I wish for BRP Essentials to be ...

[Mankcam]

.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Mankcam

[Mankcam]

On 1/4/2016 at 8:38 AM, Claudius said:

I buy, and I have bought, gaming books made by Chaosium, Mongoose, Alephtar Games, and the Design Mechanism. I follow a d100 blog, wherein its author describes how he ran the campaign included in Crusaders of the Amber Coast (a supplement written for BRP), using RuneQuest 6th, and he didn't have a single problem. In my opinion, all d100 games are very compatible, and there is no risk of breakup.

Cross capatibility has been noted many times as being one of the system's strengths, alongside back compatibility.

As a GM I can easily run a RQ6 session using Legend, Renaissance, and OQ scenarios with hardly any issues at all.

It does require a little more handwaving to play RQ6 with BGB, MW, SB, and CoC scenarios; however it's still easy enough to do this on the fly with little consequences to game flow.

The BRP Family certainly holds up well in this respect compared to the 'edition wars' often seen in many other systems, especially with D&D.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Mankcam

[Gollum]

That's right. Since all success rolls are determined with a D100, it is easy to take any character from any game and to know whether he succeeds with any D100 rule ... But the problem comes more when you want to play an adventure designed by another publisher. You have some conversions to do to and this is not always easy. What BRP skill best corresponds to RuneQuest Essential Endurance, Evade or Locale for instance? Likewise for weapon damages and armor protections, which are not always the same ...

Edited January 6, 2016 by Gollum

[Baulderstone]

3 hours ago, Gollum said:

That's right. Since all success rolls are determined with a D100, it is easy to take any character from any game and to know whether he succeeds with any D100 rule ... But the problem comes more when you want to play an adventure designed by another publisher. You have some conversions to do to and this is not always easy. What BRP skill best corresponds to RuneQuest Essential Endurance, Evade or Locale for instance? Likewise for weapon damages and armor protections, which are not always the same ...

I don't really find that an issue. Even when I running a game using resources from a single game, I still need to make up character stats on the fly sometimes. For example, the players may unexpectedly decide to buy something, and I need to adjudicate some haggling with a merchant that didn't exist until a minute ago. I just fill in a number that feels appropriate.

When using a character from another D100 game, it's the same process, but I only occasionally need to pull a number out of the air. 

It's worth noting that even for NPCs that I have prepared before a session, I rarely go through the full character generation process. I just jot down some numbers for the characteristics and skills that are likely to come up based on their role in the adventure and my conception of the character. If I need to improvise a number during play, I write that in as I go. 

[soltakss]

On 1/6/2016 at 10:28 AM, Gollum said:

That's right. Since all success rolls are determined with a D100, it is easy to take any character from any game and to know whether he succeeds with any D100 rule ... But the problem comes more when you want to play an adventure designed by another publisher. You have some conversions to do to and this is not always easy. What BRP skill best corresponds to RuneQuest Essential Endurance, Evade or Locale for instance? Likewise for weapon damages and armor protections, which are not always the same ...

Personally, what I do is this:

Weapon damage is as written in the supplements, regardless of what the equivalent weapon stats are in the rules I am using. I don't mind if the rules say 1D8 and the supplement says 1D8+1, I treat them as variant weapons.

Locational Hit points and armour are as the supplement, regardless of what the values are in the rules. So what if one set of rules has 6 points in a leg and 7 in the chest, but the rules say 8 points in the chest? If chainmail is 6 points in the supplement and 7 in the rules, I use the 6 and don't even explain it.

Location D20 uses whatever the players roll, as they refer to their own hit locations when working  it out. If I have to work it out, I use the values in the supplement. Again, I don't care if 7 is an abdomen in the rules but a leg in the setting.

For spell effects, I generally use what is in the rules, except for spells that aren't covered in the rules, in which case I use what is in the supplement.

For things like movement, strike ranks and so on, I generally take whichever is easiest to use. 

 

It just makes it easier to use the wealth of RQ/BRP/Legend/OQ/Renaissance/GORE/D100/Whatever supplements and scenarios that are out there begging to be played.

Edited January 10, 2016 by soltakss

[smjn]

I think Simon's approach is very reasonable and the path of least resistance. Why make it more complicated than necessary? The way he does it keeps it simple without ruining the anything. The players do not know what the supplement says, so it doesn't matter if an NPC uses separate skills for each weapon attack and parry while the PCs use RQ6 combat styles, for example.

[Baulderstone]

4 minutes ago, smjn said:

I think Simon's approach is very reasonable and the path of least resistance. Why make it more complicated than necessary? The way he does it keeps it simple without ruining the anything. The players do not know what the supplement says, so it doesn't matter if an NPC uses separate skills for each weapon attack and parry while the PCs use RQ6 combat styles, for example.

I agree. About the only thing you need to be sure you translate precisely is the way for determining Initiative, as you can't mix and match those. That's really easy to on the fly though. 

[Gollum]

Oh yes! What all of you wrote above is judicious advice. Since making up a character on the fly is not hard (I often do that too), converting one from a system to another is not really hardest. And from a D100 game to another D100 game, it even easier ... I just have to give up my interest of accuracy and do it more roughly. I also love the weapon variant example.

All that is very clever. Thank you very much. I'm now totally convinced that the multiplicity of D100 essential games won't necessarily split apart the community.

 

[GianniVacca]

On 6/1/2016 at 4:27 PM, soltakss said:

Location D20 uses whatever the players roll, as they refer to their own hit locations when working  it out. If I have to work it out, I use the values in the supplement. Again, I don't care if 7 is an abdomen in the rules but a leg in the setting.

 

I generally agree with what @soltakss has written, except wrt Hit Locations for which I tend to always use the same tables (RQ2/RQ3); my thoughts here: http://2ndage.blogspot.com/2015/12/hit-locations-tables-and-their-evolution.html

[Aini]

I voted for chaosium runequest.

I assume it means RQ2/3

RQ3 is my favourite version of the d100 system thus far

[Guest Vile Traveller]

3 hours ago, Aini said:

I voted for chaosium runequest.

I assume it means RQ2/3

RQ3 is my favourite version of the d100 system thus far

At the time the poll was posted it meant RQ6 with Glorantha built in, and there was no thought of RQ2/3 being a possibility. Now it means whatever the new version of RuneQuest will be, and it does look like both RQ2 and RQ3 will have some bearing on that.

[Aini]

22 hours ago, Vile said:

At the time the poll was posted it meant RQ6 with Glorantha built in, and there was no thought of RQ2/3 being a possibility. Now it means whatever the new version of RuneQuest will be, and it does look like both RQ2 and RQ3 will have some bearing on that.

Ah i see, i would have voted BGB then probably as that is my next favourite

But to be honest i like all the systems, when roleplaying the minor differences in rules really seem minor.

[girtablilu]

I'm pretty sure I voted on this previously, but I can't tell.  I know it won't let me vote now.  I would prefer it to be consistent with CoC7, since that is what they will be promoting and supporting the most.  I played D&D 30 years ago and ran Gamma World 2e for 10+ years about the same time.  I stopped playing for about 20 years, and came to BRP looking for something generic that I could use to create any genre.  I looked at GURPS and liked the availability of sourcebooks, but did not care for the system.  Savage Worlds did not impress me.  I saw BRP with its use of percentiles and I liked the concept.  I like the BGB for being all-encompassing with its various optional rules, but at the same time, I think it's too much information to sift through.  And I didn't care for the Resistance Table.  I like CoC7 as it eliminates this.

Overall though, I think they should make it as simple as possible.  I remember playing Gamma World and realizing that, compared to D&D, it was very concise.  The core book is only 64pp and covers everything except creating your own campaigns.  Campaign creation was covered in the accompanying scenario book and was only 6pp.  So a total of 70pp.  Of the core book, 15pp were the mutation lists and 10pp were a complete bestiary.  Combat was covered in about 3pp.  Character creation took up less than 2pp.  And it wasn't lacking.  At no time did I have to wonder, "what about this, it's not in here?".  The only thing was, I was stuck with just that setting.  Any other setting would require creating my own equipment, creatures, etc.  And with BRP Essentials, it could easily be covered with sourcebooks.  I don't see any reason BRP Essentials would have to be any longer than this. 

These days I don't have the free time I used to, and I need a game that is simple and easy to run. Plus I think the simpler it is, the more enjoyable the play is in RT.

Hopefully there's some news about the BRP Essentials soon, though I know their main focus will be on CoC, as it is their biggest seller.  Again another reason BRP Essentials should be consistent with CoC7.  And hopefully they understand that there are a lot of us that would like a generic system, followed by sourcebooks for various genres/settings/equipment/bestiaries. 

[g33k]

I'd love to see "BRP" (the line) adopt a format something like EvilHat's "Fate" has done:

1. A "Core" book, BRP, setting-neutral & pretty slim with only most-commonly-varied options.  64-96 (ish) pages?
2. A "Toolkit" book, BRP Options, very much along the lines of [ BGBv2 minus the content of "Core" ((1) above) ] .
3. Several complete/standalone games, tweaked to their settings (e.g. CoC7, Chao,RQ:Next (n.b. item (1) needs to include both of these!) .
4. Several setting-books written to the "needs Core to run" and/or "needs Core + Toolkit to run" standard.
5. Campaigns/Adventures -- some rolled into Setting-books of (4) or standalone games of (3), but also some campaign-in-a-book and/or collection-of-adventures.

It actually looks to me like Chaosium/MD is headed in that direction, as (3) is clearly what they are already making, and (as best I can tell) they have signalled (1) is coming...  Is "Mythic Iceland" coming as a Standalone (3) game, or as "needs BRP" (4) Setting-book?

 

Edited October 10, 2016 by g33k

[Mugen]

I do think D100 Revolution is the most interesting version of BRP I've ever read, and it would make a good and modernized "Essentials" version of the game, which IMHO neither CoC 7 nor CRQ 7-or-4 are.
 

Edited October 10, 2016 by Mugen

[Gollum]

In my humble opinion ...

D100 Revolution is good, yes. But it is already designed and published by another publisher. So, unless Chaosium and Alephtar Games suddenly decided to work together, we won't see that happening.

RuneQuest 7 is good too. But there is already an Essential version very close from that version of the game, designed and published here again by another Publisher: Mythras, from Design Mechanism.

So, what can do Chaosium?

Trying a very simplified and synthetic version of the different versions of the game. It also already exists: OpenQuest, from D101 Games.

The only possible solutions are:

• Call of Cthulhu 7, which brings new mechanism and is a best seller of Chaosium?
• A totally new version of the game? But why one more? the risk to disappoint everyone is high ... Changing for changing is not necessarily the best idea ...
• The already existing BRP version of the system? But then, why doing a new edition rather than going on developing it? Thanks to its various optional rules, it already allows everyone to play as he wants ...

Brief, the better choice sound to be something like Call of Cthulhu 7. Those who prefer D100 Revolution already have it. Those who prefer RuneQuest 7 already have it. Those who want something more easy to play already have it ... A Call of Cthulhu 7 version of the BRP system is the only thing that has not been published yet - and which corresponds to a strongly implanted product from Chaosium.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Gollum

[soltakss]

1 hour ago, Gollum said:

In my humble opinion ...

Brief, the better choice sound to be something like Call of Cthulhu 7. Those who prefer D100 Revolution already have it. Those who prefer RuneQuest 7 already have it. Those who want something more easy to play already have it ... A Call of Cthulhu 7 version of the BRP system is the only thing that has not been published yet - and which corresponds to a strongly implanted product from Chaosium.

 

That is exactly how I see it (Except for Call of Cthulhu, but I can see why you use that as a base).

Game Companies who assume that everyone with only buy their particular flavour of D100 will be wrong. Many people but one or two of the rules sets, many buy a lot of the rules sets. As the scenarios/supplements are very easy to use in all of the rules sets, with a few on the fly modifications, we can use a Legend supplement with Mythras, an OpenQuest supplement with RQ7(4) or a BRP supplement with Revolution. 

The different branding might be confusing for new starters and that is something that could easily be fixed by a D100-Compatible logo, which of course will never happen. A quick search on the web should show the opinion that you can use any D100 Pirate supplement with any other one, Renaissance can be used with Pirates, Merrie England/Stupor Mundi/Deus Vult can be used together, Mythic Iceland/Vikings of Legend can be used together and so on. That is great for GMs and Players, not so great for struggling games companies.

[Gollum]

I fully do agree with you. And I believe that it even heightens what I am meaning ... Since almost every BRP user will actually buy books from different game companies, trying to design BRP Essentials by "copying" (more or less) one of the other existing product would be a pure lost of time. Indeed, since D100 Revolution, Mythras, OpenQuest and even BRP already do exist and can already be bought, the only remaining solution is to do something else, something that will give new options to game masters who will eventually take ideas from several set of rules to build their own original mixing.

And since the most innovative rules published by Chaosium are now in Call of Cthulhu 7, basing the new BRP Essentials on Call of Cthulhu 7 sounds to be the best choice.

Note:

Liking Call of Cthulhu 7 required a lot of time for me. I even preferred the big golden book to earlier Call of Cthulhu editions, even to play Call of Cthulhu adventures! But now that I understand those rules better, I like them more and more.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Gollum

[Mankcam]

I agree that the core BRP system should be more or less consistent with CoC 7E.

Skill success levels, Characteristics impacting upon char gen development points, Bonus/Penalty Dice (with optional numerical modifiers), the Maneuver rules etc all these things could be used with most settings. 

I would probably be happy if we also used these CoC 7E influenced core rules for the next edition of RuneQuest.

RQ could have additional facets, such as Hit Locations, Encumbrance, Runes, Magic, varied Special Effects for different weapon/damage types, SR instead of DEX order, a greater focus on Parry & Shields, a few extra nuts n bolts etc to make it fantasy or Gloranthan specific. 

If a core set of BRP rules is published as a 'house system', then CoC 7E should be considered as a major influence for the sake of compatability. Given it's popularity it certainly would be the edition to be compatible with, rather than just reprinting the mechanics directly from the BGB.

I would be happy if a slim hardcover of roughly 100 pages is published as the core system, about the size of the 'Renaissance' book, and this replaces the role of the BGB for a generic rule set, or a primer rule set. I wouldn't include Magic or Powers, and just have a broad overview of weapons. For anything more specific then the additional stand alone setting books can be purchased.

I still feel having a core set of rules that can used to play any setting is a great tool kit for a GM. I love that I can watch a film, and if I ever want to replicate it then I can use the BGB, so having a current version of being able to do this means others can continue to do this as well. In addition it could encourage licencees to publish/crowd fund different material using the core Chaosium BRP system as a base. It's a win/win having a contemporary set of core rules to be referenced.

So yep I would love to see a small core generic BRP book currently in print, and it makes sense for it to have some games mechanics consistency with the rest of Chaosium's published product lines. 

Kinda like what the Design Mechanism are already doing with Mythras...

Edited October 12, 2016 by Mankcam

[SDLeary]

Here is the thing. For a primer or basic house rule set, you do have to include some magic. Just as you have to include a couple of basic firearms and a couple of ray guns. You need to give some breadth to a system like that so that your Core can cover all the eras represented or planned to be represented, by the stand alone games in your stable. 

As to what to base it on... Yeah, I'd go with a modified CoC 7th. As long as they flip things back around and get rid of the effing % characteristics. It doesn't fit with RQ (at least I hope it doesn't), and it makes monster just look wrong from a stat block perspective. They could get rid of Luck too.

SDLeary

[Mankcam]

I think you could potentially get away without magic in a primer, but I won't complain if it is included.

I do agree about ditching the CoC 7E % scores for Characteristics, primarily due to the change in how the stat block is presented in every other version of BRP. It was the only thing I think CoC 7E got wrong, and yes it just looks weird. I just don't see what the issue was to alter it at this stage of the game, with BRP being around for 30yrs + . I would rather the stat block had not been altered in this respect.

 The Luck rules aren't too bad, although I think I would of preferred having a similar concept using Power Points. The main reasons for this is that there is no changes in the stat block itself, and it also gives non-spellcasters a reason to actually use Power Points. However now that the Luck rules are written as such in CoC 7E I suppose it is more important to remain consistent with them. In any case Luck may be a setting rule rather than a core rule, and may not be necessary in a primer.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Mankcam

[colinabrett]

4 hours ago, Mankcam said:

I think you could potentially get away without magic in a primer, but I won't complain it is included.

I know this has been discussed at length but would it be possible for the essentials to include "generic powers", rather than specifics (magic, sorcery, mutations) in an Essentials book? After all, a "Magic Missile" spell can have the same effect as "Laser Vision" but listed in the rules as "Focussed Energy Attack" (which is distinct from a "Fireball" spell versus "Power Blast", described as an "Area Energy Attack"). The players can choose a power and a suitably descriptive name.

Savage Worlds does this sort of thing but I truly don't know how well it works in-game and between different genres. It just seem to me that a "generic assault rifle" is just as Essential as a generic "Multi-shot Energy Attack" power.

All that slurred (hic), I'll still have the BGB as my go-to system.

Colin 

[Mugen]

9 minutes ago, ColinBrett said:

I know this has been discussed at length but would it be possible for the essentials to include "generic powers", rather than specifics (magic, sorcery, mutations) in an Essentials book? After all, a "Magic Missile" spell can have the same effect as "Laser Vision" but listed in the rules as "Focussed Energy Attack" (which is distinct from a "Fireball" spell versus "Power Blast", described as an "Area Energy Attack"). The players can choose a power and a suitably descriptive name.

Savage Worlds does this sort of thing but I truly don't know how well it works in-game and between different genres. It just seem to me that a "generic assault rifle" is just as Essential as a generic "Multi-shot Energy Attack" power.

All that slurred (hic), I'll still have the BGB as my go-to system.

Colin 

Well, you could cover a lot of possibilities with few powers:

• Attack (Energy)
• Augment (Stat)
• Defense
• Detect (Thing)
• Heal
• Illusion
• Mind Control
• Summon (entity)
• Telekinesis
• Telepathy

Edited October 12, 2016 by Mugen

[Mankcam]

Yes a set of generic powers makes sense in a generic rule set, with ideas on trappings just like how Savage Worlds does it. 

A list of about 15 - 20 powers would cover most effects.I can barely think beyond the 10 effects posted above.

Whatever its flaws, Savage Worlds is a good example of how to efficiently structure a core rule book which is  is focused on being a generic tool kit.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Mankcam

[RosenMcStern]

15 - 20 powers? You are an optimist, Cameron. Revolution has 47 generic powers, and they cover the bare minimum, not even including rituals like warding, summoning and create familiar.

Ok, maybe you might strip the list down to 30, but rest assured that 15-20 will not cover the basic set that lets you design "everything you want".

And needless to say, I agree that it could be a good idea.