How Could BRP Be More Popular...?

[Agentorange]

What is relevant is that they sound like being more prone to going into fulll edition after just one month of good sales. Classic Fantasy's "larval" state will last very little, like Trollslayer did.

This is true but presents a problem in it's own right. Namely: people are essentially having to pay twice for the same product if they want the new improved version. Now with Classic Fantasy I'll probably fork out for the mainstrean version as it has ( by the sound of it ) got a fair bit of new stuff in it. But, if this becomes a regular occurrence, well I'm not so rich that I can afford to keep doing it

[Thalaba]

I would say that given the enormous scope of of information, Jason made a splendid effort collating it and weaving some structure in. It is only after this effort that we now have the chance to review the whole and have the opportunity to reflect accordingly. It is easier to see where changes can be made once the initial effort has been made.

Agreed!

In my career (a design career, nothing to do with gaming) I have learned that it is far easier to criticize someone else's work than it is to perform that same work. The very reason that it is possible to find errors or confusing things in the BRP book is because Jason did such a great job of putting it together that those few things stand out as exceptions.

When I first started my current campaign (before BRP came out) we were using the RQ3 rules, of which I had the only set. When BRP came out, I wanted to switch so my players could buy the book and find it useful. What I did was go through both books, taking out the spot and combat rules from each that I liked best and putting them together into a single players rule-set that covered the basics. And I can say that it was a very dry process. The fact that Jason had the stamina to produce a rules document so large and well put together frankly amazes me, now.

[Atgxtg]

I had to order my physical copy of BRP from overseas. Even though I already have RQ2/3, CoC and other BRP/D100 material, I wanted to support the product.

Yes, but Joe Average gamer won't do that. We can't except the average gamer to automatically be a big Chaosium fan. We might be, but we're atypical. The typical gamer isn't likely to suddenly order an RPG that he knows nothing about, sight unseen, from a company he might never have heard of.

[SDLeary]

If you read the whole history of the RPG hobby, you will learn that the occurence of overprinted supplements accumulating dust in warehouses outnumbered the happy event of a product selling out fast. And we are talking about the times when RPGs sold thousands of copies, not hundreds. So the fact that Chaosium probes the market with monographss is understandable.

I hope they continue to probe. Running through the new retail supplement of Cthulhu Invictus I can tell you that the impact on the reader seems much greater. Chad did an excellent job with the text, and it seems to come through much better here.

What is relevant is that they sound like being more prone to going into fulll edition after just one month of good sales. Classic Fantasy's "larval" state will last very little, like Trollslayer did.

Perhaps this will begin to give Charlie an Co. a better sense of what sells so that they can cherry-pick submissions and skip the Monograph route for some of them.

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

Agreed!

In my career (a design career, nothing to do with gaming) I have learned that it is far easier to criticize someone else's work than it is to perform that same work. The very reason that it is possible to find errors or confusing things in the BRP book is because Jason did such a great job of putting it together that those few things stand out as exceptions.

Quite true. While I don't like everything that in BRP, Jason did a good job in compiling it. In fact, most of the bugs and inconsistencies were thing that existed in the game before Jason got his hands on it. It just that they had gone unnoticed before. For example the SIZ table bug that I spotted goes back to at least 5th Edition Call of Cthulhu. The only reason why I noticed the bug was that I was working on stuff for vehicles and superheroes. Otherwise, I wouldn't have looked twice at the SIZ table. In play, once you hit SIZ 30 or so, the value becomes academic. Once you are talking superheroes, it suddenly becomes important to know what STR 60 can lift.

So yeah, Jason certainly deserves credit for the work he did.

[SDLeary]

More importantly, with the system FINALLY gathered in one singe published reference, but with many of the fan favourite options from the previous specific incarnations included and thus easily accessible, why isn't this an exciting time for BRP? With Chaosium at their most co-operative and liberal with respect to fan contributions and third party licensing in DECADES, why is this NOT the most exciting time to be working with BRP? With (ok, mostly as monographs at present) MORE settings and support material than ever available for BRP, why NOT be excited about the possibilities of this game?

Cheers,

Nick

It is an exciting time for the game as long as Chaosium doesn't allow the window of opportunity pass by. They need to get support items onto the shelves, and quickly now.

As has been pointed out here and on other forums, online sales are generally still a drop in the bucket compared to store sales, if things are handled right. WE know to look online, but we all seem to be far more hooked into Tech than the average person, and I would guess that includes the average gamer as well. If Jhonny wants a game book for Christmas or a birthday, mom, dad, and grandma are far more likely to look for that in a book store or game store (if they have a local one) than to go online to find it.

SDLeary

[Nightshade]

Could it be that systems like Savage Worlds are more exciting and appeal to a larger and more excitable demographic where the level of entry and enthusiasm needs to be tweaked appropriately to suit them?

I am just stirring up thoughts.

For the record, BRP/D100 appeals to myself, both from a nostalgic point of view and because it is the type of system that appeals to me and stimulates me even if I found it anew.

What does appeal to the average role player these days? What do they like? What do they need? Do the majority require something that has an low entry level so that they can play as soon as possible with limited time?

I'd be more prone to suggesting something I have in the past; that BRP is not particularly well suited for high-cinematic play, and that a good part of the market is there these days.

For better or worse, from day one BRP has had a quasi-simulationist leaning, and that's not exactly a big market share any more.

[Nightshade]

I would say that given the enormous scope of of information, Jason made a splendid effort collating it and weaving some structure in. It is only after this effort that we now have the chance to review the whole and have the opportunity to reflect accordingly. It is easier to see where changes can be made once the initial effort has been made.

I'm not bashing Jason here, but simply explaining why I could be more enthused in some ways. Its why if I use BRP for something, I expect there's going to be considerable house ruling on my part, and that reduces some of the utility of having the material all in one place.

[Atgxtg]

I'd be more prone to suggesting something I have in the past; that BRP is not particularly well suited for high-cinematic play, and that a good part of the market is there these days.

For better or worse, from day one BRP has had a quasi-simulationist leaning, and that's not exactly a big market share any more.

I think you made a good point here. BRP is the sort of RPG that was popular 30 years ago. The style of RPGs that are popular today are much more cinematic.

We like it because we liked it way back when. But to someone looking over the game for the first time today, it doesn't WOW them the way it did us.

[Akrasia]

I think you made a good point here. BRP is the sort of RPG that was popular 30 years ago. The style of RPGs that are popular today are much more cinematic.

We like it because we liked it way back when. But to someone looking over the game for the first time today, it doesn't WOW them the way it did us.

There are plenty of 'cinematic' RPGs out there now (from D&D4e to Savage Worlds). As far as I can tell, the RPG market doesn't need yet another one.

There is a demand for 'non-cinematic' RPGs. It's one of the reasons why I've gotten (back) into BRP recently. No RPG can be all things. Best to focus on BRP's strengths. The 'non-cinematic' field is underpopulated right now, IMO.

[Thalaba]

I'm not sure why BRP can't be cinematic - isn't that more a case of how the game is run with maybe a few things like traits thrown in?

Rather than say 'BRP can't be more pupular because it's not cinematic', shouldn't we say 'Maybe BRP would catch some new players if there was a cinematic setting published'.

What bare mechanics are required to make a game 'cinematic'? I always thought cinematic' was just a catchphrase that means 'the players can do unrealistic (but cool) stuff without the gm or the rules getting in the way'.

[Atgxtg]

There are plenty of 'cinematic' RPGs out there now (from D&D4e to Savage Worlds). As far as I can tell, the RPG market doesn't need yet another one.

There is a demand for 'non-cinematic' RPGs. It's one of the reasons why I've gotten (back) into BRP recently. No RPG can be all things. Best to focus on BRP's strengths. The 'non-cinematic' field is underpopulated right now, IMO.

Needs go nothing to do with it. Its more what is popular and what people expect. Case in point, for years I had trouble getting people to play RQ. Partially because most gamers expected there to be a distinction between spellcasters and non-spellcaster, and mostly because people expected levels, classes and increasing hit points.

As soon as most people heard "fixed Hit points" and "you'll have about 12 HP" they got very leary of RQ, even though I tired to explain parrying and armor soaking damage.

That the "non-cinematic" field is underpopulated right now is probably a strong indication that such games are not successful.

I think what is really happening in the RPG field is that OGL D&D sort of finished off most of the alternate systems a few years back, when everybody jumped on the 3rd Edition bandwagon. Now that that's settled down, there is a market for alternatives again.

[threedeesix]

As soon as most people heard "fixed Hit points" and "you'll have about 12 HP" they got very leary of RQ, even...

Don't use my or SDLeary's name in vain please. :eek: I think you meant leery.

Sorry, I cringe whenever I see or hear it. Like, "I'm a little leary about that".

Rodney Leary, Speaking up for SDLeary while he's unavailable.

Edited December 7, 2009 by threedeesix

[Nightshade]

I think you made a good point here. BRP is the sort of RPG that was popular 30 years ago. The style of RPGs that are popular today are much more cinematic.

We like it because we liked it way back when. But to someone looking over the game for the first time today, it doesn't WOW them the way it did us.

It was a noticable swing over time for those who gamed in the 80's, where there was a brief period when crunchy, simulationist games were on the upswing. But that's long gone.

[Nightshade]

There are plenty of 'cinematic' RPGs out there now (from D&D4e to Savage Worlds). As far as I can tell, the RPG market doesn't need yet another one.

There is a demand for 'non-cinematic' RPGs. It's one of the reasons why I've gotten (back) into BRP recently. No RPG can be all things. Best to focus on BRP's strengths. The 'non-cinematic' field is underpopulated right now, IMO.

That doesn't matter much if there's simply little demand for it. You and I can want whatever we want, but if the market isn't big enough to matter, it isn't, no matter what we want.

[Nightshade]

I'm not sure why BRP can't be cinematic - isn't that more a case of how the game is run with maybe a few things like traits thrown in?

Rather than say 'BRP can't be more pupular because it's not cinematic', shouldn't we say 'Maybe BRP would catch some new players if there was a cinematic setting published'.

What bare mechanics are required to make a game 'cinematic'? I always thought cinematic' was just a catchphrase that means 'the players can do unrealistic (but cool) stuff without the gm or the rules getting in the way'.

But that's important. A game has to support that, and most versions of BRP don't; there's too much ability for minor opponents to be too threatening, there's too much ability for cinematic action to go critically badly, and there's not enough buffer against things just going seriously wrong.

You could potentially add on optional rules to produce more of a cinematic result, but its to some extent working against a lot of the basic design.

[Atgxtg]

It was a noticable swing over time for those who gamed in the 80's, where there was a brief period when crunchy, simulationist games were on the upswing. But that's long gone.

Yes. Thing got cruchier and cruncheir until they got too crunchy and then went off in other directions.

I think the industry has gone through several phases since then. The current trend is for rule-light simply RPGs with some player input into the story.

I get a chuckle when I see people here common on how simple BRP is. The original system, RuneQuest, wasn't really simple. It was logical and easy to grasp, but not simple. Said system was gutted and revamped multiple times, hence the reason why BRP isn't really simple.

I don't see why simple is considered good. Most of the really simple RPGs that have been introduced over the years have died a quick death. Simple might be easy, but is is almost always limited.

[Nightshade]

I don't see why simple is considered good. Most of the really simple RPGs that have been introduced over the years have died a quick death. Simple might be easy, but is is almost always limited.

But for a lot of people, that's an acceptable trade-off. Its just the fine line where something gets so simple that the overhead on running it actually becomes harder, because it gives you too little guidance about how to handle a new situation.

[threedeesix]

But that's important. A game has to support that, and most versions of BRP don't; there's too much ability for minor opponents to be too threatening, there's too much ability for cinematic action to go critically badly, and there's not enough buffer against things just going seriously wrong.

You could potentially add on optional rules to produce more of a cinematic result, but its to some extent working against a lot of the basic design.

And that's what I always hated about D&D. I always wanted to run an adventure where a powerful dragon allied with, or enslaved an orc tribe and was using them as a makeshift army. The problem is when the party was powerful enough to challenge the dragon, they never fought orcs anymore. I mean, I could have thrown some in, but it would have been a boring forgettable fight. It's like when they get a certain level, all lesser beings ceased to exist. Now granted, with D&D 3.0 and up, this can be done by giving the orcs levels in a class, but that doesn't change the fact that normal orcs tend to vanish. Thats why I think BRP is superior to a cinematic level based system. There is no time that orcs, goblins, etc cannot pose a challenge.

And another thing, at least with the groups I have always gamed with, the best and most exciting adventures have always been those we played at low level, where the chance of death was real, and everything was a challenge. I never ran a D&D campaign (any edition) beyond 13th level without it falling apart because of these very reasons. BRP on the other hand I have ran groups well 150-180% and they always have a healthy fear of combat.

I know these points don't change the fact that the vast majority of gamer wants to be able to take more damage than an African bull elephant, while slaying a dragon with one hand and a storm giant with the other, but I wanted to share my views with like minded individuals.

Rod

Edited December 7, 2009 by threedeesix

[RosenMcStern]

Rather than say 'BRP can't be more pupular because it's not cinematic', shouldn't we say 'Maybe BRP would catch some new players if there was a cinematic setting published'.

What bare mechanics are required to make a game 'cinematic'? I always thought cinematic' was just a catchphrase that means 'the players can do unrealistic (but cool) stuff without the gm or the rules getting in the way'.

Hah! you are only saying this because we have not published sneak peeks of Dragon Lines (yet).

[Nightshade]

And that's what I always hated about D&D. I always wanted to run an adventure where a powerful dragon allied with, or enslaved an orc tribe and was using them as a makeshift army. The problem is when the party was powerful enough to challenge the dragon, they never fought orcs anymore. I mean, I could have thrown some in, but it would have been a boring forgettable fight. It's like when they get a certain level, all lesser beings ceased to exist. Now granted, with D&D 3.0 and up, this can be done by giving the orcs levels in a class, but that doesn't change the fact that normal orcs tend to vanish. Thats why I think BRP is superior to a cinematic level based system. There is no time that orcs, goblins, etc cannot pose a challenge.

And another thing, at least with the groups I have always gamed with, the best and most exciting adventures have always been those we played at low level, where the chance of death was real, and everything was a challenge. I never ran a D&D campaign (any edition) beyond 13th level without it falling apart because of these very reasons. BRP on the other hand I have ran groups well 150-180% and they always have a healthy fear of combat.

I know these points don't change the fact that the vast majority of gamer wants to be able to take more damage than an African bull elephant, while slaying a dragon with one hand and a storm giant with the other, but I wanted to share my views with like minded individuals.

Rod

To be fair, they don't necessarily want to do that; what they do want to do is to be able to reliably do the sort of Errol Flynn high-adventure hijinks you often see in adventure movies and not expect that sooner or later it'll get you killed. And the problem is that you can either have that in a game, or have a game where you have to worry about the lesser opponents. Its not really possible to really have both (though you can have a core of a game that does the latter and supports the former through a vigorous hero point style mechanism; Fate Points aren't really adequate to the job as written, though).

But the real point I'm making to some extent is that the reason BRP isn't more popular is that it isn't the kind of game a lot of people want. So in the end, what do you want: the kind of game BRP is, or popularity? Because to some extent its a trade-off between the two.

[kaddawang]

Please don't open the BRP vs D&D-can of worms. Really, please:D

It's two different games, meant to be played in different ways.

As threedeesix says, D&D has a pretty narrow sweet spot. One of the reasons I left it a long time ago.

BRP on the other hand has a rather ..undefinable sweet spot, that can be tough to find. But once you find it, you're golden. Like bicycling.

Also remember that there are other games out there. There is little use comparing BRP to D&D, they simply don't match at all.

We should direct our energies to "the others". Games like Savage Worlds, GURPS, Warhammer etc. These are the games BRP competes with. They are the contenders when people look for alternatives to D&D.

..but speak badly of Warhammer at your own peril...

[frogspawner]

And that's what I always hated about D&D. ...

I know these points don't change the fact that the vast majority of gamer wants to be able to take more damage than an African bull elephant, while slaying a dragon with one hand and a storm giant with the other, but I wanted to share my views with like minded individuals.

And thanks for sharing. Yes, I for one am absolutely like-minded.

Mind you, I like to think a tweak I made - allowing Dodge in addition to Parry - makes BRP more palatable to the average D&D-er. Might that trick be useful to anyone wanting a 'cinematic' version?

[threedeesix]

Please don't open the BRP vs D&D-can of worms. Really, please:D

My post wasn't an anti D&D post, as much as a "I wish I could do this with D&D" post. For better or worse, in more than 30 years of role playing I have ran more D&D than any other game, so something kept bringing me back to it.

..but speak badly of Warhammer at your own peril...

If anyone does, they have to take us both on. :thumb:

[rust]

I know these points don't change the fact that the vast majority of gamer wants to be able to take more damage than an African bull elephant, while slaying a dragon with one hand and a storm giant with the other, but I wanted to share my views with like minded individuals.

My favourite style is one where the players and their characters fear combat,

because they are well aware that even a seemingly easy fight can turn out

to be a lethal one for a character. In my view, the decision to enter combat

has to be a meaningful one, and not something done casually because there

is no real risk involved. While I do not believe in "No risk, no fun" in my real

life, I think it is quite true in roleplaying game adventures.