NickMiddleton

If there are other BRP fantasy games out there I'd be just as eager to look them over as well. Especially if it doesn't require me having to hunt them down on ebay.

Ashes to Ashes is out in PDF, and soon to be in print I believe. Cthulhu: Dark Ages might appeal, and has some excellent support material available in monograph form (print & PDF).

Further support in the fantasy vein is definitely on its way: I'm working on something, plus there's Pete Nash's Rome and some of the other stuff that's been announced: see the front page of this site.

I appreciate everyone's input and help. Thanks for helping me make heads or tails of RQ. I think with what's been said, I have a little more direction on how to pursue it now, but will keep reading this thread in case something else pops up. Thanks again everyone! :thumb:

Just don't let the fact that some of us are crusty old grognards and argue about things at the drop of a metaphorical hat put you off!

Cheers,

Nick

This discussion was derailing Hound of Tindalos' Runequest... where to start? thread, so I thought it best to start a separate one. This is long, and a bit of a rant - and probably a storm in a team cup really: but as I get older I get increasingly annoyed by what I see as an obsession with "the new" and the concomitant assumption that "the old" is automatically less valuable / worthwhile / functional. So my apologies in advance for riding this particular hobby horse in public....

RosenMcStern made this assertion : "RQ2 is almost 30 year old, and even though its "atmosphere" was great, it contains game concepts that are terribly outdated."

I, and others queried this. He responded:

- No Power Points. This Temporary POW stuff can give you a big headache.

But other people find it perfectly acceptable and usable, and find the disconnection between POW and magic points inexplicable and fiddly to manage - personal preference, NOT fundamental game mechanical flaw.

- SIZ and INT rolled on 3d6 (no longer used in any BRP game)

Re-read the RQII rule book - there were other options there as well.

- skill increments in 5% steps only

Some liked the combination of easy maths from the 5 point steps whilst retaining the "made it, JUST! 64 out of 65!!" feel of rollingd100 - yes, it's purely a player perception, as there is no mechanical distinction between 61, 62, 53, 64 and 65:but the game rules are there to create a specific player perception. Some people may not like the 5 point step - but again, that's a preference NOT a fundamental mechanical flaw.

- artificial spell limits (Protection 4 is the top, even for the Ultra-High-Priest)

And how come Cleric's in D&D don't get Fireball? ALL rules have arbitrary limits - it's how they define the world(s) they describe. And, again, the Game Police never arrested anyone who allowed a Protection 5 (or 10) spell in their RQII game... The published RQII rules described a world with limits on battle magic - if one doesn't like them that's a perfectly fair thing to say: but it's a personal preference, NOT a fundamental mechanical flaw in the game caused by when it was designed.

- incompatible values for armours (incompatible with BRP1 I mean)

No one suggested that RQII and BRP were 100% identical - but the discrepancies in armour aren't huge, and the basic principle of armour in both systems is the same - and again, RQII's table is not inherently flawed simply because it's older.

- no ENC or fatigue option

RQII had its main encumbrance rules (page 15 in my copy) plus two optional variants at the back of the book.

Etc. etc. RQ3 is not perfect, but is closer to BRP as it is now.

Absolutely - and as I've said before elsewhere, personally I prefer RQIII to the point that I still run it regularly but can't really imagine a situation where I'd use RQII. But that's because my personal preference is for RQIII, not because there is anything wrong with RQII - and I'm disappointed to a degree that some RQII ideas (such as Defence) aren't available as options in the new BRP...

Take the game concept of Armor Class; it is outdated, as each and nearly all game systems other than That Game keeps it at bay for fear of appearing stupid. No sensible game designer would use it nowadays if starting from scratch.

On the contrary actually, many have. They call it some thing different, because of stupid prejudice over the terms perceived origin in D&D, but abstracting a person or objects ability to avoid harm (armour, manoeuvrability etc etc) in to a single defensive score is a perfectly reasonable abstraction and for certain styles of game (where detailed combat scenes are inappropriate) it makes perfect sense. Not using it because of a "fear of appearing stupid" is mostly a measure of incompetent game design: if it's the right solution, use it and if necessary, rename it "Defence Rating" or whatever.

Rolling 3d6 for SIZ or using a d100 like it was a d20 are wrong rules [there are still some in BRP, sadly], not "no longer fashionable" rules.

On what possible basis?! Why does the range of values for a characteristic being one thing have any intrinsic value over any other range? If DEX is 3 - 18, why not SIZ and INT? Or why not say they are ALL wrong and should all be on 1 - 20, or whatever?# And why is exploiting the ability to create the illusion of a fine grained scale whilst using a 1 to 20 scale any better or worse than any other dice mechanic? You may not like them, but that's hardly proof they are fundamentally flawed. Personally I find the Unknown Armies d100 mechanics really irritating, and GURPS use of 3D6 really dull - but both are still valid mechanics, just ones I don't personally like.

If you grok computer programming, it is like the goto statement. It is not "old-fashioned" programming that was popular in the '70s and will become popular again, it is a bad programming technique no one would use any more once the languages have introduced structured programming (barring some fanatics who like to code hieroglyphs).

Actually, you appear to be claiming that because C++ exists, not only should no one use Pascal, but that Pascal was never usable for writing programmes - and it's the retrospective reclassification bit that I'm arguing against.

You don't, personally, like RQII, and prefer RQIII's solutions to a lot of things. Fair enough: so do I, as it happens. But there is nothing in RQII compared to RQIII or even BRP that is inherently flawed that justifies saying "do not play that version of the game, play this version."

You other argument (play what is in print) I don't have a problem with: I think there is good material in for example the Moon Design reprints and that second hand material is sufficiently easily available that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand: but, despite my personal distaste for MRQ, I don't have a problem with the argument that MRQ or BRP are the sensible recommendations because they are in print. I do have a problem with the idea that "it was published x years ago and is therefore inherently a flawed game."

Now, where are my dried frog pills?

Cheers,

Nick

# A fair and valid criticism of RQII's SIZ scores would have been that the suggested weights and heights for the 3 - 18 range were hard to correlate with real human norms, as 1 in every 216 humans being 70cm tall and weighing 10Kg is, even in a fantasy setting, pretty incredible - but surely the logical response is that the table of heights and weights is wrong?

I completely disagree with this statement. Outdated can easily mean all those things and more.

*shrug* In internet gaming forums it's almost exclusively used in the narrow negative sense of "no longer valid simply because it's old", and from the rest of the post that appeared to be the usage here. As ever YMMV

Cheers,

Nick

As stated before, I am definitely against advising to get out-of-print materials. RQ2 is almost 30 year old, and even though its "atmosphere" was great, it contains game concepts that are terribly outdated. If you start with RQ2, you will have conversion problems with everything if you later want to move your game to BRP.

Well, RQII maybe (opposed skills are different, Defense) but RQIII? That's 25 years old and bar a few names and the magic system, the new BRP can reproduce it pretty closely, certainly close enough that you could use old RQIII supplements with the new BRP, and (with a varying amount of work depending on which BRP options are used) convert any modern BRP book for use with RQIII.

And last time I checked, RPG ideas don't come with a "use by" date mandated by the Gaming Police, so "game concepts that are terribly outdated" seems to me, no offence, a pretty silly comment. "No longer / not currently in fashion" certainly, "ideas that have been improved on in the light of experience in more recent games" quite possibly. But "outdated" just makes no sense to me when applied to game rules.

Cheers,

Nick

You asked two questions. I answered yes to the poll because IDO like hit locations and always have since I first played RQ. In answer to the question in the thread title, yes I do plan on using them, but not in every BRP game I run, only those where they seem appropriate.

Cheers,

Nick

I've downloaded the Byakhee source code. I'll take a stab at doing some reverse engineering it and porting it over to OSX/Objective C. It'll be a good exercise in refreshing my skills. If I can get it running as is natively, I'll look into modifications for strict BRP (including options) and perhaps a Stormbringer only plug in.

-V

If you need a hand testing I'm sure I'm not the only Mac user here who'd be willing to pitch in - I'd offer to help on the coding side but alas wouldn't know where to start... Eighteen years since my IT post graduate course and counting, and 13 years since I last programmed in anger, and that was on a PIC micro-controller...

Cheers,

Nick

Now, since both types of modifiers are based on circumstances, how do I know which kind to apply in a given situation?

Which seem more appropriate to the situation? Which serves the game better? If a quick, overall assessment of the challenge, will serve then modify the base score by the difficulty: "It's a hard Pilot roll to do that." "Getting up the wall requires an easy Climb roll". If the details of the situation matter, or can add something to the players enjoyment of the game then use circumstantial modifiers, but don't let them bog the game down. To quote the rule book: "Circumstantial modifiers are intended to be dramatic tools that add drama to tense situations, not strict guidelines that attempt to simulate absolute realism."

Cheers,

Nick

I'll have a look at Demon Magic (the second Stormbringer Companion) tonight - that had a version of SAN for the Young Kingdoms.

The SAN rules in Demon Magic were adapted from Call of Cthulhu circa 1985 by Mark L. Gambler. They are designed to emphasise the mind shattering qualities of Chaos in the setting, so characters are significantly less fragile than in CoC (temporary Insanity only occurs once SAN loss exceeds TIS, half ones starting SAN, in any ten minute period), especially if Melniboneans (they get huge bonuses to starting SAN, and are exempted from a number of circumstances that cause SAN rolls for other races). The system also suggest that subsequent viewing of SAN draining things is less severe on subsequent exposure: and unlike CoC, there are no 1d100 SAN shattering horrors. A lord of chaos in their most grotesque form when first encountered is rated 3d10 / 2D10, but only 2D10 / 1D4 on subsequent encounters...

Ben Monroe proposed a variant Sanity / mental stress mechanic for BRP / RQIII in his Yahoo RQIII Group a while back which I tweaked and used in my After the Scouring RQIII-ish game last year - He was talking about it being included in a project for Chaosium IIRC... And further fine tuning of the BRP SAN systems can be developed from the suggestions in "Growing Numb to Horror" (page 318 in the ARC, page 323 in the PDF edition of BRP).

Cheers,

Nick

It wil work - the important thing to tweak is the "getting used to awfulness" rule. In standard Call of Cthulhu, it doesn't matter how often you have seen Deep Ones i previous adventures, their mere existence is such an affront to humanity's world view that it will cost you SAN. In the Freeport setting I'd say it should be possible to become innured with these things - maybe allow Special and Critical SAN roles to make the PC immune to SAN affects from the specific creature causing the role?

I'll have a look at Demon Magic (the second Stormbringer Companion) tonight - that had a version of SAN for the Young Kingdoms.

Cheers,

Nick

I'm still hoping someone will do a cross-platform equivalent since I switched to a Mac... :-(

Nick

Good to see these Ken - I did post up a word document of some of your creatiosn from the RQ Rules mailing list to Ben Monroe's RQIII Yahoo group a while back, hope you don't mind?

Cheers,

Nick

It is I beleive a concession to the fact that one generally accepted flaw with Magic World (which used total hit points and simple major wound level rules) is that the magic damage was too cheap at 1D6/ magic point. And in RQIII (which DID use hit locations), direct magic damage (which ignored armour) did 1D3 per magic point.

So 1D6 / 3 power points looks like a reasonable simple and fair revision to me.

Cheers,

Nick

Are you sure? I've heard tell of axes being pretty nasty - and they're 'just' slashing weapons too.

Ah, but we are immediately shading into distinctions that are probably finer than is worth bothering with in an RPG combat system. The axe has characteristics of a typical crushing weapon, in that it has its striking mass concentrated at the end of its haft, so even without its cutting edge, it can deliver a lot of force in a small area, whereas a sword's striking mass is distributed throughout its length (and biased towards the hilt), and thus isn't as effective, weight for weight, as an axe.

As I said, it's a very broad approximation, but for me it's acceptably accurate for game play.

I'm not convinced of these points. Would swords not have to be handed-in too? And any weapon can have the Martial Arts ability applied to it, under the rules as they are, so that doesn't help (unless we say that should be restricted).

The usual distinction I make in my games is between "weapons of war" and utility items or dress weapons. So greatswords are as problematic as long spears, but a dagger or an officer / nobles broadsword (as a badge of office / rank) would probably be acceptable.

Might not the advantage of swords be that they could be used in an impaling manner, when circumstances allow? (Though this isn't within the rules either - yet).

RQII and III allowed some swords to be use in either cutting or thrusting mode, and allowed them to impale in thrusting mode. It's a reasonable house rule if the current set up bothers people - albeit even in RQIII most of swords couldn't trust / impale IIRC.

Cheers,

Nick

The real problem is that, apart from the special effects (impale/bleed/stun) all weapons but slashing weapons have damage adjustments on a special hit. This is unbalancing.

I don't personally see this as a problem though. I used to bother a lot about these sorts of details, and when I had the chance as a steel weapon re-enactor quizzed various historians, archaeologists and museum curators as well as doing a lot of reading about battlefield and forensic archaeology about actual weapon effects and the like. Plus some long conversations with various military types of my acquaintance (and a a trauma nurse with a PhD in the causes and treatment of head injuries).

In the end, my personal feeling is that actually, impaling archaic melee weapons ARE typically the most devastating, and that blunt (crushing) weapons ARE typically more (for high strength / mass combatants) effective than cutting (slashing) weapons. It's a generalisation, and probably only accurate to within an order of magnitude, but it's more than sufficiently close for gaming purposes.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

Was Loz's Hawkmoon done by Marcus? Regardless, it's a lovely book as well. It's a shame that these monographs can't be reprinted.

No, Loz did the layout himself in Word IIRC - which just goes to show that you don't need fancy software to do a decent page layout, as Hawkmoon is up there with Old Hrolmar and Gods of Law in terms of layout as well as content.

Cheers,

Nick

Does anyone know if there are any forthcoming Sci Fi Settings? I've always thought BRP/CoC was great for military sci fi.

I've got a scenario with Chaosium for editing at the moment that's SF and the idea I'm planning on turning in to a submission for the adventure contest is SF as well, funnily enough.

And one of the longer term setting ideas I'm noodling away on in the background is a vaguely battletech-ish SF setting. Mind, I usually have half a dozen or so setting / campaign ideas on the back burner at any one time...

Nick

I had loads of fun playing Melee and Wizard and we did play TFT a bit, but by the time my brother had the full set of TFT books (Advanced Melee, Advanced Wizard and In The Labyrinth we were both more in to RQ and Stormbringer. IIRC he lifted the TFT/AM magic system as one of the (preposterously numerous) magic systems in his Eb-Kluash setting.

I have a set of the TFT books on the shelf behind me.

Cheers,

Nick

Which is why I wrote this:

I'd never let players take the Martial Arts skill without a very specific reason for it relating to their origin or backstory.

I anticipate seeking out training in this skill as a big carrot for player-character warriors.

Hehn - it was re-reading that bit recently that snapped a detail of a fantasy setting I've been working on for ages in to focus. How to give something unique and worthwhile with a modicum of rule reinforcement to the Ordos (vaguely "religious / scholarly brotherhoods of warriors and monastic types" not tied to the organised religions in the setting)? Simple - the Ordos are the only widely known about source of training in Martial Arts...

Cheers,

Nick

I am so happy to see so many products announced for BRP. While it's fun to switch established game worlds to the Chaosium system, it's not going to bring BRP to the FLGS. (On that note - how DID GURPS get to write up GURPS versions of the oWoD Vampire game, among others? Just talk to WW, I suppose, and get permission ie give them money?)

Correct, albeit the approval clauses, and White Wolf's handling of them provoked a rift between SJG and WW that I beleive remains in place to this day see http://www.maranci.net/intlog06.pdf

One of these new games coming out could be the Fantasy/SciFi/Urban Fantasy Flagship for BRP! Something that draws in new fans based not on the mechanics, but on the setting! GLEE!

Here's hoping!

Nick

What monograph was that and how long ago?

From what I understand they are trying to use the newer monographs to help promote and keep BRP floating.

My guess is that Charles is referring to Gods of Chaos, one of the earliest monographs (and the first Stormbringer one), which was published in the old tape bound b&w card stock cover format and looks to be printed from a proofing copy of the manuscript set in two-column courier throughout. It's not, by any stretch of the imagination, pretty - but the content is first rate. Visually it does suffer from comparison with the other two Stormbringer monographs (Charles' excellent Gods of Law and Richard Watts superb Old Hrolmar Guidebook) which were both designed out by Marcus Bone and which look superb as well as having cracking content.

Cheers,

Nick

Huh? What references? :confused:

SGL.

Google "420"

Cheers,

Nick

Cool! Admittedly, I'm pretty sure I DON'T have the time right now, but an idea has occured for something "brief" that I can maybe get written up before the July 31st deadline but AFTER I've got some of this other stuff off my plate.

And I think the "no Call of Cthhulhu/Lovecraftian" restriction is a good thing - there is a LOT of that sort of material available already, so seeing some stuff that showcases BRP in other genres / styles, especially now, is good idea.

How about doing a purely cold war espionage scenario set in Berlin, and then here or elsewhere publishing soe notes about "plugging" that scenario in to the B61 setting by adding a 'mythos' element?

Cheers,

Nick

What are these.? What out of 420?

Chaosium printed 420 copies of the "Advanced Reader's Copy" (aka BRP Zero) final proof edition of the new BRP manuscript in final layout with a nice albeit temporary cover and sold it exclusively via their website. Some of us who bought a copy quote the number of our copy out of 420 in our signatures here.

Cheers,

Nick

I'd like to know about options for publishing BRP projects. My preference is to self-publish a stand-alone product, but I'm hoping I can support BRP with it rather than using the MRQ OGL.

Your best bet is to talk to Chaosium direct - no one here is a Chaosium employee nor any sort of official spokesperson for them. I'd recommend contacting Dustin Wright in the first instance.

But supporting BRP without using the MRQ OGL is certainly possible.

Would Chaosium consider licensing out the system, or do they prefer to allow only in-house products?

Are any of the setting books which have been announced stand-alone products, or do they require the BRP book?

So far, three types of product are on the horizon, as far as I can tell. Firstly, Chaosium are obviously going to do their own support material. They have also released a specimen BRP license for third party publishers wishing to produce BRP supplements, a copy is hosted here . The specimen license is explicitly for supplements only - clause 1 states that the license is for "supplements to the Works" and that "You can not, for example, create a stand-alone roleplaying game."

Thirdly they have licensed at least one third party publisher (Seraphim Guard) to produce a stand alone BRP game. So Chaosium clearly will consider licensing for standalone products, but for the one we know of at least, the licensing arrangement is specific to that product line, and separately negotiated.

Cheers,

Nick

Another version of this was seen in Wyrm's Footprints #14 (and Thieves' World, if I recall correctly). In addition to the polar opposites at either end of the spectrum, there was a rating in the middle that represented mastery over the emotional conflict between the two, and the ability to consciously choose your action over your passionate instinct.

!i!

The new BRP contains a version of the system, based on the version in Chaosium's Thieves World set for NPC personality - page 290 in BRP 0. We were having a discussion in another thread about adapting / expanding the Allegiance mechanics as well IIRC.

Cheers,

Nick