Chaosium's Latest Statement on BRP

[Thaenor]

I am not surprised at this news at all. Consolidation as a lead in line to the re-integrated Runequest/Glorantha product is sound strategy, something to build on and add to over time is the ideal approach. 

At least Chaosium is being as open as it can be with it's plans. 

I agree with some of the concerns above, but truly it's time to move the product line on and build a fresh approach in line with how successful other d100 based ruleset titles have been in producing great products in other iterations before the new ownership re-organisation became necessary.

The future of 'Runequest' (used as a historical label to denote lineage via Chaosium) based rules is more assured in my view. 

[Guest Vile Traveller]

I don't think it's very open at all ... It would certainly help if they just said 1) what the new BRP Essentials is based on, and 2) that they are dropping MW as an active system (I don't know that they are, but that's my guess).

Mike is doing a good job putting out the statements pretty regularly, but the statements are still pretty obfusticatory. I'm sure there's some business theory behind that sort of thing, but I can't see the point - they'll have to come out with it when products are actually published. Is it supposed to be a surprise?

[Thaenor]

Perhaps it's a reply in answer to customer concerns more generally. Dicussing what they will be doing with the BRP core product line and assuring us it will be published more but in a different form is a much more solid message from the team of Moon Design that now manages Chaosium than pronouncements and promises were form the previous management team at Chaosium.

To me Moon Design have shown practically they deliver as best they can on their words.

Not mentioning and (whether potentially or completely) dropping Magic World is regrettable...but not unexpected in todays market.. 

Edited September 30, 2015 by Thaenor
Typo

[dragonewt]

No, their approach is valid.

Under the particular circumstances where a session is run with a title of "Introduction to Role Playing Games", that Pathfinder Society approach is only valid for the Pathfinder Society, and people who would be happy with Pathfinder. And only that.

It is valid if you consider indirectly lying to your audience and manipulation them to your agenda is valid. It is not valid from the audience's point of view if they want to know more about role-playing, instead of just Pathfinder and only Pathfinder from a controlled perspective.

It does not respect people who want to know about role-playing as a whole and what options are out there (genres, styles of play, systems, options, choices). It might provide a starting point, but other options should also be suggested in order to show the audience some respect.

Edited September 30, 2015 by dragonewt

[dragonewt]

Yes, but this IS what RQ2 and D&D had , or at least one of the things that they had in the early days. Something that had enough background to get things running, but could be ignored if desired. Thus they were loosely tied to their settings.

When I started D&D, the core rules, the boxed set, etc... did not have any setting that I was aware of. We just played a generic pseudo-western-medieval setting, influenced by the generic Tolkien mind-set that existed at the time. RQ2 did have the feel of Glorantha and a more "Conan" feel to it, and the world and hero wars were mentioned, however it too could be used in any setting (but the flavour of play is worth thinking about).

However, the culture and influence of D&D encouraged a war-gaming style of play, with levels and a more abstract representation. So it did not matter what world or background was being played in, the style and approach of play is what usually differed. Hit point tanks, "kill them and take their stuff", killing kobold children because they were not worth the XP to leave alive, etc...

Is it the case that most generic role-players today want a quick out-of-the box all-in-one solution that includes enough of a completeaworld/genre but just enough left undefined for them to fill in the blanks (eg: Tolkinesque with elves and dwarves and knights in armour and Gandalf-like wizards)? What percentage are wanting to be more creative?

Edited September 30, 2015 by dragonewt

[Simlasa]

and Fred Hicks is very cool, apparently

No, he's really not...

[seneschal]

Pathfinder Society is an excellent example of what a company and its supporters should do to introduce newbies to role-playing using their game system.  The Society dominated the gaming tables at a convention my wife and I attended two years ago.  They had a team of experienced GMs running a rotating schedule of scenarios, some for new players, others for veterans.  The GMs had maps, miniatures, scenery pieces.  At the sign-up table were stacks of pre-generated character sheets representing the usual party members.  The game schedule ran like a well-oiled machine.  After the newbie session the GM asked the players what they had liked, pointed out that the game hadn't involved any real world occult shenanigans, gave players the Society website where they could register their characters, and answered questions about local gaming groups.  My wife, who has always been skeptical of my hobby, enjoyed herself instead of being freaked out by the game or by her fellow players.

[nDervish]

Mike is doing a good job putting out the statements pretty regularly, but the statements are still pretty obfusticatory. I'm sure there's some business theory behind that sort of thing, but I can't see the point - they'll have to come out with it when products are actually published. Is it supposed to be a surprise?

I suspect it's less a matter of "we want it to be a surprise" and more "we don't want to say anything which might lead to fans accusing us of having broken a promise to them".

Given how many times I've seen game companies say "we're considering the possibility of looking into whether it might perhaps be worthwhile to include X in some undefined future release" and then had fans come back with "Where's X?  You said it would be in the next release!", I can hardly blame them.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

True, I guess they could be keeping their options open. In that case, making some noise about your favourite system might have the desired effect?

[tooley1chris]

A lot of these posts would make more sense (to me) if I were an employee of Chaosium,  if I had a liscence to publish with Chaosium, or if I liked BRP/MW because I love Chaosium.

This isn't the case.

I like Chaosium because I love BRP/MW.

It doesn't matter (to me) that "Business wise this move makes sense." or "Thank goodness they are revamping BRP instead of dropping it."

If the company fails to produce products that I want to purchase, what's the point? Like I said, maybe Im wrong BRP essentials will be the bees knees and lead to great things. I'll be overjoyed to eat crow and offer sincere apologies. Hope I'm failing my Precognituon roll .

 

Edited September 30, 2015 by tooley1chris

[Thaenor]

I'm not convinced that the sky is falling as it has been predicted for decades in terms of Chaosium more generally. 

No sales equals a need to adapt to changing conditions.  It's sadly not just about "making business sense", it's about when does it become just plain fan service and a drain on resources and when does it become a marketable brand that a large core group of players and GMs will take up to drive the kind of culture based wider take up that is needed for theses titles.

I want BRP/MW to succeed but sadly it hasn't in it's current form. If Chaosium is allowed to go fully under there will be no source for the current published material that IS for sale via PDF and POD to be available and be possibly built on...maybe this the opportunity to turn things around and get proper promotion resources built for the WHOLE of Chaosiums product lines. Making it more likely they might address any ongoing short comings with their chosen strategy now with an underpinning of resources.

I've chosen to back this Chaosium on the strength of it's wider resilience. I see no different a commitment from the new management team on this.

Even if I fully understand underlying fans misgivings and concerns.

[el_octogono]

I've been disenchanted by Chaosium since they dropped the Elric!/Stormbringer line. But in a bigger perspective I feel they never took the necessary risks for the last 20 years. Elric! was an excellent game but suffered from poor presentation and illustrations. Many were stock clipart. The BGB is a great book but it's just a recycling of old rules and pics. Magic World is great, as Elric! was, but as everyone knows, it's just the same game with Moorcock erased. So basically CoC 7th is the only thing new in all these years.

I hope the new/old management and the Design Mechanism folks give Chaosium new energy and commitment.

[Thaenor]

Also I think we might know a little more about things after this weekend and event going on in Germany...where most of the Chaosium are gathering for session.

Here's the guest list of THE KRAKEN -

http://www.the-kraken.de/guests/

And statement form Chaosium management listing some of the sessions. (From their FB page.)

"This weekend Chaosium's Sandy Petersen, Jeff Richard, Michael O'Brien ("MOB") and Neil Robinson will be heading to The Kraken, "the baroque gathering of international gamers" taking place at Schloss Neuhausen, a Prussian Château. Other special guests include the Rune Czar himself Ken Rolston, Jason Durall and Chris Klug.

Jeff, MOB and Neil will be hosting the seminars "What's up Chaosium?" and a "A Gloranthan New Age", while Ken and Sandy will be discussing "The Big Ones That Got Away: Dream Games We Never Made" and "Chaosium Tales". It promises to be a fun weekend of gaming, fine food and drinks (and German beer!)
http://www.the-kraken.de/guests/ "

 

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Ken and Sandy will be discussing "The Big Ones That Got Away: Dream Games We Never Made".

That could take a while.

[smiorgan]

To me, 2 is only viable if they continue to utilize the "normal" BRP rules. Otherwise you get a disconnect between the Essentials book, and the more advanced options. Now, they could revise the BGB also, tuning it with whatever core they decide on, but this would be a fairly large undertaking, probably on par with Jason's original effort. 

SDLeary

That's an interesting point. Regarding compatibility of BRP Essentials they are in a quandary:

1. They make it back-compatible with BRP gold book. This would help selling existing stock, and appeasing fans for which the gold book is the ruleset of choice.

2. They make it compatible with CoC7. So that certain BRP supplement appeal also to CoC players. 

3. They make it compatible with RuneQuest, basically RQ-light. So you can maximise cross-selling with RQ players and, at the same time, offer a lighter alternative to the rather "heavy" RQ6 rules.

4. They make it its own thing. So that it develops its brand identity. That move would surprise me.

In part, this is the result of the merger, in part Chaosium painted themselves in a corner by disregarding compatibility of CoC7 with BRP. That still baffles me. There are many innovations in CoC7 that could have been done in a BRP-like fashion obtaining essentially the same effect (e.g. % characteristic rolls) and seem to be different "just because". I have my own theory on why it happened, but I will keep it for myself...

  

 

[RosenMcStern]

I want BRP/MW to succeed but sadly it hasn't in it's current form.

I have some doubts about this statement.

BRP supplements won two silver ennies for "best setting" during the last years. "The Laundry" won another Ennie in 2011 for best new game. Rome was Electrum best seller on DriveThruRPG before I had to pull it. Unlike the Diana Jones Award, Ennies are awarded out of popularity, not just quality. Two awards in five years in the same category are significant: it means that there is a market for the BRP line. Smaller than CoC or Pathfinder, but certainly not neglectable.

Incidentally, Chaosium does know this, too, as one of the two award-winning products, the excellent Mythic Iceland which I had the privilege of playing with its author, Pedro Ziviani, is mentioned more than once in the press release that originated this thread. It sounds like they want to valorize Mythic Iceland because they know it was a successful product.

Last but not least, the press release itself does not state that BRP was not successful, nor does it mention sales being less than 10% of total or make other such considerations like the ones that were offered at the GenCon seminar. It says, instead:

Now that RuneQuest has returned to Chaosium, the Gold Book is no longer necessary and will remain out of print.

which is not the same as saying "Its popularity was too low." Nor does the fact that a BRP Essentials is in the making hint at BRP being a doomed product.

[smiorgan]

 

Last but not least, the press release itself does not state that BRP was not successful, nor does it mention sales being less than 10% of total or make other such considerations like the ones that were offered at the GenCon seminar. It says, instead:

which is not the same as saying "Its popularity was too low." Nor does the fact that a BRP Essentials is in the making hint at BRP being a doomed product.

Very interesting points about the popularity of BRP. It seems you believe that the "less than 10%" figure was not entirely accurate. In fact, it surprised me a little bit. 

For some bizarre reason (possibly oversight) the old Chaosium catalogue showed publicly the sales data for PDFs, and BRP monographs did not sell less than CoC monographs. In particular, Classic Fantasy was selling VERY well.

BTW, one of the "killers" of Magic World could be the upcoming Classic Fantasy, which occupies the same niche - at least seen from outside.

 

 

 

[smiorgan]

Ken and Sandy will be discussing "The Big Ones That Got Away: Dream Games We Never Made"

LOL, I'm still waiting for the "Castle of Eyes" mega-campaign for Stormbringer!

Edited September 30, 2015 by smiorgan

[RosenMcStern]

It seems you believe that the "less than 10%" figure was not entirely accurate.

Nope. If compared with Call of Cthulhu, I find a 10:1 rate entirely believable.

In particular, Classic Fantasy was selling VERY well.

So well that Rod chose to move it to a publisher who could focus more on supporting it. Same with Sarah and Future Earth. The problem with BRP was the lack of support/focus from Chaosium, not lack of interest.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

BTW, one of the "killers" of Magic World could be the upcoming Classic Fantasy, which occupies the same niche - at least seen from outside.

I actually like both, and it is kind of ironic in a convoluted sort of way if the "in-house" generic fantasy game of Magic World is mothballed while Classic Fantasy, the game that gave up on Chaosium, is going to come out using the new Chaosium RuneQuest system ...

[Aelwyn]

Breathe, everybody. I know Ben getting laid off was a shock for all of us, and I wish him well. I hope he continues to find work in the gaming field.

But the most important line from the original post is this: Chaosium will be producing new products based on the new core BRP rules that are neither RuneQuest nor Call of Cthulhu. That should be cause for rejoicing.

There's no indication from the post that BRP Essentials will be based on anything other than what we know as real BRP from the BGB. My guess is it will cover character generation, skills, system, and combat, but it will leave out magic, powers, optional rules, "what is a role-playing game," spot rules, and creatures. That product could be packaged with a wide variety of settings, each of which would be a self-contained game, and each of which would fill in the blanks with additional rules, powers, and creatures. The BGB will still be available for all of us tinkerers through print on demand.

Is Magic World dead? I can see why people are drawing that conclusion, but nothing in the Chaosium blog says that. It's even possible that Chaosium will reboot Magic World in a few years with a better name, as a fantasy setting and magic rules, packaged with BRP Essentials. That is a move that I would applaud. And given Chaosium's historical penchant for recycling, it would not surprise me a bit. 

[NickMiddleton]

Nope. If compared with Call of Cthulhu, I find a 10:1 rate entirely believable.

So well that Rod chose to move it to a publisher who could focus more on supporting it. Same with Sarah and Future Earth. The problem with BRP was the lack of support/focus from Chaosium, not lack of interest.

And the problem now, given that Chaosium consist of an entirely DIFFERENT Set of people to those involved in it over the majority of the last twenty odd years is the new comers have brought with them "new" shinies (the RuneQuest trademark; the Glorantha IP; CoC 7e). Given the need to control costs, the support / focus of the new crew will presumably remain where it was prior to these realignments (Mike Mason is CoC 7e line editor and co-author of the new rules; Pete & Loz are the authors of Chaosium RuneQuest, as they were of RuneQuest 6 and in addition to writing for Chaosium have a full plate of Design Mechanism projects). And we KNOW they have let the BRP / MW line editor go...

Bluntly, if BRP Essentials looks more like the BGB / MW than it does RQ6 / Coc 7e I will be VERY surprised.

Regards,

Nick

[Guest Vile Traveller]

I think it will look like WoW. 

[tooley1chris]

"Bluntly, if BRP Essentials looks more like the BGB / MW than it does RQ6 / Coc 7e I will be VERY surprised.

 

Regards,

 

Nick"

 

This.

Edited September 30, 2015 by tooley1chris

[smiorgan]

I think it will look like WoW. 

Nope. It will look like D&D4 Essentials. It will have kewl powerz for everyone and will come in a box with cardboard tokens.