Edition changes?

[Ravenheart87]

23 minutes ago, Susimetsa said:

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.

I'm getting tired of it too. CoC and RoL are the ones based on BRP, not the other way around - they are the ones which deviate from the core, but so does every BRP-based game. BRP doesn't have Stormbringer's simplified mechanics and summoning rules, or ElfQuest's characteristic-based skills, or RingWorld's skill groups either. So what?

[stadi]

Hahhh, and now they've even removed my latest comment. So much for not deleting comments. It seems that Chaosium is afraid of the truth and wants to hide the whole affair. This is the worst reaction a company can have. They could have handled it so easily though. Politely answering the comments, changing the description to make sure no one has false expectations (and mentioning that they have been updated). They choose the arrogant way. I'm not sure I can be a part of this anymore.

[ThornPlutonius]

51 minutes ago, stadi said:

Hahhh, and now they've even removed my latest comment. So much for not deleting comments. It seems that Chaosium is afraid of the truth and wants to hide the whole affair. This is the worst reaction a company can have. They could have handled it so easily though. Politely answering the comments, changing the description to make sure no one has false expectations (and mentioning that they have been updated). They choose the arrogant way. I'm not sure I can be a part of this anymore.

Then please stop being a part of this.  It is clearly upsetting you.  Go in peace and find something less upsetting on which to spend your time.

[DreadDomain]

Although I understand your disappointment of not having the options you wanted included in BRP (I would have like some of these options too), in the comments on drivethru, there is already someone (8 April) asking  " The previous BGB didn't cover the newest CoC 7th/Pulp Cthulhu mechanics. Does this new release include those?" To which Jason answered "For very sound reasons, none of the Call of Cthulhu or Pulp Cthulhu unique mechanics are in the new edition of BRP. Those are part of those lines and are not destined to be part of the new SRD, which encompasses the whole of the new BRP manuscript"

Now we may or may not agree with the reasoning and may or may not be happy about the end result but the outcome is clearly laid out. There is no ambiguity or foul play here. So they say "Basic Roleplaying: Universal Game Engine is the complete guide to BRP—the same system that powers Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, Rivers of London, and countless others." Again, there is nothing wrong or false here.  BRP is not a monolithic system like GURPS and they never said they would include every options. Strike ranks were left out, so were push dice, bonus and penalty dice or RoL damage (characteristics on d100 are de facto in with the characteristics roll). 

Would I have preferred it? Sure. Do I feel cheated? Not at all. I understand reading the book that they tried to stick to a baseline with options adding to it, rather than replacing part of it. That is reasonable.

I don't believe your comment was removed to hide some kind of truth but rather because you were attacking the product, making it sound like there was some kind of foul play and asking for a refund. That is fine if you feel that way but the better way to handle this is to contact Chaosium customer's service and try to get your money back.

[g33k]

11 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

... That is fine if you feel that way but the better way to handle this is to contact Chaosium customer's service and try to get your money back.

Also, DTRPG product-listings are NOT meant to be a general discussion-forum, with long back-and-forth exchanges.

[Rick Meints]

On 4/16/2023 at 7:15 AM, stadi said:

Hahhh, and now they've even removed my latest comment. So much for not deleting comments. It seems that Chaosium is afraid of the truth and wants to hide the whole affair. This is the worst reaction a company can have. They could have handled it so easily though. Politely answering the comments, changing the description to make sure no one has false expectations (and mentioning that they have been updated). They choose the arrogant way. I'm not sure I can be a part of this anymore.

To be clear, Chaosium cannot just delete things from the discussion thread for an item on DTRPG. It's not available as an option. Publishers are given two options: they can respond to a comment, or they can flag it as "inappropriate". Items flagged as inappropriate are reviewed by DTRPG admin and they decide that will be done. The only other avenue for deleting a comment would be to email DTRPG customer service/admin and make a deletion request, but once again, what happens is decided by DTRPG, not the publisher. We have no access to any sort of change/revision/deletion log of the discussion, so I have no way of knowing what was potentially deleted by DTRPG admins. 

[stadi]

58 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

To be clear, Chaosium cannot just delete things from the discussion thread for an item on DTRPG. It's not available as an option. Publishers are given two options: they can respond to a comment, or they can flag it as "inappropriate". Items flagged as inappropriate are reviewed by DTRPG admin and they decide what will be done. The only other avenue for deleting a comment would be to email DTRPG customer service/admin and make a deletion request, but once again, what happens is decided by DTRPG, not the publisher. We have no access to any sort of change/revision/deletion log of the discussion, so I have no way of knowing what was potentially deleted by DTRPG admins. 

I might not have seen / read all of those comments, but the ones I've seen were not inappropriate in any way, only critical. Later even comments mentioning that comments have been deleted were deleted.

Edited April 18, 2023 by Rick Meints
typo

[Nakana]

2 hours ago, stadi said:

I might not have seen / read all of those comments, but the ones I've seen were not inappropriate in any way, only critical. Later even comments mentioning that comments have been deleted were deleted.

“Inappropriate” also includes off topic. I can see why comments about other comments being deleted were deleted. 

[TrippyHippy]

Well, there is a horribly negative and long winded review on dtrpg now that complains how the new BRP book isn’t a real new edition, is too old fashioned and isn’t like Rivers of London. 

So, that’s nice.

Edited April 18, 2023 by TrippyHippy

[Susimetsa]

I get the sense that someone expected to be able to buy just one rulebook to play all Chaosium titles...

[TrippyHippy]

To be sure, I’m not sure there was much promotion, if at all for this new edition of the BRP rulebook. It just happened, from my perspective, out of the blue. However, was there any notion that it was going to have rules like CoC7E/RoL? Did it actually promote itself as doing this?

I recognise there was a clamour from some CoC7E/RoL fans to integrate them into a new edition, but that is not the same thing. 

For me, the new BRP book serves as a useful resource - related to, but not the same as Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, King Arthur Pendragon, Rivers of London and the rest. It is a good foundational text for a proposed open system. If I want specific rules found in other games, I’d buy the other games.

Complaining that the BRP book isn’t adopting rules from RoL is like complaining that it doesn’t adopt D20 rolls from Pendragon. I don’t really get why people are criticising it on this level.

However, what Chaosium could best do to support these new rules is release more old BRP titles on POD or just revamp them - Superworld especially.

Edited April 18, 2023 by TrippyHippy

[Nakana]

46 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

1.  However, was there any notion that it was going to have rules like CoC7E/RoL? Did it actually promote itself as doing this?

2. Complaining that the BRP book isn’t adopting rules from RoL is like complaining that it doesn’t adopt D20 rolls from Pendragon. I don’t really get why people are criticising it on this level.

3. However, what Chaosium could best do to support these new rules is release more old BRP titles on POD or just revamp them - Superworld especially.

1. I don’t recall seeing anything stated by Chaosium to lead people into thinking this was this case. 
 

2. because self entitled whiny brats didn’t get their way. 
 

3. 100% agree 

[stadi]

1 hour ago, Nakana said:

2. because self entitled whiny brats didn’t get their way. 

OK, now this is going too far. Insulting people because you don't see it the way they do? I don't mind if people like something. I don't mind is people dislike something / voice critique. But telling others off because they dislike something? Then make fun of them as well? That's going too far.

And then cheering for censorship (wherever it is coming from, it might have really been fanboys reporting comments they don't like) is another level...

[hix]

Pretty sure making fun of whiners is a time-honored tradition in roleplaying game forums.

[Nakana]

23 minutes ago, stadi said:

OK, now this is going too far. Insulting people because you don't see it the way they do? I don't mind if people like something. I don't mind is people dislike something / voice critique. But telling others off because they dislike something? Then make fun of them as well? That's going too far.

And then cheering for censorship (wherever it is coming from, it might have really been fanboys reporting comments they don't like) is another level...

On April 7th the person asked specifically if BRP Platinum had the updated CoC7 and RoL stuff. Several people (including someone who officially represents Chaosium) answered his question within 24 hours of asking. I don’t know when exactly the purchase occurred but on April 17 (10 days later), same dude writes a scathing review because everything he was previously told… turned out to be true. 

This isn’t about insulting him because we have a difference of opinions. This is about him making claims with no merit. 

He wasn’t duped or mislead. He was well informed of what the new book was and what the new book wasn’t. He chose to buy it anyway and then wants to complain because it is what people told him it was. 

That is ridiculous behavior, and I’ll call it for what I see it to be…. self entitled whining. 
 

Now, show me any evidence of someone actually being misinformed or mislead and I’ll have their backs and call out the company for doing so. 
 

[Bill the barbarian]

4 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

Well, there is a horribly negative and long winded review on dtrpg now that complains how the new BRP book isn’t a real new edition, is too old fashioned and isn’t like Rivers of London. 

So, that’s nice.

Should it disappear entirely I have a feeling we will all miss DnD (tm) because we would soon attract the fire and trolls it use to... I mean look at it now.

4 hours ago, Susimetsa said:

I get the sense that someone expected to be able to buy just one rulebook to play all Chaosium titles...

If you ask me, with a bit of thought and the BRP rules... I think ya just might be able to.

 

Edited April 18, 2023 by Bill the barbarian

[g33k]

4 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

...

I recognise there was a clamour from some CoC7E/RoL fans to integrate them into a new edition, but that is not the same thing. 

...

To be fair, there is a widespread (not universal!) feeling that the core BRP games are "old fashioned" ... a bit over-crunchy ... even "clunky" at times.
So an "updated" BRP might offer some hope to fans that newer & "more streamlined" options (such as CoC7 and RoL offer) might appear in the book.

No false advertising, just hopes raised ... and dashed.
ORC BRP does  not  have those "streamlined options."

Which very-well may mean that ORC-BRP might not be the chassis to write the BRP-heartbreaker of their dreams.

Bitterness ensues, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, and -- inevitably -- internet trollery, flames, and review-bombing.

<sigh>  I wish they wouldn't.

Honestly, Chaosium's best bet is to reach back to the Durulz, and let it flow off their backs.

[TrippyHippy]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

To be fair, there is a widespread (not universal!) feeling that the core BRP games are "old fashioned" ... a bit over-crunchy ... even "clunky" at times.
So an "updated" BRP might offer some hope to fans that newer & "more streamlined" options (such as CoC7 and RoL offer) might appear in the book.

No false advertising, just hopes raised ... and dashed.
ORC BRP does  not  have those "streamlined options."

Which very-well may mean that ORC-BRP might not be the chassis to write the BRP-heartbreaker of their dreams.

Bitterness ensues, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, and -- inevitably -- internet trollery, flames, and review-bombing.

<sigh>  I wish they wouldn't.

Honestly, Chaosium's best bet is to reach back to the Durulz, and let it flow off their backs.

This is all a point of opinion, not fact. 

In my view, BRP is a robust system with historical significance and there are plenty of options within the game presented to streamline. This is a good revision, that makes the system more internally consistent and has a wide application (for my purposes at least). 

You could argue that polyhedral dice are “old fashioned” but it doesn’t mean they don’t work as intended. 

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by TrippyHippy

[MOB]

 

On 4/16/2023 at 11:15 PM, stadi said:

Hahhh, and now they've even removed my latest comment. So much for not deleting comments. It seems that Chaosium is afraid of the truth and wants to hide the whole affair. This is the worst reaction a company can have. They could have handled it so easily though. Politely answering the comments, changing the description to make sure no one has false expectations (and mentioning that they have been updated). They choose the arrogant way. I'm not sure I can be a part of this anymore.

I will, as Rick said above, reiterate that no publisher (including Chaosium) is able to delete or censor comments at DTRPG.

When the PDF was first released there was a barrage of comments on DTRPG complaining about readability of some of the tables, and pointing out that the text seemed to include many typos. We responded to these issues quickly, and did an update fixing these initial problems (v1.01/V2). Several other posters also complained about the lack of pages shown in the preview, and we changed that from DTRPG's default (6) to 29.

After the update had been released, we queried whether DTRPG were able to remove the comments highlighting the errors, lack of readability, and preview pages, because these issues had now been fixed. Otherwise new customers would come to the page and think that was not the case. DTRPG said they could do that, but asked us to post a comment noting an update had been made, which we did ("Please note we have updated the PDF. Please ensure the PDF you review is the current version - V2").

9 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

However, what Chaosium could best do to support these new rules is release more old BRP titles on POD or just revamp them - Superworld especially.

Watch this space!

[smiorgan]

I am baffled by some reactions to BRP. People wax lyrical about how old school rpgs are beautiful and buy newly made old school rules (I am looking at you Dragonbane!) but when it comes to BRP or before RQG complain about the old clunky rules. As soon the new BRP was announced, there were people commenting on social media that they hoped it to be based on CoC7, even though it was clear it was an "updated" version not an entirely new system. It almost looked like that they were preparing themselves for disappointment. With RQG it was the same. Ridiculously it was receiving flak both from OSR enthusiasts (a famous blogger who extols the virtues of RQ2 and of Pendragon said how he disliked RQG, which is kind of mind boggling) and from people who wanted it more "modern". There's a RQ subreddit where for each newbie question about RQG there are two standard posts: 1) Guy who says he doesn't play RQ anymore, knows nothing about the new edition, but hey RQ2 was the real thing, 2) Other guy who says "Hey you should play Mythras" instead.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and of course neither RQG nor BRP are "perfect", still these are strange patterns of behaviour.

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by smiorgan

[Ravenheart87]

Being "old-fashioned" is a feature, not a bug. Honestly, many of the improvements of CoC7e and RoL don't feel that intuitive for me, despite their mass appeal and being considered streamlining by many.

As for the preference of RQ2e over RQG by old-school players, there is nothing surprising about that. Core rulebook RQ2e is a lighter game and doesn't require much prior knowledge about Glorantha - in fact, it works fine without the setting. You can set up an RQ2e game relatively easily, create a character quickly, and then enjoy the whiff factor and flying limbs to your heart's desire. 🙂

RQG is a heavily frontloaded game compared to classic RQ, with additional sub-systems and a chunkier core rulebook. This might be a feature for hardcore RuneQuest + Glorantha fans, but can make it less appealing to old-school gamers and RuneQuest sans Glorantha fans. I dig the RQ mechanics too, but I usually run campaigns on my own settings, so if I wanted to use the system I would avoid RQG too, because there is too much I would have to cut away - RQ3e and Mythras would require less tinkering.

As a coincidence, I'm about to convert an old-school D&D campaign put on hold two years ago thanks to my son's birth to a different system, because I'm not in the mood for running the original system (I'm already playing in two old-school D&D campaigns anyway). My players voted for BRP over Mythras or Dragonbane. I'm excited to see how it will work out.

[DreadDomain]

31 minutes ago, Ravenheart87 said:

My players voted for BRP over Mythras or Dragonbane. I'm excited to see how it will work out.

I am curious to know what made them choose it? Was it overwhelmingly/no contest or a close call?

[Ravenheart87]

19 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

I am curious to know what made them choose it? Was it overwhelmingly/no contest or a close call?

First vote was between DCC RPG, BRP, and Dragonbane. Surprisingly Dragonbane was left behind by a lot, and DCC RPG almost won. The second round was about the flavour of BRP, where I offered only two options: a BRP smorgasbord and Mythras. There BRP won by a lot, probably because most of my players don't really want to get immersed in the wondrous world of per hit location HP/AP and plethora of combat special effects.

[TrippyHippy]

Not wanting to get into an old argument about it but Call of Cthulhu 7E is not a streamlined version of BRP. It adds rules to the base - it doesn’t simplify them.

 

[Jason D]

On 4/16/2023 at 12:22 PM, Susimetsa said:

CoC etc. are based on BRP, but BRP doesn't claim - to my eye - to include everything that exists in those other titles.

Indeed it does not. BRP is a middle-ground, the "basic" version of the system, no pun intended. 

As I have stated many, many times elsewhere, if the CoC changes: a) worked with the existing system, and b) represented all Chaosium games, I'd have included them.