP) and Thursday another group meet at a friends house two doors up - that group tends to play Call of Cthuolhu in the winter and other games spring / Summer - we've just finished a run of D&D 5th, I'm TRYING to slip in a short "taster" for Horror on the Orient Express this coming winter anf then we are resuming a friend Gloranthan game (RQIII with extensive borrowings from the BRP BGB). Cheers, Nick

Hmm - looks pretty solid. I'd be tempted to say rather than calculate a new skill, just roll and if the roll gets under BOTH skills it succeeds (and the character gets a "tick" in their choice of ONE of the skills). Specials and crits would likewise require making the threshold for BOTH skills, and if it only rolls under ONE of the skills it partially fails (as GM deems appropriate to specific skills and circumstances). Makes them tougher to pull off for characters with unbalanced skills (which I think is a good thing) and makes the targets etc simpler - LITERALLY anyone can attempt e.g. a back stab, but characters skilled with weapon and stealth will be better at it, without adding specific skills. Mind, I tend to run BRP fairly fast and loose and, without using the specific lists from RQ6, tend to let players choose / described their own "special effects" as the benefit for SPECIAL and CRITICAL results in a fashion very reminiscent of RQ6's system. cheers, Nick

If you use any sort of "powers" (Magic / Psionics etc) that utilize power points derived from the POW characteristic you are making an INTRINSIC link between strong will and substantial capability with powers (a large reserve of POW points). Willpower as a distinct skill (even if with a starting value of say POW x 2) reduces the strength of that link, making more plausible characters / NPCs who are capable with the powers system but not automatically iron willed paragons of determination. How important that is probably depends on the setting, and style of campaign one wants to run... for many games, POW x 5 is simpler; and for many others, creating "power points" (and a Luck score) from something OTHER than POW probably works better anyway. cheers, Nick

The "Divine Miracles" system I use Ulfland when I was running it under 'BGB' BRP (as written up in Uncounted Worlds #1) did something like this. The power still comes from the individual, but their spells are granted on the basis of their allegiance to a particular deity. Cheers, Nick

Hmm - purely off the cuff two obvious ideas are permanent / free access to a specific Sorcery spell (perhaps picked from a suitably themed list, with perhaps fine tuning to the effects to reflect the nature of the force / deity); second, looking at using some derivative of Allegiance points with the Super Powers section of the BRP "Big Gold Book" to get powers (a friends been looking at the later idea in relation to HeroQuesting in his Gloranthan game). cheers, Nick

Yes, very definitely. How much I can help, given how crazy busy I am at work and home at the moment I don't know, but I'll do my best. Cheers, Nick

Can you remember what it was in? A fanzine or pro-magazine? Cheers, Nick

RAW stats should go across fairly easily - I'd happily run an old RQ scenario with Magic World and just tweak the stats on the fly. Dropping hit locations and calculating Major wound levels is trivial. Skill levels are a bit quirkier - Magic world is more comfortable with skills over 100 than RQII/III but less so than early Stormbringer. Magic is more problematic, and magic systems vary quite wildly in power between RQII / Stormbringer (editions 1-3) and Magic World. Cheers, Nick

RQ I came out in 1977 - "BRP" didn't actually exist at that point. Every version of the BRP pamphlet I've ever seen has an earliest copyright date of 1980. The first time I saw one was in a boxed set (of RQII, Stormbringer or Call of Cthulhu, I forget which). They reissued it last decade with snazzy cover art - can't remember if that edition was ever available as a PDF, and it is IS still copyright and trademarked... And the web site that used to host an unofficial pdf is no longer around iirc. There are QuickStart versions of both the "BGB" version of BRP and Magic World available. Cheers, Nick

I've downloaded it, but have yet to read it closely. A general comment I will make however is that I subscribe to the principle that if converting a feature from one RPG to another produces a system that closely resembles the source system, you should probably just play the source game. SO, as a general principle, the idea of a "Mental Attack" vs "Mental Defense", and perhaps specific Mental Attack skills analogous to weapon skills, and Mental Defenses analogous to Dodge, Shield Parry etc I really like - it would capture some of the essence of the source but implement it in a BRP / Magic world fashion. Will try to take a proper look at the current version and post something more relevant! Cheers, Nick

Is it me, or did fixing this seem to act like a rallying call for Russian (or at least, Cyrillic using) spam bots to post?! Cheers, Nick

Yeah - if I sign out I can see the report button, but none of the others. Cheers, Nick

I don't see a "Report link" in either Chrome or IE8 (on work PC atm) and I don't recall seeing it in Safari on my iPad or iMac at home... Cheers, Nick

Since parrying (or dodging) missiles is generally not possible, it's not an action. I'd get the player to roll against each missile as the spot rule lists it as a "chance to block a missile". Cheers, Nick