NickMiddleton

It could. But from what I've been seeing I think it won't. Just this thread alone is showing that. Most of us having been running some incarnation of RQ/BRP for over two decades now. BRP has to compete with that. In the end I think a lot of us will buy it, but that most of us will prefer the rule set we are already using and will use BRP as a potential source for adding on stuff.

For instance, I prefer RQ over the simpler/watered down version of the game. I prefer strikes ranks (RQ2 version over RQ3) and hit locations, skill categories and all that. So I'd be more inclined to run RQ with a few mods of BRP than to run BRP.

But you CAN run BRP with all those features - and someone who prefers their BRP far lighter and less crunchy can run with DEX ordering in combat, only THP / MWL, no skill categories etc. from the same core rule book.

I think that is going to be the bane of BRP, it will get competition from earlier BRP games.

No more than D&D (or Traveller, or Shadowrun, or GURPS...) gets competition from earlier editions. And, given the extent to which the new BRP synthesises prior BRP games in to a single coherent rule book, probably less. The new BRP rule book lets me play an ElfQuest-like game one night, a Cthulhu-esue game the next and a Stormbringer / Hawkmoon style game the next - from one rulebook and without having to lug my treasured copies of any of those old games across town in a ruck sack...

I think one of the positive things that is going to emerge from the new BRP (especially if it is reasonably well supported) is a realisation amongst the wider gaming community and even some of the more blinkered BRP fans as to just how flexible and adaptable BRP can be: it's not just gritty fantasy that it handles well...

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

I remember lugging a kit bag full of all the RQ2 supplements from Northamptonshire to Warwick University every week to play RQ and that was on public transport with a half an hour walk at the end.

:eek: When was that? When I was at Warwick (many years ago now) Northamptonshire was an awkward prospect via public transport IIRC.

Everything on a DVD?

It isn't natural I tell you!

Damn straight! Young 'uns today...

More seriously, I'd also be wary of "reference paralysis", which is what has killed a lot of d20 for me: that creeping knowledge that the correct detail is somewhere in that mountain of rule books... Only having the essential notes / rules to hand means I feel free to improvise and keep the game flowing.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

Badcat's sarcasm aside, I honestly do feel that Opposed Rolls are the best rule innovation since RQ was invented!

Also, what he (and others) seem to be confusing is a particular mechanic in the new BRP with a general rule.

RQI/-/III had opposed skill mechanics - they were just implicit and inconsistent: attack vs. parry worked one way, most skills worked another and some (such as move silently vs. listen or Hide vs. Spot) had yet a third method of resolution.

There's a lot of criticism that to me seems to boil down to the fact that people's preferred method of opposed skill resolution hasn't been adopted as the default rule: but since (anecdotally) most of those in favour of more explicit opposed skill mechanics seem to want more (and more consistent) details than the implicit method in RQI/-/III, the new method seems like the best way forward. It's easily ignored by those who don't want to use it, but makes a lot of sense to those who do.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

Yep. Harder than not doing so anyway. And it's unnecessary. Why must there always be a winner, immediately? Ties happen.

Because in the vast majority of circumstances that one would model via opposed skill rolls the outcome would be to the advantage of one side or the detriment of the other, if only marginally. Noughts and crosses (or tic-tac-toe) regularly ties - most situations one would be attempting to emulate in an RPG DON'T: someone wins the duel, the guard spots the intruder or the intruder sneaks past the guard, one person performs the best poem in the bardic competition, one person catches more food...

And the opposed roll rule allows for ties with the rule as written anyway: both rolls fail, thus achieving the same degree of success...

Precisely the point about opposed rolls is that whilst one wouldn't use them all the time, there are some (relatively common situations) where the best description of what is happening is that there is a direct competition between two skills - and BRP has never (in any prior Chaosium edition) had an explicit generalised rule for resolving such contests of opposed skills. And whilst it may not be to some people's taste the rule in the new BRP looks remarkably serviceable to me (it is as I said a close variant of my own house rule) and is a fairly common "fix" to the "Dodge problem" in RQIII.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

...I'm not sure about the loser's level of success having an effect on the victor's levelm of success as I don't have BRP yet. Presumably that is to differentiate a critical vs special from a critical vs failure, for example. It's pretty irrelevant if that's the case as BRP doesn't have any meaningful rules for effects based on differences between levels of success.

Precisely the point is that the new BRP DOES have "...meaningful rules for effects based on differences between levels of success..." for every skill. The new BRP opposed skill rule is basically the fairly well known fix used by a lot of RQIII fans for the percieved weakness of Dodging (i.e. that a normal successful Dodge was bugger all use againsts a special or critical hit, unlike a normal Parry which had some effectiveness...)

By the way, is BRP still using 1/5th Special, 1/20th Critical? What about Fumbles? Are they still 1/20th of the failure chance?

Certainly was in the playtest draft and from what I've seen / read about edition zero that's still the case. Arguably, the default should perhaps have been the Stormbringer first edition scheme (Fumble / Failure / Success / Critical on 10% thresholds), but AFAIK it's the RQIII scheme that's assumed throughout.

There you go - one number minus another! Hard maths!

Are you really suggesting that given a two rolls against two percentile targets you find it that hard to give an order of magnitude approximation?

"I only made my sneak by twenty odd" "That's too bad, the guard is very alert - he made the spot by about forty odd so he's spotted you". In very few cases will the exact margin be relevant. And, as has been said repeatedly, "highest roll wins on same success level" is mathematically equivalent to the subtraction, so the rule as written DOESN'T require even the terrifying complexities of basic two digit integer subtraction...

Nick Middleton

I think the "Hide/Spot duel" is the classic example that makes people perceive a need for opposed rolls. So if we can come up with a good system for it, using a sequence of normal rolls, then we can forget the whole Opposed Rolls issue... and the hard maths!

The "hard maths" bit baffles me:

Better level of success wins (but losers success ameliorates the winners success a bit).

If success levels are equal, best roll wins (I use margin i.e. target-roll, as a personal preference, but higher roll is equivalent).

The only "quirk" (assuming that the amelioration ONLY occurs after determining who wins) is that on a tie of normal successes, the win is cancelled by the losers right to down grade the winners success by one level from normal success to normal failure; but that's basically what happens with a normal successful attack vs a normal successful parry anyway. One could then rule in that case that the winner achieved a "partial success".

As I say, when success levels are tied I use "best margin" (i.e. target - roll) as it feels more easthetically appropriate to the main BRP paradigm of rolling low on d100 is always better, and frankly it's usually obvious without maths who has the margin, so the subtraction is rarely necessary. But, as pointed out, "roll under, but as high as possibly" is mathematically equivalent, so I really don't see what the fuss about the opposed roll mechanic is - it's simple, straighforward and doesn't involve any significant maths.

Plus there were three optional variants in the playtest draft IIRC...

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

Was it Space 1999 that had the "resdkins" as martians?

Maybe an Interplanetary crossover?

Err, actually in Space:1889 the Martians referred to the white Europeans as "the Red Men", because in the thin air when they exerted themselves they went red in the face... Specifically, the usage is in reference to the ex-patriot earthmen who fly aerial flyers on Mars - the so called "Red Captains".

Reminds me, when I get the book, must do a BRP Space:1889 write up for d100.org and here...

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

Totally...I caught that inconsistency as well. I would just like to know I am missing something simple that would explain these different MOV attributes. See my others posts in the Q&A with author thread.

I am not trying to nitpick, I would like to understand it so I can play with it.

Bear in mind that what you currently have is effectively a proof copy - please DO nit pick, in the sense of letting SOMEONE (either Jason or Chaosium) know about any of these inconsistencies as then there is some chance they'll get fixed before the book goes to print. I'm hoping that these sorts of glitches will have been caught by the proof readers for whom the proof edition was originally intended, but drawing Chaosium's attention to them (perhaps with a stickied list here, rather than swamping them with emails?) can't hurt.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

If you dig around on the web you should be able to find EPT:RQ by none other than Sandy Petersen (CofC and DOOM).

Jorune could be interesting. It was always handicapped by having a crap "system" riddled with typoes. I'd be surprised if anyone wanted to officially resurrect it but BRP would be my choice for Jorune or any genre.

I think "crap" is a bit harsh - I successfully ran and played Jorune using both 2nd and 3rd edition and whilst 2nd was a bit clunky and counter intuitive, and 3rd was rushed into print and thus rather saddled with some glaring omissions and errors, it's a fabulous setting and (with the addition of the Sholari Pack that patched the errors) I'd happily play or run 3rd edition again in a heartbeat.

Admittedly, I'd prefer to finish the conversion to BRP I've been tinkering away at for several years now - I stopped work when the BRP play test started as what I had was predicated around "monograph" BRP. When I get a copy of the published rules I probably restart the project though. The draft of the Dysha's system is up at d100.org

Personally, I hope Chaosium do a lot of things like Jason's Planetary (but hopefully with scenarios as well) - stuff that will help games actually happen but that don't worry about licensing specific IP, as licensing is expensive and challenging to manage.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

It was like this. Back in the late 70s when RPGs were getting started, both Chasoium and TSR went to Moocock to ask for permission to use his Elric/Eternal Champion setting. Back in those early days, it was looked at more as flattery than as a business venture, and he let both companies use his setting for free, pretty much expecting a game or two. The contract was of the verbal agreement and handshake variety. TSR got stuff out of the gate first with the Deities and Demigods book, but eventually pulled it (and the Cthluhu Mythos stuff) when they became aware that Chaosium had a deal to produce some RPGs.

My understanding is that initially Chaosium and TSR came to a perfectly civilised agreement that the next printing of D&DG would acknowledge Chaosium's license, and that Chaosium would do something similar in return, but the deal was scotched by a senior TSR executive who refused to sanction a deal that required TSR to "promote a competitors products."

Now in 30 years Moorcock was never paid a dime, err. 10p. He never expected that Chasoium would be producing Elric games for 30 years or that the hobby would turn into an industry, or even that the people who he made the deal with would no longer be the ones making the games.

My understanding is that Moorcock WAS paid a royalty from the very first - maybe not a huge one, but there WERE payments. However, from the mid nineties Chaosium had severe financial difficulties (the CCG collapse, the collapse of the relationship with AH and the loss of RuneQuest, the departure of Greg Stafford and Glorantha, the Wizard's Attic debacle). During that time payments to Mike Moorcock were not as timely as they should have been, and there was an ongoing dispute over some payments, involving third party sub-licensed rights as well.

So last year he made a Deal with Mongoose and got some money. He also tried and apparently succeeded in getting Chaosium to stop producing Elric games.

Almost entirely inaccurate, according to what Matt Sprange of Mongoose has said. IIRC his accounts went something like this: Mongoose knew, from discussions with Chaosium, that Chaosium were prepared to sell their EC license. Mongoose approached Moorcock and offereed to buy the EC license off Chaosium, and would then re-negotiate an approvals and royalties deal with Mike Moorcock direct. MM was happy, Chaosium agreed, and the license "transferred" to Mongoose. Chaosium have the right to "sell through" their existing stock of EC material (at least for a period of time) I believe, but that's fairly standard in these sorts of situations.

Personally as much as I prefer Chaosium over Mongoose, I have to say that after 30 years of Elric RPGs I think it is only fair if one of the people making money off of Elric is his creator and author.

Whatever the exact details of the dispute in recent years, he was for a large portion of the life of the license at Chaosium paid the agreed fees - and frankly, reading back through internet archives of public postings there's a lack of clarity in accounts from BOTH sides that rather suggests that things fell apart as much from a mutual lack of communication as for any other reason.

Albeit, given some of the things that M's sycophant's were saying at one point a few years ago, I find it deliciously ironic that one of the main writers at Mongoose for the EC license is Lawrence Whitaker...

As for Moorcock's work. Well if not for Moorcock it is doubtful that we be playing RPGs today. His works were second only to Tolkien in terms of setting and rules, and he was a pioneer in breaking the "Fantasy Hero" stereotype. Up until Moorcock, your Hero in a "Swords & Sorcery" story (and most "Science Fiction Romances") was a big brawny guy, often a barbarian, who started off with nothing and worked his way up to being a king. Elric broke all those molds.

*shrug* I think Leiber, Burroughs, Howard, de Camp, Anderson, Smith and others did more than enough work to ensue that Gygax & co. had a rich heritage of Sword & Sorcery fiction to draw on. The "anti-hero" doesn't reality dominate RPG's until the late '80's / early '90's and then it's primarily as a result of Cyberpunk and Anne bloody Rice. Moorcock is in many ways a difficult influence for RPG's to adapt, as he is (often willfully) inconsistent even between books ostensibly in the same series about the same character in the same setting - the likes of Leiber and Tolkien and Burroughs and Howard did at least all try (to varying degrees) to build consistent worlds.

No he didn't write a lot of his stuff in one sitting. What he did do was write a lot of the early Elric stuff for the Sci-Fi pulp magazines of the time. Prior to the late 60s or so a lot, if not most science fiction and fantasy stories were sold in anthology magazines. Sort of mini-pulp books. The original Eric stories were serialised in one such magazine, and published in regular instalments. Moorcock actually killed Elric off rather quickly, then moved onto other things, only to be drawn back to Elric by the fans.

Sadly true. I love the original core Elric saga (the short stories in Stealer of Souls and the novel Stormbringer) and whilst some of the later stuff is quite fun, almost every addition sapped my enthusiasm to some degree. It took a real act of will to read anything after Fortress of the Pearl (which I thought was rather rote) and whilst I enjoyed Revenge of the Rose I really can't be bothered with the rest.

I much prefer Hawkmoon or Corum: same pace and energy, same imaginative flair and succinct storytelling, but they END properly. And I think the best thing MM's written is actually Mother London...

:focus:

SB5 is a compete BRP Sword and Sorcery fantasy game. With a little effort one can file the serial numbers of the Moorcock setting and use it for whatever one wishes. And it's currently $29.95 from Chaosium. It's a good value game - but it's not an essential purchase. If you are getting the new BRP book, put SB5/Elric! on your eBay "watch out for" list, but ahead of them put the Bronze Grimoire, a great magic supplement for Elric!/SB5 that will easily work with the new BRP book and greatly enhance the Sorcery system.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

...I actually prefer Elric! over SB5 despite SB5 having a little more content. Maybe it's nostalgia, or just knowing the book too well, but I can flip through the Elric! book and find something in seconds. I just think it's really well laid out.

This I heartily agree with: Elric! is a very well present book, nice crisp layout, well organised and accessible. The Stormbringer 5th edition book is much the same content wise, but spreads that content out much more and is I think the poorer for it. It's still an excellent S&S RPG rule book, but compared to Elric! I've never found it as easy to use. I have TWO copies of Elric! and only one of SB5...

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

Hi all, can anyone tell me more or post a link to info about Chaosium's BRP/CoC license? I can't find anything about it on their website. :confused:

To my knowledge they've not made any public statement about any general license. They hinted a while back they were looking at developing some, but no ones heard anything since. Seraphim Guard negotiated their license for Deadworld directly with Chaosium as I understand it, after Ben Monroe made necessary introductions. Yuo could try emailing / phoning Charlie Krank direct; as discussed elsewhere, he's better at direct communication by all accounts.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

...Space Opera by FGU has a cool, very WW2 dogfight, non-vector based space travel system, with the TISA (Transgravitic Interstellar Subspace Anomaly Drive or some such!) or "Torch" drive for sublight, Warp Drives, Nova Guns, and MegaBolt Torpedoes (honest!) which actually all hang together with no more handwavium than Traveller uses - but which feel considerably more fun...

Ahh, Space Opera starships - glorious stuff. To be honest, I usually just pinch what's is SO for ships and planets - it has the right feel, works well, is reasonably coherent and fun to play an dis easy to interface to BRP...

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion.

LeGuin's Earthsea series, Hainish Cycle (especially the Left Hand of Darkness, the Dispossessed and Rocannon's World), always coming home and Searoad.

Susan Cooper's the Dark Is Rising sequence.

C J Cherryh's Alliance-Union-Compact books, especially Cyteen, Merchanter's Luck and Rimrunners. The Chronicles of Morgaine.

Michael Moorcock's original Elric Saga (i.e. everything up to ~1980), History of the Runestaff and the Chronicles of Castle Brass, the Warhound and the World's Pain.

Brian Aldiss's Helliconia.

Iain M Banks's Culture books, especially Use of Weapons.

Ken McLeod's Fall Revolution books, especially the Star Fraction and the Stone Canal. Learning the World

Alastair Reynold's Chasm City and Century Rain.

HP Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness.

William Hope Hodgson's House on the Borderlands.

Steve Erikson's Tales of the Malazan Book of the Fallen, especially Garden's of the Moon, Deadhouse Gates and Midnight Tides.

that'll do for the moment...

Nick Middleton

I'm confused...

Nothing new I realise, but will the soon-to-be-released BRP rules have a full suite of rules to tackle far future games, a bit like Traveller? So, in addition to weapons and spaceships will it have star system creation rules?

Not as far as I am aware. Theplay test draft didn't include such genre specific subsystems as Planet generation or Starship design systems. You can stat a starship usin the guidance in the equipment chapter, but it's not a system a la MegaTraveller, nor is there the equivalent of a full planetary generation system either.

I am looking to start a Traveller-like game in the new year and I'm trying to decide which system to use - BRP or the Mongoose Traveller. I fear the new version of Traveller will make my potential players recoil in horror. They are used to CoC rules and other systems are not viewed favourably.

Find a set of SF rules (for Planets, Starships etc - Google Cthulhu Rising and ignore the tentacles for example...) that do th ebits not in BRP{ and use BRP for the Character orientated stuff - its what I do.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

High Fantasy! I remember that! That had the front cover with the guy with the most unrealistic thighs I'd ever seen... Wasn't there a scenario called Fortress Ellendar also?

Yep - and I only recently discovered the existence of the other supplement (Moorguard), and the fact that there was a second edition apparently...

Actually, if I remember rightly, High Fantasy had quite a neat combat mechanic which I think sort of cropped up later in The Complete Arduin, but a rather ungranular experience system which bugged me a bit.

There was a big complicated table one cross indexed the attacker and defenders abilities IIRC... but that's about all I can remember.

Blimey... this is turning into a major nostalgia trip!

Nick Middleton

Significant games played at one time or another (ie campaigns):

RQ1/2/3 (NOT Glorantha)

Traveller (CT)

(A)D&D 1e-ish (we had the Eric Holmes 1 book intro of D&D, plus the PHB and MM and had to wait ages for the DMG)

Space Opera

Stormbringer (I-V + Elric!)

Other Suns

Bushido

Gamma World (1st Ed)

Fantasy Trip

CoC

Pendragon

BootHill (1st edition)

GURPS

Dragon Warriors

Space: 1889

Arcana Unearthed / Evolved (d20)

D&D 3e

Skyrealms of Jorune (2nd & 3rd editions)

Ars Magica (2nd)

Other games played:

2300AD

Gangster

Hawkmoon

MERP

Paranoia

Dark Conspiracy

Lords of Creation

Star Wars D6

Stargate SG-1 (d20)

FASA StarTrek

Vampire the Masquerade (1st *spit*)

the Babylon Project

Dark Continent

Metamorphosis Alpha

High Fantasy

T&T

C&S

Games Owned But Not Played:

Elfquest

Nephilim

Powers & Perils

Earthdawn

Farscape d20

PsiWorld

Daredevils

Tribe 8

Iron Heroes (d20)

Talislanta

Worlds Beyond

Serenity

Burning Wheel

Savage Worlds (EE)

Tekumel (reprint of EPT rules, S&G and GoO)

Unknown Armies

Ganbusters 3rd

Boothill 3rd

Everway

I did own Bunnies & Burrows once,but I don't think we ever played it and I no longer have a copy: like many other gaming gems it was sold off when I disposed of my entire gaming collection in the mid '90's... only to end up replacing most of it via eBay five years later!

Does anyone know if the new BRP rules will have any provisions for super-powers? (Possibly someone who has seen the proof copy version?)

Yes. The powers chapter contains five different systems of "powers" - two magic systems (based on 'MagicWorld' from Worlds of Wonder and Stormbringer 5th edition) , a psychic powers system (developed from the system in ElfQuest), a mutations system (elaborated from Hawkmoon) and a super powers system (based on the two versions of SuperWorld).

All five power systems are based on previous BRP games, but re-written to integrate with the revised core rules and to provide the same degree of "genre functionality": that is any one of them can function as the system of choice in a campaign (none of them are incomplete) but all of them have potential for expansions (none of them, given the available space, could be exhaustive).

Or is anyone planning a licensed or authorised super-hero supplement for the new BRP rules?

Not that I've heard of as yet - albeit several people here and in the play-testing group are keen super-hero gamers so I wouldn't be surprised if someone did.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

Doug Anderson's Northern Crown is a rather flat commercial publication of the MUCH more interesting "Septentrionalis" setting he posted on line a few years back - a sort of "Mythic" new world in the 17th century, with its historical features intact, but the folktales and myths of both the European settlers AND the Native Americans ACTUALLY being true. The Northern Crown version rather over played the fantasy elements, tying it in to Atlas' previous Nymabe setting and it's d20, so a bit pooh really.

But something like the original "Septentrionalis" but set in say the 1840's or 1850's - grounded in the real history and events of the time but that plays High Plains Drifter / Pale Rider type ambiguities with the reality of both the European settlers superstitions and the Native American's beliefs, that could be really compelling and could have a broad appeal.

Actually, both historical and "mythic" Old West would be good projects for monograph submissions (combined or separate).

Cheers,

Nick

Personally, I always thought the best 'supernatural overlay' for a Western setting was that provided in Werewolf: The Wild West. Not the werewolves as PCs, as such, just the whole animist/spiritualist backstory.

If somebody wrote up a similar game for BRP, with a native american cosmological backstory in it and a sense of impending spiritual doom, and melancholy from the building of railroads, etc, then I think there'd be something good to work with right there. Deadlands was sort of like that too, but way too cartoony in feel. I'd like something feeling like Once Upon a Time in the West, or maybe a dash of The Wild Bunch in there too. That is, very stylised, but with a hint of impending death.

'Death of the West' as a theme, if you like.

Now THAT, well written and a single book setting would make a STONKING BRP supplement. No exagerated steam punk, no clownish modern survival horror riffs (fun though they can be) - almost like Doug Anderson's "Septrionalis" (which morphed in to the less interesting Northern Crown from Atlas) a century later when the magic is dying or retreating from the Plains in the face of the encroaching Iron Roads and the white settlers... I'd buy it.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

There's also a GURPS source book - GURPS Old West.

There have been some articles in Worlds of Cthulhu on Western CoC and there's a monograph (Night of the Kachina and other stories) set in the 1850's (in New Mexico IIRC).

I think there s a monograph in it - but I'm not sure it would attract enough interest to warrant a full book.

I remember suggesting (back in October 2002, on the RQ Rules list) that Chaosium should do a "Cowboy" world along side a rerelease of Worlds of Wonder. In fact, that post is quite ironic now: "...I hope they follow it [the 2002 reprint of the BRP pamphlet] up by re-releasing, in similar format, the components of Worlds of Wonder (Do Chaosium own the rights?) and then follow it up with further similar booklets on other genre's (Horror World, Spy World, Cowboy World). I think it would do quite well for them and would boost BRP in the market place, with out requiring the sort of large scale commitment that an extensive re-launch/re-write of BRP would need (and which is beyond Chaosium's scope I suspect)."

Nick Middleton

... In size, this project will be in the 48,000-64,000 word range. Once approved, I anticipate it taking roughly three-to-four months to complete, with an additional month for a limited playtest cycle using a smaller and more dedicated subset of the Basic Roleplaying playtest, as well as local playtesters and reviewers. Assuming approvals and contracts are executed in or around January, it would be ready around late April...

Nick Middleton

Definitely getting a copy of this when it's out Jason, sounds fabulous!

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

Throughout BRP and related games, there's a few ways to handle the skill base chance. What do you prefer for a BRP game or inspired homebrew ?

Flat chance (ala Stormbringer 5) - Example: Mechanic 30

SB5 and CoC have some skills (Dodge, Speak Own Langauge IIRC) at a multiple of a stat.

Flat chance modified by stats (Runequest 3) - Example: Mechanic 30 and I get a +4 bonus from my Manipulation skill bonus.

Completely stat based (Elfquest did this I believe ?, the Dodge skill in Call of Cthulhu is a good example too) - Example: Mechanic is INT x3 or INT+DEX or whatnot.

Don't like the all stats method - characteristics only play a roll at creation, and then base chances are all about the individuals capabilties (and can vary wildly between mebers of teh same species).

I prefer base chances plus skill categories, as stats remain relevant (and visibly contribute to skills) and base scores can then be set for a species or culture.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

It's actually closer to C or D.

Neither John Carter or ERB are really available for RPG licensing. Disney owns the rights to JC, Tarzan, and a few other properties in the ERB catalog (or so I have been informed) and they're not exactly cheap to work with.

Plus, the ERB estate is famous for overvaluing their IP when dealing with smaller licensees.

It is definitely pulpy, though, but more romantic in tone.

Cool! Can't wait to learn more Jason!

Cheers,

Nick Middleton