How Could BRP Be More Popular...?

[frogspawner]

This should probably be a new thread, rather than a Zombie... (Copied from Why is BRP not that popular...?)

Well, I think blaming it on VHS (read D&D) is missing the opportunity to engage in some healthy self-criticism.

The BRP rulebook does not offer balance. Compared to yesterday's games, it's a good effort, but for today, the BRP rulebook looks like a first draft, before the "tightening up your ship" and the "kill your darlings" phase.

People aren't (very) interested in toolboxes. They want focused products, where the hard work (balancing) is done for them.

Edited November 25, 2009 by frogspawner

[frogspawner]

Well, I think blaming it on VHS (read D&D) is missing the opportunity to engage in some healthy self-criticism.

The BRP rulebook does not offer balance. Compared to yesterday's games, it's a good effort, but for today, the BRP rulebook looks like a first draft, before the "tightening up your ship" and the "kill your darlings" phase.

People aren't (very) interested in toolboxes. They want focused products, where the hard work (balancing) is done for them.

I agree there's plenty to criticize in the new BRP but I've been holding it back because I wonder: Could we keep the criticism positive?

And what do you mean by "balance" (and the other terms)?

[Thalaba]

The BRP rulebook does not offer balance.

What does 'balance' mean, in this context - can you provide an example?

Compared to yesterday's games, it's a good effort, but for today, the BRP rulebook looks like a first draft, before the "tightening up your ship" and the "kill your darlings" phase.

Are these recognized phases of something? Please explain.

People aren't (very) interested in toolboxes. They want focused products, where the hard work (balancing) is done for them.

They do? Personally - I like a toolbox. In fact, it's what I would recommend as the approach for a generic game. All this 'tightening' you are talking about makes sense for specific settings and scenarios, but the BRP core rulebook doesn't present any of those, so why would it 'tighten'?

I'm pretty sure the 'tightening' is meant to happen at the setting/sourcebook level, where you can get pretty specific about which rules are in use and so on.

And for us do-it-yourselfers (I'm sure there are more besides me) I'm glad to have a product that doesn't assume for me what and how I want to play.

I agree there's plenty to criticize in the new BRP but I've been holding it back because I wonder: Could we keep the criticism positive?

By positive, I think you mean 'constructive' or are you referring to the tone of the language? I would agree with both, actually. I'd like to hear about the criticisms you've been holding back on - I find these types of discussions pretty valuable and they inform how I run the game. They also inform future editions. But please, explain clearly what they are so that people can discuss them in an informed manner.

[frogspawner]

By positive, I think you mean 'constructive' or are you referring to the tone of the language?

Yes, I do mean the criticism should be constructive. And it'd be nice if the tone could be optimistic/positive too. (For example, the old thread's title really bothered me!)

Immediately breaking my own positivity 'rule', the biggest criticism I have is the old saw about opposed rolls (which I don't like). Virtually everything else in the new BRP has toolbox-style options - which is fine by me (being a GM) - but RAW combat has to use that darned OR mechanism, curse it! That's a big change from any other BRP-based system I know about (RQ2/3, CoC, OBRP) - so why introduce it? And why is there no alternative? The only positive thing I can think of about this is that the combat rules section is quite hard to follow, so people won't necessarily realize that's what's meant... And the book's so thick my players probably won't ever read it closely enough to know I'm not playing it like that...

OK, now that's out of the way - the only way is up!

[Rurik]

Most all of us here are longtime fans of BRP and used to taking bits and pieces from one BRP system and mixing them with another, so a toolkit appeals to us. One big book with a lot of options replaces stacks of rulebooks from our personal museums of BRP history - awesome!

But the topic is "How could BRP be more popular?". I agree that it suffers from a lack of focus. It is big, and with so many rules and optional rules thrown at a new reader it can be overwhelming. The fact of the matter is the average new player only needs a fraction of the rules presented and could easily get by with an 80-100 page book (if even), but they have now way of knowing which rules they need or which pages to read, so they are stuck with a monster tome that usually presents them with an overwhelming array of rules and optional rules.

BRP is a simple and elegant system that is very easy to grasp. My wife is not a gamer, but one game she does like is Call of Cthulhu. She could care less about rules or mechanics, and has no problem playing Call because the system is so intuitive. A library use of 75 means you have a 75% chance of successfully researching a subject in a library. She grasps that immediately, and knows that a 75 in a skill is good while a 25 is not so good. For all the talk of rules light systems she would not know what a 17W2 in HeroQuest means or a Library Use pool of 7 means in Trail of Cthulhu or how grasp bidding in say Dogs in the Vineyard. For all the accusations of being to rules heavy and outdated I think BRP is still one of the easiest systems to grasp.

But I don't think that fact - that BRP is a simple, logical, quick and elegant system comes through in reading the big book of BRP. A smaller, more focused book, maybe even genre specific, without optional rules, would be much better for growing the popularity of the system.

In all fairness the goal of BRP was not to produce a streamlined product intended as an introduction to BRP. The goal was to collect most all of the BRP rules from across time and editions in one place, and it does that well. It is a reward to us longtime fans who have been loyal to the system over the years and we have been well rewarded. Thank you Jason and Chaosium Dudes.

But it is not, IMHO, the best vehicle for introducing new players to the system.

[rust]

I think roleplaying games are "a bit like food". Some people, perhaps the ma-

jority, like their meals "ready to eat", others prefer to do the cooking them-

selves.

I usually play roleplaying games because I have an idea of a specific setting

and would like to know what would happen to this setting under the influen-

ce of a certain kind of player characters.

To make this experiment, I have to work out the setting as well as the cha-

racters' options (abilities, skills, equipment, etc.) within the setting, and for

this I need a toolbox like BRP.

As for "out of the box" games, well, they are other people's fantasies, not

mine, and I usually find them not very fascinating.

Positive criticism of BRP ... I have no idea, all I would want to criticize [this

word looks strange, I hope it does exist] is the lack of material for some of

the genres I am interested in, but this material will most probably be produ-

ced in the not so far future (or I will have to produce it).

Otherwise, there are so many options, and it is so easy to design additional

ones, that I am missing nothing, and can easily replace what I do not like.

[deleriad]

I think Rurik is right to say that the BRP rulebook is a good tool for experienced players who have been playing BRP for a long time. It's not so good for bringing fresh blood in.

I suspect the best means to bring in new players are good standalone products built using BRP that are fun to play in and of themselves. Classic Fantasy - though not to my taste - would be an example. Soltak's "I can't Believe It's Not Traveller" would be another.

I do believe however that BRP could do with a "Basic" system that isn't overloaded with modular options; i.e. putting the Basic back into basic. In many ways modules such as hit Locations and Strike Ranks are genre emulators and, really, would be better in specific genre books.

In my world there would be 196 page book that presents a basic universal roleplaying system with the selling point that it is simple. Not sure how to do something? Pick a skill or stat and roll percentile dice. If you have that and good standalones powered by BRP then you get a system that can be quickly picked up and played.

That said, it'll never be more than a niche market but provided it is capable of a critical mass of interest then that is fine.

[kaddawang]

As a set if rules, it's golden(although not flawless, but very easy to houserule). And it does get mentioned alot, and most of it positive.

BRP is not popular because it has no support.

Many of the monographs are very good, but they are not exactly easily available(and most suffer from being amateur works; poor graphics and layout).

The Rome-supplement is awesome, but historical games have never been the hottest bun.

Newt's d101games' plans are exiting, though.

Call of Cthulhu is the only well-known BRP-game, along with Mongoose's RuneQuest. Incidentally, those are also the only lines that receive support in the form of regularly published, official supplements.

Until Chaosium wins the lottery, BRP will be languishing in the cellar.

Which is a shame.

Edit: and for it's size. The BRP Quickstart is a brilliant free download that condences the basics in less than 40 pages. It is a very good intro.

Edited November 25, 2009 by kaddawang

[PK Games]

For me it is presentation. Lets face it, the core book is boring. It is unispiring. Dont get me wrong, I love BRP, have several of the games based on the system and supplements as well and some of the books are very enticing, just not the new one.

A hardback book with a better cover, and more eye popping art and a better layout would draw much more attention. For example, the system presenting in Dark Heresy is a percentile system and overall very similar to how BRP works (for the most part at least), but the reason why the books sell is they are pretty and eyecatching and fun to read. In the new BRP core book, its just rule after rule after rule with some not so good artwork crammed inbetween.

[Mugen]

I don't know if it is the same in other countries, but in France the biggest problem of BRP is that people only know it through Call of Cthulhu.

AFAIK, the biggest complaints are :

*Very limited impact of characteristics on skills;

*Mortality;

*Boring combat;

*The 1-100 scale.

All aspects which have been addressed in an incarnation of BRP or another...

I even saw some people describing James Bond 007 resolution system as genius and criticizing BRP...

Edited November 25, 2009 by Mugen

[rust]

Hmmm ... over here the most often repeated complaint about BRP has

something to do with the mathematics of percentile "roll under" systems,

but I have to admit that I was never interested enough in this debate to

try to understand what all this was about ...

[Thalaba]

But I don't think that fact - that BRP is a simple, logical, quick and elegant system comes through in reading the big book of BRP. A smaller, more focused book, maybe even genre specific, without optional rules, would be much better for growing the popularity of the system.

But it is not, IMHO, the best vehicle for introducing new players to the system.

Does the free quick-start guide not provide this? I haven't read it. Or does there need to be a 'players edition' of BRP somewhere in between?

Somebody mentioned D101games/Drules - ironically, don't these free and very similar rulesets dilute BRP's potential customer base? Would BRP be more popular if they didn't exist? (NOTE: I'm not faulting them in any way, just speculating here).

Thalaba

[RosenMcStern]

Do you know what, Frogspawner? You are much better at moderating things than you are at arguing. Spawning this new thread was an excellent idea, as was the thread about combat

I agree with many of the comments here, except one point made by Deleriad. Some optional rules like Strike Ranks, Sanity, Hit Locations and such can be used in multiple genres, so it was appropriate to put them in the basic book. The number of gamers who hate to have to buy multiple books is greater than the number of people who prefer small core books.

As for the combat resolution system, it is true that it is the only section that does not have an option. Just to make it clear, I doubt you can present a system nowadays that handles combat without comparing the two rolls, but there could be other solutions than the one presented there.

But please let me confute the opinion that BRP is not popular.

Several polls were run on rpg.net last summer about "generic" RPGs. BRP was really, really high in all lists, usually third after Savage Worlds or GURPS, and in some cases slightly above them. Despite all the hate comments posted by advocates of Trail of Cthulhu, most people simply equate Lovecraft with BRP. You may find that Gumshoe handles investigations better for you, but CoC is still people's favorite experience for horror games. BRP is still the only system used for RPGs about Moorcock's works.

BRP _is_ popular. It just lacks some more focused support, this is true. But support _is_ coming. Classic Fantasy is out, and is becoming popular. Dragon Lines is now on the "upcoming" list of distributors. I will arrange for a cover preview with blurb soon, after Merrie England's launch. Unfortunately I cannot post sneak peeks yet, as Dario is still laying it out, but the final product will be on par with Rome.

[RosenMcStern]

Hmmm ... over here the most often repeated complaint about BRP has something to do with the mathematics of percentile "roll under" systems, but I have to admit that I was never interested enough in this debate to try to understand what all this was about ...

In most cases it is pure nonsense. I have seen people claim that the mathematical results of rolling 1d20 and adding skill, cross-checking with difficulty level, are more accurate than rolling under your skill on 1d100. Which is pure fertilizing materials, as d100 and d20 produce the exact same llinear result.

Basically, if you play CoC with a GM who never gives bonuses or penalties you can have unrealistic results, like a doctor failing to save one third of his patients operating normally in a fully equipped emergency room. But that same lazy GM would never give any target number except the default in D20 or BoL, so it is just a matter of handling the game well, not of maths.

As of d101, OpenQuest is a RuneQuest derivative, not a BRP one. I think Newt's intention was to BRP-ify RuneQuest, not to compete with BRP. Although he actually did. But this is another story.

[kaddawang]

Somebody mentioned D101games/Drules - ironically, don't these free and very similar rulesets dilute BRP's potential customer base? Would BRP be more popular if they didn't exist? (NOTE: I'm not faulting them in any way, just speculating here).

Thalaba

It might just be my naive, blue eyes, but I see them as appetizers. They create interest.

[Thalaba]

I've been pretty impressed with the amount of interest that Classic Fantasy and Fractured Hopes have been generating. I think this illustrates that point that it's the supplementary material which will be the best draw. Getting the most popular monographs into actual distribution will be something for the near future, I imagine.

[rust]

In most cases it is pure nonsense.

Yes, this was my impression, too, and the main reason why I usually avoided

that kind of debate.

If one tries really hard, one can construct a "breaking point" for every system

under the sun and then claim that the system is "broken", but this is almost

always meaningless for the normal, common sense use of the system.

[sdavies2720]

To me, this (how could BRP be more popular) is the wrong question. Or it's only part of the right question. Given the renaissance BRP is enjoying right now, I'm pretty happy with the material I'm getting, and don't really care if I'm part of a dedicated small group of gamers or part of a huge mass of less-focused gamers.

I'd be more interested in discussing how BRP publishers can make more money, or how to ensure that the flow of material continues and grows. Getting good answers to those questions would ensure that the great material for BRP will continue to flow; we won't have another 20-year drought, and I can get my periodic BRP material fix.

Granted, having a wider audience is pretty likely to be part of the answer, but it's not the whole or only answer.

So, to push the discussion:

* Should we (collectively) be publishing more scenarios, specific settings, or focused/deeper rules (e.g. shamans & spirit combat, or witches) or some other type of sourcebook?

* Are there best practices we all can share in writing different sourcebooks -- what will make them more likely to succeed in the market?

* Is there something we need to collectively avoid? How?

* And as a laurel branch to the popularity issue, should we set up a sort of BRP Trade group that individuals and companies can contribute (cash) to whose goal is expansion of the BRP market?

[rust]

* Should we (collectively) be publishing more scenarios, specific settings, or focused/deeper rules (e.g. shamans & spirit combat, or witches) or some other type of sourcebook?

I have the impression that the best (= most interesting and useful) material

is the material that was written by someone who really wanted and loved to

research a certain subject and to write about it, for himself as well as for us

others.

The problem with this is that it cannot be planned as something to fill a cer-

tain market niche at a certain time. One cannot tell authors to write some-

thing of that kind about some subject, one has to wait and see what authors

are fascinated by and able and willing to offer.

This makes me a bit sceptical when it comes to determining what should be

published for BRP.

[RosenMcStern]

I'd be more interested in discussing how BRP publishers can make more money,

Me, too. Out of generosity, of course. :innocent:

* Is there something we need to collectively avoid? How?

The zealot attitude. BRP is a good game, but this does not mean that we should go around with a proselitizing attituder claiming that it will eventually replace every game. All games have their place in the ecosystem.

* And as a laurel branch to the popularity issue, should we set up a sort of BRP Trade group that individuals and companies can contribute (cash) to whose goal is expansion of the BRP market?

Sure! And authors an publishers will be able to draw from this fund to finance their next books, basing their share on how mu....

Okay, please put down the tar and feathers :shocked:

Maybe this is not a good idea. I can think of other similar cases and I am not so happy about how it ended up. BRP is a mature game and can self-finance itself.

[Nightshade]

The zealot attitude. BRP is a good game, but this does not mean that we should go around with a proselitizing attituder claiming that it will eventually replace every game. All games have their place in the ecosystem.

In particular, the hate-on some BRP people have for D20 based games or, say, MRQ doesn't do the game any good. But more in general, acting like its a desert topping and a floor wax just makes people question whether its good at either.

There are a couple of intrinsic limits for BRP that will influence some people's view of it:

1. Its not particularly well suited out of the box to high level play. One of the legitimate objections to how it handles roll-low is that it means you need a considerable number of special rules to deal with hypercompetent characters, some of which don't work all that well together. And that's just in the area of skills. It runs into some of the same problems with actual power that games like GURPS do; its hard to set things up so the system doesn't turn over easily when in high-powered play.

2. On a related issue, it is, on the whole, bloody deadly. The new edition does some things to mitigate this, but its very hard to mess with without getting some odd looking results. This is probably no surprise as its a game that got its start in part as a gritty reaction to D&D, and has made its best going on the rather grim CoC setting, but it doesn't seem to be what a lot of the hobby wants, and it isn't a selling point for it.

There are probably fixes for both of these (the full-blown Superworld had some success with the second, though ironically, not so much for the first), but they haven't been explored much because they work against the play ethic of a lot of the extent fanbase.

[RosenMcStern]

In particular, the hate-on some BRP people have for D20 based games or, say, MRQ doesn't do the game any good. But more in general, acting like its a desert topping and a floor wax just makes people question whether its good at either.

I suppose you meant dessert topping, not desert. A desert can be topped but I would not find the topping attractive.

And I have no prejudice against d20. I hate GURPS, not D&D [daydreams to torture Steve Jackson] - oh-hum, time to regain my self-control

One of the legitimate objections to how it handles roll-low is that it means you need a considerable number of special rules to deal with hypercompetent characters, some of which don't work all that well together. And that's just in the area of skills.

A very good point. Perhaps a supplement about demigods is needed, to show that it _can_ handle high level characters.

[Nightshade]

I suppose you meant dessert topping, not desert. A desert can be topped but I would not find the topping attractive.

Yes, yes, so I don't pay all as much attention to my typing on the Net. Sue me.

And I have no prejudice against d20. I hate GURPS, not D&D [daydreams to torture Steve Jackson] - oh-hum, time to regain my self-control

Yeah, but that's just your tic. There's a fairly common thread of D20 hate or hate for MRQ among BRP fans, and it doesn't actually do anything positive for the system.

A very good point. Perhaps a supplement about demigods is needed, to show that it _can_ handle high level characters.

It would help, certainly.

[seneschal]

Personally, I don't have a problem with "toolkit" games. I started out playing Champions/HERO System and appreciated its flexibility (and have since learned to like Action! System). Much as I loved Classic Traveller, I gravitated toward Champions because as both a GM and as a player it let me do what I wanted to do. Like its contemporary HERO, BRP evolved into a toolkit by stretching to cover many settings and situations. That's a plus as long as the core rulebook gives good advice on how to tailor the rules to particular genres (which is also what well-written sourcebooks and campaign books are for).

[threedeesix]

Perhaps a supplement about demigods is needed, to show that it _can_ handle high level characters.

It's on my list.