Is Chaosium going to support BRP anymore?

[RosenMcStern]

(It's a built-in restraint on marketing the BRP support that is out there. I got my $250 last summer, and that's all, folks. It all goes to Chaosium now, and they market how they see fit).

Since I have little economic incentive to talk up the setting, I have only done so in "free" ways. There are AtA threads on this site that talk about it in fair detail, as well as a review in the reviews section.

Another good reason why third party support would (no, will) provide better support to BRP. There's no incentive to the writer to promote his stuff, and if Chaosium does not do it by itself (and due to time constraints they do not do it fast, in any case) it is less likely that the author does promote that much.

[Jason D]

Another good reason why third party support would (no, will) provide better support to BRP. There's no incentive to the writer to promote his stuff, and if Chaosium does not do it by itself (and due to time constraints they do not do it fast, in any case) it is less likely that the author does promote that much.

I'm hoping that more third-party support will materialize. Chaosium has made their terms public, and I suspect that if those terms aren't acceptable, they can renegotiated.

[RosenMcStern]

Well, a bit costly (if compared to Mongoose's, which is essentially a zero-cost license), but agreeable. I myself have renegotiated something.

[ORtrail]

Most of the Ulfland maps were done in Bentley Microstation, then converted to a more "production friendly" graphic format - the originals are in colour. The floor plans and the map of Tarinport are doctored scans of hand drawn maps. The Outpost 19 maps are also originally colour Microstation diagrams, but I was never happy with them and meant to rework them but we ran out of time. I keep meaning to overhaul them and send Dustin a copy to put up on Chaosium's site.

Nick

I wasn't trying to be unduly critical, believe me. I've been putting off doing maps for a BRP scenario I've been working on since the BRP Monograph contest last year. A good map is a work of art, but a lot of effort goes into getting it there. I'm still not sure what approach to take for the maps right now. Are you happy with Microstation? What does it cost? What about free map making software like (a quick Google search later).... AutoRealm?

Oh, and as for the issue of third-party support? It's a catch-22 right now. The BRP book won't sell better until it has more support, but there won't be a lot of third-party support until BRP is selling well. Maybe having enough monographs out will jumpstart things? I hope.

[NickMiddleton]

I wasn't trying to be unduly critical, believe me.

s'OK - I always knew I wasn't happy with Outpost 19 maps, just wanted to explain the process I went through.

I've been putting off doing maps for a BRP scenario I've been working on since the BRP Monograph contest last year. A good map is a work of art, but a lot of effort goes into getting it there. I'm still not sure what approach to take for the maps right now. Are you happy with Microstation? What does it cost?

I can draw things in my sleep in Microstation - but it's really a high end 3D CAD package, used for Civil Engineering and rail Transport projects. I have acess to it through work, but it's NOT a package I'd recommend for private use (it's expesive, and massively over specced for most home use).

What about free map making software like (a quick Google search later).... AutoRealm?

I used AutoREALM a lot when I had a PC and whilst it's a little quirky, it's actually very effective and powerful. It's also worth looking at just plain bit map or vector based drawing packages as well - currently on my Mac I do a lot with Inkscape, Seashore (a glorious little GIMP compatible low end bit map editor) and Artrage 2.5, which I got as a freeby with my Wacom Bamboo Tablet. I still tend to produce a base map in Microstation, but then I end up touching up teh final graphic file in Artrage or Seashore.

Oh, and as for the issue of third-party support? It's a catch-22 right now. The BRP book won't sell better until it has more support, but there won't be a lot of third-party support until BRP is selling well. Maybe having enough monographs out will jumpstart things? I hope.

Hopefully.

Nick

[sdavies2720]

I bought "I am Mongoose" by Mathew Sprange last night from DriveThruRPG. I read a bit before becoming overwhelmed by...the lack of humility...

One thing that struck me (again, from a short read) is how much Mongoose's strategy is driven by volume: Keep costs down, know that you will sell a certain number of each kind of book, increase sales by increasing the number of issuances you do each month.

CLearly quality is in there, and they have generated some nice stuff, but there's a strong bias toward volume. In retrospect, this is probably why the RQ playtest was botched -- it was just taking too long to surface and discuss the options and was messing up the production plans.

Chaosium has the cost down part nailed, but I think they need to start moving the dial more toward speed of publishing. Encouraging fans should be a great way to do it.

Steve

[Trifletraxor]

Well, back on to the original topic. I received a contract yesterday to produce a setting for BRP.

Non-monograph. A book that'll hit the actual distribution chain at some point. As for the setting, I'm going to hold off on announcing it for a bit. I want to get all my BRP options outlined, then post the setting and intended options here for everyone to comment and suggest on.

:party: prrty!!!

(Just a side question, is holding of announcing it your decision or Chaosium's wish? :confused: I only ask because they are rumoured to have another non-monograph setting for BRP that they do not wish to be announced yet. Ah... those tasty rumours!)

We should change that notice on the front page... it is not only back in line, but may be available in some form sooner than expected...

More I cannot say.

I'll get to it shortly! Sooner than expected you say? Yiii!!!

Thanks Nick. It's a bit offputting to keep reading about how there's no support or no settings for BRP while a pile of my 180 page setting books sit here looking at me. And it is complete: elaborate backstory, organizations, gazetteer, 2 scenarios, options, new rules, camapaign structure, and a year of hobby time to write.

And heck I dangle myself out here to support the thing.

I think that any one complaining about the lack of settings for fantasy, sci fi or spy genres should attest that they have bought our respective products.

Would anyone like a copy to review?

Sorry, but procrastination is one of my highest skills. I'll get around to that tomorrow, I promise!

I got the email, and I didn't even submit anything.

Mindprobes are my guess.

hehn - I believe Charlie is currently wrestling with converting Outpost 19 to more monograph appropriate / printer friendly b&w graphics. They add to the atmosphere when reading as a PDF, but are definitely a bit of a pain as far as printing is concerned. Mind, IIRC Chaosium also struggled with Ashes to Ashes as IIRC that's a colour interior as well.

Cheers,

Nick

I quite like the colour images, and they printed quite well on my new printer. I'd pick colour images over black and white any day.

While this is far from an official announcment, I sent out an e-mail to my playtesters last week about the possibility of a setting book jointly authered by myself and one other person to followup the release of Sword & Spell. My design goal was a setting reminicient of Greyhawk, Mystara, or to a lesser degree, Forgotten Realms, to stick with the classic feel.

jkeown took up my offer and sent me a nice proposal, even saying "the format and overall feel will follow that of 1980’s World of Greyhawk Gazetteer."

So, while Sword & Spell will itself remain relativly setting free, it will hopefully be followed up by a specific setting designed for it at a later date.

Again, this is unofficial until I pin down some additional information, but I thought I should mention it due to thekobolds comment.

Rod

Nice! :happy:

Well, a bit costly (if compared to Mongoose's, which is essentially a zero-cost license), but agreeable. I myself have renegotiated something.

Are we talking about Rome or something new here?

...

Ahh, I really like the way this thread has turned.

SGL.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Trifletraxor

[cjbowser]

:party: prrty!!!

(Just a side question, is holding of announcing it your decision or Chaosium's wish? :confused: I only ask because they are rumoured to have another non-monograph setting for BRP that they do not wish to be announced yet. Ah... those tasty rumours!)

SGL.

It's my decision. Chaosium hasn't said one way or another, but I'm holding back just because that's the kind of guy I am. :innocent:

But, let me ask you this. You haven't been following me on Twitter? There's been some hints about the project dropped there.

First, you have to guess my twitter name. However, that's not too hard... My username selection skill is at 01%.

[dragonewt]

CLearly quality is in there, and they have generated some nice stuff, but there's a strong bias toward volume. In retrospect, this is probably why the RQ playtest was botched -- it was just taking too long to surface and discuss the options and was messing up the production plans.

One thing I have noticed with the new Gloranthan works, is that Mongoose has failed to capture the subtle depth and essence of the Glorantha I originally saw defined in early works such as Cults of Prax. The new Mongoose works now feel like general contemporary fantasy.

The "soul" of Glorantha has been lost through making it a commodity.

The quality is there, but something special and unique was lost along the way.

[RosenMcStern]

Are we talking about Rome or something new here?

Chaosium license requires third parties to publish one supplement per year, it is not limited to a one-shot supplement. So we are talking about both Rome and something new that will appear next year.

One thing I have noticed with the new Gloranthan works, is that Mongoose has failed to capture the subtle depth and essence of the Glorantha I originally saw defined in early works such as Cults of Prax. The new Mongoose works now feel like general contemporary fantasy.

True to a limited extent. The first books were a bit generic-flavoured although full of nice game ideas, but when Jeff K, Loz and Shannon Appel dropped in the Old Way was restored.

[frogspawner]

One thing I have noticed with the new Gloranthan works, is that Mongoose has failed to capture the subtle depth and essence of the Glorantha I originally saw defined in early works such as Cults of Prax. The new Mongoose works now feel like general contemporary fantasy.

Absolutely true. The problem stems from the bad rules, which new authors cannot fix, no matter how 'soulful' their contributions.

I'm only judging by the SRD, because that was plenty to put me off. Every rules-design decision Mongoose made went the wrong way, for me. Particularly trying to simplify HPs and Init - worthy aims - but they replaced 'em with something even more bizarrely inexplicable - doh! And the infamous 'what actually happens in combat?' opposed roll confusion. But worst of all, the dire, insensitive and video-gamey 'physical Runes' abomination. Bleurch. :eek:

[deleriad]

True to a limited extent. The first books were a bit generic-flavoured although full of nice game ideas, but when Jeff K, Loz and Shannon Appel dropped in the Old Way was restored.

I must admit that I think the Glorantha Second Age book is a contender for one of the best Gloranthan supplements period. Dara Happa stirs is simply superb and the Alkoth chapter is genuinely creepy. The Dragonewt book and the Aldryami book are as good as anything that's been published in Glorantha for RuneQuest and Blood of Orlanth is a wonderfully ambitious campaign.

From my point of view, the breakages due to Mongoose's chaotic publishing system actually inspired me to come up with my own fixes and I tend to find, over time and with actual play that I tend to move back to Mongoose's version from mine. Can't say I'm a Mongoose fanboy as they are overly fixated on the bottom line in my opinion but I can't argue that they have managed to survive problems that would have sunk most other games companies and continue to produce erratically brilliant products.

I think their rune system went horribly wrong initially - especially for Glorantha. Ironically, the latest work on runes in HQ2.0 shows how easy it is to tweak the Mongoose system into something that is genuinely interesting; something that Loz started in the GM's Handbook. Personally I think this is a boom time for Glorantha that equals anything that came before it.

[Trifletraxor]

Must say I'm pretty happy with the recent Glorantha stuff too. I do hope that MRQ2 will be a better system though.

SGL.

[frogspawner]

I do hope that MRQ2 will be a better system though.

That'd be easy. But would Chaosium let them have the license...?

[Kloster]

I would point out the error of his ways. I believe in RQ, language is one of the skills that cannot be raised with experience, only practice. On this, I could be wrong as it has been a while since I played RQ. But I do know that the GM decides when to allow the checking of a skill box. Letting the players decide when they can check a skill box is like letting them decide how many experience points they should get for an orc.

Rod

For RQ, spoken language can get an experience check, and written can not, but as always, the GM has final says of when a character gets a check or not (at least, this is the way we play it ... for the GM part).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Trifletraxor]

The answer is obviously YES! :happy:

(The answer to the title of the thread that is)

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

Absolutely true. The problem stems from the bad rules, which new authors cannot fix, no matter how 'soulful' their contributions.

I'm only judging by the SRD, because that was plenty to put me off. Every rules-design decision Mongoose made went the wrong way, for me. Particularly trying to simplify HPs and Init - worthy aims - but they replaced 'em with something even more bizarrely inexplicable - doh! And the infamous 'what actually happens in combat?' opposed roll confusion. But worst of all, the dire, insensitive and video-gamey 'physical Runes' abomination. Bleurch. :eek:

You're not far off. The official book was if anything, worse than the SRD. The fact that the rules were changed as the book was released and that none of the examples were correct didn't help the game much. I have heard from some Mongoose employees that the early drafts of MRQ were much closer to RQ, until one of Mongoose's bigwigs took over the project. That said individual had written a lot of D20 stuff in the past showed. Many of the problems that MRQ had/has were pointed out by the fans/playtesters but they were ingored.

[dragonewt]

Absolutely true. The problem stems from the bad rules, which new authors cannot fix, no matter how 'soulful' their contributions.

I generally agree with the views on MRQ rules. Although in this case I was mainly referring to gaming world content, specifically the Gloranthan content (and I would not even consider myself a Gloranthophile). The depth of The Travels of Biturian Varosh is one of the main factors for me that first separated RuneQuest (2nd Edition) from D&D (and other 'conventional' RPG worlds).

But worst of all, the dire, insensitive and video-gamey 'physical Runes' abomination. Bleurch. :eek:

I think that the ideas for the physical rune magic rules are good, however for me, they break the feel of Glorantha and are not an improvement on spirit/battle magic for a Gloranthan setting. They also undermine the original rune connection of divine magic.

Even so, in general, I do like the concepts behind them.

When I next run a generic fantasy game, I am planning to use a variation of the "physical rune" rules. However it will be a version of the rules which is closer to the rules of their original author.

Edited March 15, 2009 by dragonewt

[frogspawner]

...I was mainly referring to gaming world content, specifically the Gloranthan content...

Yes, I got that.

...(and I would not even consider myself a Gloranthophile).

You do yourself a disservice. Seems like you've more feeling for Glorantha than Sprange (and perhaps Stafford, these days...)

The depth of The Travels of Biturian Varosh is one of the main factors for me that first separated RuneQuest (2nd Edition) from D&D (and other 'conventional' RPG worlds).

Absolutely!

I think that the ideas for the physical rune magic rules ... break the feel of Glorantha ...

Yes. So much so, I couldn't help the nagging feeling that was the deliberate aim.

When I next run a generic fantasy game, I am planning to use a variation of the "physical rune" rules. However it will be a version of the rules which is closer to the rules of their original author.

They're not unsalvageable. Back when I visited the MRQ Forum, I spent lots of time suggesting tweaks/interpretations for the 'physical runes' rules that could have made them Glorantha-compatible. What are yours? (Perhaps we should have a new thread for that...).

[RosenMcStern]

I think that the ideas for the physical rune magic rules are good, however for me, they break the feel of Glorantha and are not an improvement on spirit/battle magic for a Gloranthan setting. They also undermine the original rune connection of divine magic.

In fact, physical runes can be a good idea in some settings. Next episode of Stupor Mundi will contain a Futhark rune adaptation of Mongoose Rune Magic.

Nevertheless, the new HeroQuest rules will have a rune-based approach. I hope they really fixed what is wrong in the original approach.

[soltakss]

When I next run a generic fantasy game, I am planning to use a variation of the "physical rune" rules. However it will be a version of the rules which is closer to the rules of their original author.

I use a version that is fairly close to the original version and to tell the truth it doesn't work that well. What you tend to get is PCs concentrating on certain runes, building up a large number of a single rune and being able to cast high-pointage spells based on that rune.

If I GMed a RQ campaign again then I would go back to RQ3-style Spirit Magic and use Runes as an extra layer of magical power that would assist spellcasting, not be as common but not be overpowering.

[Enpeze]

Yeah... and you can scoot BRP towards heroic/cinematic with various tweaks... I was just referring to what seem to be the default assumptions... design goals... whatever.

I'm in a bi-weekly Deadlands game these days and it's quite enjoyable... but the rules definitely push a more 'gonzo' style of play than I usually go for. As usual though, in the end the most important factor is who you are playing with... (and I don't stand a chance of EVER getting these guys to play BRP... it just doesn't have enough 'cool' game mechanics for their tastes).

I changed most of my game activities the last 6 months to Savage Worlds. IMO its a great system, simple and nearly as minimalistic as BRP. (btw: It can be nearly as deadly than BRP if you use the moscow connection mod)

I do consider BRP still as an excellent game system and I love to play it as a player. But as a GM I am playing my fantasy campaign currently with SW. Its a blast and a fresh roleplaying experience. (we played mostly d100 games like warhammer or BRP conversions the last 15 years)

BRP is different in its pace and dynamics than Savage Worlds. (the latter has a much faster game speed) Additonally we discovered the last years that we like to use minis and combatplans for our combats (which enable to let everybody "see" the precise positions of foes and props at the first glance), so SW, which is best played with minis, suits better to this new liking, than BRP.

BTW: Savage World has a new Cthulhu licence too. "Realms of Cthulhu" from Reality Blurs. They want to present their cthulhu setting for 3 different playing styles. A gritty approach similar to CoC, a standard approach which is a little bit more heroic and a pulpy version (I assume like indiana jones with tentakles ).

Regarding the "cool" mechanics your players are right IMO. BRP dont offer that many stunt options and cool mechanics like SW. And if you are in this stunt stuff then I think its quite normal to use a system which offers it on a regular base.

For our group it was never a problem to describe in a BRP game most of the stunts we wanted to have, and then connect the description to some free form rule mechanic (like DEXx5 rolls or such), but my players are an experienced bunch. I guess this is more difficult for new players.

[lawrence.whitaker]

Seems like you've more feeling for Glorantha than Sprange (and perhaps Stafford, these days...)

I think Matthew Sprange would be first to admit that he's no Glorantha buff. But to suggest that Greg Stafford is out of touch with a world that he's spent more than 30 years developing (and still is) is ... quite incredible. Still, Your Glorantha Will Vary. Might be worth remembering that.

Yes. So much so, I couldn't help the nagging feeling that was the deliberate aim.

It wasn't. The aim was to make runes more of a physical focus for the game, thus reflecting its name. I do agree that chasing physical manifestations of runes isn't the way they should work in Glorantha; but it wasn't a deliberate act of sabotage (which is what you're suggesting, Frogspawner). For what its worth, I'm looking very closely at how runes need to work in preparation for something I'm working on Glorantha-wise.

And no. I won't share my ideas here; they're not finished yet. But just so you know that the subject and mechanics are being looked at.

[frogspawner]

I think Matthew Sprange would be first to admit that he's no Glorantha buff.

New thread for this debate: How to fix Mongoose RuneQuest/Glorantha

[Jason D]

New thread for this debate: How to fix Mongoose RuneQuest/Glorantha

Thanks!