Chaosium's Latest Statement on BRP

[jux]

So with combat SEs I assume we have Combat Actions as well? Some have 2, some have 4. It is one of the most crucial stat for a character. With 2 CAs, you might just re-roll your character, because you do not make it after your first fight unless GM chooses not to attack you. Again, it is very realistic simulation, but not sure if more pulpy game is desired.

[nDervish]

Seems like the easier solution when you have players that do nothing but target the head is to have NPCs ward that location with their shield and wear helmets. Warding that location covers "the enemy sees it coming" and doesn't rely on adding another layer of rules to keep track of. 

Yep, agreed.

Another thing I like about the SEs is how many non-lethal options there are.

When I was first reading through RQ6, I was liking it in general from the start, but the point that really sold me and made it clear that it was a system I absolutely had to try was when I encountered the Compel Surrender SE.

[jux]

OpenQuest has "Intimidate/Persuade" as combat action, which does the same thing.

[Charlie D.]

I am fairly new to d100 but I really get the 32 page BRP (I think). It will be like the 5E Basic D&D PDF. But instead of then making a rule book (BGB or RQ) BRP books will become a setting plus rules. RuneQuest won't be a generic rule book that takes some work to play right out of the book, but will be BRP basic rules (RQ 6 based) plus new rules to make Glorantha the setting work. Along with the Glorantha setting info, the BRP basic rules, and setting specific rules is RuneQuest.

I can see someone saying I play RuneQuest and meaning they play BRP Glorantha. Another person might say they play Mythic Greece and mean BRP Greece. Mythic Iceland will mean BRP Mythic Iceland. Just like D&D players say the play Forgotten Realms or Grewhawk. The D&D is implied and in a similar way, so will the BRP.

if it does work that way and basic BRP becomes the rules and RuneQuest the setting, the game will be much clearer for new players. I can easily see the stress it might cause for long term players. But you will likely get some new players at your table!

 

[Mysterioso]

ASAP I'd like to see the Hard-Boiled Detective book released with the new BRP-Basic integrated fully into it as that would show that the BRP system is not just another fantasy system. (A nice follow-up book to the Hard-Boiled Detective book would be reworking the material in the minimally-supported Astounding Adventures book so that Astounding Adventures now provides everything needed (ie., no need to dip into the BGB) to add to Hard-Boiled Detective to move one beyond Spade and Marlowe mysteries to the Spider and the Shadow thrillers.)

Edited October 23, 2015 by Mysterioso

[pansophy]

ASAP I'd like to see the Hard-Boiled Detective book released with the new BRP-Basic integrated fully into it as that would show that the BRP system is not just another fantasy system.

Right on the spot. It would actually make the BRP System interesting to me again. So far I am unimpressed as I have the feeling it will become just an other Fantasy system. Which I do not care about.

[Mankcam]

ASAP I'd like to see the Hard-Boiled Detective book released with the new BRP-Basic integrated fully into it as that would show that the BRP system is not just another fantasy system. (A nice follow-up book to the Hard-Boiled Detective book would be reworking the material in the minimally-supported Astounding Adventures book so that Astounding Adventures now provides everything needed (ie., no need to dip into the BGB) to add to Hard-Boiled Detective to move one beyond Spade and Marlowe mysteries to the Spider and the Shadow thrillers.)

Yeah I would totally dig a reworking of Astounding Adventures mixed in with Hard Boiled Noir. One thing that is essiential for the pulp genre would be to have an optional 'Knacks/Feats' system that is appropriate for the setting. Perhaps a reworking of the 'Stunts' from BRP Blood Tide could be looked at for this.

Oh, and while they are at it, rejig Blood Tide and publish that as well. Having these fully realised will show that the system can be easily used for cinematic settings as well as gritty ancient settings. 

[Aycorn]

I'm getting in very late on this (as usual), but I have to say...

I welcome Greg and Sandy back...

I am glad there will be a continued BRP, in some form, even if it's a tiny bit different...

I have never believed the BGB was too big or overwhelming (though obviously some do) - I always thought it was exactly what it was supposed to be and pretty near perfect...

I deeply regret, however, that the latest CoC is no longer, effectively, a BRP-based game.  And I think this is a huge mistake.  But it's done, I guess (me, I'll play CoC with BGB rules ... sorry gang).

 

 

[trystero]

13 hours ago, Aycorn said:

I deeply regret, however, that the latest CoC is no longer, effectively, a BRP-based game.

That hasn't really been my finding, but I guess it depends on what you consider to be the requirements for a game to be "BRP-based". For me, the similarities greatly outweigh the differences; CoC 7 still feels very much like CoC to me.

[TrippyHippy]

On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2015‎ ‎9‎:‎50‎:‎52‎, trystero said:

For me, the similarities greatly outweigh the differences

They do. But that does not stop people wanting the similarities to be greater still.

[jux]

About CoC7 vs RQ/BRP, I really like the percentual attributes. I don't like how every skill must be trained in order for the character to be barely capable in this.

For example when STR is absolute maximum and Athletics is not trained. Then this beast of a man with it's 30-40% of Athletics most likely will fail breaking down a door. It would be so much more obvious to just make a STR check for this.

[Baulderstone]

45 minutes ago, jux said:

About CoC7 vs RQ/BRP, I really like the percentual attributes. I don't like how every skill must be trained in order for the character to be barely capable in this.

For example when STR is absolute maximum and Athletics is not trained. Then this beast of a man with it's 30-40% of Athletics most likely will fail breaking down a door. It would be so much more obvious to just make a STR check for this.

It's complicated. My issue with percentile characteristics is that it sets the expectation that they are on the same scale as skills, but that sets all kinds of issues in motion. An average characteristic sits at 50%, which is actually better than average for a skill. You have both skills and characteristics measured as percentiles, but with different meanings on the scale. 

I tend to prefer the RQ 6 approach of using characteristics to set base levels for skills. I get what you are saying about the guy with STR 18 and an unraised Athletics (or Brawn, to use the RQ 6 skill),  but I see characteristics as potential and skills as how that potential has been reached. Some people naturally bulk up easier than other. The guy with 18 Strength is one of those. 

Even without training, he has a 16 skill point lead on an average character, and he can climb as high as 81% in Brawn just during character generation if he actually focuses on making a strong character. 

I guess the one hole in seeing characteristics as potential comes down to derived attributes, the guy with 18 Strength gets the same damage bonus regardless of whether he has 36% or 81% in Brawn. Maybe the solution is to derive these attributes from skills: Damage Bonus from Brawn, Magic Points from Willpower, Hit Points from Endurance. 

Hmmm. I'd need to think about that more. It could be tricky to do without changing the starting balance of characters. I'm basically just thinking out loud. 

 

[trystero]

1 hour ago, Baulderstone said:

It's complicated. My issue with percentile characteristics is that it sets the expectation that they are on the same scale as skills, but that sets all kinds of issues in motion. An average characteristic sits at 50%, which is actually better than average for a skill. You have both skills and characteristics measured as percentiles, but with different meanings on the scale.

Fully agreed. To its credit, CoC 7 provides different scales to illustrate this distinction (characteristic scale on p. 37 of the core book, skill scale on p. 54, special Credit Rating scale on p. 46) and specifically suggests taking the disparity into account for opposed rolls on p. 90:

Quote

The Keeper should be aware that characteristics are usually higher than skills, so where one side uses a characteristic the other side should be given the choice of whether to use a characteristic or a skill.

For me, the big benefit of having characteristics on the percentile scale is that they can directly oppose one another instead of requiring Resistance Table lookups (or brief calculation); I also like that this approach lets both sides roll, just as in combat or any other opposed situation, instead of only the "active" participant rolling.

I do still need to do quick division by 5 when assessing an Investigator's (or creature's) scores, since I've had so long to get used to the 3-18 scale, but it's not a problem for me during play.

[TrippyHippy]

If I could summarise one thing I'd wish for in the Cthulhu rules it would be to remove all the clutter.

With regards to the Characteristics, I get what the writers were trying to do - but it could have been done more subtly. The fact is that having Characteristic scores being multiplied by 5 to make a % score was not that taxing, and skills rules did make use of a fifth (1-20) score anyway for special successes. I could see an argument to have both sets of scores noted down with % and 1-20 scores included. Of course, we then had an addition half threshold added, which made everything quite heavy handed in my view. There is also the bizarre character generation based on rolling stats on a 3D6 method, multiplying by five for the % score, and then asking the player to divide the score by five again to calculate things like Magic Points! The illusion of complexity lives on....

What I like about the RuneQuest rules is that the Characteristic Scores all have a function, are tied directly into the skills as base scores, but still manage to remain as one clear and distinct score. You can scan the scores quickly to get a quick overview of the character, because there is no clutter beyond that. You never roll against a Characteristic directly in RQ6, but they remain fully functional in terms of their influence throughout Attributes (HP, Strike Rank, Experience Mod. etc) and the skill bases. That is elegant.

Anyway, in my ideal world, CoC would have Characteristics based on a 3-18 scale again, like RuneQuest. I'd have nine separate scores (Strength, Constitution, Size, Dexterity, Intelligence, Power, Charisma, Education, and Sanity) and use these to determine Attributes:

CON+SIZ/2 = Hit Points

STR+SIZ (ref table) = Damage Bonus

STR+DEX = Base Athletics % (inc Dodge %).

INT+EDU/2 x5 = Idea % (including general knowledge),

POW+CHA/2 x5= Luck % and Magic Points

SAN x 5 = Starting Sanity %.

 

Edited November 6, 2015 by TrippyHippy

[Baulderstone]

I can see the sense in having Sanity separate from Power. Linking ability to work magic with mental stability is an odd pairing. It's not quite as bad as how GURPS linked Sanity and IQ, which really cut hard against Lovecraftian horror.

On the other hand, I EDU never really sat right with me as a characteristic. I'd think looking at someone's skills is a better reflection of that.

[TrippyHippy]

My view on Sanity is if your going to introduce it, have it entirely separate as a mechanic to the existing POW rules - which are all about Magic and Luck in other BRP applications other than CoC. The whole Sanity mechanic could then be entirely modular with the introduction of the Sanity Characteristic et al. when desired.

I could live without the Education stat too in fact. Indeed, they notably removed it from the new Delta Green rules, along with Size. It does make it easier to calculate secondary stats (HP, etc) when you only use one Characteristic as a base rather than two.  

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2015 by TrippyHippy

[SDLeary]

3 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

My view on Sanity is if your going to introduce it, have it entirely separate as a mechanic to the existing POW rules - which are all about Magic and Luck in other BRP applications other than CoC. The whole Sanity mechanic could then be entirely modular with the introduction of the Sanity Characteristic et al. when desired.

Actually, in Cthulhu, I would probably do the opposite, integrate the two into one. No separate Pow Points and Sanity Points. One pool. Magic, even non-mythos Magic drains you and makes you more susceptible to loosing your marbles. It introduces more stress and strain and the more you use it the closer you come to the breaking point. Mythos "Magic" just gets you there sooner.

SDLeary

[Mankcam]

As far as Sanity goes, I find the Call of Cthulhu rules a little cumbersome now, its such a larger number of points and no other trait is measured that way. 

Personally I like the rules from Renaissance for Sanity Points and the rules from RQ6 for Tenacity Points (see Luther Arkwright) which brings the scale of the points down to a more workable level of points, and includes concepts like resilience or mental protection. 

This rules consistency just seems to work better for me.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Mankcam

[TrippyHippy]

5 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Actually, in Cthulhu, I would probably do the opposite, integrate the two into one. No separate Pow Points and Sanity Points. One pool. Magic, even non-mythos Magic drains you and makes you more susceptible to loosing your marbles. It introduces more stress and strain and the more you use it the closer you come to the breaking point. Mythos "Magic" just gets you there sooner.

SDLeary

I have an issue with this insofar that Sanity and Magical affinity are actually polar opposite. I like the way they reach this dichotomy in the Aquelarre RPG, which is being translated and Kickstarted currently. In that game there is a two ended stat for Rationality and Irrationality. The former presents willpower and resistance to magic - akin to Sanity - and the latter towards an affinity for Irrational things - like a belief in Magic.

The issue has always been highlighted in CoC as an issue - the whole "How did Sorcerer's get that way?" when they have High POW but are insane.

So a Sane person, grounded in a rational perspective of the world, would not have a great affinity to an alien, magical paradigm. They wouldn't believe in it!. They'd be resistant to magic, as well as other psychological trauma but wouldn't have more innate magical Power.

You can't make that distinction while Sanity and Power are linked, especially if the two are combined into one pool.

Edited November 7, 2015 by TrippyHippy

[SDLeary]

9 hours ago, Mankcam said:

As far as Sanity goes, I find the Call of Cthulhu rules a little cumbersome now, its such a larger number of points and no other trait is measured that way. 

Personally I like the rules from Renaissance for Sanity Points and the rules from RQ6 for Tenacity Points (see Luther Arkwright) which brings the scale of the points down to a more workable level of points, and includes concepts like resilience or mental protection. 

This rules consistency just seems to work better for me.

Agreed. I'm just going thru Arkwright, but I am liking what I am seeing so far.

In any event... if we keep this discussion up, it should probably move over to the Cthulhu forum or break it out into its own thread here.

SDLeary

Edited November 7, 2015 by SDLeary
Grammer Police

[SDLeary]

6 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

I have an issue with this insofar that Sanity and Magical affinity are actually polar opposite. I like the way they reach this dichotomy in the Aquelarre RPG, which is being translated and Kickstarted currently. In that game there is a two ended stat for Rationality and Irrationality. The former presents willpower and resistance to magic - akin to Sanity - and the latter towards an affinity for Irrational things - like a belief in Magic.

The issue has always been highlighted in CoC as an issue - the whole "How did Sorcerer's get that way?" when they have High POW but are insane.

So a Sane person, grounded in a rational perspective of the world, would not have a great affinity to an alien, magical paradigm. They wouldn't believe in it!. They'd be resistant to magic, as well as other psychological trauma but wouldn't have more innate magical Power.

You can't make that distinction while Sanity and Power are linked, especially if the two are combined into one pool.

Agreed. I was specifically answering in relation to a game like Cthulhu, though I would do the same in any environment where I feel magic should be a corrupting influence. Having it linked to Sanity is just a little neat and tidy for me. I tend to go more for integrating my views into existing rules rather than creating a new subsystem these days. 

SDLeary

[Baulderstone]

8 hours ago, Mankcam said:

As far as Sanity goes, I find the Call of Cthulhu rules a little cumbersome now, its such a larger number of points and no other trait is measured that way. 

Personally I like the rules from Renaissance for Sanity Points and the rules from RQ6 for Tenacity Points (see Luther Arkwright) which brings the scale of the points down to a more workable level of points, and includes concepts like resilience or mental protection. 

This rules consistency just seems to work better for me.

I can agree with that. I like the Tenacity Points in RQ6. I still need to read Renaissance. I have a PDF from a Bundle on my hard drive. I keep hearing how great it is, but never get to it. I think I am just afraid that if I read it,  I will be compelled to buy all the Cakebread and Walton books, which I suppose is the reason they stuck it in a Bundle in the first place. 

6 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

I have an issue with this insofar that Sanity and Magical affinity are actually polar opposite. I like the way they reach this dichotomy in the Aquelarre RPG, which is being translated and Kickstarted currently. In that game there is a two ended stat for Rationality and Irrationality. The former presents willpower and resistance to magic - akin to Sanity - and the latter towards an affinity for Irrational things - like a belief in Magic.

The issue has always been highlighted in CoC as an issue - the whole "How did Sorcerer's get that way?" when they have High POW but are insane.

So a Sane person, grounded in a rational perspective of the world, would not have a great affinity to an alien, magical paradigm. They wouldn't believe in it!. They'd be resistant to magic, as well as other psychological trauma but wouldn't have more innate magical Power.

You can't make that distinction while Sanity and Power are linked, especially if the two are combined into one pool.

This is my feeling. Obviously, we are getting deep into subjective territory, as we are talking about how magic "really" works. But what you are describing fits the way I see Lovecraftian magic working. 

I ran a Savage Worlds game with Lovecraftian elements once. It has a Sanity system where the score can go positive or negative with 0 as a midpoint. In needing to add Lovecraftian spells to the game, I had to decide between the standard SW approach of magic being a special ability certain characters had, and the CoC approach of letting anyone perform a spell.

I settled on a house rule that Lovecraftian magic only worked once you hit 0 or lower Sanity. It gave a mechanical purpose to the idea of harrowing magical initiations. They helped an initiate get their Sanity down to a level where they could actually cast spells. It worked very well. I might need to find a way to translate the concept over to CoC  and Delta Green. 

[TrippyHippy]

I could, however, see the Magic Points and Luck linked as the same resource. Just allow Magic Points to be spent as Luck points in effect, where spending a Magic Point would give a +/-5% increment to any roll.

[auyl]

I've personally always disliked Sanity systems, even though I've incorporated some into certain systems I've written. I understand how in a CoC or similar system game they would be critical, which includes most horror settings. I prefer to let the players feel like they are the heroes they want to play instead of the typical person from our world. Some prefer this and there is nothing wrong with that, I just like to play settings that are more heroic.

All this to say that however Chaosium works the new Sanity system, won't affect me or my group much. I wouldn't get too worked up about it as far as Sanity in a realistic sense goes, anything can make someone breakdown, not just a comparison to a "magical" ability.

[Gollum]

On 7/11/2015 23:54:02, auyl said:

I've personally always disliked Sanity systems, even though I've incorporated some into certain systems I've written. I understand how in a CoC or similar system game they would be critical, which includes most horror settings. I prefer to let the players feel like they are the heroes they want to play instead of the typical person from our world. Some prefer this and there is nothing wrong with that, I just like to play settings that are more heroic.

This is precisely why, in my humble opinion, Sanity rules are vital ... As optional rules. In some campaigns (Lovecraftian stories, for instance), Sanity checks are crucial. In some other (Hellboy stories, for instance), they would just ruin the game ... The Big Golden Book did a very good job here. I hope the new BRP Essential will did something like that (even if things are changed a bit).