BRP BGB Updates?

[Sam E.]

I noticed that the BGB PDF was updated a few days ago.  Anyone know what's different?  Recent errata incorporated?

[SDLeary]

6 hours ago, TheophilusCarter said:

I noticed that the BGB PDF was updated a few days ago.  Anyone know what's different?  Recent errata incorporated?

My guess is Chaosium updating the copyright info on the title page. I would be very happy to be wrong though.

SDLeary 

EDIT: There may be something more going on, but at first blush the changes I see are a change in Chaosium's book number (now 2026 rather than 2020), and the ISBN has changed.

Edited April 20, 2022 by SDLeary
More info

[pansophy]

I've asked them to update the file in order to represent the Hardcover printing from 2010 (thanks Dustin & Neill). The file at DTRPG and the Chaosium website now are the same latest edition. Chaosium will also update the Character sheet for BRP from version 1.0 to 1.8 so it includes a few minor changes and addresses a few Java script errors I've done in the first version (I'll add the file here, too).

There's also a BRP PDF version that incorporates all the errata from this forum and adds some comments for rules clarifications (see below) which I've edited to the PDF. It is not official nor is it available from Chaosium, but I've added the changes to the Downloads section (see below).

You could spend $25 (one month) for Adobe Acrobat Pro and edit your PDF, save it and then cancel your subscription. That way you have a sleek looking current PDF. I've printed mine, got an old A4 Hardcover book and bound it into it (Modpodge and kitchen roll paper to glue-bind the back). It will last about 3 years of use, then I'll have to redo it - but hey, 😉 I'm a geek!
 

and here:

 

[Rick Meints]

I was the person who updated the files. All I did was replace the 2008 "CHA2020" version's text with the 2010 "CHA2026" version's corrected text. We did not make any other corrections based on any errata or corrections identified since 2010. Yes, I also updated the copyright and legal text as well.

[Barak Shathur]

You know what I would love? A BGB version based on RQ3 instead of Stormbringer. I would pay for it, and I'm sure many others would. Kickstarter anyone?

Edited April 26, 2022 by Barak Shathur
typo

[g33k]

6 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

You know what I would love? A BGB version based on RQ3 instead of Stormbringer. I would pay for it, and I'm sure many others would. Kickstarter anyone?

Can't you get to RQ3's mechanics (or at least very-very-close) by adding the right "optional rules" in the BGB?  It is a toolkit full of crunchy options on the more-minimal core, after all...

Edited April 26, 2022 by g33k

[Barak Shathur]

5 hours ago, g33k said:

Can't you get to RQ3's mechanics (or at least very-very-close) by adding the right "optional rules" in the BGB?  It is a toolkit full of crunchy options on the more-minimal core, after all...

Nope. The rules that I want are not included as options. Some things:

1. A succesful parry absorbs damage equal to the parrying weapon's HP rather than all the damage. There should be a difference between parrying a dagger and a great axe, not to mention a troll wielding a troll maul. BGB suggests disallowing parrying attacks from creatures of double or more the defender's size, but this seems arbitrary and clunky to me.  Also, in BGB most weapons have 15-20 HP, which makes weapon HP completely meaningless since they're practically indestructible.

2. The weapon tables. BGB:s weapon tables seem poorly balanced to me. For example, there is no reason other than fluff to choose a broadsword over a battle axe there. They are identical in most respects but the axe does more damage. No upside to the sword. In RQ3, the sword wielder can choose to impale on a special success, which makes the sword a powerful weapon indeed, and justifies its historic popularity. The warhammer can also impale, making it a useful weapon against heavy armour. And crushing weapons halve the AP of flexible armour, making them particularly effective against chainmail which edged weapons have a hard time penetrating. And there's a troll maul.

3. I like intentional knockback, where one can simply match one's STR and SIZ vs a defender's SIZ and DEX to see if you can knock them back or over. In BGB you need a special success with a shield attack which will amost never happen.

4. I like the background culture occupations, they give lot of uniqueness and flavour to characters. I use a combination of these and free skill points. But that's just me.

5. I hate the damage bonus in most BRP games, except for the unpublished so called RQIV:AiG. The jump from 0 to 1d4 is just too great, and it's absurd that a human with just one point greater STR or SIZ than average does about 50% more damage with most one handed weapons. RQIV has a smoother progression which goes +1, +2, +3 etc.

6. I also like RQIV:s move characteristic, which is based on DEX and SIX rather than a fixed number for each species.

The above points pretty much summarise my modifications to BRP in my own game, and I think many of them could at least have been included as optional in BGB but weren't.

Oh and do something about shields to make them more useful. 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Barak Shathur
Shields

[pansophy]

Well, I think you just created about 6 boxes of optional rules. Why not create a document ant upload it to the BRP downloads file section? 😄 BRP is a toolkit for everybody to tinker with. I do not think it is meant to encompass all the rules from all different publications, as I personally would want to see the changed combat options from CoC 7th edition & 'CoC Dark Ages' in it. It can impossibly satisfy everybody. 😉

You could create an add-on for the SRD, though, and expand on that.

[g33k]

3 hours ago, pansophy said:

... I personally would want to see the changed combat options from CoC 7th edition & 'CoC Dark Ages' in it. It can impossibly satisfy everybody. 😉

Yeah, this.

I daresay CoC7 has tremendously more players than RQ3, so a CoC7'ed BGB would have a much better market than a RQ3'ed BGB.

Frankly, though:  Chaosium has sales numbers for "Basic Roleplaying" and have stated publicly that their numbers say books with integrated vivid settings sell, and setting-free books don't; so I doubt any BGB-revision is anywhere close to imminent... and (sadly for Barak S' request) I doubt a "RQ3 core" would be a likely version... 

Edited April 27, 2022 by g33k
of course, there's always the "revision" of just adding a bunch of options, thru the 2020-er titles...

[sladethesniper]

"Chaosium has sales numbers for "Basic Roleplaying" and have stated publicly that their numbers say books with integrated vivid settings sell, and setting-free books don't;"

This is what I hear from a lot of RPG/wargame designers and publishers as well.

-STS

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, pansophy said:

Well, I think you just created about 6 boxes of optional rules. Why not create a document ant upload it to the BRP downloads file section? 😄 BRP is a toolkit for everybody to tinker with. I do not think it is meant to encompass all the rules from all different publications, as I personally would want to see the changed combat options from CoC 7th edition & 'CoC Dark Ages' in it. It can impossibly satisfy everybody. 😉

You could create an add-on for the SRD, though, and expand on that.

Wouldn't it be easier for someone to just run a game based on RQ3 and port over anything from BRP (or other related game) to it? 

Making an add-on only really makes sense if there are other people who want it. I think the problem here is that anyone who prefers RQ3 (myself included) probably already have RQ3 and so don't really need to buy another BRP version of it. Heck, the last version of BRP prior to the "Big Gold Book" was RQ3 with all the Glroanthan stuff taken out.

I think that might be the thing with anyone who prefers to a game closer to some specific BRP game (RuneQuest, Strombringer, Worlds of Wonder, ElfQuest)- namely that said game already exists, and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Modifying the BPR to better suit a particular setting only makes sense if that has some advantage over using another system- mostly with things/rules that aren't in said existing system. 

[SDLeary]

14 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Heck, the last version of BRP prior to the "Big Gold Book" was RQ3 with all the Glroanthan stuff taken out.

Yes, but people that want to scratch that RQ3 itch have to do a lot of work to do with the BGB, mainly because Stormbringer was used as the core. When you start piecing things together, they don't really fit well, as Barak points out. Its much easier to convey to a player what rules are, if you hand them in a handy volume they can browse though when creating their characters, rather than having them look through a tool book with option boxes stuffed here and there. Jason did an excellent job putting things together, but Chaosium should have planned for a second edition that ironed things out a bit more, and made those options fit together a bit easier, either by tweaking them, or by providing more guidance for integration.

As for now, now that Chaosium doesn't support the BGB, I'd like to suggest that they simply bring a classic edition of RQ3 back, the way they did RQ2. 

They won't, but a guy can dream.

SDLeary

[DreadDomain]

37 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

As for now, now that Chaosium doesn't support the BGB, I'd like to suggest that they simply bring a classic edition of RQ3 back, the way they did RQ2. 

This. Exactly this. I'd love to see RQ3 make a comeback as a hard cover with the few pages of errata incorporated and (a guy can dream), the Genertelan Character Creation section from the Players Book of the Glorantha box set (it's about 12 pages) added to it.

It would make the whole stream of RQ1/2/3/G available and playable in Glorantha!

[Atgxtg]

10 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Yes, but people that want to scratch that RQ3 itch have to do a lot of work to do with the BGB, mainly because Stormbringer was used as the core.

Yes, I know. I commented on the BGB's core roots back when the book came out. 

My point is why bother to try and turn the BGB into RQ3 when you can just run RQ3 instead? The inter-system compatibly among BRP games measn that if someone wants to use RQ3 as thier core ruleset and port over something from the BGB, Stormbringer, CoC, etc. they can do so. 

 

10 hours ago, SDLeary said:

but Chaosium should have planned for a second edition that ironed things out a bit more, and made those options fit together a bit easier, either by tweaking them, or by providing more guidance for integration.

Why? If I recall the posts correctly, the BGB didn't really work out all that well for them. Most GMs want a game with a setting and rule options worked out for them, That seems to be the way things have gone since the BGB. 

 

The very GMs who appreciate the toolkit nature of BRP as the same ones who could , and mostly likely already have, mixed and matched various elements of pre-existing Chaosium (and Chaosium related) RPGs into thier previous ruleset. Probably long before the BGB every came out. 

 

10 hours ago, SDLeary said:

As for now, now that Chaosium doesn't support the BGB, I'd like to suggest that they simply bring a classic edition of RQ3 back, the way they did RQ2. 

That would be nice except it overlooks the reasons why Chaosium dropped RQ3, namely that they seem to consider RQ3 to have been a misstep and wanted to move back to a RQ2 core rule system and develop on from there. 

It's a major reason why I don't follow RQG and why I asked that RQ3, the longest serving "current" iteration of RQ,  get it's own subforum to prevent it from being lost and buried by RQG. But, things didn't go that way and now us RQ3 fans are on our own with an "orphan" RPG. Fortunately, we're probably used to that, as it was the status quo for quite some time. IMO it's why RQ GMs are more independent that those of other, better supported game systems. Most of us have had to go it alone for so long that we're used to it. The D&D crowd, for better or worse, never had that sort of situation. 

 

While I'm not all that happy with the direction  the new Chasoium has gone, and have been quite outspoken about it, I have to give them credit for giving RuneQuest the sort of support it hasn't had in decades. 

 

 

10 hours ago, SDLeary said:

They won't,

No, they won't. At least I think they won't. Doing so would be a major back step from the direction they are heading.

10 hours ago, SDLeary said:

 

 

but a guy can dream.

Yes he can, and I know just the city to do it in.😉

 

But, the thing is, you can do more than just dream. As long as you have the ruleset you want to play, you can play it. You don't need some company to support it. These days most of my favorite RPGs and the ones I run the most all all "orphans". They all play just fine despite the lack of official support. In most cases the games are only orphans because licencing deals expired, and just shows that running a official game based on some pre-existing franchise means that sooner or later a GM will be on their own when the support ends and some new game (or new edition) based on said franchise comes out. It doesn't really matter all that much tough, as the RPG police won't be stoping anyone from playing an RPG that they already own and want to play. 

 

So if you got some idealized blend of RQ3 and other BRP products, go for it. It's not like everyone else is going to agree with you, me , or anyone else about what the best version of BRP is anyway. Personally I thing attributes are almost pointless without category modifiers, and that strike ranks lets you do things in combat that you just can't do with DEX ranks, but there are tons of people who disagree with me about that. But, none of the people who disagree with me about that are my GM so who cares? And, I'm not their GM either, so they don't have to put up with any of my choices that they do not like. So we all get to be happy. That's about the best we can do. 

 

 

 

[g33k]

12 hours ago, SDLeary said:

...

As for now, now that Chaosium doesn't support the BGB, I'd like to suggest that they simply bring a classic edition of RQ3 back, the way they did RQ2. 

They won't, but a guy can dream.

Say rather, "they might... but it's not an urgent or immediate issue."

At the wrap of the RQClassic kickstarter, the "do it again, but with RQ3" idea was bandied about.

As I recall, the answer was along the lines of "we might think about it... but not until this one is wholly-wrapped-up and put to bed"

I believe that their experience of the last RQC stretch-goals dragging on and on and ooonnnnn has made them less-interested in KS projects; but I am not them, and may be misunderstanding.

 

[SDLeary]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

My point is why bother to try and turn the BGB into RQ3 when you can just run RQ3 instead? The inter-system compatibly among BRP games measn that if someone wants to use RQ3 as thier core ruleset and port over something from the BGB, Stormbringer, CoC, etc. they can do so. 

Because you don't have access? If you want to start RQ3 these days, the buy-in is fairly steep. The "monograph" editions mitigated that, though they did lack the Gloranthan information from the fifth book.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

The very GMs who appreciate the toolkit nature of BRP as the same ones who could , and mostly likely already have, mixed and matched various elements of pre-existing Chaosium (and Chaosium related) RPGs into thier previous ruleset. Probably long before the BGB every came out. 

I wholeheartedly agree. But not all GMs have the ability, or time, to collate and produce a coherent pamphlet that is detailed enough for their players. We do, because... well we are... different! 😉

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

While I'm not all that happy with the direction  the new Chasoium has gone, and have been quite outspoken about it, I have to give them credit for giving RuneQuest the sort of support it hasn't had in decades. 

 

I have to give them credit too. It is certainly nice to see what has come out of their effort.

SDLeary

Edited April 27, 2022 by SDLeary

[SDLeary]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Say rather, "they might... but it's not an urgent or immediate issue."

At the wrap of the RQClassic kickstarter, the "do it again, but with RQ3" idea was bandied about.

I remember. Whenever the question is brought up though, the general bent feels like "but why, we have this shiny new Runequest". In don't like it, but I do understand it.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

I believe that their experience of the last RQC stretch-goals dragging on and on and ooonnnnn has made them less-interested in KS projects; but I am not them, and may be misunderstanding.

Yes, I get that impression too.

SDLeary

[g33k]

18 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

... I think the problem here is that anyone who prefers RQ3 (myself included) probably already have RQ3 and so don't really need to buy another BRP version of it...

3 hours ago, SDLeary said:

... "but why, we have this shiny new Runequest" ...

[post-RQC anti-KS inclination]
Yes, I get that impression too.

I (strongly) suspect that when you add up the reasons NOT to do this, Chaosium's best estimate is that they "should not" do it (from a business POV)... that there is no way to produce this project -- up to the Chaosium standard -- with any reasonable hope that it make money.

And they're not willing to damage their rep and the Chaosium & RQ brands with a substandard product.

But again:  I am not Chaosium, so this is just another random internet opinion, worth every penny you paid for it!

Edited April 27, 2022 by g33k

[Kloster]

48 minutes ago, g33k said:

I (strongly) suspect that when you add up the reasons NOT to do this, Chaosium's best estimate is that they "should not" do it (from a business POV)

Completely agree. If a RQ3 redux is done (like the Rq2 redux), it would most certainly be less expensive (and less impressive) than RQG, and could sell more just because of this. I don't have the official figures of sales here in France, but I can ensure it is far more difficult to get RQG products (either in french or in english) than it was 35 years ago for RQ3, even if the price tag for AH products was hefty, to say the least. I am thus almost sure than current sales are much lower than the previous ones were. I have no idea for other countries.

51 minutes ago, g33k said:

And they're not willing to damage their rep and the Chaosium & RQ brands with a substandard product.

They would not. RQCE is not to the level of current products, but it is not a problem. So, it would not be for an official RQ3 reprint.

1 hour ago, SDLeary said:

I have to give them credit too. It is certainly nice to see what has come out of their effort.

For sure.

1 hour ago, SDLeary said:

Because you don't have access? If you want to start RQ3 these days, the buy-in is fairly steep. The "monograph" editions mitigated that, though they did lack the Gloranthan information from the fifth book.

Monograph never were easily available in France, and never were available in french, but RQ3 french printing is half the price of the RQG one. I don't know for US or UK, but in France, no kid I know is putting over 50 euros for a gaming book (but their fathers are). Result: I know more kids using RQ3 than RQG, just because of the availability, the price (or the books of their father). My son don't count because I own both editions in english and in french.

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Because you don't have access? If you want to start RQ3 these days, the buy-in is fairly steep. The "monograph" editions mitigated that, though they did lack the Gloranthan information from the fifth book.

But it  you don't have access to RQ3 why would you want to use it as the base in the first place? You have to have access to RQ3 to know what it is, and what it offers compared to other versions of the game system. I suppose there could be instances where someone's rulebook fell apart over the years (*cough* Strombringer *cough*) and they don't have it anymore, but I suspect most RQ3 fans have a copy. Now I'd love to see RQ3 show up as a PDF on Drivethru or some such, they way most other Chasoium stuff has, but I think that that the  Avalon Hill deal probably plays a factor here. Chaosium probably can't just re-release the RQ3/BRP monograph they way they can with all the old stuff that they own outright. 

7 hours ago, SDLeary said:

I wholeheartedly agree. But not all GMs have the ability, or time, to collate and produce a coherent pamphlet that is detailed enough for their players. We do, because... well we are... different! 😉

I think anyone who wants to run a game based around the RQ3 ruleset can do so. They don't need to provide handouts to the players either. Most of the stuff we had to deal with in our groups was told to us by the GM. At least the stuff that our characters would be expected to know about. 

 

7 hours ago, SDLeary said:

I have to give them credit too. It is certainly nice to see what has come out of their effort.

Yeah, while I'm not fond of the direction they chose, I have to give them full credit for getting stuff out there. Back in the old days, it had gotten sob ad that many were worried that the BGB was going to be the RPG equivalent of vaporware. 

[Atgxtg]

6 hours ago, g33k said:

I (strongly) suspect that when you add up the reasons NOT to do this, Chaosium's best estimate is that they "should not" do it (from a business POV)...

I think you're right, too. Just not for the reasons you state. I think the main reasons are that doing so would probably involve working out who owns the RQ3 text, in order to produce a product that would ultimately compete with their other RQ line, RQG. 

6 hours ago, g33k said:

 

that there is no way to produce this project -- up to the Chaosium standard -- with any reasonable hope that it make money.

And they're not willing to damage their rep and the Chaosium & RQ brands with a substandard product.

I'd say RQ3 is superior to RQG, and there are a lot of old Chasoium products that Chaosium has seen fit to make (or keep) available for online purchase that do not live up to current standard in terms of grahpic design, layout, or art.  So I suspect it probalby comes down to a rights issue and that the wrok required to make a version of RQ3 that would get around Avalon Hill's rights would probably wouldn't be worth it. Especially since it would most likely just take money and customs away from the RQG line. You don't see much Gloantha HeroQuest stuff anymore either. 

6 hours ago, g33k said:

But again:  I am not Chaosium, so this is just another random internet opinion, worth every penny you paid for it!

Nor am I. Just another person making supposition and presenting opinion online. 

[SDLeary]

8 hours ago, g33k said:

I (strongly) suspect that when you add up the reasons NOT to do this, Chaosium's best estimate is that they "should not" do it (from a business POV)... that there is no way to produce this project -- up to the Chaosium standard -- with any reasonable hope that it make money.

And they're not willing to damage their rep and the Chaosium & RQ brands with a substandard product.

But again:  I am not Chaosium, so this is just another random internet opinion, worth every penny you paid for it!

I'll be honest. From my point of view, Chaosium's production standards are way over the top for game books. It's as if they are producing for collectors and not for players. But making EVERY book a coffee table edition, you increase the price and fewer people can afford it. Initially, this may draw in people that wouldn't have looked at your stuff before, but once that bump is over, you will probably sell to fewer and fewer over the long haul.

Now don't get me wrong, for prestige items like the Guide and for Special Editions I can understand it and encourage it. And in the other direction AH's standards, such as... gah... Elder Secrets and others, they really needed more. 

<snip>

Anyway... rant for another time and thread.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Now I'd love to see RQ3 show up as a PDF on Drivethru or some such, they way most other Chasoium stuff has, but I think that that the  Avalon Hill deal probably plays a factor here. Chaosium probably can't just re-release the RQ3/BRP monograph they way they can with all the old stuff that they own outright. 

This would really be all that was needed, though printed is always better. And, Chaosium owns the text, they own the Trademark. The only thing that might prove troublesome would be finding artists and getting them to agree.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I think anyone who wants to run a game based around the RQ3 ruleset can do so. They don't need to provide handouts to the players either. Most of the stuff we had to deal with in our groups was told to us by the GM. At least the stuff that our characters would be expected to know about. 

If you played in the game of one of us Ol' Timers, and were seriously impressed, and wanted to get a set of the rules so you could run it for your crew, how would you go about doing it if you didn't have $100+ to blow on a falling apart book on eBay?

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

10 hours ago, SDLeary said:

This would really be all that was needed, though printed is always better. And, Chaosium owns the text, they own the Trademark. The only thing that might prove troublesome would be finding artists and getting them to agree.

Do they own the text? I though Avalon Hill (or it's successors) did. Remember Chaosium didn't own RQ3, Avalon Hill did. If they do own the text then I'm surprised they didn't make it avlaible as a PDF like most of Chasoiums other older products.