What the fuck is all this 2d10 stuff about?! BRP runs on percentiles, not 2d10.

I think BRP has been popular over the years, depending on how you want to measure these things, but it's just one system in a sea of many. It hasn't updated itself much, while a lot of it's core ideas have been taken and developed in other games, including D&D.

People are still happily playing BRP games, companies are still using BRP for their games, so how much people need to wring their hands about it is up to them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1015937What the fuck is all this 2d10 stuff about?! BRP runs on percentiles, not 2d10.

Ask Cupcake.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;1016167It's a very "flexible" system because it doesn't do anything. Which is all some people want (a system that just kind of hangs around doing very little

Which translates, to me, as it stays in the background... doesn't keep butting into play with it's 'cool' widgets and gimmicks.
When I want wacky rules to make 'interesting' things happen I go for DCC... but when I want interesting stuff to happen because of the people at the table I prefer a system that gets out of the way.

Anyways, I'd say BRP has proven itself to be consistently more popular than most systems that aren't D&D. It's not only older than the Vampire/storyteller system but has remained popular for longer.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;1016167Controversial opinion: It plays like cardboard.

It's a very "flexible" system because it doesn't do anything. Which is all some people want (a system that just kind of hangs around doing very little, but allowing people to kind of improv vaguely through it / let the GM reign with an iron fist depending on the group). But it's not what makes a system popular.

So you're basically saying it doesn't do enough for people that like mechanical widgets;)?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016530Anyways, I'd say BRP has proven itself to be consistently more popular than most systems that aren't D&D. It's not only older than the Vampire/storyteller system but has remained popular for longer.

I would say that as a system BRP has proven itself more popular than D&D.  Long before the OSR (as in decades) BRP was published for many genres. Further BRP has remained recognizably the same system consistently since it's begining. D&D is now D&D in name only. It has become a brand not a system.  Compare RQ1 with any current BRP system game. Now compare 0D&D with 5e.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1016562Compare RQ1 with any current BRP system game. Now compare 0D&D with 5e.

I would say that if you strip off trivialities like low-vs-high AC and the granularity of the damage, that the games are a lot more similar than partisans on either side like to admit.

Regardless, even if we sliced D&D into slices--perhaps TSR-era, 3e(+PF since we're now talking system, not product identity), 4e, and 5e--how does the whole BRP-line and any one of those segments line up? Anyone know? Again, we'll have to decide if popularity is measured in products bought or # of campaigns played or whatnot. But do we have anything resembling numbers for that?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016530Anyways, I'd say BRP has proven itself to be consistently more popular than most systems that aren't D&D. It's not only older than the Vampire/storyteller system but has remained popular for longer.

Sure. D&D has lead the pack*, Pathfinder stole its' thunder for a few years, and White Wolf gave it a good run for the money for a brief period in the 90s. But where does BRP compare to 'more popular than most systems that aren't D&D?' I'm thinking Traveller, and Shadowrun, and WEG Star Wars, and GURPS and Champion in their heydays. The ones that random guy on the street hadn't heard of like they had D&D, but (let's say) my mom had picked up through osmosis from me, and the guys who hung out at the FLGS certainly had opinions on (where as each individual FLGS patron may or may not have even heard of Aftermath or Immortal or the James Bond RPG). Do we have any way of knowing?
*this being a separate thought From Davethelost's point on whether D&D is one or multiple systems, so I'm ignoring that for this.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1016569I would say that if you strip off trivialities like low-vs-high AC and the granularity of the damage, that the games are a lot more similar than partisans on either side like to admit.

Regardless, even if we sliced D&D into slices--perhaps TSR-era, 3e(+PF since we're now talking system, not product identity), 4e, and 5e--how does the whole BRP-line and any one of those segments line up? Anyone know? Again, we'll have to decide if popularity is measured in products bought or # of campaigns played or whatnot. But do we have anything resembling numbers for that?

If you were to time travel back to 1982 with 7th edition CoC, players then would still recognize the game. Mongoose RQ / Mythras has added some new concepts that are different, but again I think a player back then would still "get it". Reactions would probably be similar to todays reactions "Awesome" / "ew, what did they do that for" but the core game really hasn't changed much in almost 40 years, certainly less than most games over that same time.

D&D is still more or less recognizable from its beginnings, but I suspect beyond OD&D through 2e which are largely similar, a player familiar with one has a significant learning curve to pick up another edition.



I do know at one point in the 80s BRP (mostly RQ and CoC) was 2nd only to D&D in sales numbers and was close enough to be a potential contender for the top spot. There was a time in the 80s where it wasn't entirely clear D&D would survive as TSR was having serious issues. A lot has changed since then.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1016592If you were to time travel back to 1982 with 7th edition CoC, players then would still recognize the game. Mongoose RQ / Mythras has added some new concepts that are different, but again I think a player back then would still "get it". Reactions would probably be similar to todays reactions "Awesome" / "ew, what did they do that for" but the core game really hasn't changed much in almost 40 years, certainly less than most games over that same time.

D&D is still more or less recognizable from its beginnings, but I suspect beyond OD&D through 2e which are largely similar, a player familiar with one has a significant learning curve to pick up another edition.

CoC is highly-notable and exceptional in its' backwards compatibility. Few if any other games have had that. I certainly don't consider RQ / Mythras nearly as self-similar. D&D, while having significant changes in the specifics (and not just beyond OD&D-2e, AFAIC the largest change in the game is between OD&D and OD&D+supplements), but I would still rank it in the large messy middle in terms of internal change. Other well loved games like Shadowrun or even West End Star Wars have what I consider changes with larger functional implications.

QuoteI do know at one point in the 80s BRP (mostly RQ and CoC) was 2nd only to D&D in sales numbers and was close enough to be a potential contender for the top spot.

Useful. Thanks. That was the kind of thing I was looking for. If we had like the other top 5 or 10, and what the relative differences were, perhaps we could cobble together a comparison.

And there are definitely games that have changed more between editions than D&D. Blue Planet comes to mind, the setting remained the same between first and second edition but the mechanics are completely different. Not that BP was ever what I would call a "popular" game.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1016619Useful. Thanks. That was the kind of thing I was looking for. If we had like the other top 5 or 10, and what the relative differences were, perhaps we could cobble together a comparison.

Wish I could find something more substantial than remember that stat being trotted out way back in the day.

Of course we are talking early 1980s so the top 5-10 game companies would be.... well about the whole hobby at the time.

TSR, Chaosium, GDW, FGU, and Flying Buffalo would be the established RPG companies 1980-83. FASA, and Metagaming were big companies at the time but RPGs were a small part of their business. Judges Guild was fairly big, but hey produced supplemental material for others RPGs (modules and such).

Iron Crown Enterprises, Palladium, HERO, Timeline, and Tri-tac were new arrivals. Avalon Hill started to test the RPG waters around 1983-84. I've probably forgotten a couple of small companies that may have been getting started at this time.

So 5 major RPG companies, 3 associated companies, 4 start ups and a major tabletop game company dipping a toe into the industry.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1016571But where does BRP compare to 'more popular than most systems that aren't D&D?' I'm thinking Traveller, and Shadowrun, and WEG Star Wars, and GURPS and Champion in their heydays. The ones that random guy on the street hadn't heard of like they had D&D, but (let's say) my mom had picked up through osmosis from me, and the guys who hung out at the FLGS certainly had opinions on  Do we have any way of knowing?

Certainly back in the 80s, everyone who was more than a casual lunchtime D&D player knew about CoC, RuneQuest, and maybe Stormbringer. BRP was solidly in the pack of the next, say half-dozen systems after D&D. I think that position was maintained through to the demise of RQ in the mid-90s. Then there was a decade during which time only CoC carried the torch. And when RQ came back, the market had fragmented and diversified enormously.