How Could BRP Be More Popular...?

[Rurik]

Well scraps can be profitable. Look at WoW (no - not Worlds of Wonder). It is a legitimate business plan to decide to make a MMORPG, knowing full well you will need to probably give away some content free, charge less than WoW, and the best you can hope for is to get a small fraction of WoW's user base. Like I said, this is a legitimate business plan, and companies can succeed at it.

D&D is the tabletop equivelant to WoW. You can be sucessful going after the 'scraps'.

As to all the arguing over whether system or setting is more important I would say both. I think the runaway successes are when system and setting meet in an attractive product.

What are BRP's strengths? What setings have synergy with these strengths? Can we make an attractive and accessible product that will reach the target audience? These to me are the most important questions.

No system I can think of has lasted 30 years as a force in the RPG market as BRP more or less unchanged. D&D today bears little resemblance to the D&D of the 70's and 80's. BRP has to be doing something right.

I have no doubt there are people who have never played BRP but would like it if they tried it. Getting these people exposed to the game is how to make the system more popular.

[Atgxtg]

If making BRP more like "mainstream" RPGs involves fundamentally changing BRP, then it's not really 'on topic', since it amounts to creating a new system. (Assuming that we're not simply talking about some minor rules options that might help BRP be more 'cinematic' in nature.)

That sort of depends on just what we consider "minor". Personally I consider options like the Hero Point system from Bond (or allowing BRP's Fate Points to work that way) as a minor rule change (a option) that would allow for a more cinematic style of play.

I think more radical changes might be needed to handle something like a 4-color superhero campaign, and have in fact been applied to the system in the past (Superworld boxed set).

But rule tweaks are,IMO, of secondary importance.

I bwlieve the most important things required to improve BRP's popularity are improved presence/exposure and more supplements. People can't like it if they are not aware of it, and no game flourishes without support. As far as what sort of supplements are most desperately needed (settings, adventures, or sourcebooks) I think all of them.

Ultimately, I think the bulk of the responsibility for this lies with Chaosium. They are the ones who are going to have to be the game out where the people can see it, and they are the ones who determine what supplements get published.

As fans, we can help somewhat, but are effect is limited. Making the Quick Star more accessible is good, as would be making a more streamlined into book (the oginal BRP booklet is not too bad). We can also talk to other gamers about the game, but that is only useful if the other people can find the game in the stores.

In my opinion showing new people how to play BRP probably has negligible effect. Any GM can only handle so many gamers, so a best we can only reach a handful of people this way. Don't get me wrong, it worth doing, but it is probably going to help the individual GMs more than it will help BRP.

One thing that might help BRP, or any RPG is if there were more supplements geared towards players rather than towards GMs. Most groups tend to have one or two GMs with the rest of the group being players. This usually translates into the GMs buying most of the products, and the bulk of the group buying very little. That is one reason why CCGs have done so well-they can get everybody in the group to buy cards.

A few player oriented supplements, for example a character creation book for players, or maybe a player's guide to a setting could help to give each player something to spend money on.

[Rurik]

Indeed. No amount of "marketing" or "additional options", no matter how good,

could convince, for example, the Savage Worlds fans I know to turn to BRP,

what they expect and like is simply not what BRP can deliver while remaining

BRP.

I don't know. I am a longtime BRP fan and have recently come to quite like Savage worlds. I imagine that there would be some SW players that would like BRP in the converse.

I know there are some people who are single system fanboys and will never be convinced that system Y is better than the One True System. But I also know there are people who are more open minded. Somewhere there is Savage Worlds player thinking "I sure love Savage Worlds but some times I'd like a game that is a little grittier, a bit more detailed on skills, with a slightly more realistic feel. I wonder what is out there?

Savage Worlds does not try to do everything. It tries to do what it was designed to do - and it does that very well. And it is supported by quality settings that fit well with what Savage Worlds does.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Rurik

[Akrasia]

I bwlieve the most important things required to improve BRP's popularity are improved presence/exposure and more supplements. People can't like it if they are not aware of it, and no game flourishes without support. As far as what sort of supplements are most desperately needed (settings, adventures, or sourcebooks) I think all of them.

On this we definitely agree.

[frogspawner]

Maybe I'm sneak a typo in here for frogspammer.

Don't think I know him (maybe some relation?) but personally I was satisfied with the other two typos.

Edited December 9, 2009 by frogspawner
Fixed two typos!

[dragonewt]

It's not about how big or small your thingy is - it's how you use it. :innocent:

And whether or not you find the right spot. :thumb:

Gee, we are bad today.

[dragonewt]

Being promoted by bikini models ... would help.

If Newt brings back his old avatar image, OpenQuest will have a head start.

[Nightshade]

Indeed. No amount of "marketing" or "additional options", no matter how good,

could convince, for example, the Savage Worlds fans I know to turn to BRP,

what they expect and like is simply not what BRP can deliver while remaining

BRP.

Yeah. Its an unfortunately common mistake to assume other people don't like Your Favorite Game just because they haven't experienced it, when (even when its true they may not have experienced it) its fundamentally not bringing to the table what they want. And this isn't just true of the D&D folks. For all the fact they both take a fairly simulationist bent, what GURPS and BRP bring to the table are different enough that plenty of people who like one wouldn't like the other and vice versa.

[Nightshade]

Well, unless you have some decent survey data to back up your claim, this remains pure speculation on your part.

I'd say its informed speculation, as I've been in the hobby a long time, have made it a habit of feeling its pulse as much as anyone has, and have even been involved professionally in it. I'm not going to claim I'm authoritative, but I think I can claim its at least an educated guess with some sense of personal assurance. You're not required to accept my assessment, of course, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't make it and present it.

I agree that there is a 'built in limit' to the appeal of a system like BRP (or any system, for that matter). But neither you nor I know what that limit is. And it seems obvious to me that that limit (whatever it is) has not been reached yet.

That may be, but I still maintain that assuming it will get much larger can easily turn into wishful thinking on the part of people who really want to believe other people's tastes are closer to their own than is supported by the evidence.

One has to assume that the evolution of game systems to some extent follows the market, unless you're willing to assume that everyone in the market is stupid and/or blind; and once you exclude D&D (which lives its own life) there haven't been a whole lot of BRP-like systems that have gotten anywhere. To me, that says that outside its already extent fan base, most of its distinct features aren't that much of a selling point, or you'd see more games that used them, even if they didn't all appear in one place.

You can argue, of course, that designers design what they like, and demand for it is somewhat irrelevant. And there's some truth to that. But designs that fill a nonexistant need sink like stones too. So unless you're position is that its all about exposure and nothing but, I think one has to draw some conclusions based on the features of games that have actually stayed above water for any period, and how few of them look at all BRP like.

Again, this is pure speculation on your part as to 'what RPG fans want'. How could we know whether they will be interested in BRP unless it is made more accessible to them? That's part of the point of the thread: making BRP more popular than it is now by coming up with strategies for making it known and accessible to people presently ignorant of it.

I won't repeat myself, but I think the two sections above explain my own position on this and reasoning.

I'm acutely aware that my tastes in RPGs differ from many others'. I don't like 3e or 4e D&D. That alone puts me (and others with similar tastes) outside the 'mainstream'.

However, again, this is both obvious and entirely beside the point.

Not at all. If there's only a limited amount of improvement that can be done, trying to do so with unreasonable expectations is just asking for disappointment.

[Nightshade]

And just to make my position clear, I'm not saying that everyone who wants a build system, everyone who wants a cinematic system, everyone who wants a dice pool won't sometimes want what BRP brings. But I think its a mistake to assume the omnivorous gamer is a large percentage of the market, and that making him more aware of BRP is going to make a big difference. Those are, after all, the kinds of gamers most likely to already be exposed to it in the first place, after we old grognards.

part of it is you need to ask what unmet need BRP is likely to be supplying, and see if that need is really unmet.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Nightshade

[Atgxtg]

If Newt brings back his old avatar image, OpenQuest will have a head start.

I already changed my avatar.

[Akrasia]

...

That may be, but I still maintain that assuming it will get much larger can easily turn into wishful thinking on the part of people who really want to believe other people's tastes are closer to their own than is supported by the evidence.

I don't think that recognizing that BRP could be a more popular system than it is now is a case of 'wishful thinking'. This seems obvious, and not a claim that requires one to think that BRP could ever become the dominant RPG in the hobby (which, obviously, is not going to happen).

So, in my own case at least, it has nothing to do with wanting "to believe other people's tastes are closer to [my] own than is supported by the evidence". It has to do with recognizing the possibility that some people might like BRP, if they only knew about it.

... there haven't been a whole lot of BRP-like systems that have gotten anywhere. To me, that says that outside its already extent fan base, most of its distinct features aren't that much of a selling point, or you'd see more games that used them, even if they didn't all appear in one place...

WFRP (both 1e and 2e) is somewhat 'BRP-like' (relatively 'gritty'; uses percentage skill systems, etc.), and quite successful. The fact that WFRP 3e is moving towards a quasi-boardgame format suggests that a demand for a 'gritty' style FRPG might now be unmet. (Perhaps it will be met by MRQII.)

Moreover, my recollection is that BRP was a very successful system in the early-mid 1980s. Runequest II, Stormbringer, CoC, etc., were serious contenders in the RPG market. I'm not an expert on the history of Chaosium, to say the least, but my impression is that poor business decisions led to the decline of BRP more than any thing else.

Perhaps tastes have changed since the 1980s (towards a more 'cinematic' flavour, or whatever). But as the success of WFRP 2e demonstrates, there is still a demand for BRP-style games.

In any case, your posts all seem to amount to: "don't get your hopes up too high for BRP, kids." If that's your overall message, thanks. It seems obvious to me, but perhaps other folks find it informative.

[rust]

It has to do with recognizing the possibility that some people might like BRP, if they only knew about it.

This is doubtless true, but at least over here this kind of potential is rather

small: Call of Cthulhu is among the most successful roleplaying games in Ger-

many, and there are not many roleplaying gamers who never played it, and

therefore have no idea of what BRP is like.

Edit.:

I have just tried to find some numbers, but it is difficult to find something re-

liable.

All that seems certain is that Call of Cthulhu is among the top three roleplay-

ing games in Germany, together with D&D and DSA (a German fantasy game).

Edited December 9, 2009 by rust

[frogspawner]

So unless you're position is that its all about exposure and nothing but, I think one has to draw some conclusions based on the features of games that have actually stayed above water for any period, and how few of them look at all BRP like.

Well, I rather suspect that it is at least 50% about exposure - probably even more.

Players cannot choose "System B" over "System A" if they don't know B exists. No matter how good B's features (or how bad A's). Exposure is required to make players aware of B.

Within that, players that know B exists can't be preferring the features of A until they have seriously considered/played B. Only then can features/taste come into it. Even more exposure is required to make players consider/try B.

So it's could be about 75% exposure.

Businesses invest large amounts in advertising, so evidently they also think it's significant.

[Thalaba]

Locally, I've tried recruiting players for my game using the on-line playerfinders. The busiest of these around here is penandpapergames.com, which people are signing up regularly. I get notices of new signups in the area, and I can tell you that most people signing up there don't have a clue what BRP is (or most non D&D games for that matter). Most new people write something like: "Hi, I just signed up. I've played a little 3E and now want to try 4thE." And that's it. They don't even bother to specify what game they're talking about. Other than CoC, BRP has almost no presence here, and never has. Most people who do know about CoC around here still don't know what BRP is.

Somebody sent me a PM on RPGnet recently in response to something I had written describing RQ/BRP combat. They said "What you described sounds like exactly what I want. Just one question: What's BRP?"

So, you see, there are definitely people who don't know about it. I suspect there are a lot. I think that the 'omniverous' gamers are in the minority (though in the majority on game forums for sure). If BRP is going to attract the omniverous gamers, the settings will be the way to do that. The trick to growth, though, is to attract the D&D player that has reached the point that they want to try something new. BRP (or a setting that uses it) needs to be there in the right place (probably a game store) at the right time with an attractive product to catch their eye. Which probably leads us back to needing a good fantasy setting with eye-catching art, followed by a sci-fi setting.

Thalaba

[Atgxtg]

Exposure is certainly important, if for no other reason than it is vital to attract new players. People who don't know about something can't play it.

One thing about BRP is that it really has been a dead system. Most gamers today were not gaming back in the 80s or 90s. Not everybody has played nor does everyone like Call of Cthulhu. I for one, played and didn't care much for Call of Cthulhu, and if that were my only exposure to the system, than I would not be enticed by people telling me how BRP is a lot like Call of Cthulhu. In many ways, I think CoC is successful despite the game system. Since the mythos creatures are so overpowering, stats and game rules are pretty much moot.

My own experience has shown that quite a few gamers are not aware of the older systems. I've surprised most of my gaming group atone time or another by pulling out some long forgotten RPG that covered something that the had expressed an interest in. So yeah, I think there is a fairly large percentage of the gamer population who are not aware of BRP, RQ or any of the variants.

That said, I think Nighshade has a point. The vast majority of D&Ders are quite happy with the system and probably are not going to be awed by BRP. They are quite happen with character classes, increasing hit points, armor class for defense instead of active defenses, and the rest.

I've got a few players in my group who have expressed a desire to play in a Old West or WWII campaign, but don't like the idea of characters getting killed by only one or two bullets. I don't think that there will even be a big jump in BRP's popularity so that it would match RQ2 (the real one, from Chaosium, boy I hope Mongoose renumbers MRQ2), let along D&D. I doubt even RQ could make a comeback now, the game has been split off into too many directions-splintering the fan base.

So I don't see this as a new golden age. At least not yet. Some of RQ's major pluses have not been revised with BRP. A big plus for RQ was the excellent staff that Chaosium had. With all due respect to the current crew as Chaosium, they are not, in my eyes, anywhere near as good. The original Chaosium crew were innovators. The early products were different from everything else on the market. The current company is anything but innovative. Most of the creative minds behind the old Chaosium are long gone. The company split off into different parts, with each part taking some of the products with it. So I think claims of a new golden age are overly optimistic.

On the positive side, I've discovered that if you can get the D&D crowd to try other RPGs long enough to get some understanding of how things work and what they can do, some of them will get used to the change and even prefer the other system.

So it's certainly worth a shot to expose other to the game and try and recruit them, and besides it is really our only option. If we don't try to recruit new players the fan base will grow even slower.

[Thalaba]

So now we have:

1. More quality books on the shelves (not just monographs).

2. At least one of these should try to capture the cinematic market, but we shouldn't abandon the gritty core, either.

3. Produce a much lighter version of the quickstart to hand out.

4. Make the quickstart rules available in more places (Drivethru, etc.)

5. Produce a few little primers on how to use the BRP book and its options to emulate the game you want to run.

Did I miss any? Are there any more?

Thalaba

I've thought of another thing: Actual Plays - Maybe we could have a section here for actual plays, and we could link to them from other places we frequent. Sure, it's a small thing, but an easy one. Then, when we talk about what BRP can do elsewhere, we can refer people back here to somebody's actual play that we've read. :)/:ohwell:/:mad:?

Thalaba

(I've never quoted myself before - it's kind of liberating)

[sdavies2720]

I've thought of another thing: Actual Plays - Maybe we could have a section here for actual plays, and we could link to them from other places we frequent. Sure, it's a small thing, but an easy one. Then, when we talk about what BRP can do elsewhere, we can refer people back here to somebody's actual play that we've read. :)/:ohwell:/:mad:?

Thalaba

(I've never quoted myself before - it's kind of liberating)

Oh no, not another "I attack the darkness" thingie.

I've listened to a few podcasts of games...or more accurately, the first few minutes of a few podcasts. Even for games that I'm sure I'd like, after a few minutes of inane chatter, I'm pretty sure I WON'T like the system.

So please tell me you're thinking of something more appealing! Please. :eek:

[rust]

I remember an attempt by a German roleplaying game publisher to create a

"demonstration video" of a roleplaying game, showing an actual game as a

way to introduce new players to the game.

The team that made the video really tried hard, but their results were about

as interesting as watching grass grow or paint dry, despite miniatures, battle-

maps and all the "props" they could get.

Something similar in written form, without pictures and sound, would have an

excellent chance to turn out even less interesting ...

[RosenMcStern]

Nothing is more educational than the famous "Sample of Play" contained in the RQ3 boxed set. It features one of the adventures of RQ3 Vikings played by the Chaosium crew of the time. Greg (acting as the GM) is clearly Greg Stafford, while Charlie (playing Nikolos the Sorcerer) is most likely Charlie Krank. I always wondered if Steve (playing Signy Freyasdotter) is actually Steve Perrin. Nevertheless, the transcript is a recommended read!

[rust]

Nevertheless, the transcript is a recommended read!

Then we should perhaps use one such good example of an actual game, but

I still doubt that something like a thread with examples of actual games of

the forum's members would do much good.

[frogspawner]

Nothing is more educational than the famous "Sample of Play" contained in the RQ3 boxed set.

Whose copyright is it?

[Thalaba]

I've listened to a few podcasts of games...or more accurately, the first few minutes of a few podcasts. Even for games that I'm sure I'd like, after a few minutes of inane chatter, I'm pretty sure I WON'T like the system.

So please tell me you're thinking of something more appealing! Please. :eek:

No no no! I dislike those things too, for the same reason.

Actual Plays are more of less written transcripts of what happened during a game - the simples ones are mere summaries of what the characters did and how the game unfolded. Some of these include dialogue between characters and NPCs (which make them more interesting). The best ones also include GM commentary which discuss the planning and rules choices and so on.

There are a bunch at RPG.net (but not many BRP): Roleplaying Actual Play - RPGnet Forums

[Atgxtg]

Nothing is more educational than the famous "Sample of Play" contained in the RQ3 boxed set. It features one of the adventures of RQ3 Vikings played by the Chaosium crew of the time. Greg (acting as the GM) is clearly Greg Stafford, while Charlie (playing Nikolos the Sorcerer) is most likely Charlie Krank. I always wondered if Steve (playing Signy Freyasdotter) is actually Steve Perrin. Nevertheless, the transcript is a recommended read!

I remember that when RQ Vikings came out, and I was reading through the scenarios I suddenly got a feeling of deja vu. It took me awhile to think of looking at my "What's in this box" pamphlet.

I think the best "example of play" I ever read was from Victory Games' James Bond RPG. The example used is taken right out of the movie Goldfinger, and is done in two columns. One tells the story, while the second "role-plays" the same scene, with the player making decisions, and attempting skill rolls and such. Not only was it a good example of game play, but it was also a good example of the style of play that the game was trying for.

[Atgxtg]

Whose copyright is it?

Probably Avalon Hill's (now owned by Wizards of the Coast, which is itself owned by Hasbro).

Doing something like it wouldn't be difficult. But since the RQ3 example is obviously based on a RQ Vikings scenario, it's probably a no no.