Comparative Systemology

[Atgxtg]

Two things I should clarify:

a) I am not a line editor at Chaosium, and at no point have I stated "this is the way it's gonna be" as regards to supplements. I spoke only about what I felt would work better, and what I plan on doing for my own Interplanetary book. If Charlie comes back and says "Hey, we really need to add all of the options into your manuscript" I will do so.

No problem Jason. I understand that sometimes you are speaking rules/BRP wise and sometimes you speaking as another gamer. That's cool. Maybe we should set up up with an "Jason the BRP author" account and "Jason, just another gamer" ID?

Just wondering how are you planning on handling options in Interplanetary? I would assume that certain options would be well suited towards the setting, and others not. Moist of the other multi-genre systems have some notes in settings book over what options are recommended. With BRP I could see some guidelines for which character generation method would be recommended, if EDU is recommended for that setting, and so forth.

It's probably about the same amount of work to add optional stuff as to subtract it, and trying to go both direction makes for an extremely overcomplex NPC writeup. Some options aren't exactly compatible with one another, as well.

Not really. Consider what it takes to add hit locations in. First, the GM has to work them out, work out armor by piece (else all the NPCs are wearing complete suits all the time). Then the GM has to write that down. Since he can't just add it to the writeup in the book, he must either keep two sets of partial stats for each character and use both of them in the adventure, or copy all the stats out of the scenario and add the other stuff. That is really about the same work as building up all the NPCs from the ground up.

While I agree that not all the options will (nor should) be used at once. I think certain options will be more common with certain settings. Hit Locations would be more likely to be needed in a Roman campaign than, say the SAN or Superpower rules.

Likewise, adding things like all three AP values for armor isn't that tought, and more than one game with optional hit location and generic armor does just that. It not too hard to do "Armor-Plate 8 AP/1d10+2 or by location as follows:" with a hit location chart.

Otherwise, I don't think BRP is really supporting any of the options. Right now, anyone could adapt a CoC or SB5 adventure to RQ3. It's a lot of work, but it is possible. I think that things like hit locations being one of the more common options should be supported. If that is how BRP is going to write up the supplments then I don't think the sourcebooks will be of much use to those who use certain optinos any more that supplments for other games.

Going through you points:

[*]Hit Points Per Location in addition to general HP... not much conflict there

Since about 1/3rrd of the people here seem to use Hit Locations, I would say they are a must for most fantasy and historical settings.

[*]Fatigue Points and Sanity... easy enough to add... this seems easy!

A must for horror supplments. ANd should be inclduing in such supplments. Probably;y not needed for other settings.

[*]Armor per Hit Location is easy enough to add, but what if the GM wants random armor?

List both.

[*]Heroic Hit Points doubles HP, and causes a double value if you want to have normal HP also represented

Drop this unless it is heavilty reccomeded by a particular setting. Doubling HP is easy to do in you head. Working up AP ratings and AP/HP per location isn't.

[*]Splitting Attack and Parry Skills... hmm... now each melee weapon skill has two values - what if I only want to use one? Do I average them, or just use attack?

Ans what if you just give one and someone wants to use split values? Same problem. My solution would be to list both then institute a rule such as, if you are only unsing one value use the highest.

[*]Skill Category Modifiers - should they be presented and not added, or should they be included and GMs not wishing to use them must subtract the values from existing skills?

Do the same thing they did in all those RQ and Stormbringer adventurers for year and years. Unless the PC is expected to be a reoccurring character who improves, you can ignore them. Since NPCs in adventures typically have more experience that they started with, skill scores are raised above the category mod anyway. Likewise 90% of Chaosium's NPC stat blocks only listed "significant skills".

We need what we will use in play.

[*]Simpler Skill Bonuses - hmm... these don't really mesh with the above easily, do they?

And again don't factor into an NPC. It isn't like the NPC would be redesigned with those things in a deailed campaign. The GM writes up the opposition with the skills required to fill the role required by the adventure.

You don't roll up the NPCs like PCs and run them through adventures for 6 months until you think they are ready to be put into an adventure, do you?

[*]Increased Personal Skill Points, Cultural Modifiers, EDU/Knowledge rolls, etc. - do I add these for GMs who want to use them, and make GMs who don't want to use them remove them, or do I put them in a block alongside each NPC writeup?

One again, it most these things factor into the skill scores for the NPC "before play" then it doesn't matter, since the GM will write up the foes with the skills required by the adventure.

Like I said before when you write an adventure do you work up the NPCs as player characters, or do you write them up with the skills required by the scenario? That's basic GM 101 stuff.

[*]Skill Ratings Over 100% - hoo-boy! Do I want to play Elric! style, with NPCs with attack skills of 300% or more, do I want to keep things simple and say that 100% is the top? Does each skill have two ratings, based on where you want to put the limit? Over 100% and under 100%?

[Jason D]

Just wondering how are you planning on handling options in Interplanetary? I would assume that certain options would be well suited towards the setting, and others not.

At the beginning of the book, I'm going to include a section stating "Here are the options that Interplanetary recommends." It will also mention the optional rules that are specifically discouraged.

If there are new optional rules, they'll be inserted into the manuscript where appropriate.

If some aspect of the adventure refers to an optional rule that might apply, it'll be mentioned, even if it isn't one of those recommended above. This will be selectively applied to avoid crudding up the manuscript overmuch.

If there's a place where the options conflict or diverge significantly from the core rules, they'll be distinguished or called out in some fashion in the text or in a side box.

What I'm hoping to avoid is NPC writeups full of alternate values, conflicting information, and values that need to be adjusted up or down depending on what options you're adding.

[Rurik]

Having tried some stat blocks that combine some options I am against using them. Sure I understand all the options, but someone new to the system would be confused by them - and that is a big problem. We want new people to like the game.

Though you can add a section at the end of a block for Hit Locations and clearly label it as optional, it is hard to make clear that you normally do not use Major Wound Level with locations, or that SR's supercede using DEX order.

I suspect the cleanest implementation would be to use the simple 'core' stats in the book, and include an appendix with say all the stat blocks from the book done up with Hit Locations and SR and seperate Attack/Parry% for example, or whatever optional rules the author recommends for the setting.

[Atgxtg]

At the beginning of the book, I'm going to include a section stating "Here are the options that Interplanetary recommends." It will also mention the optional rules that are specifically discouraged.

Cool, that is just what I was talking about. Obviously a lot of options are going to work better in some settings than others. For instance, a specific fantasy setting should probably have it's magic system (or systems) spelled out. Likewise a superhero setting is going to make a superpowers option a must have.

What I'm hoping to avoid is NPC writeups full of alternate values, conflicting information, and values that need to be adjusted up or down depending on what options you're adding.

I can understand that. I just don't want to see something not supported at all becuase they are "optional". Back when Chasoium was supporting mulitple product lines, fans of each set of "options" got supported.

I can certainly see not supporting things that don't make sense for certain supplements. I dobut we'd be using Superheroes and Muntant rules in Pax Romana.

But if nothing supports skills over 100%, then those who use that rule are left out in the cold.

Let's face it. Anyone who is planning on using things like hit locations, category modifiers, superpowers, skills over 100%, or variable APs probably is familiar with the rules for them already and can do so now. If none of the supplments support those options, then there isn't any reason to buy the BRP rulebook. Just buy the supplements and convert.

[RMS]

It strikes me that in this day and age, with everyone having internet access, the sensible thing would be to print supplements with the bare minimum stat blocks and then provide detailed stat blocks for free download. Why spend money printing pages of NPC stat blocks when you could put more substance in the text? Put all the verbal description of the NPC in the book and then put stat blocks available on a website. That has the bonus of allowing someone to print them out, mark them up as they play the NPCs, and then go print some new ones the next time they run the adventure.

Go ahead and tell me why this is a bad idea. I've actually thought about this before for generic RPG supplements: write up everything, but provide state blocks for a variety of game systems for free download (possibly supplying a password with the purchased game).

[The Tweaker]

So the books really should use only the simplest, core options - to be newbie-friendly.

Those are your own words. I never said that, but I do think the inherent elegance of the system will attract more new players if you present it in a simple, easy-to-understand format to which you can later add crunch if you wish. I've seen a lot of BRP-related materials lately (conversions, original settings, etc.), and what I always find most interesting about them is that the system is very consistent, but really simple to implement at the same time. That simplicity - and the wealth of options offered for specific settings or styles of play - is what I am after.

I suspect the cleanest implementation would be to use the simple 'core' stats in the book, and include an appendix with say all the stat blocks from the book done up with Hit Locations and SR and seperate Attack/Parry% for example, or whatever optional rules the author recommends for the setting.

Pretty good idea, I'd say.

[frogspawner]

Go ahead and tell me why this is a bad idea. I've actually thought about this before for generic RPG supplements: write up everything, but provide state blocks for a variety of game systems for free download (possibly supplying a password with the purchased game).

Unscrupulous players could find out the stats/abilities of the opposition? Apart from being unsporting, it could seriously blow plot secrets if that 'friendly' innkeeper is revealed to have Brew Pratzim 80%. And just what opposition there was should itself be secret, even if you don't care about the exact stats. (Yes, passwording it might help a little but people would get around that). It needn't be intentional cheating, either - if they were some of the few statted-up NPCs around, GMs might over-use them till they were too familiar.

Alternatively, along the same lines as the "Foes Generator" program I mentioned earlier, a utility could allow character/monster stats to be put in for a specified option - and then format-up the stat-block for other options, at the click of a radio button (or twelve...)

[Jason D]

It strikes me that in this day and age, with everyone having internet access, the sensible thing would be to print supplements with the bare minimum stat blocks and then provide detailed stat blocks for free download. Why spend money printing pages of NPC stat blocks when you could put more substance in the text? Put all the verbal description of the NPC in the book and then put stat blocks available on a website. That has the bonus of allowing someone to print them out, mark them up as they play the NPCs, and then go print some new ones the next time they run the adventure.

Go ahead and tell me why this is a bad idea. I've actually thought about this before for generic RPG supplements: write up everything, but provide state blocks for a variety of game systems for free download (possibly supplying a password with the purchased game).

Actually, this is how I imagined things would go.

I did write up Stormbringer versions of the NPC stats for Slaves of Fate, a d20 adventure, and Chaosium had (has?) them online for free download.

[Jason D]

It strikes me that in this day and age, with everyone having internet access, the sensible thing would be to print supplements with the bare minimum stat blocks and then provide detailed stat blocks for free download. Why spend money printing pages of NPC stat blocks when you could put more substance in the text? Put all the verbal description of the NPC in the book and then put stat blocks available on a website. That has the bonus of allowing someone to print them out, mark them up as they play the NPCs, and then go print some new ones the next time they run the adventure.

Go ahead and tell me why this is a bad idea. I've actually thought about this before for generic RPG supplements: write up everything, but provide state blocks for a variety of game systems for free download (possibly supplying a password with the purchased game).

Actually, this is how I imagined things would go. The core stats in the book, potentially with expanded optional stats presented online.

I did write up Stormbringer versions of the NPC stats for Slaves of Fate, a d20 adventure, and Chaosium had (has?) them online for free download.

[frogspawner]

I suspect the cleanest implementation would be to use the simple 'core' stats in the book, and include an appendix with say all the stat blocks from the book done up with Hit Locations and SR and seperate Attack/Parry% for example, or whatever optional rules the author recommends for the setting.

Hmm, tricky. If the author doesn't recommend just the core stats, it'd be a bit odd to have them right there in the main text. Maybe no stats in the main body but all in appendices - either core first, recommended second (or vice versa?) and then any extra options felt useful.

[Atgxtg]

It strikes me that in this day and age, with everyone having internet access, the sensible thing would be to print supplements with the bare minimum stat blocks and then provide detailed stat blocks for free download. Why spend money printing pages of NPC stat blocks when you could put more substance in the text? Put all the verbal description of the NPC in the book and then put stat blocks available on a website. That has the bonus of allowing someone to print them out, mark them up as they play the NPCs, and then go print some new ones the next time they run the adventure.

Go ahead and tell me why this is a bad idea. I've actually thought about this before for generic RPG supplements: write up everything, but provide state blocks for a variety of game systems for free download (possibly supplying a password with the purchased game).

Got me. Sounds like a very good idea to me. It could be very useful to have NPC stats printed off separately.

[Gnarsh]

Unscrupulous players could find out the stats/abilities of the opposition? Apart from being unsporting, it could seriously blow plot secrets if that 'friendly' innkeeper is revealed to have Brew Pratzim 80%. And just what opposition there was should itself be secret, even if you don't care about the exact stats. (Yes, passwording it might help a little but people would get around that). It needn't be intentional cheating, either - if they were some of the few statted-up NPCs around, GMs might over-use them till they were too familiar.

And this is different then the same players buying a canned aventure themselves? Or sneaking a peak at a friends copy? Of all of the potential problems with this solution, that's honestly the least significant.

The far bigger issue is that if you're supporting a lot of options, you end up with much more "stuff" needed to define an NPC. Honestly, I would go with something simpler. Put basic characteristics in the book, let the GM calculate from those statistics whatever specific values he needs to run that NPC in his own game.

I suspect that's how it's actually going to be done in fact. It's why you'd need an EDU and SAN stat on a sheet (since games that use those stats can't derive them), but you don't really need a hp/ac location chart (since you can derive that from base stats). It's kinda silly to expect a couple pages of data per NPC appearing in any scenario IMO.

Are GMs really that unwilling to do a little work? I generate NPCs by the truckload without too much trouble. The main bits in a canned scenario are the story elements. The characters add flavor and detail in order to make that story work. You don't need massive amounts of statistic and skill data to do that.

[Atgxtg]

The far bigger issue is that if you're supporting a lot of options, you end up with much more "stuff" needed to define an NPC. Honestly, I would go with something simpler. Put basic characteristics in the book, let the GM calculate from those statistics whatever specific values he needs to run that NPC in his own game.

I suspect that's how it's actually going to be done in fact. It's why you'd need an EDU and SAN stat on a sheet (since games that use those stats can't derive them), but you don't really need a hp/ac location chart (since you can derive that from base stats). It's kinda silly to expect a couple pages of data per NPC appearing in any scenario IMO.

Are GMs really that unwilling to do a little work? I generate NPCs by the truckload without too much trouble. The main bits in a canned scenario are the story elements. The characters add flavor and detail in order to make that story work. You don't need massive amounts of statistic and skill data to do that.

I disagree. If that were the case, why buy supplments for a specific system? Story elements are portable to any system. If there is no support for the options then there is no reason for those who use the options to support those supplments.

If I am going to have to rewrite all the NPC stats to put in hit locations, APs, skills over 100% and Strike Ranks, I'll just write an adventure and save my money.

I think it is kinda silly to claim that a game system supports multiple genres, settings and styles of play if, in fact, none of the supplments do. We have had all these rules around in various Chaosium products for decades. Generally without support. There aren't any Worlds of Wonder supplements out there. If the options don't get any support we and going to be right where we've been for the past 15 years. Playing orphan game systems.

If only the core rules are going to be supported, then I don';t have much motivation to buy or use BRP. Why? For a bunch of options that I already have that haven't been supported for decades and aren't about to be now?

I'm not saying every option needs to be supported all the time. But unless the options are being supported some of the time nothing has changed.

[frogspawner]

And this is different then the same players buying a canned aventure themselves? Or sneaking a peak at a friends copy? Of all of the potential problems with this solution, that's honestly the least significant.

Well, just visiting a site is so much easier than spending actual cash or conspiring to cheat with fellow player, so it would be more of a problem than either of those cases. But you're right, it is a pretty pathetic objection.

My excuse is, "I vas only obeying orders...":

Go ahead and tell me why this is a bad idea.

So what are the other potential problems you foresee?

[soltakss]

Gosh, guys, I must say I'm quite surprised at the negativity shown on this thread, especially - and with all due respect - in many cases from people who haven't actually seen the rules yet!

I haven't seen the rules but I did see the Playtest version.

RQ3 was the epitome of the BRP system, in many people's opinion. These people are disappointed that RQ3 wasn't taken as a starting point for the new BRP.

Stormbringer 5 was the epitome of the BRP system, in many people's opinion. These people are pleased that Stormbringer 5 seems to be a starting point for the new BRP.

I'm in the first camp. I was asked my opinions about some statements I made and I gave them.

How is that negative?

I'm not a Chaosium Groupie, always singing their praises. If I see problems then I mention them. Id I see something good then I mention that.

In fact, I'm picking up such negative vibes I'm even reluctant to post, cos a lot of this just feels like a moan that BRP isn't the new edition of RQ.

Well, yes, that is one of the problems that some people have.

But, if you don't post then our mis-shapen and incorrect views will gain prominence and then there would we be?

So, post away.

[FROM RURIK]

"No new supplements for BRP will work with RQ3 without a fair amount of work for the GM (assuming SR and Hit Locations will probably not be used for stats in most supplements as they are optional)"

Well, first, as you say, you're "assuming" that SR and Hit Locations will *probably* not be used. In other words, you don't actually know, but you've got yourself upset and disappointed cos you think maybe they won't. Why not wait for some actual real world supplements and see, first, rather than making your mind up before the facts?

Because it would be a great overhead to cater for all the optional rules in a supplement.

Writers will make a decision on each supplement as to which optional rules they are including.

If using Hit Locations and SR create extra work then writers won't generally include them. This generates a lot of work for GMs who do use them.

And, second, why on earth should BRP work with RQ3 without some work for the GM? They're different games. Of course you can play in Glorantha using the BRP rules. And, if you want to play RQ3, you of course can do that, too. And, yes, BRP is not RQ3, so you can't play RQ3 with it. This method of argument does seem a bit circular.

BRP was presented originally as "Chaosium's Roleplaying System". A lot of people think that RQ is Chaosium's Roleplaying System and that other BRP games are just derivations of RQ.

Yes, sure, BRP, RQ3 and RQM are all different games, as are Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer.

Would you expect to be able to use BRP to play Call of Cthulhu easily?

How about Stormbringer? Could you use BRP to play that?

One of the aims of BRP was to have a single generic ruleset to play in all the Chaosium games (I think).

Why not expand this to include RQ, the granddaddy of BRP?

We now have at least 3 good versions of BRP/RQ out there - RQ3, RQM and BRP. All are different but all are sort-of compatible. Us old folks would have liked them all to be a bit more compatible and to usher in a Golden Age of RQ where RQ would be used for all kinds of settings and have many supplements to buy and play.

I do actually wonder what you were expecting, guys - presumably a new Gloranthan RPG based on RQ? If so, I don't really think that was ever on the cards - or if it was, that's MRQ, and there you take your chances and make your choices.

No, RQM has got Gloranthan RQ and everyone knows that. I've bought that and almost all the supplements. I was hoping that BRP would be a good alternative that is sort-of compatible.

I'm just about finished on my first read-through of the BRP Zero rules, and I'm extremely happy - nay, delighted - with what I see - and I'm a RQ grognard, Rurik, so there! What else were you looking for? >:->

Of course what happens next is largely up to Chaosium and their approach to sourcebooks & licensing, but that's a business call.

I must admit to being puzzled as to how this could have ever been anything different. I can appreciate that a lot of people who dearly wanted a new edition of RQ were very disappointed with MRQ (as indeed was I - desperately so), but Chaosium never advertised they were publishing a new RQ, whilst Mongoose did, so the negative spin about BRP here does seem very, very unfair - especially since the BRP Zero is a damn fine job!

Chaosium's Roleplaying System.

That's RQ, that is.

And, again, where's the negative spin? It isn't what I wanted, but then again neither was RQ3 or RQM. It's a pretty good stab, though.

The Chaosium House system is back in print, guys, and by all accounts new support material in numerous settings will be next - what's not to like?

A fair bit, but that's not the point.

Will I buy BRP when it comes out? Yes, absolutely.

Will I buy most of the supplements? Yes, but not the Cthulhu-inspired ones. I'll buy anything based on Mythic/Fantasy Earth and the Sci-Fi stuff.

Will I buy BRP Zero? Not in a Million Years. It's incomplete, needs a lot of changes and is a cynical marketing ploy to get people to buy 2 copies of BRP, one as a "numbered collectors' item" and one to use to play. I have a limited budget for buying RPG supplements and I can't afford to duplicate purchases. That's one reason why I haven't bought RQM Deluxe.

Will I use BRP as my main roleplaying system? Probably not, but I'll use a lot from it, as I'll use a lot from RQM. Not EDU, SAN, Sanity, Major/Minor Wounds or Variable Armour, though.

Will I support BRP when it comes out? Yes, absolutely, as I have consistently supported RQ in the past.

Will I criticise bad products and bad decisions? Absolutely, as I have done in the past.

Is that negative? Not at all.

[soltakss]

At the beginning of the book, I'm going to include a section stating "Here are the options that Interplanetary recommends." It will also mention the optional rules that are specifically discouraged.

If there are new optional rules, they'll be inserted into the manuscript where appropriate.

That's exactly what Paolo did for the RQM Stupor Mundi supplement and it works really well.

If some aspect of the adventure refers to an optional rule that might apply, it'll be mentioned, even if it isn't one of those recommended above. This will be selectively applied to avoid crudding up the manuscript overmuch.

If there's a place where the options conflict or diverge significantly from the core rules, they'll be distinguished or called out in some fashion in the text or in a side box.

That sounds good to me.

[soltakss]

And this is different then the same players buying a canned aventure themselves? Or sneaking a peak at a friends copy? Of all of the potential problems with this solution, that's honestly the least significant.

It's free, it's easily available.

But, it shouldn't cause a problem unless the stats show that the pretty barmaid is actually a 10 foot alien with a cloaking device.

I suspect that's how it's actually going to be done in fact. It's why you'd need an EDU and SAN stat on a sheet (since games that use those stats can't derive them), but you don't really need a hp/ac location chart (since you can derive that from base stats).

Optional is optional. EDU and SAN are only usable in games that use Sanity or use formal education. Games such as Call of Cthulhu and possibly Future-Tech games.

Hit Locations and Armour could be used in absolutely any type of game.

APs are only derived if you have a whole set of armour, hit points per location are fine if you don't have ways of changing them.

It doesn't take long to include them in a scenario and it takes a lot of work to have to add them as a GM.

Sure, people who play Call of Cthulhu might say "We need SAN and EDU but not AP and Hit Locations" which is one reason why I'm against it.

It's kinda silly to expect a couple pages of data per NPC appearing in any scenario IMO.

Are GMs really that unwilling to do a little work? I generate NPCs by the truckload without too much trouble. The main bits in a canned scenario are the story elements. The characters add flavor and detail in order to make that story work. You don't need massive amounts of statistic and skill data to do that.

You don't need a couple of pages per NPC. Old RQ NPCs took a couple of paragraphs at most and often one paragraph. Having some extra stats wouldn't add much to that.

I haven't time to convert everything and the less I have to convert the better. I don't have time to generate loads of NPCs, I use templates and identikit troopers.

By the way, I got this when I tried to post this message:

You have included 61 images in your message. You are limited to using 7 images so please go back and correct the problem and then continue again.

What kind of software is it when I can't inlcude a whole line of Mad Smilies in a post? I bet Mongoose would allow it.

[NickMiddleton]

I had a pickup truck and they promised me something better.

Then, frankly you either weren't paying attention or wilfully misconstrued what was said. Chaosium (and Jason) have consistently said that (to continue the analogy) they were producing the best motorbike they'd ever done, based on all their previous motorbike designs. Certainly, the "high cargo capacity" configuration was going to learn some lessons from the pickup truck they had made and marketed twenty plus years ago - but the new product has always explicitly been a motorbike, not a pickup truck.

We now have at least 3 good versions of BRP/RQ out there - RQ3, RQM and BRP. All are different but all are sort-of compatible. Us old folks would have liked them all to be a bit more compatible and to usher in a Golden Age of RQ where RQ would be used for all kinds of settings and have many supplements to buy and play.

BRP is entirely compatible with RQIII - pick the right set of optional rules and, bar a few skill category names and the contributing stats, it's mechanically indistinguishable. Add the BRP Magic Book monograph and it has the same magic systems as well.

Will I buy BRP Zero? Not in a Million Years. It's incomplete, needs a lot of changes and is a cynical marketing ploy to get people to buy 2 copies of BRP, one as a "numbered collectors' item" and one to use to play.

Customers requested a product be made available. How is this a "cynical marketing ploy"?

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[Rurik]

Then, frankly you either weren't paying attention or wilfully misconstrued what was said. Chaosium (and Jason) have consistently said that (to continue the analogy) they were producing the best motorbike they'd ever done, based on all their previous motorbike designs. Certainly, the "high cargo capacity" configuration was going to learn some lessons from the pickup truck they had made and marketed twenty plus years ago - but the new product has always explicitly been a motorbike, not a pickup truck.

I agree entirely. They have always said that. Usually followed immediately something like:

BRP is entirely compatible with RQIII - pick the right set of optional rules and, bar a few skill category names and the contributing stats, it's mechanically indistinguishable.

I can see where a RQ fan might have gotten their hopes up.

[deleriad]

I must admit that what I hope happens is that the licensing and so on allows a lot of flexibility. So for example, say someone wants to do A Song of Ice and Fire as a BRP line then you could basically put together a stand-alone book which uses SRs, Hit Locations, Static armour values and so on so that you wouldn't actually need the BRP book to play this setting. Basically it remixes the BRP book and adds to it where necessary while removing Powers that aren't needed and so on. Future supplements in that line would then use this book as the source.

On the other hand, someone might decide to do a simple 48 page fantasy scenario published on demand as a PDF or something and use just the basics from BRP.

This is all to say that the issue will be to do with licensing as anything else. Providing there's a lot of flexibility then, if someone thinks it might sell, they could publish a game called "Basic Fantasy" which essentially retro-engineers BRP into RQ3 and then, if it does prove popular, find a setting which works.

Personally I will buy the book but I'm more likely to continue running RQ stuff using my own mix of MRQ and RQ3 and CoC stuff with my copy of CoC. What I hope will happen is that others will start producing high-quality supplements for BRP that I can take and use.

Hopefully the BRP book will enable others to write supplements and that's, in my opinion, where the BRP will succeed or fail.

[Atgxtg]

Then, frankly you either weren't paying attention or wilfully misconstrued what was said. Chaosium (and Jason) have consistently said that (to continue the analogy) they were producing the best motorbike they'd ever done, based on all their previous motorbike designs. Certainly, the "high cargo capacity" configuration was going to learn some lessons from the pickup truck they had made and marketed twenty plus years ago - but the new product has always explicitly been a motorbike, not a pickup truck.

Well in that case, I'd say they failed.A "Generic" hybrid motorbike made with a bunch on incompatible parts, and missing some of components as well, is hardly the best.

I though the idea was for Chaosium to get an in-house system in publication besides Call of Cthulhu so they could possibly sell something to the 98% iof gamers who aren't H.P. Lovecraft fanatics.

BRP is entirely compatible with RQIII - pick the right set of optional rules and, bar a few skill category names and the contributing stats, it's mechanically indistinguishable. Add the BRP Magic Book monograph and it has the same magic systems as well.

[Jason D]

BRP was presented originally as "Chaosium's Roleplaying System". A lot of people think that RQ is Chaosium's Roleplaying System and that other BRP games are just derivations of RQ.

Yes, sure, BRP, RQ3 and RQM are all different games, as are Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer.

Would you expect to be able to use BRP to play Call of Cthulhu easily?

How about Stormbringer? Could you use BRP to play that?

One of the aims of BRP was to have a single generic ruleset to play in all the Chaosium games (I think).

Why not expand this to include RQ, the granddaddy of BRP?

We now have at least 3 good versions of BRP/RQ out there - RQ3, RQM and BRP. All are different but all are sort-of compatible. Us old folks would have liked them all to be a bit more compatible and to usher in a Golden Age of RQ where RQ would be used for all kinds of settings and have many supplements to buy and play.

That's RQ, that is.

At the risk of dragging this out even further, you keep saying the same thing over and over again.

To be clear, though:

Chaosium no longer has the rights to produce material for RuneQuest, though the system (BRP) is still theirs. As it always was. The publication of the BRP monographs were specifically aimed at retaining their intellectual domain over the BRP system when Avalon Hill let it lapse. I suspect that they felt this was adequate enough precaution until BRP came out as a standalone product.

Mongoose Publishing has the rights to produce something called RuneQuest. They chose to make a game derived from Chaosium's BRP system. Shouldn't any ire at their handling of RuneQuest be directed at them?

With the rights to ElfQuest back in the Pini's hands (or so I am told), the rights to Ringworld tied up with movie/miniseries rights, Eternal Champion at Mongoose, that leaves the "compatible with Chaosium's games" list at Call of Cthulhu (and maybe Nephilim... I'm not sure about the status of that license).

You seem to be assuming that a goal of BRP was to replace RuneQuest, for an audience who don't like Mongoose's version. It wasn't. It was proposed and work begun before Mongoose even began talking to Greg Stafford about RQ.

Backwards compatibility, though welcome and accommodated wherever possible, was not a primary goal. The goal, as has been stated from the very pitch I gave Chaosium more than three years ago, was to create a solid and consistent BRP platform by which to make new games and develop new intellectual properties.

From the introduction:

This book represents a first for Basic Roleplaying—a system complete in one book, without a defined setting. Previously, Basic Roleplaying has been an integral part of standalone games, usually with rich and deep world settings. Due to differences in these settings, Basic Roleplaying has had many different incarnations. Variant and some-times contradictory rules have emerged between versions, to better support one particular setting over another. Chaosium’s Basic Roleplaying system reconciles these different flavors of the system and brings many variant rules together between the covers of one book, something that has never been done before. Some of these rules are provided as optional extensions, some as alternate systems, and others have been integrated into the core system.

By design, this work is not a reinvention of Basic Roleplaying or a significant evolution of the system, but instead a collected and complete version of it, without setting, provided as a guide to players and gamemasters everywhere and compatible with most Basic Roleplaying games. It also allows the gamemaster the ability to create his or her own game world (or worlds), to adapt others from fiction, films, or even translate settings from other roleplaying games into Basic Roleplaying.

[Sunwolfe]

I plan to use BRP in its entirety for my next game and to gather my players prior to rework their characters or roll-up new ones. We have used RQIII exclusively up to this point, but I think it will be fun to experiment with a different flavor…something “new”. If the response is positive, I’ll adopt BRP as my foundational system to houserule and adapt when needed or warranted.

I sometimes wonder if this willingness isn’t more a matter of personality, expectations, and experience than it is mechanics. For example, I am not a Glorantha fan (LOL…sacrilege for some of you here…I know). I acknowledge Mr. Stafford’s fascinating milieu as an amazing feat of imagination and admire his creativity, but prefer to host games using my own 30+year old setting. To use ideas contained in various Glorantha-based supplements and fan-generated materials, however, (some of which you folk here have written—thank you very much), I have always had to remove or remodel Glorantha references, background materials or mechanics to make the ideas/concepts compatible with my own setting.

As I have read through 0E, I have been comparing and asking myself what I and my players might want from RQIII or how would they react to BRP’s “X”? (On that score, I don’t think most of them would care what system I used, as long as it was conducive to role-playing and that the game-world maintained its unique feel and flavor). I had few, if any, moments that gave me pause concerning RQIII/BRP compatibility or the effort to do so. HP location is a good example. I didn’t find myself too dismayed that is was optional or that BRP supplements may or may not cater to this beloved construct, especially since RQIII publications had conveniently provided me with plenty of archetypes to use as templates or models. As some of my players are time-invested sorcerers and shaman, the absence of RQIII “power” systems gave me pause, but only briefly, as to my mind, the adjustments seem simple. In fact, one of the first BRP-oriented projects I have undertaken is devising my own particular BRP sheet that includes RQIII features I consider important.

I sympathize with the hopes and expectations of the RQ faithful who have had to “roll their own” for so long and suffer being jerked around as companies and copyrights shuck and jive. I understand their desire for a new RQ age. Every time I look through the Barnes and Noble RPG section with its plethora of DnD supplements, I sigh heavily wishing the same for RQ. Hell, try being a non-Gloranthan RQ fan scouring the net for materials and I’ll tell you what a “dry season” is all about :happy:! I hope all may find something useful in this rule-set, to one degree or another, and be thankful there is some movement on that front.

I’ve heard it said, “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure” and that such an observation is based on one man, or woman’s, experience verses another. As I have always had to adjust RPG materials to suit, I guess I’m used to the work and by virtue of this experience feel it’s pretty much part and parcel of gaming and why the thought of tweaking BRP isn’t too much of an issue for me. Considering the present discussion, I’m lucky in that regard. I hope BRP will be well supported and cater to as many tastes as possible; if not, I can handle it—I always have. I am looking even more forward, however, to the new constructs and ideas that, I hope, will spring from the BRP endeavor. If peeps stay open minded to the new and take BRP for what it is, who knows, maybe some of that DnD supplement laden shelf at BnN will finally have to give up a little space to gamers with taste :thumb:!

Cheers,

Sunwolfe

[Joseph Paul]

Venomous Pao wanted to know-

Oh, and a note to Joseph Paul: I don't see any way in which BRP couldn't be used for a future space setting. What crunch is it that you don't perceive to be in the rules (even as options)? Strike Ranks are there. Hit Locations are there. HP by location is present, too. I'm not trying to refute you here, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from and what you think is missing.

Here is my problem- it looks like the numbers for several different parts of the gameworld/system don’t work out. And I have to admit that I am just guessing on some of them because I don’t have BRP0. But I do have what people have posted here and the fact that Jason wasn’t supposed to bring about any great changes so I feel safe in making some assumptions about some systems. If you have a copy of BRP0 let me if I am wrong OK? For instance I am betting that not much changed in the firearms from CoC. That would mean that the .22 still does 1d6 but can be fired 3 times a round. That lets you put 3d6 on an opponent in each round while the .45 only did a single shot of 1d10+2. Hmmm, which is the manstopper here? Had a GM that couldn't figure out that the game system was dictating unconventional choices.

Atgxtg has pointed out that the AP for some of the tanks can be penetrated by firearms. That is a fault of not setting standards for the material world that make sense, are appropriate to the weapons in use and scale well as materials increase or decrease in size/mass. Thicker steel gets a lot harder to penetrate and thinner gets easier. But a ¼” plate shouldn’t have fewer AP than say a brigandine. I think that it will if a 1” plate has 19 AP and you apply Real World scaling to it. And if it does I am augmenting my AFV with brig plates! Look at the response to the weapons table thread to see more about missing crunchiness.

Another example from CoC that may have changed in BRP0-explosives. A stick of dynamite does 5D6 damage. A 75 mm shell does 10D6. The 75 has over 4 times the explosive in it (about 800 grams to 136 grams). Even accounting for different qualities of explosive (60% nitro in the dynamite and ammonium picrate in the 75) I don’t think the numbers jive. One is too large or one is too small. Again I see this as a situation where the original designers eyeballed things and never did get around to setting a standard to work from.

These are all examples of things that should have been integrated into the original games better but were not. Some of them, maybe all of them will be present in BRP. It speaks to the fact that the very foundation of the game is not set up to accept being played in a crunchy gearheaded manner.

In a genre game it can be forgiven. However BRP is no longer a genre game, it is a generic platform for many different games and styles of play. I feel that standards should have been set and systems created so that as new material was being developed it would fit into the overall structure with out straining things. Do all the crunchy stuff up front –even if it isn’t going to show. That way when it does matter you have a system to go on rather than having to eyeball it and hope that it fits.

I like RQ- I am not so thrilled with Glorantha. I like crunchy, gearheaded play, lots of tactical options, and involved chargen. RQ was a good basis for that and it could have been set up so that it was easy and did not break the game if people wanted simpler modes of play. Doing it the other way around seems to be a bit problematic to me.

I have really liked the design philosophy that I have seen out of the GURPS game. Armor has a standard-1”RHA will stop 70d6. Firearms and explosives have their own formulas. Are they in the books? Does SJG expect you to figure something on the fly? No. The design formulas are used to set up all of the material world stats so that I don’t have to eyeball it myself. It provides a consistent, rational approach to things that are modeled from the real world. Does GURPS have its problems? Certainly. But modelling that doesn’t work isn’t one of them. Except for hiking.

[soltakss]

At the risk of dragging this out even further, you keep saying the same thing over and over again.

I do that.

I've made whatever point I was trying to make.

Shutting up now ......