If not Stormbringer, what then?

[Atgxtg]

16 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

Do you think so? My idea is that anyone who could not do the conversion on his own would be extremely confused by such a "multiversal" statblock.

I don't it's so much that someone couldn't do the conversion on their own, just that it would save time. For instance a character with CON 9, S1Z 17 would have 11 hit points in RQ2/RQG, but 13 hit points in BRP/RQ3 and similar games. Now the 2 points isn't a big deal, but the difference in points per location could be, as could the different armor values (plate is either 6 points, 8 points of 1D10-1/1D10-+2 depending on variant). And some things aren't so easy to convert, and it might be nice if there was some sort of semi-standardized way to doing it.  

16 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

Just think of the different names of skills in the different systems.

That could be handled with a small table somewhere. In fact, if it weren't for hit points and hit locations, I'd consider just doing of a table of NPCs with the significant stuff in it. For most NPCs we probably just need the relevant Combat/Magic stats. 

16 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

We could open another thread and try making such a statblock example, just as an experiment.

Possibly. I was just thinking that such an approach could help. It could make a lot of the adventures easier to adapt to different, but related systems. 

[Jakob]

1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

Skarka, the owner of Adamant, had a serious health problem some years ago - one that can easily kill you. I had it 40 years ago, and my father last year (he did not survive), and believe me, it compromises your health. Before this episode, Adamant was an extremely active company, and Skarka was the coordinator of the CB7 partnership program when it included literally dozens of partners.

I'm sorry to hear that - let's forget that I said anything negative about them.

[Mugen]

I surely already said I would love a Quest for the Time Bird adaptation, and BRP would be a great fit for it.

Unfortunately, it seems no-one managed to get the licence since 1986 (except Infogrammes for a videogame) and it's unlikely Chaosium would bother acquiring a licence only popular in France...

And I fear a french editor would base it on D&D or a simplified D&D...

Edited July 12, 2018 by Mugen

[Mugen]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

For instance a character with CON 9, S1Z 17 would have 11 hit points in RQ2/RQG, but 13 hit points in BRP/RQ3 and similar games. 

And 14 in StormBringer first editions...

[Jakob]

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

I surely already said I would love a Quest for the Time Bird adaptation, and BRP would be a great fit for it.

 

I really love that one and had already thought about mentioning it here. A great Sword & Sorcery setting with lots of weird creatures and magic ... of course, the main thing is the beautifully tragical story of Bragon. I read them at a much too early age, which might be part of the reason why they stuck with me. I was really creeped out by these memory-sucking little creatures.

I think these graphic novels are relatively popular here in Germany, too - or at least, they're considered a classic by most people who i know who care about "the funny books".

[tobarstep]

17 hours ago, Jakob said:

Me too. I think there's actually still a chance of that. The Mythras CoFE is off the table (which, on the other hand, is a pity ...), and Sarah Newton seems very involved with Chaosium right now.

The last I'd heard was that Modiphius was going to publish it, but it's been "in the works" for a couple years now already (as indicated on this page). I know she just published another game via Modiphius (Capharnaum) and of course they also publish Mindjammer.

[simonh]

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I don't it's so much that someone couldn't do the conversion on their own, just that it would save time. For instance a character with CON 9, S1Z 17 would have 11 hit points in RQ2/RQG, but 13 hit points in BRP/RQ3 and similar games. Now the 2 points isn't a big deal, but the difference in points per location could be, as could the different armor values (plate is either 6 points, 8 points of 1D10-1/1D10-+2 depending on variant). And some things aren't so easy to convert, and it might be nice if there was some sort of semi-standardized way to doing it.  

I understand the motivation and I can see why you think it’s a good idea, but from experience doing this myself in practice I really don’t think it’s worth it.

However the stats turned out, I’d have to evaluate them and possibly adjust to the combat capability of my party anyway. Ok characters in RQ3 have a few more HP than in RQG, but if my RQG party are really kick ass, maybe that’s a good thing. I might want their opponents to be a bit beefier anyway, so down rating them for me isn’t doing me any favours in that situation.

IMHO the main function of the rules is to establish a consistent base line for the players and their characters to work within. As a GM though I can set whatever stats, skills, magic etc I like for NPCs, to suit the logic of the challenge I want to present. There’s no set of rules that dictates what kind of armour I have to give these Broo the party will be fighting. Published NPC stats are just a handy baseline for me to work from. They save me 90% of the work, but I still need to put in the extra 10% to check and adjust for my needs. Someone doing an extra 10% work adjusting for my specific game system by adjusting stats a point or two here or there isn’t saving me having to put in that 10% anyway adjusting for my particular needs within that system.

anyway giving like 3 different HP ratings, 3 different weapon damage dice, etc is just going to be a mess and much harder for me to check and annotate or adjust. Plus the extra space taken means I get less content.

Edited July 13, 2018 by simonh

[Richard S.]

Hm. What about Earthsea? Or Prydain?

[Questbird]

I'm excited by Lyonesse, which actually is forthcoming for Mythras. I use Nehwon (Fafhrd/Gray Mouser) as my BRP world and I love and recommend it, but Jack Vance's Lyonesse is a great mix of historical, fantastic and fey, a little like Legend from Dragon Warriors (where I've also played some BRP games). Jack Vance was very likely an inspiration for Dave Morris in creating Legend anyway.

[simonh]

8 hours ago, Questbird said:

I'm excited by Lyonesse, which actually is forthcoming for Mythras. I use Nehwon (Fafhrd/Gray Mouser) as my BRP world and I love and recommend it, but Jack Vance's Lyonesse is a great mix of historical, fantastic and fey, a little like Legend from Dragon Warriors (where I've also played some BRP games). Jack Vance was very likely an inspiration for Dave Morris in creating Legend anyway.

I played a Lyonesse game years ago, it was in French, but the GM spent some of his childhood in France and is multilingual so it wasn't a problem. A I remember is was quite lightweight fairytale fantasy and loads of fun. The system used a sort of prototypical version of the dice scale in Savage Worlds.

Nehwon is a great setting for RQ/BRP. I ran a game like that back in the 80s.

[lawrence.whitaker]

Quote

I played a Lyonesse game years ago, it was in French, but the GM spent some of his childhood in France and is multilingual so it wasn't a problem. A I remember is was quite lightweight fairytale fantasy and loads of fun.

Most likely the edition published by the Swiss company, 'Men in Cheese'.

Lyonesse certainly has a fair amount of lightweight fairytale fantasy to it, but it also has some quite brutal, gritty, Game of Thrones-style realism too.

[simonh]

1 hour ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

Most likely the edition published by the Swiss company, 'Men in Cheese'.

 

That's the one!

[Al.]

I'd second (third) a call for Dragon Warriors Legend. Morris and Dickinson were both big contributors of RQII material to WD and the whole combat mechanic (but not Rank and Profession) came from a house rule Morris suggested in WD for speeding up RQ combat.

 

Also for your consideration:

Neal Asher's Polity series (I really don't like his right wing views or refusal to acknowledge Banks as an influence and a single Culture ROU could bend the entire polity over its knee and spank it; but it's a setting which is ripe for RPGs in a way that the late, great Mr Banks' works just aren't)

The Lies of Locke Lamora setting (but not the increasingly weak sequels)

Joe Abercrombie's First Law books (I know that he is an avowed D&Dist but I think that the d100 rules are a better fit)

 

But I do think that the advice to hoover up public domain out of copyright settings is a much more financially sensible route (if nuChaosim actually make some money from these then they can assuage their and our guilt by contributing to a cause dear to the heart of the original author)

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Al.

[g33k]

58 minutes ago, Al. said:

... But I do think that the advice to hoover up public domain out of copyright settings ...

{heh}

"Hoover up" kinda implies grabbing ALL the settings above ... at least, the ones out of (c)...

I can just imagine the horror of the dedicated RQ / CoC / HQ fans if Chaosium announced 10ish new settings being delivered in the near future ...

[Atgxtg]

9 hours ago, g33k said:

I can just imagine the horror of the dedicated RQ / CoC / HQ fans if Chaosium announced 10ish new settings being delivered in the near future ...

I think that depends on if they are one shots or lines. I don't mind the idea of there being a book based on a particular PD book or character (Robin Hood, Ivanhoe, Sinbad) , or for a particular setting or Genre (Ancient Egypt, Feudal Britain, American Civil War, Film Noir). Especially if different people are writing those books. It's when something becomes a product line, and get support that I get worried that the new product is going to cut into the support for existing lines. 

What might work would be to treat the "one-shot books" as one line, and then, if something becomes a breakout hit, make that a supported line. Perhaps even in some sort of carousel or popularity format. That is, the one-shot games that sold the best get a follow up supplement, and so on. 

 

Ideally, I think we'd all like to see stuff to support any/every setting, but we all know that they only have the time, resources and personnel to only do some of the things we want, and will have to prioritize.

[Atgxtg]

On 7/12/2018 at 7:54 PM, simonh said:

I understand the motivation and I can see why you think it’s a good idea, but from experience doing this myself in practice I really don’t think it’s worth it.

However the stats turned out, I’d have to evaluate them and possibly adjust to the combat capability of my party anyway. Ok characters in RQ3 have a few more HP than in RQG, but if my RQG party are really kick ass, maybe that’s a good thing. I might want their opponents to be a bit beefier anyway, so down rating them for me isn’t doing me any favours in that situation.

Hmm, in that case maybe we should have some sort of generic indicators of NPC ability? That might make it easier to adapt things to different groups. For example, a Swordman in an adventure could be rated at "Best PC"-10% or average PC.

[SDLeary]

14 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

What might work would be to treat the "one-shot books" as one line, and then, if something becomes a breakout hit, make that a supported line. Perhaps even in some sort of carousel or popularity format. That is, the one-shot games that sold the best get a follow up supplement, and so on. 

Such as... Monographs. I think they already put the nail in that one. 😉

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Such as... Monographs. I think they already put the nail in that one. 😉

SDLeary

No, the monographs never really went anywhere. I was thinking more alone the lines of how games like Hero, RoleMaster, and GURPS had one off Books for specific settings (Ancient Rome, Pirates, Robin Hood). I think that's probably the only way to cover a lot of bases without taking time away from existing lines. If something gets hot and people want more support for it, they can give it a supplement or two. If not, then at least it got covered. Otherwise they are only going to be able to support a couple of lines.

BTW, Any idea just what cultures are going to be in Fantasy Earth? Is it going to be Medieval, or Dark Age? Do we get Celtic Britain, Arthurian Britain, or Norman Britain? Do we have Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome all at the height of their power? So many ways to go with it. 

[simonh]

The Miskatonc Library is pretty much an evolution of the monograph come ncept though. Independently produced material supporting a Chaosium game line. The commercial arrangement and governance are a bit different, but it’s still an avenue to publication for independent authors.

I have the same questions about Fantasy Earth. I’d love to be able to play Arabian knights adventures, but also in ancient Egypt and Babylon, but those are temporary and geographically mutually exclusive. My best guess is that we will get both, and therefore it will be a game and supplement line rather than a cohesive single setting.

It is tricky though. To be a proper setting a game needs to have major NPCs, politics, culture, national rivalries and such to make it a living world. The problem is that locks you in temporally very specifically, compared to a more generic ‘Ancient Egypt” setting book that is just rules and magic. This was the problem with the GURPS supplements and Land of Ninja. Etc. They were really half of a setting, to male it alive you also need campaign resources and scenarios.

[colinabrett]

May I suggest, not knowing the who-owns-what-IP question, Fritz Lieber's Lankhmar (and by extension all of Nehwon)? It's a setting rich with most of the standard fantasy tropes (except elves and dwarfs) but filled with magic that has consequences, plane-hopping (e.g. Bazaar of the Bizarre and a few others), interfering gods,  meddlesome mages and even the possibility of ghouls as PCs. 

Aside from TSR's products, who might own the license to one of fantasy's leading lights?

Colin

[Atgxtg]

15 minutes ago, colinabrett said:

May I suggest, not knowing the who-owns-what-IP question, Fritz Lieber's Lankhmar (and by extension all of Nehwon)? It's a setting rich with most of the standard fantasy tropes (except elves and dwarfs) but filled with magic that has consequences, plane-hopping (e.g. Bazaar of the Bizarre and a few others), interfering gods,  meddlesome mages and even the possibility of ghouls as PCs. 

Aside from TSR's products, who might own the license to one of fantasy's leading lights?

Colin

I think Pinnacle owns it now and have adapted Savage Worlds to it.

[colinabrett]

3 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I think Pinnacle owns it now and have adapted Savage Worlds to it.

Thanks for the information.

Colin

[nclarke]

Not only PInnacle, Goodman Games is doing a Dungeon Crawl Classic version that Kickstarted last year and is due in pdf soon with hard copy around Xmas.

http://goodman-games.com/store/product-category/dcc-lankhmar/

[g33k]

13 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I think that depends on if they are one shots or lines. I don't mind the idea of there being a book based on a particular PD book or character (Robin Hood, Ivanhoe, Sinbad) , or for a particular setting or Genre (Ancient Egypt, Feudal Britain, American Civil War, Film Noir). Especially if different people are writing those books. It's when something becomes a product line, and get support that I get worried that the new product is going to cut into the support for existing lines. 

What might work would be to treat the "one-shot books" as one line, and then, if something becomes a breakout hit, make that a supported line. Perhaps even in some sort of carousel or popularity format. That is, the one-shot games that sold the best get a follow up supplement, and so on. 

 

Ideally, I think we'd all like to see stuff to support any/every setting, but we all know that they only have the time, resources and personnel to only do some of the things we want, and will have to prioritize.

Sure, a single book is always less commitment.  But a "Hoover" strategy is MANY books; even if each is its own thing, 10 setting-specific books still represent AFAIK the bulk of Chaosium's RPG output for a couple of years; not putting any work into any of their OTHER lines...  

[Atgxtg]

55 minutes ago, g33k said:

Sure, a single book is always less commitment.  But a "Hoover" strategy is MANY books; even if each is its own thing, 10 setting-specific books still represent AFAIK the bulk of Chaosium's RPG output for a couple of years; not putting any work into any of their OTHER lines...  

Yeah, that's why I think it's not practical. Not unless they took the OGL route and opened thing up for other companies to produce stuff. And that's a double edged sword. 

Of course if RQ really takes off and it becomes the second most popular FRPG again, it might be a different story.