Comparative Systemology

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by RMS

It strikes me that in this day and age, with everyone having internet access, the sensible thing would be to print supplements with the bare minimum stat blocks and then provide detailed stat blocks for free download. Why spend money printing pages of NPC stat blocks when you could put more substance in the text? Put all the verbal description of the NPC in the book and then put stat blocks available on a website. That has the bonus of allowing someone to print them out, mark them up as they play the NPCs, and then go print some new ones the next time they run the adventure.

Go ahead and tell me why this is a bad idea. I've actually thought about this before for generic RPG supplements: write up everything, but provide state blocks for a variety of game systems for free download (possibly supplying a password with the purchased game).

Got me. Sounds like a very good idea to me. It could be very useful to have NPC stats printed off separately.

[Gnarsh]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Unscrupulous players could find out the stats/abilities of the opposition? Apart from being unsporting, it could seriously blow plot secrets if that 'friendly' innkeeper is revealed to have Brew Pratzim 80%. And just what opposition there was should itself be secret, even if you don't care about the exact stats. (Yes, passwording it might help a little but people would get around that). It needn't be intentional cheating, either - if they were some of the few statted-up NPCs around, GMs might over-use them till they were too familiar.

And this is different then the same players buying a canned aventure themselves? Or sneaking a peak at a friends copy? Of all of the potential problems with this solution, that's honestly the least significant.

The far bigger issue is that if you're supporting a lot of options, you end up with much more "stuff" needed to define an NPC. Honestly, I would go with something simpler. Put basic characteristics in the book, let the GM calculate from those statistics whatever specific values he needs to run that NPC in his own game.

I suspect that's how it's actually going to be done in fact. It's why you'd need an EDU and SAN stat on a sheet (since games that use those stats can't derive them), but you don't really need a hp/ac location chart (since you can derive that from base stats). It's kinda silly to expect a couple pages of data per NPC appearing in any scenario IMO.

Are GMs really that unwilling to do a little work? I generate NPCs by the truckload without too much trouble. The main bits in a canned scenario are the story elements. The characters add flavor and detail in order to make that story work. You don't need massive amounts of statistic and skill data to do that.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

The far bigger issue is that if you're supporting a lot of options, you end up with much more "stuff" needed to define an NPC. Honestly, I would go with something simpler. Put basic characteristics in the book, let the GM calculate from those statistics whatever specific values he needs to run that NPC in his own game.

I suspect that's how it's actually going to be done in fact. It's why you'd need an EDU and SAN stat on a sheet (since games that use those stats can't derive them), but you don't really need a hp/ac location chart (since you can derive that from base stats). It's kinda silly to expect a couple pages of data per NPC appearing in any scenario IMO.


Are GMs really that unwilling to do a little work? I generate NPCs by the truckload without too much trouble. The main bits in a canned scenario are the story elements. The characters add flavor and detail in order to make that story work. You don't need massive amounts of statistic and skill data to do that.

I disagree. If that were the case, why buy supplments for a specific system? Story elements are portable to any system. If there is no support for the options then there is no reason for those who use the options to support those supplments.

If I am going to have to rewrite all the NPC stats to put in hit locations, APs, skills over 100% and Strike Ranks, I'll just write an adventure and save my money.


I think it is kinda silly to claim that a game system supports multiple genres, settings and styles of play if, in fact, none of the supplments do. We have had all these rules around in various Chaosium products for decades. Generally without support. There aren't any Worlds of Wonder supplements out there. If the options don't get any support we and going to be right where we've been for the past 15 years. Playing orphan game systems.

If only the core rules are going to be supported, then I don';t have much motivation to buy or use BRP. Why? For a bunch of options that I already have that haven't been supported for decades and aren't about to be now?

I'm not saying every option needs to be supported all the time. But unless the options are being supported some of the time nothing has changed.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

And this is different then the same players buying a canned aventure themselves? Or sneaking a peak at a friends copy? Of all of the potential problems with this solution, that's honestly the least significant.

Well, just visiting a site is so much easier than spending actual cash or conspiring to cheat with fellow player, so it would be more of a problem than either of those cases. But you're right, it is a pretty pathetic objection.
My excuse is, "I vas only obeying orders...":

Originally Posted by RMS

Go ahead and tell me why this is a bad idea.

So what are the other potential problems you foresee?

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by Shaira

Gosh, guys, I must say I'm quite surprised at the negativity shown on this thread, especially - and with all due respect - in many cases from people who haven't actually seen the rules yet!

I haven't seen the rules but I did see the Playtest version.

RQ3 was the epitome of the BRP system, in many people's opinion. These people are disappointed that RQ3 wasn't taken as a starting point for the new BRP.

Stormbringer 5 was the epitome of the BRP system, in many people's opinion. These people are pleased that Stormbringer 5 seems to be a starting point for the new BRP.

I'm in the first camp. I was asked my opinions about some statements I made and I gave them.

How is that negative?

I'm not a Chaosium Groupie, always singing their praises. If I see problems then I mention them. Id I see something good then I mention that.

Originally Posted by Shaira

In fact, I'm picking up such negative vibes I'm even reluctant to post, cos a lot of this just feels like a moan that BRP isn't the new edition of RQ.

Well, yes, that is one of the problems that some people have.

But, if you don't post then our mis-shapen and incorrect views will gain prominence and then there would we be?

So, post away.

Originally Posted by Shaira

[FROM RURIK]
"No new supplements for BRP will work with RQ3 without a fair amount of work for the GM (assuming SR and Hit Locations will probably not be used for stats in most supplements as they are optional)"

Well, first, as you say, you're "assuming" that SR and Hit Locations will *probably* not be used. In other words, you don't actually know, but you've got yourself upset and disappointed cos you think maybe they won't. Why not wait for some actual real world supplements and see, first, rather than making your mind up before the facts?

Because it would be a great overhead to cater for all the optional rules in a supplement.

Writers will make a decision on each supplement as to which optional rules they are including.

If using Hit Locations and SR create extra work then writers won't generally include them. This generates a lot of work for GMs who do use them.

Originally Posted by Shaira

And, second, why on earth should BRP work with RQ3 without some work for the GM? They're different games. Of course you can play in Glorantha using the BRP rules. And, if you want to play RQ3, you of course can do that, too. And, yes, BRP is not RQ3, so you can't play RQ3 with it. This method of argument does seem a bit circular.

BRP was presented originally as "Chaosium's Roleplaying System". A lot of people think that RQ is Chaosium's Roleplaying System and that other BRP games are just derivations of RQ.

Yes, sure, BRP, RQ3 and RQM are all different games, as are Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer.

Would you expect to be able to use BRP to play Call of Cthulhu easily?

How about Stormbringer? Could you use BRP to play that?

One of the aims of BRP was to have a single generic ruleset to play in all the Chaosium games (I think).

Why not expand this to include RQ, the granddaddy of BRP?

We now have at least 3 good versions of BRP/RQ out there - RQ3, RQM and BRP. All are different but all are sort-of compatible. Us old folks would have liked them all to be a bit more compatible and to usher in a Golden Age of RQ where RQ would be used for all kinds of settings and have many supplements to buy and play.

Originally Posted by Shaira

I do actually wonder what you were expecting, guys - presumably a new Gloranthan RPG based on RQ? If so, I don't really think that was ever on the cards - or if it was, that's MRQ, and there you take your chances and make your choices.

No, RQM has got Gloranthan RQ and everyone knows that. I've bought that and almost all the supplements. I was hoping that BRP would be a good alternative that is sort-of compatible.

Originally Posted by Shaira

I'm just about finished on my first read-through of the BRP Zero rules, and I'm extremely happy - nay, delighted - with what I see - and I'm a RQ grognard, Rurik, so there! What else were you looking for?

Of course what happens next is largely up to Chaosium and their approach to sourcebooks & licensing, but that's a business call.

Originally Posted by Shaira

I must admit to being puzzled as to how this could have ever been anything different. I can appreciate that a lot of people who dearly wanted a new edition of RQ were very disappointed with MRQ (as indeed was I - desperately so), but Chaosium never advertised they were publishing a new RQ, whilst Mongoose did, so the negative spin about BRP here does seem very, very unfair - especially since the BRP Zero is a damn fine job!

Chaosium's Roleplaying System.

That's RQ, that is.

And, again, where's the negative spin? It isn't what I wanted, but then again neither was RQ3 or RQM. It's a pretty good stab, though.

Originally Posted by Shaira

The Chaosium House system is back in print, guys, and by all accounts new support material in numerous settings will be next - what's not to like?

A fair bit, but that's not the point.

Will I buy BRP when it comes out? Yes, absolutely.

Will I buy most of the supplements? Yes, but not the Cthulhu-inspired ones. I'll buy anything based on Mythic/Fantasy Earth and the Sci-Fi stuff.

Will I buy BRP Zero? Not in a Million Years. It's incomplete, needs a lot of changes and is a cynical marketing ploy to get people to buy 2 copies of BRP, one as a "numbered collectors' item" and one to use to play. I have a limited budget for buying RPG supplements and I can't afford to duplicate purchases. That's one reason why I haven't bought RQM Deluxe.

Will I use BRP as my main roleplaying system? Probably not, but I'll use a lot from it, as I'll use a lot from RQM. Not EDU, SAN, Sanity, Major/Minor Wounds or Variable Armour, though.

Will I support BRP when it comes out? Yes, absolutely, as I have consistently supported RQ in the past.

Will I criticise bad products and bad decisions? Absolutely, as I have done in the past.

Is that negative? Not at all.

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

At the beginning of the book, I'm going to include a section stating "Here are the options that Interplanetary recommends." It will also mention the optional rules that are specifically discouraged.

If there are new optional rules, they'll be inserted into the manuscript where appropriate.

That's exactly what Paolo did for the RQM Stupor Mundi supplement and it works really well.

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

If some aspect of the adventure refers to an optional rule that might apply, it'll be mentioned, even if it isn't one of those recommended above. This will be selectively applied to avoid crudding up the manuscript overmuch.

If there's a place where the options conflict or diverge significantly from the core rules, they'll be distinguished or called out in some fashion in the text or in a side box.

That sounds good to me.

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

And this is different then the same players buying a canned aventure themselves? Or sneaking a peak at a friends copy? Of all of the potential problems with this solution, that's honestly the least significant.

It's free, it's easily available.

But, it shouldn't cause a problem unless the stats show that the pretty barmaid is actually a 10 foot alien with a cloaking device.

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

I suspect that's how it's actually going to be done in fact. It's why you'd need an EDU and SAN stat on a sheet (since games that use those stats can't derive them), but you don't really need a hp/ac location chart (since you can derive that from base stats).

Optional is optional. EDU and SAN are only usable in games that use Sanity or use formal education. Games such as Call of Cthulhu and possibly Future-Tech games.

Hit Locations and Armour could be used in absolutely any type of game.

APs are only derived if you have a whole set of armour, hit points per location are fine if you don't have ways of changing them.

It doesn't take long to include them in a scenario and it takes a lot of work to have to add them as a GM.

Sure, people who play Call of Cthulhu might say "We need SAN and EDU but not AP and Hit Locations" which is one reason why I'm against it.

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

It's kinda silly to expect a couple pages of data per NPC appearing in any scenario IMO.

Are GMs really that unwilling to do a little work? I generate NPCs by the truckload without too much trouble. The main bits in a canned scenario are the story elements. The characters add flavor and detail in order to make that story work. You don't need massive amounts of statistic and skill data to do that.

You don't need a couple of pages per NPC. Old RQ NPCs took a couple of paragraphs at most and often one paragraph. Having some extra stats wouldn't add much to that.

I haven't time to convert everything and the less I have to convert the better. I don't have time to generate loads of NPCs, I use templates and identikit troopers.

By the way, I got this when I tried to post this message:

You have included 61 images in your message. You are limited to using 7 images so please go back and correct the problem and then continue again.

What kind of software is it when I can't inlcude a whole line of Mad Smilies in a post? I bet Mongoose would allow it.

[NickMiddleton]

Originally Posted by soltakss

I had a pickup truck and they promised me something better.

Then, frankly you either weren't paying attention or wilfully misconstrued what was said. Chaosium (and Jason) have consistently said that (to continue the analogy) they were producing the best motorbike they'd ever done, based on all their previous motorbike designs. Certainly, the "high cargo capacity" configuration was going to learn some lessons from the pickup truck they had made and marketed twenty plus years ago - but the new product has always explicitly been a motorbike, not a pickup truck.

Originally Posted by soltakss

We now have at least 3 good versions of BRP/RQ out there - RQ3, RQM and BRP. All are different but all are sort-of compatible. Us old folks would have liked them all to be a bit more compatible and to usher in a Golden Age of RQ where RQ would be used for all kinds of settings and have many supplements to buy and play.

BRP is entirely compatible with RQIII - pick the right set of optional rules and, bar a few skill category names and the contributing stats, it's mechanically indistinguishable. Add the BRP Magic Book monograph and it has the same magic systems as well.

Will I buy BRP Zero? Not in a Million Years. It's incomplete, needs a lot of changes and is a cynical marketing ploy to get people to buy 2 copies of BRP, one as a "numbered collectors' item" and one to use to play.

Customers requested a product be made available. How is this a "cynical marketing ploy"?

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[Rurik]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

Then, frankly you either weren't paying attention or wilfully misconstrued what was said. Chaosium (and Jason) have consistently said that (to continue the analogy) they were producing the best motorbike they'd ever done, based on all their previous motorbike designs. Certainly, the "high cargo capacity" configuration was going to learn some lessons from the pickup truck they had made and marketed twenty plus years ago - but the new product has always explicitly been a motorbike, not a pickup truck.

I agree entirely. They have always said that. Usually followed immediately something like:

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

BRP is entirely compatible with RQIII - pick the right set of optional rules and, bar a few skill category names and the contributing stats, it's mechanically indistinguishable.

I can see where a RQ fan might have gotten their hopes up.

[deleriad]

I must admit that what I hope happens is that the licensing and so on allows a lot of flexibility. So for example, say someone wants to do A Song of Ice and Fire as a BRP line then you could basically put together a stand-alone book which uses SRs, Hit Locations, Static armour values and so on so that you wouldn't actually need the BRP book to play this setting. Basically it remixes the BRP book and adds to it where necessary while removing Powers that aren't needed and so on. Future supplements in that line would then use this book as the source.

On the other hand, someone might decide to do a simple 48 page fantasy scenario published on demand as a PDF or something and use just the basics from BRP.

This is all to say that the issue will be to do with licensing as anything else. Providing there's a lot of flexibility then, if someone thinks it might sell, they could publish a game called "Basic Fantasy" which essentially retro-engineers BRP into RQ3 and then, if it does prove popular, find a setting which works.

Personally I will buy the book but I'm more likely to continue running RQ stuff using my own mix of MRQ and RQ3 and CoC stuff with my copy of CoC. What I hope will happen is that others will start producing high-quality supplements for BRP that I can take and use.

Hopefully the BRP book will enable others to write supplements and that's, in my opinion, where the BRP will succeed or fail.