Chaosium's Latest Statement on BRP

[tooley1chris]

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

[Aelwyn]

Yeah, I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

I'd be very surprised if it looks like RQ6, because there already is a Runequest Essentials. Why would they muddy the waters by putting out another edition of those rules with a completely confusing title?

CoC7e is a possibility, but that doesn't seem like a good business move to me for a lot of different reasons. 

Right now we're all just speculating a lot, which is fun, kind of in the same way punching yourself in the face is fun. 

Does anyone have the Quickstart version of BRP? What's in that? Is it possible BRP Essentials is just a renaming/edit of that, minus the "what is a role-playing game"?

[Marcus Bone]

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

I think this is the concerns of everyone who has posted here. We know that new team is focused on one aspect of the Chaosium IP, and that they will also continue to focus on Call of Cthulhu (it is the biggest money earner for the company) - this is why/how they got control of the company in the first place. Whether they want or can devote effort to anything else is the question we all have. 

I should point out, for what it's worth, I don't hold that against them. If it was me running the show, Chaosium would solely focus on CoC and BRP (in its various guises) but that's because I have no interest in the Runequest etc.

Probably more of an issue to me is what happens to the licensees. In the past decade it has been this group of enthusiasts who've kept all of the lines alive...

Marcus

 

[SDLeary]

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?

They might not know, or only have a clue as to what their new BRP Essentials is going to be based on. Their opinions might be evolving as we are bitching and moaning.

SDLeary

[threedeesix]

...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 ...

For what its worth, I never gave up on Chaosium, which has been one of my favorite companies since 1980. I did however give up on those that were managing it at the time I was writing CF2 and CF3 however.

[SDLeary]

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?

It had the implied setting that you played in; that of a pseudo-western medieval/early-renaissance world with Tolkien influences. It had Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings. Later this was expanded with more races and beasties. This was thin enough that it could be ignored or altered. I played in several SciFi D&D games long before anything official came out. People could play it historically, without the other races. With something more tied to a single world, this would not be as easy to accomplish. 

The Wargaming style of play wasn't really encouraged as much as inherent. D&D as an RPG evolved out of the mini's gaming of the 60's, via Chainmail of the 70's (broad strokes here. Go read Shannons histories for more details), and it was much the same core of folks doing the gaming. Roleplaying was new. 

I'm not sure of actual percentages for token setting vs. no settings. I'm buddies with a FLGS owner though, and he has said on more than one occasion that games that provide a ready out of the box experience sell better than those that are generic or pure rules guides, at least at the beginning of their lives. 

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

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.

They never took the risks because they never had the money, things were that tight. Then that turned into complacency, which they weren't able to shake despite the two successful Kickstarters, one of which is hindsight is a major contributor to their current situation.

After the June Revolution, things were open, there was plain spoken communications about what was going on. We were still worried about the various lines, Greg, Sandy, and Ben were open about what they were looking at, with their intent to get HotOE shipping done, and CoC7 out the door and to save more if possible. 

Then we have the July Revolution, and it seems like the curtain has been drawn again, at least to a point. We still have communications, but they seem less open and sometimes cryptic, to the point that its really difficult to infer what is going on. Are the intents of the previous revolution, other than CoC7 at this point, still being pursued?

SDLeary

  

[SDLeary]

 

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...

  

 

Honestly the compatibility is there, if somewhat hidden. The presentation is what will throw people off. Especially those new to the system. And yes, I agree. There seems to have been no compelling reason other than to simply change and or look different.  

SDLeary

[Simlasa]

And yes, I agree. There seems to have been no compelling reason other than to simply change and or look different.  

SDLeary

I read the authors saying on Yog Sothoth that they thought CoC needed 'fixing'. I'm guessing that the perception was that CoC was losing players to some of the new Mythos games that had come out... not that Chaosium's slackening quality might have had anything to do with it.

I did sense, when I read it, an overall move towards a more action-oriented and 'narrative' style of play... subtle, and a bit clunky but it's there. To me it smacked of lurching after the cool kids and their popular games like Savage Worlds and FATE... which never seems like a good plan to me. Kind of like all the failed attempts to cash in on the CCG craze.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Simlasa

[SDLeary]

I read the authors saying on Yog Sothoth that they thought CoC needed 'fixing'. I'm guessing that the perception was that CoC was losing players to some of the new Mythos games that had come out... not that Chaosium's slackening quality might have had anything to do with it.

I did sense, when I read it, an overall move towards a more action-oriented and 'narrative' style of play... subtle, and a bit clunky but it's there. To me it smacked of lurching after the cool kids and their popular games like Savage Worlds and FATE... which never seems like a good plan to me. Kind of like all the failed attempts to cash in on the CCG craze.

But the suggestions on Narration have existed to some extent for a while, with varying degrees of chunkiness. There was going to be more of this kind of suggestion n the Chroniclers Companion IIRC. And while there was room for further example, suggestion, and streamlining of Sanity, it certainly wasn't "broken".

I also fail to see how the style of presentation of the stat block, and changing the characteristics to x5 would help in this fixing. The bonus and penalty dice are different, but fine and really don't change the game much, though does make it difficult to integrate older material which might list flat bonus' or penalties.

SDLeary 

[fmitchell]

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

RQ6 and CoC7 really don't look like each other, so it's not a stretch to think the new BRP Essentials might represent a "middle way".  Also, if it's coming out quickly, then they're probably going to choose the easiest path, i.e. BRP more or less as we know it now, just with far fewer optional rules.

My next best guess would be RQ6 simplified, which (except for experience check rules) is pretty close to BRP as it is now.  (The obvious parts to drop are hit locations, strike ranks, and combat special effects, which would make it even closer to default BRP now.)

CoC7 sans Mythos is an outside possibility, but again except for the x5 issue, bonus/penalty dice, and EDU (and SAN, which I'd drop in a "generic" product) that isn't too far from default BRP either.

Whatever they do, it's ultimately going to have the RQ2/BRP engine underneath.  The rest can be house-ruled into whatever strikes one's fancy.

[Thaenor]

 

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:

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.

I put any mistaken assessment of the BRP product line down to being a more recent convert to the d100 rule set. I have been following it's development for several years, on again and off again, since I got back into TTRPGs. But not as closely as I should have been. So thank you for your clarification.

I want it to continue to be successful even if this current course may have people concerned.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

[...] a box with cardboard tokens. 

Sold! 

[Guest Vile Traveller]

I'd be very surprised if it looks like RQ6, because there already is a Runequest Essentials. Why would they muddy the waters by putting out another edition of those rules with a completely confusing title?

The same way I'd be surprised if they put out a "Chaosium RuneQuest" when there is already a RuneQuest 6 and what they actually mean is RuneQuest Glorantha? That's not confusing.

Actually the other bit of overthinking that has me considering RQ6 as the basis of BRP Essentials (other than the Essentials part of the title) is "Now that RuneQuest has returned to Chaosium, the Gold Book is no longer necessary".

 

Edited October 1, 2015 by Vile

[Aelwyn]

Let's do some math.

They've announced that the new BRP Essentials will be 32 pages.

The BRP Quick-Start Edition is 48 pages. Chapter 7: Adventures in the back of the BRP Quick-Start, plus the two Fearsome Foes, take up exactly 14 pages. The blank character sheets in the back, which are available elsewhere for free, and which duplicate the character sheet on page 11, take up exactly 2 pages.

48 - 14 - 2 = 32

Alternatively, Chaosium could delete Chapter 7: Adventures, page 11, and the ad in the back, and keep the two-page blank character sheet. That math also works out very nicely.

If you don't have the Quick-Start, I'd recommend you get it immediately. Those Adventures are kind of cool, and as far as I know, they aren't available anywhere else. Everything else is pulled straight from the BGB.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Aelwyn

[Aelwyn]

Also note that saddle-stitched documents (ones with staples in the middle) and perfect-bound documents (paperbacks with glue inside the spine) are usually printed in 16-page signatures. The most economic way to print them are in multiples of 16 pages, and if you can eliminate 16 pages from a document, you can save a whole signature and a decent amount of money. This smells like a quick, sensible way to cut costs without writing anything new.

[The Venomous Pao]

Also note that saddle-stitched documents (ones with staples in the middle) and perfect-bound documents (paperbacks with glue inside the spine) are usually printed in 16-page signatures. The most economic way to print them are in multiples of 16 pages, and if you can eliminate 16 pages from a document, you can save a whole signature and a decent amount of money. This smells like a quick, sensible way to cut costs without writing anything new.

Stop ruining our rampant speculation with your logicking!

But seriously, yes, what you say makes sense. I'm not sure that I believe in Occam's Razor in this instance, but I might just be prone to panicking.

[Aelwyn]

I think we're more fond of the Sword of Damocles than Occam's Razor.

Seriously, Runequest 6 is 456 pages, and Runequest Essentials (already available for free) is 201 pages! Nobody is condensing that down to 32 pages just to rename it BRP Essentials! 

It's going to be a cut-down version of the Quick-Start. I'll put money on it. If I'm wrong, I'll bump my contribution to Revolution D100 up one level.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Aelwyn

[The Venomous Pao]

I want to believe.

Oh, and while we're referencing flying saucers, I think we all know that everything went wrong when they didn't use this cover...

What would we have called the BGB if that had actually been used?

[Aelwyn]

 

What would we have called the BGB if that had actually been used?

The Big Goddamnawesome Book.

[Aelwyn]

Did you steal that image from the rarely seen RPG Aztecs & Aliens?

[Simlasa]

My complaints about that cover had more to do with the lettering style than the image... though I do prefer the one they ended up going with.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

There were more complaints about the lettering than the artwork itself, as I recall (oh, halcyon dyas of Yahoo! groups - or not ...). But there were issues with the painting, too - the flying saucer perspective and it's teeny weeny beams, the odd stance of the two characters unconcerned with their impending doom, etc. But looking back on it it does have a certain charm. Thanks for the memory, Venomous Pao.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

For what its worth, I never gave up on Chaosium, which has been one of my favorite companies since 1980. I did however give up on those that were managing it at the time I was writing CF2 and CF3.

Fine line there, 3d6, but I take your point.

[The Venomous Pao]

Glad to bring back the joy of that cover, amigos! I remember the civil discussion and calm reactions "fondly." I snagged the GIF at the time for posterity's sake, never knowing when I'd need to use it

It definitely had a charm, and of course they kept the Hobo font inside the book. But I do think the Vitruvian cover was ultimately the better choice. Here's to hoping that all our concerns now lead to an equally happy result for us BRP fans!