Edition changes?

[Phocaea]

I have the Big Gold Book. Are there any insights into how the system has been tweaked or streamlined? Not inclined to pay for the new version if the changes are more incremental than substantial (or primarily cosmetic) 

[pansophy]

Only some streamlining / rewriting of some sections of the text, nothing major. The Auto Fire rule has changed for the better, now giving flat bonuses for full-auto and burst fire (+40% ; +20%).

Other than that, I have not spotted any rule changes so far. The CoC 7th edition rules have not been incorporated.

In short: the BGB is still valid as it is and no dramatic changes have been added. If you are happy with the old hardcover, the new colour-book does not add much to justify buying the new edition. I know I will, but for different reasons. 😉 

[Bill the barbarian]

1 hour ago, pansophy said:

Only some streamlining / rewriting of some sections of the text, nothing major. The Auto Fire rule has changed for the better, now giving flat bonuses for full-auto and burst fire (+40% ; +20%).

Other than that, I have not spotted any rule changes so far. The CoC 7th edition rules have not been incorporated.

In short: the BGB is still valid as it is and no dramatic changes have been added. If you are happy with the old hardcover, the new colour-book does not add much to justify buying the new edition. I know I will, but for different reasons. 😉 

 

Thanks @MOB and pansophy. I see there is no rush to get it, so... I will buy the new PDF and a hardcover, probably from a Bits and Mortar to spread around the news that not only is Chaosium back, it never went away and is doing just fine!

Edited April 8, 2023 by Bill the barbarian

[smiorgan]

APP went back to be CHArisma again

And Charisma roll became Charm roll. 

Damage bonus became Damage Modifier.

Passions have been added as an option.

So far is all I have noticed...

 

 

 

[Jason D]

I am in a bit of a rush, taking a much-needed day off to go to a Ritterfest across town, but here are the highlights: 

1. General rewriting for clarity and consistency, and more direct language. 

2. Editing for brevity where possible. 

3. Many powers have had minor tweaks, often getting rid of the occasional "If the % roll for the power succeeds now roll another % to see if X happens then make another X roll to see...". 

4. Streamlining some rules and getting rid of (what I now consider) tedious and finicky detail.

5. Removing strike ranks and splitting attacks and parries - the former was only half-assedly implemented and the latter is not particularly useful. I also pared Sanity rules way back because as written, they were very specific to the modern horror setting and that's more the domain of Call of Cthulhu. 

6. Occasionally just rewriting a section from scratch (I defy anyone to make sense of the first edition's Encumbrance rules description).

7. Getting rid of "he or she" and just using "they". 

8. Some content adjusted, not out of editorial pressure but just me going "Hmm, that wasn't that great."  

9. Reputations, Passions. 

10. Augments explained more clearly. 

11. Clarified situational modifiers chart. 

12. Paring back some unnecessary and too-basic content - "How to find a roleplaying group?" "How do you sit at a table?" and acknowledging new resources (online play, VTTs, etc.). 

Furthermore, I considered all of the major changes that CoC7e made, and decided against implementing each for various reasons. In some cases, like characteristics as %, they would break many other rules and don't scale with characteristics above 20/100, and things like advantage dice don't really sync with situational modifiers and the Difficult/Normal/Easy skill modifiers. All were looked at, and the cascading effects would have caused a dramatic - and to my mind - unnecessary rewriting, rebalancing, and re-playtesting of the entire manuscript. 

Edited April 8, 2023 by Jason D

[dieselpunk]

4 hours ago, Jason D said:

6. Occasionally just rewriting a section from scratch (I defy anyone to make sense of the first edition's Encumbrance rules description).

Lol! I'm a big fan of the original BGB, but one of the most perplexing things was the encumbrance/fatigue portions. I have to buy this new one now just to finally see what  was actually intended. Thanks for putting this all back together!

[Phocaea]

Thanks Jason. I hope this expands the audience for a terrific system. 

(the design/font/art look fab)

[Okkulten RPG]

So, is Sanity now usable across the board and not strictly a Call of Cthulhu mechanic?  Would be great for my current project if thats the case.

[Scotty]

3 minutes ago, Okkulten RPG said:

So, is Sanity now usable across the board and not strictly a Call of Cthulhu mechanic?  Would be great for my current project if thats the case.

Yes, but note that the sanity rules presented in BRP are not the Call of Cthulhu rules but are a radical simplification of the Sanity system as presented in Chaosium Inc.’s Call of Cthulhu game line.

[Jeff]

3 minutes ago, Okkulten RPG said:

So, is Sanity now usable across the board and not strictly a Call of Cthulhu mechanic?  Would be great for my current project if thats the case.

The text of BRP Universal Game Engine is available for use under the ORC. Obviously, no rights are given to anything not in the BRP book, and no rights are given to use any trademarks, trade dress, or art - but if you want to use the Sanity mechanics (based on what is in BRP), go for it! Same thing with augments, passions, etc.

For material not in the BRP book, you need to either create it yourself, or use stuff that is public domain. Or get a license from the owner of the IP. 

[MacDhomnuill]

Just wanted to say it looks great and when I get more time I am going to really dig in. BRP and all its derived games have been some of my favorite games for the last 40 years (started playing when I was 8 so I am not “old” yet). I can’t wait to see what designers can do with this improved rules reference.

[Phocaea]

On 4/8/2023 at 5:51 PM, Jason D said:

5. Removing strike ranks and splitting attacks and parries - the former was only half-assedly implemented and the latter is not particularly useful. I also pared Sanity rules way back because as written, they were very specific to the modern horror setting and that's more the domain of Call of Cthulhu. 

Hey is there a place to find how you now suggest running initiative outside the newly published guide?

 

 

[stadi]

Although this seems to be a quality release as usual, I'm a bit disappointed by the content and where it seems to be evolving to (or not). I was hoping this to build on CoC7 and Rivers of London and offer different options. I'm not interested in self-publishing I was hoping for BRP to be a collection of optional rules on top of a setting neutral BRP system.

The biggest shock is, that the default character creation is based on rolling, which I find extremely archaic. I would have nothing against a character rolling option, but I don't like having it as default. RoL has point buy as default, and I was hoping for CoC to evolve into these more modern directions as well. If BRP is any indication of that, it won't. Also, the point buy method seems to me more complex than the one used in CoC.

Also, I don't see any of the RoL option within here. A more condensed set of Sklill and Attributes (as an option), it's simplified combat system (as an option) would have been great to see there. I'm actually considering using a modification of RoL (the system, not the setting) to use for CoC, but BRP won't be any help there.

I have only skimmed it so far, so I might have missed some of this, but my first impression seem to indicate the above.

[hatenchaos]

On 4/8/2023 at 8:51 AM, Jason D said:

5. Removing strike ranks and splitting attacks and parries - the former was only half-assedly implemented and the latter is not particularly useful. I also pared Sanity rules way back because as written, they were very specific to the modern horror setting and that's more the domain of Call of Cthulhu.

@Jason D - any additional thoughts on the rationale for removing the rules for splitting attacks and parries? That is one of my favorite parts of the old Stormbringer rules, and a part that I feel really accurately and succinctly captures the essence of training and engaging in hand-to-hand combat. Anybody who has trained in martial arts knows that one's striking and parrying skills are never exactly equal, due to the variances in (a) ones natural aptitude for each element and (b) the amount of time spent training each specific element. I think the rules for splitting attack and parry skills are really critical for settings that involve a lot of hand-to-hand combat of any kind (either armed or unarmed).

[Barak Shathur]

6 hours ago, stadi said:

The biggest shock is, that the default character creation is based on rolling, which I find extremely archaic. I would have nothing against a character rolling option, but I don't like having it as default. RoL has point buy as default, and I was hoping for CoC to evolve into these more modern directions as well. If BRP is any indication of that, it won't. Also, the point buy method seems to me more complex than the one used in CoC.

I don’t have a problem with rolling characteristics as the default, after all that’s pretty much core BRP. I wish however the point buy system would be a little more geared towards avoiding min-maxing, say with diminishing returns at the higher end and a minimum stat of e.g. 6 or so (for 3-18 stats)

[Arovyn]

I recently picked up the gold book (the BGB?), though I haven't had much chance to dive in when this came out. From what I'm reading, though, I'm not sure if I should. My Chaosium games experience is surprisingly very limited considering how long I've been playing and running games. I will not touch CoC, and there's a whole big story as to why, and those issues made me very leery of playing anything that was BRP related. But then came Rivers of London, and that turned my head around. In fact, Rivers of London is what I'm planning to run soon, and I was really hoping to see all these amazing, simplified rules for that game in this book to use for other games I want to design with this. But if I'm reading things right, I think I'm in for a big disappointment.

[albesias]

On 4/8/2023 at 9:51 AM, Jason D said:

5. Removing strike ranks and splitting attacks and parries - the former was only half-assedly implemented and the latter is not particularly useful.

I think SR must be in. Links character, iniciative and weapon characteristics in a symplistic but elegant way.

It's a crunchy subsystem that we use in 1/10 of our games but is part of the BRP DNA. 

And gives sense to statement of intent.

[MOB]

On 4/8/2023 at 3:51 AM, Jason D said:

I am in a bit of a rush, taking a much-needed day off to go to a Ritterfest across town, but here are the highlights: 

1. General rewriting for clarity and consistency, and more direct language. 

2. Editing for brevity where possible. 

3. Many powers have had minor tweaks, often getting rid of the occasional "If the % roll for the power succeeds now roll another % to see if X happens then make another X roll to see...". 

4. Streamlining some rules and getting rid of (what I now consider) tedious and finicky detail.

5. Removing strike ranks and splitting attacks and parries - the former was only half-assedly implemented and the latter is not particularly useful. I also pared Sanity rules way back because as written, they were very specific to the modern horror setting and that's more the domain of Call of Cthulhu. 

6. Occasionally just rewriting a section from scratch (I defy anyone to make sense of the first edition's Encumbrance rules description).

7. Getting rid of "he or she" and just using "they". 

8. Some content adjusted, not out of editorial pressure but just me going "Hmm, that wasn't that great."  

9. Reputations, Passions. 

10. Augments explained more clearly. 

11. Clarified situational modifiers chart. 

12. Paring back some unnecessary and too-basic content - "How to find a roleplaying group?" "How do you sit at a table?" and acknowledging new resources (online play, VTTs, etc.). 

Furthermore, I considered all of the major changes that CoC7e made, and decided against implementing each for various reasons. In some cases, like characteristics as %, they would break many other rules and don't scale with characteristics above 20/100, and things like advantage dice don't really sync with situational modifiers and the Difficult/Normal/Easy skill modifiers. All were looked at, and the cascading effects would have caused a dramatic - and to my mind - unnecessary rewriting, rebalancing, and re-playtesting of the entire manuscript. 

Jason goes into more detail here:

 

[stadi]

I'm pretty disappointed about what is happening on DriveThruRPG. You are deleting comments discussing the product and the (maybe not even intentional) false marketing. Up until now I was just disappointed about the product and decided that I probably won't buy the hardcover. Now, I'm disappointed in the whole affair, this is throwing bad light on Chaosium itself. I'm thinking about asking for a refund on PDF as well.

[Jason D]

To the best of my knowledge, the only comments deleted were those discussing issues that were no longer current and had been corrected. 

[TrippyHippy]

On 4/12/2023 at 3:50 AM, Barak Shathur said:

I don’t have a problem with rolling characteristics as the default, after all that’s pretty much core BRP. I wish however the point buy system would be a little more geared towards avoiding min-maxing, say with diminishing returns at the higher end and a minimum stat of e.g. 6 or so (for 3-18 stats)

I think you have to take into account that these points buy rules also cater for superhero levels. 

[Barak Shathur]

2 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

I think you have to take into account that these points buy rules also cater for superhero levels. 

In that case I think there should be a slightly different system for superheroes. Probably with more points and fewer limitations. After all, they are supposed to be way beyond the ability of normal creatures. 

[stadi]

7 hours ago, Jason D said:

To the best of my knowledge, the only comments deleted were those discussing issues that were no longer current and had been corrected. 

No, that's not true. These were comments discussing the same thing I was mentioning here and there. That the marketing texts makes it looks like it takes Coc and RoL into account, even though it doesn't.

But even if these were comments discussing fixed errors, deleting them is the lowest thing you can do. Why not simply comment that it has been fixed? But as I mentioned, most of these comments were about the content.

[TrippyHippy]

5 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

In that case I think there should be a slightly different system for superheroes. Probably with more points and fewer limitations. After all, they are supposed to be way beyond the ability of normal creatures. 

But that is the point. The rules (or at least the optional rules) within the book cover this. The points buy system is balanced to ensure it doesn’t break down at super levels. 

[Susimetsa]

15 hours ago, stadi said:

No, that's not true. These were comments discussing the same thing I was mentioning here and there. That the marketing texts makes it looks like it takes Coc and RoL into account, even though it doesn't.

Perhaps there were already enough such comments there? I noticed one person bringing it up multiple times. I, for one, did not get a wrong impression from the marketing statements. CoC etc. are based on BRP, but BRP doesn't claim - to my eye - to include everything that exists in those other titles.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Susimetsa