Wow, french CoC sounds awesome.

Sorry for my (second) off-topic derail thingy but in answer to this:

Quote from: TheHistorian;547885Flying Buffalo's Tunnels & Trolls, maybe?  I don't know much about it, but I thought I had seen it touted as being largely unchanged over the years.

Tunnels and Trolls is up to about 7.5 with an 8th ed. on the way, last time I checked (although there's no official"6th edition"). The core combat, save and magic system has been largely unchanged from the original version.
One of the earlier edition changes (back before 4E sometime) dropped the original missile combat system to use DEX saving rolls instead (I believe saves were originally always on Luck), and another change ramped up weapon damage dice. Around 5th Ed. an optional Speed attribute was introduced, a Warrior-Wizard class was introduced, and the level limits on Rogues (who originally couldn't go past 7th level, IIRC) were removed.

Probably the most extensive revision was between 5th and 7th (the 30th anniversary addition). This included
*greatly expanding the number of character classes,
*adding a skill system,
*dropping the old level system to instead have a level based directly off highest class prime requisite (you buy individual stat raises with XP, and STR 30 = you're a 3rd level Warrior, for instance),
*adding automatic 'spite damage' to foes for any 6s in the combat dice pool, and added a Kremm (Power) attribute which fuels magic  instead of having sorcery burn Strength points).

Fairly major changes, although preexisting 5E adventures and supplements remain useable with the new system with some tweaking e.g. rolling up a Kremm score for NPC wizards, or formally giving NPCs talents occasionally).

From what I've heard it's bringing in a lot of BRPisms.

Quote from: From Baron on basicroleplaying.comI'm going to disagree, in that I think it should go the other way around. BGB is a compilation of various options from various BRP gamesets from over the years. To me, it makes quite a bit of sense to present in such a collection the system used in the longest-running, unchanged version of BRP that's out there; CoC. Then present various other options, if you like, to allow people to layer on the variants they may prefer.

Why would you take an extent, popular system and then revise *it* to fit better with a hodgepodge of various versions of games that are no longer in print?

Good question.
An answer:

Quote from: RosenMcStern on basicroleplaying.comIn order to provide people with the most stable, playtested way of incorporating all the good bits and pieces from those games, of course.

Both good points, I'm ambivalent.  I'd much rather see the French CoC specific systems added in, then generic BRP stuff.

This seems like a way to move more BRP corebooks.

Quote from: CRKrueger;547911This seems like a way to move more BRP corebooks.

They are making a *big* mistake.

Quote from: Benoist;547957They are making a *big* mistake.

:confused:

CoC is one of the core systems that underlies the BRP Goldbook.  So any changes made in 7e to 'harmonize' it with BRP hardly are going to be 'big' changes, and instead will make it easier to use the optional rules in the Goldbook with CoC.  Sounds like a smart move to me.  And, it is worth emphasizing, a move that maintains full backwards compatibility with 30 years of CoC products.

Since we're quoting from the thread at BRP Central here, this post by Nick Middleton strikes me as correct:

QuoteThe revisions as I understand it (from cryptic hints at Yog-Sothoth.com so I may be entirely wrong) are precisley aimed at making incorporating options from BRP easier, and in addressing some long standing incoherences in the CoC rules (stuff like skill levels, degrees of success, how Dodge works etc). From what I have heard NONE of these changes are aimed at adding complexity to CoC for the sake of it: it's about clarifying areas of long standing confusion, easier adaptation of stuff from the BGB toolkit and refining the CoC specific implementation of the BRP engine for a modern audience.

But even if it is a 'mistake', it's hardly a 'big' one, given that we're still talking about BRP here.  And there is no way in R'lyeh that CoC will stop being a BRP game.

Quote from: basicroleplaying.com...easier adaptation of stuff from the BGB toolkit and refining the CoC specific implementation of the BRP engine for a modern audience.

Like I said, meh.  I would much rather see cool CoC-specific stuff like the French version rather then simply bringing CoC in line with the Big Gold Book.  If I wanted the Big Gold Book, I'd buy it (and did, on pdf).

I just can't help seeing the "Buy CoC 7th and BRP for tons of cool options!", which does kind of strike me as putting the cart before the horse.

Quote from: CRKrueger;547970Like I said, meh.  I would much rather see cool CoC-specific stuff like the French version rather then simply bringing CoC in line with the Big Gold Book.  If I wanted the Big Gold Book, I'd buy it (and did, on pdf).

I'm not sure I understand your complaint.  If I understand what is alleged to be happening correctly, what 7e will do is ensure that the CoC core rules conform more closely to those found in the BRP Goldbook.  This strikes me as a sensible thing to do, as there are aspects of the existing CoC rules that could be clarified, and the BRP Goldbook already does this.

To most people these changes will not be very noticeable.  Just look at the 'Laundry' RPG to see what 7e might look like, ruleswise.

It still would be easy to use all the optional rules from the French version of CoC.

Quote from: CRKrueger;547970I just can't help seeing the "Buy CoC 7th and BRP for tons of cool options!", which does kind of strike me as putting the cart before the horse.

:confused: I don't quite understand this either.  The BRP Goldbook already has 'tons of cool options' for CoC.

So... is the French version of CoC big because there is no French version of the BRP book for players to add from?  Or is there an even bigger BRP book in French?

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;547998So... is the French version of CoC big because there is no French version of the BRP book for players to add from?  Or is there an even bigger BRP book in French?

I have no idea whether there is a BRP book in French or not. My guess is "not." I'm guessing the French CoC game is big as it is (and really, the actual page count pales in comparison to Pathfinder, DCC RPG, and other related games) because it deserves it, not because there's a lack of anything.

As long as it remains BRP, I'm confident it will be worthy.

Now I NEED TO LEARN FRENCH.

Quote from: Imperator;548118As long as it remains BRP, I'm confident it will be worthy.

Yeah, that's my view as well.  I'm not worried, and in fact think that certain rules in CoC would benefit from becoming more clear and coherent.

Quote from: Akrasia;547983The BRP Goldbook already has 'tons of cool options' for CoC.

Exactly.  So why do you need to change CoC to bring it more in line with BGB, because integration was too difficult before?

BGB is a generic toolkit, CoC is a specific expression of a ruleset that inspired the BGB.  My gut tells me this is going to end up with CoC being more generic as a result.  I could be completely wrong, but my Spidey-sense is tingling.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;547003Anyone here know about it?  I was going to recommend 6th edition and Cthulhu by Gaslight to some friends.  But now I'm thinking they should hold off?

Why? Nothings really changed since 3rd edition. Some of the books are just prettier (he says stroking his leather-bound lmtd edition 5th ed CoC)

Quote from: CRKrueger;548201Exactly.  So why do you need to change CoC to bring it more in line with BGB, because integration was too difficult before?

It wasn't difficult, but why not make it even easier?

Also, there are a number of rules in CoC 1-6e that aren't really well explained (e.g. dodge), but which are clearly explained in the BRPGB.  Why not clean things up with the new edition?

Quote from: CRKrueger;548201BGB is a generic toolkit, CoC is a specific expression of a ruleset that inspired the BGB.  My gut tells me this is going to end up with CoC being more generic as a result.  I could be completely wrong, but my Spidey-sense is tingling.

Obviously we're just engaging in speculation here, but I'm pretty happy with even your 'worst case scenario'.  It retains full backwards compatibility with the existing CoC library, while cleaning up the rules somewhat.  

If you feel that 7e turns out to be too 'generic' (not sure what that would involve), then there always are 6 other editions to pick from!

Going back over COC 6e, here are some things that I like/dislike.

• The game is very focused on how it should play.  The system could be adapted for other settings and playstyles, but the game focuses on the investigation of Mythos phenomenon.

• Like SIZ as a stat.  Seems better and less arbitrary than size categories in D&D, and I like the damage/health bonus from it.  Much better than Toughness in WFRP, I think.  Would also consider adding a to-hit modifier base on SIZ for both large and small creatures (rules only give a bonus for big creatures).

• Don't like the multiplication involved in allotting skill points.  Very tedious.

• Do like that skills can start out reasonably high.  Unlike in WFRP (my d% system of choice), where you're lucky to get 30% in a skill.

• Split on the Luck/Know stats.  Part of me likes it; part of me feels it's too generic.

• Very much like the Occupations.  Far superior to other skill systems I've seen.

• Dislike the movement rules.  Too abstract for my taste.

• I despise the Resistance Table.  Absolutely loathe it.  Anything that requires me looking up numbers on a chart and cross-referencing them is a huge turn-off.

• Too many different combat skills.  Best to combine them.  Also don't like that blunt weapons cannot impale.  As "impale" is really just "critical hit," it seems unfair to deprive them of such.  Do like the overall impale mechanics.

• Lots of choice DM advice in the book.

• Love the spells, but they need to be formatted and put with the actual spell section.  Also, some of the mechanical descriptions are vague and a bit confusing.

Quote from: B.T.;548402Going back over COC 6e, here are some things that I like/dislike.

• The game is very focused on how it should play.  The system could be adapted for other settings and playstyles, but the game focuses on the investigation of Mythos phenomenon.

Well, it is for a CoC themed setting.  You mentioned WFRG a few times.  Would that system be better for a CoC setting?