How Could BRP Be More Popular...?

[NickMiddleton]

...This leads me to something we can do as a community - prepare a number of primers on how to use BRP (the core book as written) and select the best options for emulating various settings. These could be titled "How to create Fantasy with BRP" or somesuch, and put up here and maybe on the Chaoisum site. These needn't be long, but would help new people get on their way to running a BRP game. Any thoughts on whether that might help?

A good idea. Not sure of it's direct impact, but as a secondary resource it's a VERY good idea, and if we're sensible about the copyright etc there's potential for further use at a later date in other formats.

Nick

[NickMiddleton]

Good one. Yes, these are needed! On Chaosium's poll evidence two should be enough for starters: Fantasy and SciFi.

Question 1: Should the options be the same in both genres, for common simplicity?

No - too many fans of one genre or the other will be turned off by such a blend. And fans who DO like such mash ups will probably buy both settings and do it manually anyway...

Question 2: Would we ever be able to agree what options to use??

Honestly? No. But then, this sort of consensus building will never IMO produce a commercial setting that Chaosium (or any other publisher) would want to get behind. BUt it MIGHT encourage someone to create one, and then help them find a team to build such a setting up to the point where it's an attractive proposition to a publisher (or that small team feel confident enough to self publish).

Nick

[frogspawner]

We as a group probably would not agree which options are our favourites, but I'm sure we could agree to what the pros and cons are for the various options.

In the absence of consensus, I guess we should emphasize the options Mr.D has used in the QuickStart as the defaults. The trick is to show the possibilities, without making it seem an off-puttingly confusing array.

I'm not sure I consider BRP (or even RQ2/3) "the fairest in the land", either.

"Fairest in the currently in print land"?

For example, I for one, don't care much for Call of Cthulhu, finding the mechanics poor, and the campaign setting pointless. Lovecraft's theme of creatures far more powerful than man; that man is helpless against, strikes me as the worst possible setting for a RPG possible. Yet, others adore the game, and it has been Chaosium's lifeblood for two decades.

Right with you on this one. My (fantasy) campaign is built around the principle that it is possible to defeat the cthulhoids. But maybe we can get some insight into those others' attitude from this guy's recent outrageous ranting...

Ugh this is why i hate going to Gaming conventions. You people (fanboys)... Its a game... You all are ridiculous.

[frogspawner]

No - too many fans of one genre or the other will be turned off by such a blend.

Actually, I was just referring to choosing options to recommend in the "genre-primers" Thalaba suggested (to make the Big BRP Book more accessible to newbies), not saying we should define the rules-options to be used in any settings we might create.

[TrippyHippy]

For example, I for one, don't care much for Call of Cthulhu, finding the mechanics poor, and the campaign setting pointless. Lovecraft's theme of creatures far more powerful than man; that man is helpless against, strikes me as the worst possible setting for a RPG possible. Yet, others adore the game, and it has been Chaosium's lifeblood for two decades.

I think the major attraction for me for Call of Cthulhu isn't actually the Lovecraftian element itself (although it can be interesting), or the rules per se, but actually because it gives the tools for telling relatively modern mystery thrillers. It's a change of pace from fantasy (action) adventuring. The monsters aren't really the focus of the game, insofar that they just set an atmosphere and an overriding threat.

But anyway, I'm not sure why there is such concern about making BRP more popular at the moment? The BRP release is only about a year and a half old - compared to other generic systems like GURPS which have been around for decades. It needs a bit of time to build up - but it's doing pretty good already, I think. there is certainly enough variety of support to keep us lot interested. Why put pressure on it?

[RosenMcStern]

"Basic Roleplaying: Old-school, before it was cool."

"Old school is still cool", rather.

On an unrelated note, has BRP Rome done well enough to encourage supplements: Byzantine, Persia/Parthia, and the like? Or a book of Roman-ish adventures?

Yes, it has. But the adventure module sells less. I think the kind of player that likes historical settings prefers to write his own adventures.

I think I will try and stick to the mix I used for Stupor Mundi from now on: 50% setting, 50% adventure but in the same book. Crusaders will include at least 80 pages of campaign and NPC stats, with a potential of 4-6 months of gaming already in the basic set.

[frogspawner]

But anyway, I'm not sure why there is such concern about making BRP more popular at the moment? The BRP release is only about a year and a half old - compared to other generic systems like GURPS which have been around for decades. It needs a bit of time to build up - but it's doing pretty good already, I think. there is certainly enough variety of support to keep us lot interested. Why put pressure on it?

No pressure. Some guy just said self-criticism (of BRP) might be due, so I started this thread to avoid the terribly negative-sounding title of the previous one (which was also out-of-date). And it's taken off - so clearly it's something many folk hereabouts are interested in doing.

[rust]

I think the kind of player that likes historical settings prefers to write his own adventures.

I suspect that this is true for all genres, not only the historical one. Once a

campaign has started, and referee and players have made the setting their

characters' world with unique inhabitants, locations and events, commercial

adventures rarely fit in well without a lot of modification.

Therefore a setting probably needs an "entry adventure" as a part of the set-

ting book itself, to get a campaign started, but afterwards supplements with

additional "setting content" (e.g. regions, equipment, organizations, etc.)

could be more welcome and sell better than adventures.

[Jarulf]

I really have no idea what would attract new or more players to BRP, but I do agree a good setting or two with decent support is likely to be important.

What I would personally like to see, I've mentioned this on other forums, is a fantasy setting that doesn't delve too deeply into details. I want lovely maps with names on them and a world book that explains these names, as well as discusses regions, flora and fauna, religion, trade, geography, weather, cultures etc. All the basics and in such a way as to trigger the imagination. The grand overview, and little of the supernatural in the "default" version of the setting.

It should focus in on a specific area (I'd love to see something inspired by Italy in the 1300s or so, or Barbara Hamblyn's Sun Hawk and Sunwolf novels. Lots of late medieval/renaissance city states, mercenary armies, trade opportunities, universities, football, art and inventors)

Make it a new Quest World done right, and allow other companies to stake a claim to certain areas for themselves, under the watchful eye of Chaosium.

Describe how to tailor the setting to your wishes. Do you want more or less magic? Gritty or Swashbuckling? Elves and Dwarfs? Suggest which options in the BRP book may be good the style of play the GM is after.

Don't make it bland, but avoid the single cool and weird thing that defines the whole setting.

Sort of generic yes, but good generic

[Pilous]

My two cent

No one can please everyone. Genre? System complexity? Adventures book, Campaign book? Historical? Hucrony?

The only thing you can try it is to make the Thing «beautyfull». Good cover, good contents, good illustrations, full quadricromy, plenty of supplements. Put energy and money in it, if you trust it.

Then wait for buyers...:cool:

[Mechashef]

The only thing you can try it is to make the Thing «beautyfull». Good cover, good contents, good illustrations, full quadricromy, plenty of supplements. Put energy and money in it, if you trust it.

In my (very very limited) experience, this is the core of one of the major roadblocks.

It seems that Chaosium doesn't have the resources to produce enough quality publications to keep BRP healthy and expanding.

It seems unlikely at this point that there will also be insufficient professional 3rd party products.

The best hope is that there will be sufficient quality products by dedicated amateurs.

However to be successful such products will have to look as professional as possible. Art work and maps are really important. For those of us who do not have artistic ability, or have a semi-tamed artist chained up in a back room, this can be the most difficult part of creating a quality product.

It doesn’t matter if we are producing amazing settings, astounding scenarios, fascinating bestiaries or great tomes of cunning magics, they will all suffer without quality art.

The prospect of sending countless hours trawling through the internet looking for suitable public domain images, or trying to find an artist and then paying them more that you will make from your product is one that can be very off putting.

Imo, one of the most useful things Chaosium could do would be to provide artistic resources to beautify monograph submissions.

[rust]

Perhaps the artists among the BRP fans should consider "donating" some of

their works for the free (or at least inexpensive) use in monographs and si-

milar amateur products, and begin to collect such works in the forum's gal-

lery ?

[RosenMcStern]

In case you did not do the connection yourselves, he (Pilous) is the one who assembled the graphics and layout for Rome, Merrie England, Dragon Lines and countless issues of Tradetalk and such zines.

It seems unlikely at this point that there will also be insufficient professional 3rd party products.

I suppose you meant "unlikely that there will be sufficient".

Well, this is not necessarily the case. We are doing our best in this regard. But I need Chaosium's permission to break the wall of 4 books per year, or else I must decline some submissions. The unavailability of the MRQ license has aggravated the problem, and I am not very willing to go the OpenQuest way.

The best hope is that there will be sufficient quality products by dedicated amateurs.

However to be successful such products will have to look as professional as possible.

I think Nick has the needed capabilities to deal with layout and graphics in a professional way.

[rust]

The unavailability of the MRQ license has aggravated the problem, and I am not very willing to go the OpenQuest way.

Remembering the SNAFU with the Mongoose Traveller licensing, where it took

a couple of months before it became clear what Mongoose really meant and

intended, with lots of contradictory signals in between, I think nothing is re-

ally certain right now when it comes to the MRQ license.

[Newt]

.... and I am not very willing to go the OpenQuest way.

.

Without wanting to sound too harsh, then don't.

I'm going to say this more for the benefit of people who've been talking about using OQ in place of MRQ as a Brand, because I know you understand such things with the number of very high quality books you've already put out, but you should only use OQ if you like what it brings to the table. I was talking to John Ossoway (author of Cthulhu Rising) this lunch and he told me that he was using OQ for his upcoming hard sci-fi game River of Heaven because he genuinely liked what it brought to the table. Same with the other folk who have contacted me to tell me what they are doing.

[Thalaba]

My two cent

No one can please everyone. Genre? System complexity? Adventures book, Campaign book? Historical? Hucrony?The only thing you can try it is to make the Thing «beautyfull». Good cover, good contents, good illustrations, full quadricromy, plenty of supplements. Put energy and money in it, if you trust it.

Then wait for buyers...:cool:

I agree that art and appearance is important. Those are the things that get the potential buyer really excited by the book (judging it by it's cover an all that). Of course, if the book's not on the shelf to begin with, it doesn't do much good.

Two new words for me, BTW - bolded above. I especially like the second one - it sounds like the illustration and layout version of surround sound! Borrowed from Italian, I presume?

[Akrasia]

This leads me to something we can do as a community - prepare a number of primers on how to use BRP (the core book as written) and select the best options for emulating various settings. These could be titled "How to create Fantasy with BRP" or somesuch, and put up here and maybe on the Chaoisum site. These needn't be long, but would help new people get on their way to running a BRP game. Any thoughts on whether that might help?

I think that would be a great idea. :thumb:

[Pilous]

I agree that art and appearance is important. Those are the things that get the potential buyer really excited by the book (judging it by it's cover an all that). Of course, if the book's not on the shelf to begin with, it doesn't do much good.

Two new words for me, BTW - bolded above. I especially like the second one - it sounds like the illustration and layout version of surround sound! Borrowed from Italian, I presume?

Ah. yes a «special effect»

(btw. It is when you use all four colours _cmyk_ in a pubblication, but it is an italian word: _quadricromia_, touchè!)

[RosenMcStern]

Without wanting to sound too harsh, then don't.

I never said that others should not choose that way. For a series of reasons, some of which stem from coincidence, while others stem from the hard work you did, OQ has become a very viable and palatable option for indie publications. I suspect that a non-trivial number of projects designed originally for MRQ will go the OQ way - and not only those designed for MRQ. Just not mine.

[RosenMcStern]

I think nothing is really certain right now when it comes to the MRQ license.

It is. One of us has discussed this with Matt Sprange. D100-based indie publications have now two options only: BRP and OpenQuest. Unless you want to make your homebrew from the OGL or wait for D100Rules.

Perhaps the artists among the BRP fans should consider "donating" some of their works for the free (or at least inexpensive) use in monographs and similar amateur products, and begin to collect such works in the forum's gallery ?

Big Caveat. I strongly discourage art donations in public.

I do not know how many of you read that thread on rpg.net or on trollbridge/trollhalla, but it has been recently discovered that a ruthless guy has been stealing artwork over the net to illustrate his Tunnels & Trolls books. Our good friend and HQ cover artist Jon Hodgson has been victimized, too. This despicable individual has liberally dragged Ken St.André's name in the mud for years before anyone realized, and appears to be selling illicit products despite several "cease & desist" warnings.

Several "small press" publishers have expressed their disapproval in the appropriate places, but there is a generalized feeling that this situation will make the artists more wary of what small RPG companies coulde be doing. Sad but true.

Creating a "donation area" could be interpreted by someone as an incentive to stealing someone else's work, indirectly implicating the BRP community in this sordid affair. Do not forget that Ken St.Andrè is a BRP author, too, and his name has been soiled by this situation, despite the fact that Ken had nothing to do with the art theft.

My position - better, Alephtar Games's position - is that artwork should be licensed and paid. Maybe paid little, maybe paid on royalties, but it should always be formally licensed. Or else BRP could eventually become involved in the next IP theft scandal.

[rust]

Sad news, both of them.

[Toadmaster]

While I personally prefer the "generic" layout with source books that we have seen repeatedly since GURPS was released in the 80s, I have come to believe it is a mistake for these games to rely on the generic format.

It is my opinion that a shared system style of game brings in more players, I'm thinking of games like the pre-4th ed HERO system where you bought the various settings with rules, Danger International (modern action / espionage), Justice Inc (pulp), Fantasy Hero (fantasy) etc. While fully generic games only bring in a certain type of player, the tinkerer.

I understand why the game publishers do not want to make duplicate products (one for those who bought the generic version of the rules, and one for those who want a complete game), but I think it costs them larger acceptance. There is no "gateway drug" to bring the many players from spoonfed games like D&D where everything can be bought for your game, from settings to adventure modules, over to games like GURPS, HERO and BRP where there is an expectation that you will do alot of the creative work yourself.

I think if most of the older gamers here look at their own history would you have become interested in BRP if you had not learned the basic system through complete games like RQ, Stormbringer, CoC or Pendragon? I think many of us learned to appreciate generic games because we came to them through intermediate products.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

I think if most of the older gamers here look at their own history would you have become interested in BRP if you had not learned the basic system through complete games like RQ, Stormbringer, CoC or Pendragon?

That's a very good point. Those of us who were around in the early days of RQ (in the UK, anyway) may remember that which made it stand out at the time was not only the lack of levels and experience points, but the fact that there was a world included in the rulebook.

[threedeesix]

That's a very good point. Those of us who were around in the early days of RQ (in the UK, anyway) may remember that which made it stand out at the time was not only the lack of levels and experience points, but the fact that there was a world included in the rulebook.

For me it was a little different. I remember standing in a hobby store in the early 80s (Toy World I think it was) in Concord NH flipping through different RPG books. I happened to pick up the RQ Soloquest book, Scorpion Hall and saw the hit location diagrams.

Seeing that the system looked lethal and exciting, and the average player character couldn't take more damage than an African Bull Elephant intrigued me. I picked up RQ2 irrespective of setting. As a matter of fact the setting didn't really interest me at all. I remember the first thing I did was convert my Gamma World campaign over to it.

The BRP core book would have been welcomed by me.

Rod

[rust]

I think if most of the older gamers here look at their own history would you have become interested in BRP if you had not learned the basic system through complete games like RQ, Stormbringer, CoC or Pendragon?

I had started roleplaying with Traveller, liked the concept, and looked for

other roleplaying games - and Runequest simply was the only one available

at the time. I used it to design a pseudo-medieval setting, completely ignoring

Glorantha ...

Edit.: Or did I get Empire of the Petal Throne before Runequest ... ?

Edited December 4, 2009 by rust