How Could BRP Be More Popular...?

[dragonewt]

It's on my web site

Those are the original sixteen page BRP rules. Which, while they hold a place in my heart, are longer than one or two pages.

[RosenMcStern]

The best way of introducing people to BRP can fit in two lines, not in two pages:

"It is like Call of Cthulhu, only with different settings and advanced rules that better reflect the settings."

[frogspawner]

I have made similar abbreviated references for a few other systems I ran at conventions, such that a player who is new to a system can make a character and start playing immediately.

Go for it! (I'm currently doing one for my own 'unique gift & baby' version, and might mod it for straight BRP thereafter - if you haven't beaten me to it...)

It's on my web site: Core Rules

From the site statistics I can see it's been accessed appr. 1,000 times each month for several years.

And very good it is, too (being extracts from the original 16-page BRP pamphlet). But it is for the old not the new BRP. How about updating it? (And maybe shoe-horning in Magic, in place of the waffly bits about stats and weaponry?

[frogspawner]

Those are the original sixteen page BRP rules.

Minus some waffle, the pictures, and the (rather nice) examples and scenario. It still weighs in at 9 pages, though. Some more trimming to do! (Losing the profanity would be a good start).

The best way of introducing people to BRP can fit in two lines, not in two pages:

"It is like Call of Cthulhu, only with different settings and advanced rules that better reflect the settings."

Nice. Or even shorter...? "Like CoC, only for the sane." (The newbie couldn't play from either of those, though).

[soltakss]

"It is like Call of Cthulhu, only with different settings and advanced rules that better reflect the settings."

That's the best way to make me never buy that product.

[Nightshade]

I'm not so sure about that either. While I can see that some gamers are attracted to the rules, it's really the volume of support that makes GURPS and HERO viable. I was attracted to GURPS a few years back simply because of the Transhuman Space line - but I was never keen on the various generic rules-crunch books (and ultimately was put off because the game seemed straightjacketed by needing to stick to GURPS conventions in the rules).

That might be a reason to buy GURPS supplements, but it wouldn't keep the core game alive if that was it. Whether your cup of tea or not, I don't have any doubt that most of the people who buy Hero or GURPS do so because they like what the games bring to them systematically.

More to the point, it counters the assertion that its settings that sell a game line, because neither game has really had a stand-out setting (unless you perhaps count the Champions Universe for the superhero end at Hero, and that's changed so many times I'm hard pressed to see it as the main draw), yet the two game lines have survived fire and rain.

Similarly, my brief flirtations with HERO and other systems like FATE (Spirit of the Century) have usually been curtailed by reading through a book full of rules, but no real setting originality. Savage Worlds had some appeal, because the Solomon Kane and Low Life settings looked interesting, but ultimately, I don't feel the need to flirt too much with systems - just have an engine to hang setting ideas on.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you aren't the whole market. Neither, of course, am I, but the above two game lines seem to me to be pretty much the poster children for the idea a game system is capable of maintaining a fan base without some strong flagship setting.

[SDLeary]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you aren't the whole market. Neither, of course, am I, but the above two game lines seem to me to be pretty much the poster children for the idea a game system is capable of maintaining a fan base without some strong flagship setting.

This is of course true, no strong setting. More to the point though is that they do have "Settings", whereas BRP has none. You need at least one supported setting. Hero and GURPS use a more shotgun approach, but I don't really think these games would still be around if they had only published the rules.

Hero did come out (like BRP) as a core system for a game, Champions, then with Danger International. Those were already established when Hero was busted out. GURPS, iirc, did have issues at the beginning until setting/supplementary books (magic, monsters, et al.) so that people could have an idea of what could be done with the system.

In this particular case, Cthulhu doesn't work as that setting, because its being marketed as a separate game with its own line of supplements. It is generally identified as "Cthulhu", not Cthulhu BPR or some such other linking title. Chaosium could change this by making the next version of Cthulhu into a BRP Setting book, but I don't see them doing that.

SDLeary

[Nightshade]

This is of course true, no strong setting. More to the point though is that they do have "Settings", whereas BRP has none. You need at least one supported setting. Hero and GURPS use a more shotgun approach, but I don't really think these games would still be around if they had only published the rules.

Hero did come out (like BRP) as a core system for a game, Champions, then with Danger International. Those were already established when Hero was

While its true Hero had Champions as its parent, and first played with specialized sub-versions of it (DI, Fantasy Hero, Robot Warriors and others) it wasn't like most of those had much "setting" either; Champions had villain books and some adventures, but nothing like what I think most people are thinking of when they say that settings are what attracted people. I won't disagree that supplimentary material helps, but its wise to remember all the early Champions material that really sold was the equivelent of D&D monster books and about as setting-specific. Now if you want to argue BRP could use more of that, I'll not gainsay you.

[RosenMcStern]

Hero and GURPS use a more shotgun approach, but I don't really think these games would still be around if they had only published the rules.

GURPS tends to concentrate on genres rather than on settings.

This is of course true, no strong setting. More to the point though is that they do have "Settings", whereas BRP has none. You need at least one supported setting.

On the horizon for 2010:

Rome: in shops in February

Dragon Lines: in shops in March

Tian Xi: in shops at some time

I am not counting BRP Mecha because it will be a genre book, not a setting book. The same is true for Classic Fantasy if it is released to the shops: it is not a setting but a genre book.

We could have some more surprise coming, so we should be providing three different settings (maybe four) in 2010, and supplementing them with campaigns in 2011 if they sell decently. Cubicle has its own plans, currently unrevealed.

Anyone else?

Chaosium could change this by making the next version of Cthulhu into a BRP Setting book, but I don't see them doing that.

Seppuku is a noble art, but it is usually performed by gutting oneself with one's wakizashi, not by changing the trademark that keeps you alive and kicking.

[Atgxtg]

The best way of introducing people to BRP can fit in two lines, not in two pages:

"It is like Call of Cthulhu, only with different settings and advanced rules that better reflect the settings."

Until they reply, "What's a Calocutoolu?"

We shouldn't assume that everyone is already familiar with Chaosium and thier previous products. If they are familiar with CoC, then they don't need to be introduced to the system.

[SDLeary]

While its true Hero had Champions as its parent, and first played with specialized sub-versions of it (DI, Fantasy Hero, Robot Warriors and others) it wasn't like most of those had much "setting" either; Champions had villain books and some adventures, but nothing like what I think most people are thinking of when they say that settings are what attracted people. I won't disagree that supplimentary material helps, but its wise to remember all the early Champions material that really sold was the equivelent of D&D monster books and about as setting-specific. Now if you want to argue BRP could use more of that, I'll not gainsay you.

Semantics... at least with Champions (and Superworld), and DI. True, no specific settings like LXG, but certainly settings in the sense of the world of Superman, or the world of Batman, etc. for Champions; the James Bond world for DI. That is, generally played in the modern world with the augments provided by the books. Perhaps, as Rosen has pointed out, genre probably fits better as a descriptive term, but it doesn't quite fit either.

In those particular cases, you don't need as much information or support as you do with a full blown fantasy or scifi setting. UA for example doesn't have much of a "setting" either, but there is no denying that its set in the modern world with all the arcane nastiness bolted on. Middle Earth on the other hand, or any fantasy setting, requires much much more focus and support to get across. Same with SciFi.

This is because people imagine these types of worlds in different ways. Is SciFi Star Wars or is it Firefly?

BRP's setting agnostic stance, while very beneficial in terms of versatility is also its biggest liability should nothing come out that focuses it on a particular setting or genre. Monographs do mitigate this to some extent, but seemingly only for those in the know.

Now, one thing that would be really really good for BRP would be bumping Classic Fantasy up, similar to the treatment of Cthulhu Invictus (which I am looking through now, and it looks great!). That would handle the Fantasy genre/setting (it has The Realms). A similar treatment of Cthulhu Rising, with the Mythos stuff as optional would handle basic space faring SciFi (yes it would need a name change).

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

GURPS tends to concentrate on genres rather than on settings.

There were some settings. Certainly nothing big until Traveller or Transhuman Space, but there was Camelot, Robin Hood, Vikings, Conan, Discworld, etc.

On the horizon for 2010:

Rome: in shops in February

Dragon Lines: in shops in March

Tian Xi: in shops at some time

I am not counting BRP Mecha because it will be a genre book, not a setting book. The same is true for Classic Fantasy if it is released to the shops: it is not a setting but a genre book.

We could have some more surprise coming, so we should be providing three different settings (maybe four) in 2010, and supplementing them with campaigns in 2011 if they sell decently. Cubicle has its own plans, currently unrevealed.

Anyone else?

The stuff you have produced so far is excellent, both the BRP and the mRuneQuest stuff. But at some point, Chaosium has to step up to the plate to support its own product. It cannot and should not rely solely on third party publishers.

Seppuku is a noble art, but it is usually performed by gutting oneself with one's wakizashi, not by changing the trademark that keeps you alive and kicking.

Yes, hence the item at the end stating that I didn't think they would do it. And, honestly, it wouldn't be seppuku, but it would be a change. In fact, the first real change in Cthulhu in a long time. Not much difference in the last three or four versions other than an unreadable color/layout choice in the 20th anniversary edition, which was somewhat fixed in the 25th. The headers font still needs some work.

SDLeary

Edited November 30, 2009 by SDLeary
typos

[Atgxtg]

Semantics... at least with Champions (and Superworld), and DI. True, no specific settings like LXG, but certainly settings in the sense of the world of Superman, or the world of Batman, etc.

SDLeary

No. It's not semantics. There is a big difference between genres and settings. Champions doesn't give the world of Superman, Batman (or even Spiderman). It gives a generic superhero setting. Champions could be used to run the DC or Marvel settings, but doing so would require some work on the GM's part to make it all fit. For example Superman's STR score is going to be quite a bit higher than Champions is designed to handle. There would be some trouble getting some things to play out the same as in the comics, especially for DC, due to the wide difference in power levels for the established characters. Heroes like Batman will have a hard time in Champions, since they eventually will get hit by a super strong character and take more damage that they can soak.

THis is where game mechanics step into the foreground. Champions is more forgiving than something like BRP, but it still isn't as forgiving as it needs to be to handle the DC universe. Champions uses a doubling progression that works fine for the genre, but not for the DC setting.

If you look at the mechanics used for the various DC and Marvel RPGs, they all employ an increasing scale to help minimize the differences in character ability.

Similar problems arises when trying to use Danger International/Espionage for James Bond rather than for a genric espeionage setting. Some of the things that work for Bond in the novels and/or films won't wont in Hero due to the game mechanics. For example, in the novels Bond prefers the Beretta .25 pistol, and can actually kill people with it with a shot or two. In the DI RPG, the weapon does very little damage and can't reliably kill or incapacitate an opponent. In truth, it can't reliably kill or incapacitate an opponent in the real world, either (something that when brought to the attention of Bond's author led to a change in Bond's armament). However, someone playing Bond, or a Bond-like character in a Bond-like game would expect to be able to do so, because that is how it should work in the world of James Bond. Any RPG that is seeking to emulate the Bond setting needs mechanics that helps to do just that.

Some systems are better suited for emulating a particular setting than others. FOr example, BRP isn't very good for a high powered supers campaign; D20 isn't well suited for running James Bond or an Old West Campaign.

That is one reason why the choice of rules system is important.

[TrippyHippy]

That might be a reason to buy GURPS supplements, but it wouldn't keep the core game alive if that was it. Whether your cup of tea or not, I don't have any doubt that most of the people who buy Hero or GURPS do so because they like what the games bring to them systematically.

No. In my case, it was the Transhuman Space setting that got me interested in the core GURPS rules. Not the other way round. Notably, I would add, that Champions came nearly a decade earlier than the generic HERO rules were published.

Sure, this is just my personal experience, but I don't think you should just dismiss the idea on that basis. Heck, if it was just the system that sells games, then why bother producing setting supplements for BRP at all, from a business point of view?

To my mind, what sells generic systems is the volume of support they get - be it setting supplements, rules supplements or whatever. Different gamers find different things appealing. The broader the net of supplements, the more chance that individual gamers will find something that appeals to them, and 'buy in' to the system accordingly. That is all.

Edited November 30, 2009 by TrippyHippy

[rust]

To my mind, what sells generic systems is the volume of support they get - be it setting supplements, rules supplements or whatever.

This is how I see it, too. I bought GURPS because of a specific setting, GURPS

Traveller, but my decision was heavily influenced by the fact that the GURPS

core rules would also give me access to a number of other GURPS settings -

like Alpha Centauri, Blue Planet, Terradyne or Transhuman Space - as well as

to a number of rules supplements - like Robot, Space, Vehicles. So, to buy

the generic core rules was a bit like an option for a "buy ten for the cost of

one" offer.

[seneschal]

Action! System is just one example of the point I'm trying to get across. It's a perfectly good rules set and one of several I've seen marketed as a stand-alone product. Such products, whatever their virtues, often don't catch on if there isn't a good series of genre/campaign/setting books (call 'em what you will, but please don't call Cthulhu! :eek:) to hang the system on. Action! had Western, fantasy, giant monster and modern combat supplements published but apparently not quickly enough to give would-be players a sense of what to do with it. West End's D6 system exists today solely because it was the engine for their popular Star Wars game. Without a flow of other popular games based upon it, D6 has struggled to remain a viable commercial product.

Fantasy lovers don't inherently want to play D&D. They want to re-live Middle Earth or Narnia or classical mythology or the Hyperborean kingdoms. They'll scratch that itch with Rolemaster, or Labyrinth Lord, or Eldritch Roleplaying or whatever their peers play ... unless we point them to RuneQuest or BRP Classic Fantasy first.

In the same way, I contend that people don't inherently yearn to play BRP, however wonderful and time-tested it may be. They're eager to play RuneQuest, Elric, Call of Cthulhu, etc., which happen to use those mechanics. Once they've discovered how useful BRP may be, it'll draw them back to other BRP-based games, but the rules system itself isn't the initial draw. We need plenty of BRP Romes and Val-du-Loups to demonstrate to potential players the wonderfulness of BRP (and to provide a variety of genres and/or settings to lure them in).

I grew to love the flexibility that HERO System provided, but I started off merely wanting to play a superheroes game. I also flirted with Heroes Unlimited and Villains & Vigilantes but it was the flexibility of the evolving HERO System that drew me back to Champions and away from other possible choices. And at the time, Justice., Inc., was the only pulp adventure game available.

[Atgxtg]

Fantasy lovers don't inherently want to play D&D. They want to re-live Middle Earth or Narnia or classical mythology or the Hyperborean kingdoms. They'll scratch that itch with Rolemaster, or Labyrinth Lord, or Eldritch Roleplaying or whatever their peers play ... unless we point them to RuneQuest or BRP Classic Fantasy first.

In the same way, I contend that people don't inherently yearn to play BRP, however wonderful and time-tested it may be. They're eager to play RuneQuest, Elric, Call of Cthulhu, etc., which happen to use those mechanics. Once they've discovered how useful BRP may be, it'll draw them back to other BRP-based games, but the rules system itself isn't the initial draw. We need plenty of BRP Romes and Val-du-Loups to demonstrate to potential players the wonderfulness of BRP (and to provide a variety of genres and/or settings to lure them in).

True, but gamers will realize how rules will affect the ability to re-live Middle Earth, Narnia or whatever. Case in point-there are about a half dozen Star Trek RPGs out there (FASA, ICON, CODA, Prime Directive, GURPS Prime Directive). All of them seek to re-create the Star Trek setting for roleplay, yet each system is different, and some do a better job of emulating the setting that others.

For example, when I play Trek, I expect a phaser to be able to kill and/or disintergrate someone fairly easily. Yet it fails to do so in Prime Directive (where phasers are similarin game effects to a firearm). For me, that is a failure on PDs part, and one that would turn me away from that game.

BTW, maybe we should split off the setting/mechanics topic off into it's own thread?

[Puck]

Anyone else?

I submitted The Green as a monograph several weeks ago, but I have not heard anything back so far. It sounds as if the folks at Chaosium are pretty tied up and I am keeping my fingers crossed that it passes muster. It is a proper "setting" but it would need a lot of help to bring it up to a professional level document. It has plenty of artwork, but my editing and formatting skills are pretty lame.

[SDLeary]

For example, when I play Trek, I expect a phaser to be able to kill and/or disintergrate someone fairly easily. Yet it fails to do so in Prime Directive (where phasers are similarin game effects to a firearm). For me, that is a failure on PDs part, and one that would turn me away from that game.

Just as a quick side note. PD is NOT the Star Trek universe, its the Star Fleet Universe. Phasers should still be able to disintegrate targets, but to be fair most of the more recent series and movies seem to have issues with this too.

BTW, maybe we should split off the setting/mechanics topic off into it's own thread?

Mechanics should be split I think. Not setting though, as for a good number of us this seems to be one of the core areas that affects popularity. Now if someone wants to discuss a specific setting, then yes, I would say new thread.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

I submitted The Green as a monograph several weeks ago, but I have not heard anything back so far. It sounds as if the folks at Chaosium are pretty tied up and I am keeping my fingers crossed that it passes muster. It is a proper "setting" but it would need a lot of help to bring it up to a professional level document. It has plenty of artwork, but my editing and formatting skills are pretty lame.

Dustin is still incommunicado, so I think thats whats holding things up.

SDLeary

EDIT: Well now... someone must have worked a Summoning, because there is a blurb about a new product from Dustin on the front page of the Chaosium site.

Edited November 30, 2009 by SDLeary
New stuff on Chaosium's Site

[kaddawang]

I submitted The Green as a monograph several weeks ago... ...It is a proper "setting" but it would need a lot of help to bring it up to a professional level document. It has plenty of artwork, but my editing and formatting skills are pretty lame.

Good news! The Green sounds very promising:thumb:

Pretty sure there are some talented people here that could give you pointers on prettying it up if you're not happy.

(Natural20 and MrJealousy comes to mind..)

[Atgxtg]

Just as a quick side note. PD is NOT the Star Trek universe, its the Star Fleet Universe. Phasers should still be able to disintegrate targets, but to be fair most of the more recent series and movies seem to have issues with this too.

Since the Star Fleet Universe is Star Trek, but liscened through the SF Technical Manual there really isn't that much of a difference. It's supposed to be TOS Star Trek. Unfortunately, over time the SF Universe has changed from being TOS to being modern day with ray guns.

THe more recent series don't have an issue with disintegrate. They show it happening in TNG era. Its just that they don't show it as often. That reasonable considering that in most cases it would be a waste of power. Why use the energy required to vaporize someone when you can kill them with a factor of the energy? This would be especially important on a battle where people needed to worry about having enough power to use the weapon multiple times.

Of course, since the official trek stuff (and even the SF:Tech Man that Task Force uses for thier base setting) give phases a very high power capcity, and able to fire constantly for hours-power would seem to be a moot point.

Mechanics should be split I think. Not setting though, as for a good number of us this seems to be one of the core areas that affects popularity. Now if someone wants to discuss a specific setting, then yes, I would say new thread.

SDLeary

Sorry, let me claify. I meant that we should split off the debate over the imprtance of setting vs. mechanics for selection of an RPG into its own thread instead of leaving it in the "How to make BRP more popular thread."

While the topic does touch upon BRPs popularity (specific settings, especially licensed ones can draw in new players) it seems unlikely that Chaosium will be able to secure the rights for any settings that be worth having (i.e. Star Trek, Star Wars, Middle Earth, Glorantha).

So any settings that are released for BRP would be newly created ones. While such setting can develop a following that can help to sell future products, they don't do much to draw in new players.

[Toadmaster]

GURPS tends to concentrate on genres rather than on settings.

Im going to have to disagree with that statement, it may be true for GURPS since 4E came out but earlier GURPS editions had loads of specific settings both unique and licensed. They had two very different fantasy settings, plus some licensed fantasy settings (Conan, Horseclans are two that come to mind), also a bunch of historical settings which I would call settings but could see some calling them genre books, Ancient Greece, China, Russia, Vikings. That is just fantasy, it was similar in other genres. I'd guess settings made up a good 40-50% of thier books over the years.

Now HERO has had that issue except for Champions, and it still does to a large extent. There has been some improvement in offering settings but the bulk is still heavly in favor of genre books.

I definately agree that a lack of interesting settings is probably an issue for BRP sales. Chaosium's verious BRP based games have always had very interesting places to play (Cthulhu, Glorantha, Arthurian lore). RQ3 was arguably a much cleaner game than earlier versions, and should have sold better. I think one of the big reasons it didn't sell as well is because it was set in a very bland Fantasy Europe which probably didn't do much to draw in new players.

[Nightshade]

Semantics... at least with Champions (and Superworld), and DI. True, no specific settings like LXG, but certainly settings in the sense of the world of Superman, or the world of Batman, etc. for Champions; the James Bond world for DI. That is, generally played in the

I'm sorry, but when you start conflating genres with settings, I really think its more than simple semantics.

modern world with the augments provided by the books. Perhaps, as Rosen has pointed out, genre probably fits better as a descriptive term, but it doesn't quite fit either.

Given that is the commonly accepted usage of genre, especially in the gaming field, I'm really puzzled why you'd say this.

In those particular cases, you don't need as much information or support as you do with a full blown fantasy or scifi setting. UA for example doesn't have much of a "setting" either, but there is no denying that its set in the modern world with all the arcane nastiness bolted on. Middle Earth on the other hand, or any fantasy setting, requires much much more focus and support to get across. Same with SciFi.

This is because people imagine these types of worlds in different ways. Is SciFi Star Wars or is it Firefly?

Are superheroes the Wild Cards series or the Super Friends? There's a rather large gap there. Similarly, the style of something like most of the Bond movies and a gritty police adventure vary considerably, and more importantly for this topic, require pretty different kinds of support; the former requires a lot of super gadgets, information about the fantastic organizations involved, and rules for the somewhat over the top action involved, while the latter requires more real-world information about drug gangs, firearms and probably the law.

People are just as willing--or not--to run fantasy games in pretty generic settings as they are with superheroes IME; they did it for years in the early days of D&D.

[Nightshade]

No. In my case, it was the Transhuman Space setting that got me interested in the core GURPS rules. Not the other way round. Notably, I would add, that Champions came nearly a decade earlier than the generic HERO rules were published.

However, the offshoots came considerably earlier. And as I noted, Champions didn't have a setting worth mentioning for a long, long time; it was simply a generic superhero game with some villains used for its villain books.

Sure, this is just my personal experience, but I don't think you should just dismiss the idea on that basis. Heck, if it was just the system that sells games, then why bother producing setting supplements for BRP at all, from a business point of view?

Ideally, because they sell in and of themselves. The fact someone picks a game by system doesn't mean they won't buy support for particular genres or settings; it just means that isn't the primary reason they buy it.

And I'm not writing off your experience because its just yours; I'm writing it off because of having spent enough time around GURPS and (particularly) Hero fans to know its atypical. There are certainly people who like those game lines because of particular settings for them, but the majority of fans of those games like them because of the system, and any individual setting comes second.

To my mind, what sells generic systems is the volume of support they get - be it setting supplements, rules supplements or whatever. Different gamers find different things appealing. The broader the net of supplements, the more chance that individual gamers will find something that appeals to them, and 'buy in' to the system accordingly. That is all.

And I'm sorry, but I just really can't agree; both of the games I referenced got their foot in the door well before they had any particular "setting" most people would identify; GURPS didn't even have a particular genre it was identified with early on (though it had a few most people didn't think it was ideal for).