Quote from: Voros;1011733RQ seemed to be a bigger hit in England than in the US.

RQ and CoC were both very popular in the UK in the early-mid 1980s at least, to the extent of RQ rivalling D&D in the pages of White Dwarf. As a 12 year old at boarding school, the games we played were (1) 1e AD&D (because 'Basic's for kids!') and (2) Call of Cthulu, early on I also ran the Fighting Fantasy RPG. CoC benefitted from a system simple enough anyone could use it, plus this left space for lots of great adventures in the hardback Games Workshop published. I think Runequest appealed to older players and I never got into it - later on (late 80s) at a different school, the games we played were (1) 1e AD&D (2) PARANOIA (3) d6 Star Wars.

Post-2e Runequest looked too complicated, and lost Glorantha and its flavour. Compared to D&D, generic systems like BRP or GURPS are never that popular - people tend to buy the genre I think, so threats to D&D dominance are "Call of Cthulu" or "Vampire: The Masquerade", not BRP or Storyteller System.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1011770However, I think the big problem with BRP is the slow combat and the squishy-ness of even experienced PCs.

It might depend on which iteration/branch of the 'BRP family' you're playing but I don't find the combat to be particularly slow... certainly not compared to Pathfinder, which remains popular despite its crunch.

I think BRP IS popular, but it doesn't get talked up as much as some games. In part I think because its books (at least in the U.S.) haven't generally the same visual flair that something like Numenera or Symbaroum has. I'd much rather PLAY Mythras... but Symbaroum is more fun to look at.
Some people think its 'dry' because it isn't full of full color plates depicting wild action scenes.
Being pretty is very important to sales these days, if not to actual play.
The most recent version of CoC seems intent on addressing that, and it looks great... even though I'm not a fan of its mechanical changes and stick with boring old 5e.

I think RQ probably lost out to D&D for the simple reason that D&D was there first. Although the huge success of the Red Box may have sealed the deal.

Quote from: S'mon;1011779Most people like classes, levels, and inflating hit points?

Bingo.  Or perhaps more to the point, don't particularly mind them if they are in a game they otherwise enjoy.  I suspect most people have no preference on the question.  As an anecdote, my current gaming groups have around 15 different people in them.  There is one other person besides me that even has any demonstrated preference, even though most have played both.  I'm the only one that even lurks on gaming boards.  If I'm writing a game, it probably doesn't have classes, levels, or inflating hit points in it, because of my aesthetic preferences in design.  But I'm happy to run a game that has them, if it gets the job done.  The last time we considered running a BRP game (MRQ II), we didn't because it was too much of a particular type of work that I wasn't prepared to do at that time.

Quote from: S'mon;1011779Most people like classes, levels, and inflating hit points?

Yes?

I think Call of Cthulhu insanity system while true to Lovecraft books  also did not help in that regard. One or two bad sanity rolls and the character is nuttier than a peanut butter factory. Which for many was not fun. Going through the trouble of making a character only to have him be useless because of a bad save roll while true to the books did not translate to making players fans of the system.

The same issue with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. It's too easy to fail when attempting to do a task. Maybe it's laziness or a sense of player entitlement yet players want their characters to succeed most of the time at task and are not really interested realism.
We live in the real world. We play rpgs to escape it

Chaosium long years of mismanagement and missed opportunities they sat back on their collective behinds and imo did nothing to really try and get interest in their properties.

 
Yes most people like classes, levels, and inflating hit points. Given the popularity of D&D after all these years their is ample evidence of proof of that.

Quote from: danskmacabre;1011704The way RQ is (or whatever it's called now) atm, it simply doesn't interest me.. Too slow, too clunky, It just doesn't flow very well.
I have lots of old RQ stuff, mostly specific to Elric/Stormbringer stuff from 2nd ed, so I'll use that if I can get players for it.

FYI, Chaosium has regained the rights to RQ and has recently republished RuneQuest 2e (1979/1980 edition) and is soon releasing a new version of RQ that builds off RQ2, so the current edition is actually fairly simple and the next edition will also probably be fairly simple.

Analyzing the industry from a detached perspective, my response is mostly "D&D has been the big dog since the beginning. Only a few others have come close, and BRP isn't one of them (outside the UK)." More personally, I can only really say why it hasn't become my go-to game.

Quote from: Thanos;1011697It just seems perfect. I will be upfront, I hated levels and alignments since 1977.  So anything that is classless and absent levels is great. Static hit points. Skills that only go up based on use. It seems pretty adaptable. Why isn't it more wide spread?

With the exception of static hp, use-based skill progression and adaptability, this is a list of what BRP isn't, not what it is. And it's mostly a shorthand for saying that it isn't D&D. There are plenty of things which aren't D&D (or very similar takes, such as Pathfinder, Tunnels & Trolls, and Palladium).

The use-based skill progression is an interesting mechanic, and eliminates any navel-gazing on what behavior you the GM are supposed to be rewarding. But it also means you are eliminating rewarding behavior (because people hate that right up until it is gone), and is just as gamable as anything else (instead of issues of murderhobo/burglarhobo-ing or cowtowing to the GM's idea of what you are supposed to be doing in the game, you are gaming opportunity to roll your skills under minimally threatening circumstances).

Static hitpoints are an enigma to me. I understand why people prefer the idea. However, the entire system has to be done really really well, or else they create just as many problems as they eliminate. Whitewolf/World of Darkness is a good example of a failstate: everyone has 7 health levels (I think, it's been 20-ish years now since I played), and then the pacing mechanism between full health and death is mediated through the dodge and health+armor damage resistance (soaking) mechanism. But then there's "aggravated damage" which ignores the damage resistance, so the game becomes a rocket-tag/race to see who can get a 7pt. aggravated damage shot off. You can play the game, but how it's better than D&D-style hp is not clear to me. WEG Star Wars was the opposite direction where you could game the dodge and resistance mechanics (that you kind of need if you don't vary the hp) to make nearly invincible characters. So, while I like the theory of static hitpoints, saying, 'come play ____, it has static hit points' isn't really a selling point in and of itself.

And adaptability, well, GURPS and Champion/HERO kind of won the marketing game on selling themselves as the adaptable games.

So really, my point is that BRP needs a pitch on why it should be the game people choose. And the three things you mentioned as what it is (as opposed to what it is not) don't really finish the sale for me. The number one reason why I play BRP (well, CoC) is because it's a pre-made way to play in a Cthullu-mythos game setting, which is the opposite of adaptable.

Quote from: S'mon;1011779Most people like classes, levels, and inflating hit points?

Or, more people have already experienced D&D and it's easier to join or start a game of that? BRP is not something you find without looking for it. Most people likely have never heard of it, much less tried it and decided, "Whoa, I prefer classes and levels!"

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1011811Bingo.  Or perhaps more to the point, don't particularly mind them if they are in a game they otherwise enjoy.  I suspect most people have no preference on the question.  

Well, the great majority of CRPGs (Skyrim, Diablo etc) seem to have levels & inflating hit points, I think probably the majority have classes too. MMMORPGs certainly do. This seems to support the idea that these are popular, and it's clear why - they give structure, plus clear rewards for play.

Quote from: Naburimannu;1011812Yes?

And so BRP is not more popular.

Quote from: Voros;1011787I think RQ probably lost out to D&D for the simple reason that D&D was there first. Although the huge success of the Red Box may have sealed the deal.

RQ2 was extremely popular in the very early 80s.  It was a distant 2nd to D&D, but way ahead of anything else.  That's when Chaosium decided to partner with Avalon Hill for publication and distribution.  I really think this is a case of failed business:  AH didn't know how to handle an RPG, treated it like a boxed wargame, and completely fumbled on production values and price-point which killed the momentum the game had gained under Chaosium.  Additionally, Chaosium themselves failed to put out any new material supporting the game for a decade, only republishing their RQ2 material.

Basically, it's business issues that doomed the game.  My experience is that most people really liked the simplicity and straight-forward approach of BRP games when they're exposed to them. It's simply that they had no market presence for a couple of decades, outside of CoC, so they got left behind.

Really, I've read several complaints about the combat here and elsewhere, which is a pretty strange comment when the vast majority of versions of D&D are far, far slower with more moving parts.......and those that aren't tend to be far more deadly for low level characters.  I really don't buy that it's the combat system here.  D&D 3/4/(5) and Pathfinder all demonstrate that people are perfectly happy to sit around a table playing out combats that drag on for hours with a lot of detailed minutia to navigate through and actually like them.  Comparatively, any RQ combat system is pretty damn fast.*

* Yeah, OD&D, B/X D&D, etc. are all faster, but those are in the dustbin of history for people who aren't old grognards like myself!

Quote from: Dumarest;1011821Or, more people have already experienced D&D and it's easier to join or start a game of that?

D&D definitely benefits from a network effect. But that does not make it invincible - 2e lost out to Vampire when 2e was seen as archaic and clunky. 4e lost out to Pathfinder. My Meetup is dominated by D&D again now, it helps that it's "The D&D Meetup" and people turn up with their 5e PHBs expecting to play that game. But it helps even more that 5e is a decent game, and that it does a wide variety of D&D styles well.

Quote from: RMS;1011823Really, I've read several complaints about the combat here and elsewhere, which is a pretty strange comment when the vast majority of versions of D&D are far, far slower with more moving parts.......

I'm going to comment on this.

RQ combat at low %s: Miss Miss Miss Miss Hit - Wound/Cripple
RQ combat at high %s: Hit Parry Hit Parry Hit Parry Hit Parry Hit Parry Hit Parry Hit Parry Hit Parry Hit Parry Crit - Cripple/Dead

The whiff factor is enormous. When I played I persuaded the GM to go over to an ascending d% opposed check, attack % vs parry %, to avoid this and get some quick resolution, though it meant adding two 1-100 digit numbers, worse than d20 system.

Edit: OTOH it is highly realistic for spear & shield combat, and really emphasises the advantage of superior numbers.

Quote from: S'mon;1011822Well, the great majority of CRPGs (Skyrim, Diablo etc) seem to have levels & inflating hit points, I think probably the majority have classes too. MMMORPGs certainly do. This seems to support the idea that these are popular, and it's clear why - they give structure, plus clear rewards for play.

I suspect this is familiarity more than anything.  D&D had classes and levels and escalating hp, so early online games copied that structure, so everyone expects those.  It's simple reinforcing.  Basically people tend to like what they're familiar with, and tend not to think too much outside that box.  (This is kind of a marking 101 concept here, so nothing too grand conceptually. )

Quote from: S'mon;1011825I'm going to comment on this.

RQ combat at low %s: Miss Miss Miss Miss Hit - Wound/Cripple
RQ combat at high %s: Hit Parry Hit Parry Hit Parry Hit Parry Hit Parry Hit Parry Hit Parry Hit Parry Hit Parry Crit - Cripple/Dead

The whiff factor is enormous. When I played I persuaded the GM to go over to an ascending d% opposed check, attack % vs parry %, to avoid this and get some quick resolution, though it meant adding two 1-100 digit numbers, worse than d20 system.

Edit: OTOH it is highly realistic for spear & shield combat, and really emphasises the advantage of superior numbers.

Sure, but that isn't complexity and time-handling, which was the complaint. I completely understand the complaint about high whiff factors.  That makes sense.  Really, I completely understand that RQ is poor match for those who want lots of combat in their RPG.  It really isn't geared for that.  

OTOH, early D&D really isn't much better for combat-focused play out-of-the-box.

EDIT:  RQ6/Mythras has a combat system that is geared to break away from the whiff-factor with a combination of higher default skills, lower AP values, and the various maneuvers that attackers choose after they see their results.  It works quite well for making combat more engaging for those who are willing to deal with extra overhead.....and still far, far faster than any kind of modern D&D.