PDA

View Full Version : Any news on an update?



yeknom
May 27th, 2017, 07:18
Any news on the BRP update? The old version is more of a hassle to use than was expected when I bought it. Granted, I did not read the information in this forum when I bought some two years ago but I am hoping it is updated soon.

Michael Hopcroft
May 30th, 2017, 19:20
BRP is going to be difficult to upgrade even if SmiteWorks does decide it's worth the bother (once D&D or Pathfinder licensing latches onto a company, the profit potential tends to push niche projects to the side if not off the table entirely). This is because there are several different clones of the BRP system (which I usually refer to as D100) that each have their own feature set. We're talking about a very large number of games; off the top of my head I can name Legend, Mythras, Reaissance, Revolution, OpenQuest, and M-Space' there are probably many mroe that I can name if I do a little more digging. Each has its own publisher and quirks (this is because when the British company Mongoose released their licensed verions of RuneQuest it was at the height of the OGL revolution, and thus there is now an open-content verstion of BRP's core mechanic). BRP is also in flux at Chaosium, with large (albeit largely cosmetic) changes in the current version of Call of Cthulhu, an upcoming new edition of Runequest from Choasium (which will be at least the seventh edition) and a redifinition of what the Basic Roleplaying publication is going to look like.

So even if their is sufficient interest to make an official update profitable, how do you byild a ruleset with a wide enough net?

yeknom
May 31st, 2017, 01:40
I would assume it is the Big Gold Book, since the current BRP ruleset uses that book. I do believe it is entirely possible and within the realm of feasibility to update the ruleset to where it is usable. I do, however, understand that it is not a priority at the present time.

CrossRoads
May 31st, 2017, 05:05
Someone (most likely a community member) was working on something BRP related last year. There hasn't been any word in 6 or 7 months about it so it probably isn't going to happen, at least not anytime soon.
Unfortunately FG's biggest flaw is that creating new rulesets or overhauling old ones is extremely time consuming.

Fans of BRP / d100 systems will fight an uphill battle. They aren't cash cows which means less official support... this makes it harder to tempt new players away from the "big two", which again means less potential income. It's a vicious cycle.

Azaran
May 31st, 2017, 20:35
Call of cthulu 7e uses pretty much 97% the same ruleset and that's been upgraded. Chaosium has just released an updated runequest ruleset true to the 2nd edition. I'm more than just a little disappointed that BRP hasn't been officially touched tbh, Smiteworks has officially received my money for it after all, so it should be in with the maintenance of the other rulesets provided.

Talyn
May 31st, 2017, 21:37
Call of Cthulu 7e uses pretty much 97% the same ruleset and that's been upgraded.
I never actually asked the two fellows who did CoC7E but I think they did it of their own volition because they wanted to, not because they were assigned to it. That's usually a big factor right there.


I'm more than just a little disappointed that BRP hasn't been officially touched tbh, Smiteworks has officially received my money for it after all, so it should be in with the maintenance of the other rulesets provided.
You said the key word there, "maintenance." Far as I know, BRP does not have a Ruleset Developer attached to the project so the only time SmiteWorks themselves will step in and fix anything is when an update to the Fantasy Grounds client breaks something in the ruleset. Otherwise it's effectively in "maintenance mode" unless or until a Community Developer steps up to the plate to be its Ruleset Developer.

Azaran
May 31st, 2017, 22:48
I never actually asked the two fellows who did CoC7E but I think they did it of their own volition because they wanted to, not because they were assigned to it. That's usually a big factor right there.


You said the key word there, "maintenance." Far as I know, BRP does not have a Ruleset Developer attached to the project so the only time SmiteWorks themselves will step in and fix anything is when an update to the Fantasy Grounds client breaks something in the ruleset. Otherwise it's effectively in "maintenance mode" unless or until a Community Developer steps up to the plate to be its Ruleset Developer.

That's my problem right there, why sell it in the store if there is not intention of keeping it up to date? Why not have it plonked off to the side like the legend of the five rings ruleset which is free?

I bought the ruleset a couple of years ago with the intention of running runequest on it. I then found that compared to the other rulesets which are actively maintained, it's flakey and substandard in comparison of basic features offered such as simply resizing windows.

I've since stopped using it completely as i'm waiting for someone to release an updated version. I love using fantasy grounds for my 5e game but it just plain annoys me to not have the same functionality with BRP.

I even bought the COC7e ruleset with the intention of extending it to runequest as it's almost there but it's encrypted so I can't even do that which is making me completely regret making the purchase.

Talyn
May 31st, 2017, 23:33
That's my problem right there, why sell it in the store if there is not intention of keeping it up to date?

Like almost everything else that involves people, things change, lives changes, plans change, people move on. I doubt whomever made the ruleset came in with the intention of building it then leaving. But that happens. I was assigned to remaster a few old 2009-era DLC because those developers are no longer around to do it themselves. In turn, am I going to be around in 10 years to keep my DLC updated? I'd like to think yes but experience has taught me better than to absolutely say yes. Stuff happens. 99% of the DLC here is produced by we community developers because SmiteWorks is only 5 guys (no fries!) who primarily work on the client itself and the business aspect of things.

But having 5E-level functionality isn't going to happen unless BRP gets a dedicated ruleset developer who actually wants to go that far with it. Look at Pathfinder -- that's the newest license and is selling like hotcakes but the ruleset did not get 5E-level functionality. It got a little bit of extra functionality, because most of the foundation for it was already there, but they've already stated they have no intention of a complete ruleset rewrite to make it do everything the 5E ruleset does.

I totally understand the frustration, though. Just trying to pass along a little "behind the scenes" with how things actually work so that perhaps you can be understanding of why the BRP ruleset (and others) are in the state it's in.

yeknom
May 31st, 2017, 23:44
It really doesn't need 5e functionality. It does however need some of the same basic functionality that other rulesets have, like the ability for the GM to add a portrait. There's a host of problems with the ruleset that make it almost unusable and had I known beforehand I would have never purchased it. Granted, I could have read these forums about how poor a ruleset it was but that just wasn't something I'd considered before buying it. Smiteworks really should update it, or take it out of the store for sale as well as provide store credit for those who purchased it. It's fine if they don't, I will keep using Fantasy Grounds as it is the best option out there, it just means that I will be far more attentive in the future.

Azaran
June 1st, 2017, 13:51
It really doesn't need 5e functionality. It does however need some of the same basic functionality that other rulesets have, like the ability for the GM to add a portrait. There's a host of problems with the ruleset that make it almost unusable and had I known beforehand I would have never purchased it. Granted, I could have read these forums about how poor a ruleset it was but that just wasn't something I'd considered before buying it. Smiteworks really should update it, or take it out of the store for sale as well as provide store credit for those who purchased it. It's fine if they don't, I will keep using Fantasy Grounds as it is the best option out there, it just means that I will be far more attentive in the future.

What he said really

Azaran
June 1st, 2017, 14:01
In a business sense, is more about ensuring continuity of the product you're providing. If all the knowledge on how to do stuff is in the head and responsibility of a single developer for any one peice of the product then that's not a good thing.

So on the same coin, should the user not expect that the product is kept up to date if they have paid for it not only with a license to use that part of the product but with a license to use the system itself.

I'd happily pay a maintenance upgrade fee to see the rulesets I have upgraded. After all, the revenue does stop once we have everything we need to run the game, an annual support agreement for a very modest fee would give the resource to keep everything up to date.

What's going to happen with brp once FG Unity is released? We'll it continue to function, or will it get much worse because it's not had developer eyes on since FG v 2?

While I understand it's a small team, and we very much appreciate the work done and are excited for features yet to come, we also have a vested interest in seeing the rulesets we've purchased continue to be usable or why would we by them?

CrossRoads
June 2nd, 2017, 02:25
CoC was updated because it has a larger player base. It's a simple numbers game... more people means a higher chance of official support and/or community developers. BRP/Runequest/Openquest/etc doesn't have a big following here so we are SOL.



What's going to happen with brp once FG Unity is released? We'll it continue to function, or will it get much worse because it's not had developer eyes on since FG v 2?
While I understand it's a small team, and we very much appreciate the work done and are excited for features yet to come, we also have a vested interest in seeing the rulesets we've purchased continue to be usable or why would we by them?

I'm not sold on the idea of FG Unity yet. The fate of old / community rulesets and the ease of creating / modifying rulesets in FG Unity are my main concerns.

Talyn
June 2nd, 2017, 02:45
One of the main reasons FGU has taken so long is 100% backwards compatibility with the current client. That said, for awhile, FG Classic will still be available once FGU launches, though it will eventually be sunsetted at some point in the future.

Wookiee420
June 2nd, 2017, 04:09
I'd happily pay a maintenance upgrade fee to see the rulesets I have upgraded. After all, the revenue does stop once we have everything we need to run the game, an annual support agreement for a very modest fee would give the resource to keep everything up to date.



In my opinion, if you are willing to pay in the first place, would be find a community developer and ask if you can pay them to work on this project. One of the things with community developers is we only get paid when a sale is made, if there isnt a desire for something, its hard to justify putting in time to maybe make a sale or two (especially if the updates will mostly only be valuable to people who already own the product). However if you offer to pay someone to update it, then there is an incentive for the developer to do the work.

yeknom
June 2nd, 2017, 07:14
In my opinion, if you are willing to pay in the first place, would be find a community developer and ask if you can pay them to work on this project. One of the things with community developers is we only get paid when a sale is made, if there isnt a desire for something, its hard to justify putting in time to maybe make a sale or two (especially if the updates will mostly only be valuable to people who already own the product). However if you offer to pay someone to update it, then there is an incentive for the developer to do the work.

I have already paid once and am not keen to pay someone again for a product that never worked well to begin with.

Wookiee420
June 2nd, 2017, 16:26
I have already paid once and am not keen to pay someone again for a product that never worked well to begin with.

Didnt you just say you would pay a maintenance upgrade fee?

CrossRoads
June 2nd, 2017, 16:31
That was Azaran.

Talyn
June 2nd, 2017, 16:35
Your best bet would be to nicely ask damned and ianward if they would be willing to do an update, since they did the CoC7E ruleset. The clincher being that there is apparently very little demand so they'd be putting in a lot of man-hours for no return on investment.

Wookiee420
June 2nd, 2017, 16:42
That was Azaran.

Maybe i should look at the poster's name before responding :p

Trenloe
June 2nd, 2017, 17:14
There was a mention of a BRP update in this thread: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?30581-BRP-Update And I remember sunspoticus posting on Facebook cryptically mentioning an update a few months ago. But no more info was forthcoming, so I don't know where that got to.

dulux-oz
June 2nd, 2017, 17:27
Consider this - FG is the only piece of "commercial grade" software I've ever seen that gives you free updates without paying an update fee. Oh, yeah, sure, there is the odd piece of software that will let you update once for free, but never have I paid for an update to FG in the 5+ years I've owned it.

And don't start talking about "freeware" etc - that's not free because its got ads in it.

My point is: is it really fair for us to expect that just because we may have paid for a Ruleset or a Module in the past that we keep on getting free updates for it - especially as it takes hundreds to thousands of man-hours to put a Ruleset together?

As a professional coder (& ICT Consultant) I can expect $100/hr plus - but as a Community Dev I'm lucky if I make $1/hr. So do people really expect to have all their wants met for little to no cost - just because they want them?

And for the record: I code for this Community for the same reason I GM - because its my hobby and I enjoy creating things. I create things because I want them for my own games, and I share them with others because I'm generous - and I'm sure those are the reasons people like damned, Dr. Venture, ianward, Trenloe, Obe, Ikeal and the other Community Devs do as well. We don't have to, but we do. So when you're enjoying hundreds of hours of fun gaming, and gaming for only a few cents per hour, remember that you don't get next year's model of car for nothing, so why should the Community Devs "bust their asses" to provide you with your entertainment for nothing - because that's often what we get - no respect, just demands, and not even a thankyou sometimes!

The self-righteous sense of entitlement I sometimes find here on these boards makes me wonder if we should even bother.

Now, if I've misread anyone here then I unreservedly apologize - I am sorry.

And next time you come across one of the other Community Devs, let them know that you do actually appreciate their efforts - you have no idea how important that can be to the people you do say thank you too!

</rant>

Moon Wizard
June 2nd, 2017, 17:52
Yeknom and Azaran make good points about the perceived value of the rulesets, at least from a recent purchaser perspective. That's why we offer refunds for any product for recent purchases for pretty much any reason.

For people who purchased some time ago, I would say that the rulesets are what you bought, and upgrades are never guaranteed. That's why I always tell people to buy our stuff for what it does now, not for something coming down the pipe.

That said, we do keep an eye on these things, and we've kept our eyes and ears open for someone to take over BRP ruleset. Also, we do occasionally take down products from the store which do not meet even basic quality, but we haven't felt that BRP is that lacking to warrant removal.

Regards,
JPG

CrossRoads
June 3rd, 2017, 03:26
This thread proves my earlier point, it's a numbers game and d100 systems (other than CoC) aren't popular here. In this thread there's two people really keen for an update, and one person interested in an update but knowing it won't happen (me).

A community dev in their right mind wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole and I can't fault them for that. This is why I hope FGU sees improvements in the area of ruleset creation.

I know I'm in the minority having zero interest in 5e and pathfinder. Things created by community developers is what brought me to FG in the first place and they will be the ones that keep me around. The downside is even for a simple character sheet from another game I'd have to rely on one of these community devs... someone that has no reason to fulfil my wish and I don't expect them to.

Which means for unsupported products I'd be better off using (name omitted out of respect for SmiteWorks) dropping my pdf copy of the rules on the table with some fillable character sheets, then spawning some 3d dice for everyone and away we go.

Is there any chance of premade fillable character sheets in FGU or something similar?

Azaran
June 3rd, 2017, 13:37
That's where my hopes are resting now Crossroads, I will keep trying to get my head around the core ruleset enough to redesign BRP from it but the lack of documentation is hampering me a bit.

I was even in contact with Sunspoticus to see if i could lend a hand and to avoid reinventing the wheel, which he did sound interested in help but has gone dark.

Runequest has just been re-released by Chaosium and the following is growing on facebook's runequest group again. If there was a supported core D100 ruleset that could be adapted to any D100 based game with extensions, that would be more valuable than a new specialist BRP system. And i'd be very interested in coding the extension for that, but like i said, converting Core from D20 to D100 is a lot harder than it sounds now that the schema has changed so much from the one used in the anatomy of a ruleset document.

Talyn
June 3rd, 2017, 14:19
In the meantime, will the MoreCore ruleset handle it? I know it has the die rollers for it, at least.

yeknom
June 3rd, 2017, 14:27
In the meantime, will the MoreCore ruleset handle it? I know it has the die rollers for it, at least.

I was looking into that. MoreCore handles 7e CoC, though not as good as the actual ruleset, but well enough for me. It isn't much of a stretch to modify the CoC MoreCore Character Sheet to BRP.

pindercarl
June 3rd, 2017, 17:39
Is there any chance of premade fillable character sheets in FGU or something similar?
I'm curious what you mean by this. Could you clarify "premade fillable character sheet?" Thanks.

Wolfheart
June 3rd, 2017, 18:13
I'm also not sure what Crossroads meant but maybe it's this (this is a personal wish obviously but also one I believe will help FG toward being the go-to VTT):

I believe he means that when you open FG/CoreRPG you should be able, without going into coding, to set up your campaign's character sheets entirely without constraints. The current CoreRPG sheet limits your options greatly - to the point that, for me at least, it's not of use. This depends on which game you are going to play, of course.

Now, if a GM could change any values and words directly on the sheet so as to customise it for his own game, re-arrange/add/remove tabs, stretch/shrink boxes etc. directly in the software, that would be awesome.

So, if I don't need "Race", it's a bit annoying that the sheet has that word. The elegant solution would be that "Race" is there, but optional: I should just be able to double-click it, type a replacement word (for example, "Nationality" if that's what I need). I would like to edit the "Abilities" page the way I want, which in my case would be to divide it in several sections, because the game I run divides abilities into various categories (Proficiencies, Maneuvers).

Yes I can delve into the xmls (and have tried), but as long as FG is about "supporting any game" and "play more prep less" I shouldn't have to spend three days coding just to have a template that is more similar to my chosen game am I right?

On a related note, the NPC sheet is even less useful. IMO it should look as neat as the PC sheet but with the same customisation options I'm suggesting. The bare-bones "front page" should have a nice large portrait box and room for main stats, and a GM should be able to customise by adding any number of pages he or she wants: More freedom.

TL;DR
Fantasy Grounds needs entirely customisable PC and NPC sheets so that any game can be represented. Allow players to tweak everything from a Core template.
Ideally you could tweak a template to represent ANY RPG out there.

EDIT:
Here is the character sheet for the game I run. I would like FG/CoreRPG to be customisable enough to reproduce it as closely as possible.

https://www.google.no/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsuptg.thisisnotatrueend ing.com%2Farchive%2F16232617%2Fimages%2F1315597437 040.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsuptg.thisisnotatrueending. com%2Farchive%2F16232617%2F&docid=25z34ipl0I3XlM&tbnid=b1nbFZ40ucyStM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiem9z6lqLUAhVmDJoKHbxrCwMQMwgvKAAwAA.. i&w=1000&h=1517&safe=off&client=ms-android-samsung&bih=560&biw=360&q=the%20riddle%20of%20steel%20character%20sheet&ved=0ahUKEwiem9z6lqLUAhVmDJoKHbxrCwMQMwgvKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8

EDIT 2:
Hope I come off as constructive, not negative!

pindercarl
June 3rd, 2017, 18:40
Ah. That would make sense. I was reading "fillable character sheets" similar to fillable PDF and that didn't quite match up.

CrossRoads
June 4th, 2017, 01:45
Support for a fillable pdf is what I meant. I just thought that would be the easiest method for SmiteWorks... but what Wolfheart said is much better. :)

Wolfheart
June 4th, 2017, 08:49
Yeah I was mulling this over late last night and realized I probably wasn't thinking the same as you after all.
Still, thanks for supporting the idea :D
I hope I expressed it in an understandable way. I can do just fine with FG as it is, I just try to suggest elements that I think would a) improve the usability of FG for more people and b) increase FGs reputation as the only real VTT choice.

It may be influenced by me spending way too many hours fiddling with making a module out of the four rulebooks of my preferred game. If I could have set up an NPC template first it would have saved me so much time and work but as it is I have to manually set up stat tables etc for each and every NPC (both from the official books and my own homebrew cast of...well, I have more than George RR).

Edit to clarify: Yes I make one template file that I can copy so some of the stuff is done, but editing an already setup table is just as time consuming because of the way tables behave in FG. It's actually faster for me to start blank NPC pages then ctrl+6 for new table, add Strength, Agility etc etc with the numbers instead of fiddling numbers into place in a premade table.

Pindercarl, is it too much to ask if there is something in the works related to my last two posts? :P

pindercarl
June 4th, 2017, 15:55
Your post was very clear. Thanks for taking the time to enumerate your issues. Your explanation does reflect conversations that we have had regarding improved features for FGU. I can't really comment beyond that. SmiteWorks has a strong stance on not publicly announcing new features or development before there is confidence that they will be delivered.

Wolfheart
June 4th, 2017, 16:07
Hey, thanks! I understand you can't say too much, but I really appreciate your answer!

flekhabren
June 26th, 2017, 19:36
If there are any Devs interested in options for improving the BRP rule set I have an idea, PM me.

seycyrus
June 27th, 2017, 01:57
If there are any Devs interested in options for improving the BRP rule set I have an idea, PM me.

You know, I've probably crossed the line a bit in all the requests I make for the awesome developer of the ruleset (GURPS) I play, but even for me your post seems a bit much.

Rangarig
June 27th, 2017, 07:26
With Chaosium getting ready to release the new RuneQuest books, after releasing the RuneQuest Quick Starter on Free RPG day, has there been a change in the plans to revisit and update the BRP ruleset? Or are there plans to create an official RuneQuest ruleset? From what I understand, the biggest issue with RuneQuest/Glorantha in the past was the complicated and unclear licensing situation, which has now been greatly simplified. And, of course, Chaosium have updated their general licensing policies (http://www.chaosium.com/blog/chaosium-launches-new-licensing-policies-/), especially for limited revenue licenses. It would really be great to have Fantasy Grounds as officially licensed Vtabletop for the new RuneQuest.

flekhabren
June 27th, 2017, 14:04
You know, I've probably crossed the line a bit in all the requests I make for the awesome developer of the ruleset (GURPS) I play, but even for me your post seems a bit much.

I was not trying to seem overly presumptuous, I just had an Idea I wanted to share on how a dev interested in the project would be able to get paid for it and guage interest level.

Moon Wizard
June 27th, 2017, 17:57
Ruleset development on Fantasy Grounds (outside of the top few game systems) is driven completely by having a community ruleset developer who is interested in taking on the project officially.

Regards,
JPG