Shaira

Seconded the idea that there are going to be few people on this forum who don't know BRP from its previous incarnations, which pretty much skews the age stats. Likewise the fact that game hasn't actually been *published* yet. Once published, though, exposure and marketing determines take up. On the plus side, Chaosium has a record for high quality product which will probably persuade plenty of FLGS to stock copies of the rules straight off - then after that it's killer settings, sourcebooks, scenarios - which Chaosium have a track record for with high production values - and probably a cool and updated online presence with lots of artwork, chrome and freebies (scenarios, critters, fanfiction, "map of the month", "houserule corner", what have you). Naturally a heckuva lot depends on how Chaosium address licensing, fanzines, etc - hopefully with a light enough touch to get plenty of material out there amongst fans. I'm optimistic that Chaosium are showing clear support for BRP - not only are the rules well under way to 1st ed, we also have by my count 4 (5?) or so official settings and sourcebooks already in the works and a consequential number of fan products also in the offing. Damn right we'll need to get some accessible intro scenarios out there though. "Son of Apple Lane", anyone? Cheers, Sarah

You can also eat them. I remember being fed them in Japan - one of the few foods over there I didn't actually like. They're kind of disgustingly slug-like in their natural state, specially on a plate - but apparently they're food! :shocked: But - from a natural resource / biomass POV, they could be very important. With "flavour enhancers"... Cheers, Sarah

Yeah - Tekumel's one of those games that rates very highly amongst GMs and "reader"-type players, but is just like a completely foreign language to the casual player. It's a shame, cos it has some cool ideas, but just gets a bit too inaccessible sometimes without an arch & anth or comparative linguistics degree. About the only way I've ever been able to get players to play it is by using the "original" scenario premise, way back from TSR times - that the PCs are a bunch of PCs from Relatively Comprehensible Stereotypical Fantasy Land, who've just got off the boat in Jakalla harbour. That way it's *okay* they can't understand anything that's going on! I do enjoy reading bits of it from time to time though. Cool GM source material. I've also toyed with the idea of "pulping" up a Tekumel campaign, just never got around to it. Concept: it's the mid 1930s, somewhere in central America, and an Indiana Jones clone and sidekicks are being pursued into some Strange Forbidding Ruins by a bunch of Nazi occultists and - kapla! - they suddenly find themselves in some equally strange ruin on Tekumel somewhere. The Nazi Occultist Bad Guy finds himself a real hit with the local politicos, and Indy tries to work out what the heck he can do to stop the rot and get his gang back home. Cheers! Sarah

Bizarrely enough, Traveller. I've played it loads, love the background to death, but really, I mean REALLY, have a problem with the fact that Traveller space is FLAT. I mean, you're in a starship, and you can fly forwards, backwards, left and right - but not up or down! Traveller space is 1 parsec thick... It's just such a massively illogical non-sequitur that it just blows the rest of it out of the water for me. Plus you can't use all that nifty stellar cartography software out there... >:-> Then again - Arcanum and the Bestiary. Loved all the setting material, but something about it never quite gelled for me. Shades of Conan, which was absolutely great - but then with all these Tolkien elves in full-plate armour popping up. Shattered the illusion. Cheers, Sarah

Bona character sheet - very bold! Thanks for uploading that - I've been fishing around for a usable sheet for a while! Mr Horne will be everso pleased Glub-glub, Sarah

Hi guys, Atgxtg - are you thinking of addressing space travel in your starship design rules? FTL travel, that sort of thing? I'd be interested in your thoughts about that - whether you'd be able to offer several options, etc, or would try and plumb for a one-size-fits-all solution. Cheers, Sarah

Blimey - I look away for a couple of days and look what happens! It's like the last scene in a Stormbringer scenario here - major wounds and body parts everywhere, walls covered in blood, widows and children sobbing in the corner, and some Unspeakable Slimy Mess bubbling on the floor over there that once must have been ... ugh... that's just not right... Actually I tend to steer clear of threads on RPG boards which get passionately bogged down in opinion-based statistical minutiae. You know the sort - "hell, faster-than-light travel just can't work based on expanding the tunnelling phenomenon of electrons, this game just sucks..." "Does not!" "Does too!" Cue Wild Bill Hicks moment as Goat Boy comes cavorting on stage... >:-> I'm on record as saying I've been very, very well pleased with BRP Zero, and am looking forwards to the first edition as it looks likely to be a superlative release. In the same way I tend to avoid negative discussions where people who haven't actually seen the rules start criticising them. Hey, it's your god-given right, but it's not too productive beyond the Grand Catharsis of a Good Rant (which I enjoy as much as the next carbon-based lifeform). But it's always difficult in a project lifecycle when the customer base gets its hands on a product earlier than expected. We all cajoled Chaosium into releasing the Zero Ed, and on the whole I think it's been an excellent idea, though a damned rough ride for Jason. I used to work in financial services web-design, and the beta release of websites I created used to feel very similar - huge amounts of heat, and all you can say is "hey guys, thanks for the feedback - but do remember it's not finished yet!" and try and keep smiling. I must admit I never had to take heat from people who HADN'T seen the product, though. I can see that would be a whole different world of pain - definitely an itch you can't scratch. But, well - a zero-release is just that. It's a proof copy. It's a very rare attempt for us, the customers, to give pre-release feedback. How we do that is pretty much a measure of etiquette - I didn't shell out my hard-earned readies expecting a finished product, so I'm viewing the chance to raise questions and ask for clarifications as an opportunity to ensure the final release is as bug-free and user-friendly as everything else we've come to expect from Chaosium. Of course we have a *right* to be as critical, harsh, condemnatory, or god-damn argumentative as we like, but this is a pre-release product and we're representing a community of BRP fans who surely have more of an interest in being constructive than destructive. Heck, some of us may even have written games ourselves. Lastly - to everyone who has constructive ideas on how game systems can be tweaked and certain genres enhanced (I'm thinking of the gun guys, the sorcery guys, and the vehicle design systems guys), I'm sure you'll agree that the BRP rules provide a foundation to build on - playable, by all means, but in no way the last word. If you have the expertise to research, generate, playtest, and release a whole system of modern firearms and wounding rules which slot into the BRP system, then - hell, yeah, go for it! I'm sure some games would LOVE that stuff. Get ready to take flak for people saying you're wrong, though - there's always someone who disagrees! Anyway - long meditative post over. I'd just like to join the voices thanking Jason for a sterling job, and wishing him all the very best with the tough family problems he's going through right now. Hang in there. Drinks are on me down Gimpy's! :thumb: Sarah

My hubby and I gave up smoking about 5 years ago, after being mad for it (hubby 40+ a day, me 20+) for far too long. We used Niquitin CQ lozenges, which are stuffed full of nicotine and give you an immediate hit when you need a smoke - so you can get the physical hit you need whilst weening yourself off the psychological side. Then you "simply" reduce the amount of pills in your own sweet time. Took us about three months. On the plus side, you have oily skin, terrible halitosis, uncontrollable flatulence, and the odd psychotic episode. It was a blast. :thumb: Sarah

I've left the City ratrace (was working in financial services web development in London) and now have a smallholding in rural Normandy and am slowly renovating an old battered farmhouse. I also spend a fair bit of time writing during the quiet times - and as this is a quiet time of year, here I am - quite a lot! Lambing season is right round the corner, though, and the planting season... :eek:

You can chalk me up for a copy of that! :thumb:

Cool! I think pushing for this approach would be best. To be honest, it would seem to me to be the most sensible way to run things, too - less work for the GM up-front. And as Simon says, we'll probably get some genre-specific consensus developing over time as to which optional rules get used. Hopefully things like Bestiaries, and so on, will do something like that. (Anyone out there fancy writing up a Bestiary? :happy:) Cheers, Sarah

Gosh, guys, I must say I'm quite surprised at the negativity shown on this thread, especially - and with all due respect - in many cases from people who haven't actually seen the rules yet! In fact, I'm picking up such negative vibes I'm even reluctant to post, cos a lot of this just feels like a moan that BRP isn't the new edition of RQ. I'm reading things like: [FROM RURIK] "No new supplements for BRP will work with RQ3 without a fair amount of work for the GM (assuming SR and Hit Locations will probably not be used for stats in most supplements as they are optional)" Well, first, as you say, you're "assuming" that SR and Hit Locations will *probably* not be used. In other words, you don't actually know, but you've got yourself upset and disappointed cos you think maybe they won't. Why not wait for some actual real world supplements and see, first, rather than making your mind up before the facts? And, second, why on earth should BRP work with RQ3 without some work for the GM? They're different games. Of course you can play in Glorantha using the BRP rules. And, if you want to play RQ3, you of course can do that, too. And, yes, BRP is not RQ3, so you can't play RQ3 with it. This method of argument does seem a bit circular. I do actually wonder what you were expecting, guys - presumably a new Gloranthan RPG based on RQ? If so, I don't really think that was ever on the cards - or if it was, that's MRQ, and there you take your chances and make your choices. I'm just about finished on my first read-through of the BRP Zero rules, and I'm extremely happy - nay, delighted - with what I see - and I'm a RQ grognard, Rurik, so there! What else were you looking for? >:-> Of course what happens next is largely up to Chaosium and their approach to sourcebooks & licensing, but that's a business call. I must admit to being puzzled as to how this could have ever been anything different. I can appreciate that a lot of people who dearly wanted a new edition of RQ were very disappointed with MRQ (as indeed was I - desperately so), but Chaosium never advertised they were publishing a new RQ, whilst Mongoose did, so the negative spin about BRP here does seem very, very unfair - especially since the BRP Zero is a damn fine job! The Chaosium House system is back in print, guys, and by all accounts new support material in numerous settings will be next - what's not to like? Cheers, Sarah ps - Kloster, you mentioned earlier in this thread that you thought variable armour was standard - it's not. Which is nice.

I think it probably depends on the genre, but in generally I agree it's also probably the only way to go. I'm putting some stuff together for a fantasy setting at the mo which may one day see the light of day, and am deliberately factoring in a whole heap of optional BRP rules (Strike Ranks, Fatigue, Hit Locations, etc) into the critter stats at both scenario and sourcebook level, whether or not I personally would use them. That way you'll have some redundancy - a critter would have both Major Wound and Hit Location stats, for example, and you pick and choose based on the game you want. I agree it would be a pain to have to try and derive hit location stats from a beastie that's only provided with Major Wound data. Incidentally, the only place where this becomes a bit of a hiccough is the magic system. This maybe where GMs have to use some discretion - if your campaign only uses Sorcery, say, and a generic adventure you buy has Magic stats, you'll have to do some natty switching over. Alternately, settings sourcebooks will probably end up stating their conventions explicitly (ie "this sourcebook assumes both Magic and Sorcery are used", etc). One last point regarding the "BRP-is-not-RQ" debate - Atgxtg, Kloster, have you seen the BRP Zero rules, yet? Just wondering - reading the rules, I can't actually see what the problem is! :happy: From my POV the rules as written are very flexible, and plenty complex enough if you want them to be to stand up to a RQ comparison. The only place they don't compare is the Powers chapter - that's the only bit you'd have to modify to do a RQ game with the BRP rules. IE, BRP Zero + RQ3 Magic book = an updated version of the old RQ rules. Certainly a base rules set which could handle a "Magic and Heroquesting" supplement somewhere down the line. So far, as an old RQ grognard, I absolutely love what I'm seeing with the new BRP - and hope it gets the setting, sourcebook, and scenario support which it deserves! Cheers, Sarah

Well, as a girl, of course I'm not at all into p*ssing contests and hosing down the decks with competitive testosterone... but... Powers & Perils... yup. And I'll see your Car Wars and raise you Metamorphosis Alpha, Gangster, a battered "pink cover" copy of Buffalo Castle & Arduin Grimoire vol 1 with the original "Tunch" cover... >:-> ... and if anyone can lay claim to a copy of "Spectre" fanzine with the "Appleland Groves" and "House of Thievery" scenarios or a copy of the "Arden" campaign supplement, I will of course bow down in wordless homage before them. Sarah (gaming since 1980)

Almost. I do occasionally take time off to eat and wash... Makes being (temporarily) chained to a PC that much more fun! :thumb: Soon it'll be lambing & planting season over here in Normandy and these marvellous cold & rainy winter days will seem like a hazy memory, replaced by mud, tractors, fresh air, and small bleating things demanding food (lambs, you understand, not children or husbands...) Cheers, Sarah

Don't forget you're reading a proof copy. I know Jason's working on tidying up the typos & grammar fluffs at the moment, as well as clarifying rules where required, & removing inconsistencies. As Chaosium say in the intro, that's part of the "charm" of a proof copy . All being well the final print edition should be pretty clear of such "charm"! Cheers, Sarah

Whilst we're on the subject... Mmmm nice ... though it could be an English thing... :focus: Sarah

Hi Jason, Just wondered what you thought about the "Pox" spell on p132. This seems to be an extremely powerful spell as written - as indeed it was in SB5 also, to the extent that I've always houseruled it. For the cost of 1PP, and after a PP vs PP resistance roll, the caster causes 1D6 PP "damage" to the target, and prevents the target from casting any sorcery spells for the duration of the spell. As far as I can see, the Duration is the caster's POW in combat rounds - a minimum of 16 combat rounds. So at first glance this spell looks like it can take out a sorceror completely from a combat, at the cost of 1PP and a PP vs PP roll, whilst the caster can continue to cast sorcery without restriction. This also seems to have been the case when it was a Stormbringer spell! Do you know if this is intentional, or am I missing some restriction that makes it less of a sorceror-stopper? When I've used this spell, I've always houseruled that the sorceror has a resistance roll each combat round to try and break the Pox, but as far as I know that's not actually how the spell is meant to be used. Cheers, Sarah

Hi Jason, Quick question on the "Fury" sorcery spell on p131. It says: "The spell increases the number of attacks that the maddened character can make in each round by one additional attack (and only one)... The spell does not add skill percentiles or increase damage done, so the targeted character needs to have enough percentiles in his or her attack skills to make an extra attack." This doesn't seem to make sense. If the character has "enough" percentiles to make an extra attack anyway (I'm presuming this means 100%+ in an attack skill), in what way does the Fury spell increase the number of attacks? If the spell provides an extra attack, presumably it should: i.) either do so at the target's original attack chance, or potentially force the target to divide his or her attack chance to include the new, extra attack. A skill in excess of 100% is not required. ii.) allow the character to ignore the DEX rank -5 rules for extra attacks in the case of this attack, ie if a 160% fighter has DEX9, he would normally only get 2 attacks, at DEX 9 and DEX 4, totalling 160%, but the Fury spell would also allow him a third attack at DEX 1, although all three attacks would still have to total 160%. This option seems of limited utility! Cheers, Sarah

Hi Nick! Thanks for your input - it's good to hear from someone who was on the playtest. First - can I really make it clear I'm not moaning or having a go at all. I think we're all well aware we're working with a proof copy here, and aware of just what that implies - and as Jason himself has said, this is the perfect time to get some fresh pairs of eyes on the MS and make sure any last minute stuff is caught and dealt with (I'm paraphrasing wildly - sorry Jason! ). No need to apologise or anything - it's just quite cool us lot also get to do our bit with last minute spit & polish! :happy: I think your suggestion of separate tables, etc, is probably spot on. Anything, in fact, to make a real idiot sheet to spell out exactly what happens will help my addled old brain, and also make it that much easier on the newbies. I agree that your point about Jason / Chaosium not tweaking anything. This is why I've absolute confidence that there's nothing seriously amiss here - we all know the rules work, it's just a question of editing and nothing more. Unlike MRQ, where I began to get a terrible sinking feeling that the dear old thing had been seriously screwed about with and hadn't been adequately playtested in quite a few key areas... nuff said, this ain't an MRQ discussion! Onward! Cheers, Sarah

At the risk of muddying the waters still further, I do think the entire Attack / Parry / Dodge system does need to be laid out, explicitly, in one place at some point. Here is what I have pieced together so far - I know Jason is having a good look at the entire issue before posting his response, so I could be completely wrong, but this is what *seems* to be the likely way it works: 1.) Dodge is treated as an Opposed Roll vs. Attack. You don't use the Attack & Parry Matrix, rather a successful Dodge vs a successful Attack will reduce the success level of an Attack as per Opposed Skill Rolls on p173, with the caveat that the success level of an Attack can be reduced to no further than a Failure (see the Dodge Skill description on p55). Basically, a successful Dodge, no matter how successful, cannot make a successful Attacker Fumble - the worst they will do is simply Miss. 2.) Successful Attack vs Successful Parry. My assumption here is that the Successful Attack rolls its damage and compares it to the HP of the weapon or shield which has Parried. If the damage exceeds the HP of the weapon or shield, one of two things happens: i.) If the parrying item is a weapon, that weapon breaks. ii.) If the parrying item is a shield, that shield takes the extra damage to its own HP. If those HP are reduced to 0, the shield then breaks. In both cases, if there are any damage points remaining, they "go through" and damage the target. 3.) Special or Critical Attack vs Critical / Special / Normal Parry. This is where the Attack & Parry matrix needs to be clarified. My assumption is that the dodgy "OR" is actually an "AND". So, on a Critical Attack vs Normal Parry, for example, you get: Attack does full damage plus rolled damage bonus, and has its special effects based on impaling, bleeding, crushing, etc. I *think* that you then DO NOT match this damage against the parrying weapon or shield's HP, but I'm not sure. In any case armour seems to protect. And, finally, the parrying weapon or shield takes 2 HP damage anyway. I *think* that the principle behind the Attack & Parry matrix is that Attack/Parry is being treated as an Opposed Roll. Thus, if you get a Critical vs a Success, what's actually happening is that the Success is being bumped down to a Failure and the Critical to a Special, for the purposes of determining effects. NB: the Successful Parry doesn't actually *become* a Failed Parry, but is simply treated as one for damage purposes, etc. If this is the case, then Critical vs Critical, Special vs Special, and Success vs Success should all have the same result: looking at the Matrix, they basically do. However, when you try to extend the theory further, it starts to fall apart quickly - you can see *similarities* between Critical vs Special, Special vs Success, and Success vs Failure, but that's all they are. Hopefully Jason will get back with some clarifications on how all this works pretty soon. I'm sure it's actually extremely straightforward - you seem to have SB5 with Criticals and Specials rather than just Specials, so it should be just a question of clarifying the permutations and making sure the whole narration flows from top to bottom. At the moment we have the rules scattered about rather, and some *seem* contradictory (but may not be!). One thing I will say: having seen the farce which was MRQ's muddy and confusing portrayal of combat 18 months ago when the rules first came out - and the fact that people on the MRQ forums are *STILL* asking today how combat works, I think it's worth making sure this is CRYSTAL clear in the BRP rules! I know the BRP *rules* work fine in this respect - we just need to make sure the *wording* of those rules is completely and unambiguously clear, even at the risk of repeating things. Cheers! Sarah

Hi, oh Venomous One. I noticed that nasty looking "or" too, and posted a question for Jason on the Clarifications thread (stickied at the top). Hopefully he'll be getting back to us on it - that entire top bit of the Attack & Parry Matrix is a bit murky at the moment! My guess is you've got something like "Attack fails and no damage is done and the shield takes 1 pt of damage", or on another row, "Attack succeeds but is blocked, roll your damage to see if it gets through the parrying weapon or shield, which takes 2 pts of damage anyway". It all needs a bit of clarification. Cheers, Sarah

Hey, buddy, who you been talkin' to? It was all a long time ago, and I needed the money, and anyways, I didn't know he was this big movie star, I jus' thought he was this regular frog, is all... :eek:

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo *thunk* This is clearly some weirdo sex fetish thing I've managed to miss all these years... Fluffy clams! And the t-rex... well that thing just looks PERVERTED. :eek: I'm gonna haf to sit down a while after all this... it's all a bit too much... There's gotta be a CoC scenario in here somewhere... I mean, their eyes just follow you all around the room... I liked the "Suggest a Puppet" link, though... Chimp in zoot suit with Thompson smg and cigar, I think... Or Fetish Rabbit with Spiked Collar... And I thought we were all weird... Sarah

I am in awe. Absolutely brilliant, and slightly deranged. Go Puppets! We are not worthy! :thumb: *thinks* Where the heck do you get a fluffy griffin? Ack... Japanese manga girl in ripped schoolgirl uniform shock horror... must... lie... down... ack... cough