vagabond

Page 247 gives rough guidelines/suggestions: Additional fatigue points Skill rolls are Difficult Requires a successful associated stat roll for whichever stat is insufficient. -V

Again, I suspect the premise is trying to cast a spell out of someone else's grimoire, or transcribing it in the field, is significantly more hazardous than doing the same from the safe confines of your tower, with other research tools, spell components, your full attention and a controlled environment at your disposal. Your option sounds good - if you cannot do it on the spot, than retreating to your sanctuary and devoting a full month of uninterrupted study to the transcription would allow for the INT+POW roll. Not many adventuring wizards would want to take that month off though ... -V

I disagree. Hard SciFi yes. Otherwise, not really. Let's put your example on equal footing. A fantasy psionicist using his mental powers to create an earthquake. Do you need plate tectonics and a fault line? No. Do you need a system for mental powers? Yes. A Sci-Fi Adept using his mental powers to create an earthquake. Do you need plate tectonics and a fault line? No. Do you need a system for mental powers? Yes. I agree that with advanced tech you need more items to cover the variety of tech levels, but do you need much more than descriptions, number of shots before energy source depleted, and shots per round? Not really. Because those same issues hold up for a blaster as much as a bow and arrow. It all depends on story and how much detail is wanted by the group. I can assure you that some fantasy players are going to demand just as much if not more detail. -V

The intent of the 'Gaining New Spells' suggestions is that one finds new spells via roleplay. Locating ancient tomes, buying them from questionable characters at a bazaar, stealing them from a wizard's tower, etc. I would say that transcription from one source to another is the same as casting from another's grimoire - INT%. And, yes, studying the principle of a spell is different - (INT+POW)% to reflect one month of study versus instant gratification. And creating new spells requires a minimum of six months, with six successful (INT+POW)% rolls needed. -V

OK, some thoughts: In Elric!/SB5, the only requirement for being a sorceror was POW >= 16. If you opted to know spells at character creation, you gained Chaos Points per spell known. In SB1-4, the requirement was INT+POW >= 32 and POW >= 16. So, you could have wildly powerful sorcerors (high POW) with little capacity (lower INT), or moderately powerful sorcerors (POW around 16) who were the book-wizened type (high INT). Or, just plain badass sorcerors (INT and POW both high). I prefer the SB1-4 for my personal Stormbringer rules. For straight wizardy, where you are not facing otherworldly creatures, you could just require INT+POW >= 32. Again, you could have wild native magic wielders (say, witch doctors and shamans) with raw POW to cast spells, or very learned wizards who have to research their spells (high INT). You could set secondary limits as well, maybe POW >=14 to ensure enough MP. But, that would require an INT of 18. -V

BTW, I just verified - in the optional point buy system, INT, DEX and POW cost 3 points, while STR, CON, SIZ and APP cost only 1 point. If the EDU option is being exercised, it too is worth 3 points. Then, when you pick skills, the you get INT x 10 points to spend, and with the EDU option, EDU x 20 points. So, the 3 to 1 ratio for certain stats certainly seems appropriate. Depending on genre, POW can easily be the most important stat - Magic Points for Fantasy, and Power Points for Supers. And, if horror, Sanity is based upon POW as well. INT, as above, affects beginning skills. It also affects learning new skills as well as improvement. I just don't see the flaws you do. I've used plenty of point build systems - GURPS, James Bond (which I think has one of the best point build systems I have ever encountered, and which could be used to model a very comprehensive build system for BRP since it is very similar), True20, Vampire, d6, and others. BRP's point buy option may not be par with some of those, but it isn't bad. As far as demand, and who BRP should aim for, I think it currently does quite well. BRP's popularity or lack thereof falls squarely on PR. Not system. Looking at the interest it is sparking on other boards, the popularity of MRQ and its supplements, the interest in CoC, etc., BRP has garnered quite bit of interest. It all depends on where you are looking. Currently, Amazon lists BRP as #157,304, GURPS 4th Characters is at #148,041. That is pretty comparable. Also, the new BRP book has just seen a reprint as of 23Sep2008. That's just over 3 months between runs. -V

It depends. Does the publisher own those images? Did the publisher license those images from the owners? Without knowing the source of the original images, nor without looking at the book itself, it is difficult to determine. In other words, are you sure those images are in the public domain? Because it is very possible they are not. For instance, the Mona Lisa may appear to be in the public domain, but in reality, it is owned by the Louvre. They just don't challenge most uses. -V

I was commenting on the view that a lack of an Adv/Disadv system was a "glaring omission" as Tywyll stated. If 80% of RPGers in the world either are neutral to Ads/Disads, or actually dislike them (and the numbers seem to indicate this by virtue of the number of people who play D&D and Story Teller systems - the Merits/Flaws are not core system but showed up in the Player Guides), the not including them is not a "glaring omission". However, more to your point: BRP cinematic - optional rules included for doubling HP, skills exceeding 100%, and Fate/Hero points are included. So, more cinematic heroism - check. Build point system - check. Maybe not as granular as some, but it is there. And, while some stats are more important than others, how many build point systems actually have weighted costs? GURPS doesn't. The skill buy system in BRP is also point based. So, really, build point system - check. Linear resolution - when you really examine how percentile rolls and multi die rolls work out, you'll find that they can equally be linear. The bell curve may mean that a certain value comes up more than others, but if you look at the percentage of certain values coming up, it is linear as well. However, since that is not what you mean, by virtue of having opposed rolls as well as levels of success, BRP is not as "linear" as people make it out to be. Also, using the optional rules for skills over 100% affecting opposed rolls, I find BRP actually less "linear" than multi die systems that do not have such a methodology. Overall, BRP provides rules and options in the core that will appeal to the vast majority of players. Other rules/subsystems that are not provided in the core can be added fairly easily via houserules and supplements, including but not limited to Ads/Disads, more granular/scalable point buy, life path chargen, etc. But, again, people who absolutely demand such systems seem to be in the minority. So, "glaring omissions" they are not. -V

Does D&D have an Advantage/Disadvantage system? In any of its incarnations? I don't recall seeing one. And yet, it is the most popular "modern" system around. -V

The most important part is section 1.d): So, my interpretation (which is backed both Ryan Dancey's interpretation and what has been published under the OGL) is: OGC is the game mechanics which do not embody PI, AND are derived from prior OGC AND any other content declared OGC by the contributor. PI is specifically excluded, but so are mechanics that are NOT derived from prior OGC NOR declared OGC by the contributor. The "AND"s are very important here: OGC must not be PI, must be derived from prior OGC, or must be declared OGC by the contributor. Anything else is, by definition, assumed to not be OGC. -V

The thing is Ryan did not write the text. Hasbro/WotC lawyers did. So, I suspect that Ryan explained what he wanted, and the lawyers wrote it the way he intended. At the very least, he wrote it (or someone wrote it for him) and the lawyers reviewed it with some sort of input from Ryan as to what he intended. There is no way Hasbro/WotC would have let such a monumental license out of the bag without legal review. Again, I think the singular "mechanic" and the "and is an enhancement over the prior art" in OGL section 1.d) were intentionally worded that way, and when interpreted literally, support that OGC is either derivative of prior OGC, or declared OGC by the publisher, but not all encompassing when it comes to rules/mechanics. -V

Regardless, Dancey drafted the license, he should know what it means. But, looking at your "definition" above, let's break it down: The wording in 1.d) is "the game mechanic", not "all game mechanics". This is splitting hairs, but it may have been written that way intentionally. "The mechanic" would refer to the OGL mechanics. So, that chunk would mean: -- the d20 core mechanics ----does not embody Product Identity ----AND is an enhancement over the prior art The "AND" is very important. It's not an either/or, it definitely implies that there could very well be game mechanics that are not enhancement over the prior art - T20's ship-building rules for example are not directly derived from the d20 core. That's pretty clear - no argument here. Again, none of that is in question. What is in question is exactly what is covered by the license. And, according to Dancey and the language of the license, only mechanics derived from prior OGC or otherwise designated as OGC, are covered. There can certainly be mechanics in the book that are neither of those, and thus remain closed/PI. What's odd is that you seem to be arguing against how the OGL has been implemented and supported since day one. You have been shown numerous examples of how closed and open content have co-existed in products, how the person responsible for the license interprets/intended it (and, consequently, how it is used in practice), and yet you still argue otherwise based upon what I see as a flawed interpretation. Obviously if a judge would see it the same way you do, then many relatively large companies have been given poor legal advice with respect to the license (Mongoose, Green Ronin, WotC/Hasbro). Therefore, I find it more reasonable that you are misinterpreting it, and that a judge would not read it the way you think. -V

I know I was pointing out that some of what he said is valid though. Reviewing the License Agreement posted in the downloads section, it is my opinion (though IANAL) that it should be possible to use OGC in a BRP book as long as 1) the OGL is included as required, 2) the content is clearly identified as OGC, and 3) - and this is the most important part - no new rules/mechanics are derived from the OGC included. This is important because doing so would violate the agreement with Chaosium. New mechanics would fall under Chaosium's umbrella as per the agreement. However, isolated OGC should not, and the agreement and OGL would be satisfied. As always, consult with Charlie and a lawyer. -V

Well, to be fair: 1) The sanity rules as presented in BRP differ significantly from those that appeared in d20 CoC and Unearthed Arcana - the core mechanics differ. So, they are technically two distinct rulesets. The BRP version is not OGC while the d20 version is. 2) All rules cannot be copyrighted, only the actual verbage can be. As evidenced by MRQ, you can just rewrite the phrasing of any ruleset and publish it as your own. The OGL was created to allow people to basically cut'n'paste the rules so that a somewhat uniform and universal ruleset was created. It basically bypasses copyright law in that you can directly quote the rules, and not have to rewrite them in signficantly new language. 3) As I pointed out before, that is obviously not the case. 4) I am sure there are other reasons why didn't go to law school -V

Well, kind of. I use more of a parallel world approach, and ditch Middle Earth and Warhammer, but add Newhon, Sanctuary/Ranke, and others. Besides, Elric made an official trip to Hyboria once -V

Hopefully this will put the OGC vs. non-OGC issue to rest. From the old OGF-L (Open Gaming Foundation mailing list), a post by none other than Ryan Dancey: See the whole thread here about having rules that are closed/PI in conjunction with OGL/OGC material: Re: [OGF-L] If people are *really* bothered by crippled OGC issued under So, T20's shipbuilding rules are not OGC, and yet the book was written using the OGL and had other OGC in it. The shipbuilding rules are standalone, and were not designed using previous OGC, so they remain closed per the publisher. -V

Sorry, but you are just not correct. As King of Old School points out, and as evidenced by numerous products put out on the market, all game mechanics are not OGC if published under the OGL. Only those mechanics clearly declared as such, or derived from prior OGC. Again, the d20 OGL FAQ clearly states this. IIRC, even WotC's d20 version of Call of Cthulhu was not declared OGC at all. It wasn't until WotC released the d20 sanity mechanics in Unearthed Arcana did those mechanics officially become OGC. I believe the same is true of Star Wars - no declared OGC. Both are based upon the OGL and d20, and yet both are not OGC. Also, of note, the PHB for 3.0/3.5 also has non-OGC material in it - character creation and advancement is explicitly not OGC, you are not allowed to use the PHB character creation and level advancement rules verbatim as you would other OGC. -V

And you're making the same mistake countless of people who misunderstand the OGL make. Not all of the Game Mechanics are required to be OGC. Only those mechanics that you choose to designate as OGC, or those mechanics derived directly from other OGL resources. New mechanics you create or pre-exist the OGL do not have to be declared as OGC. From the old OGL FAQ: If not clearly identified as OGC nor derived from prior OGC, then it is not OGC. And, from section 1.d of the OGL: key terms being "and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor". Again, not all mechanics are automatically OGC. -V

Wow, there is a lot of misinformation being tossed about. 1) As owners of the text, Mongoose can publish material used in their RuneQuest OGL (nothing at all to do with d20 rules except those rules recast into MRQ - the MRQ OGL is not the d20 OGL) and specifically state it is not OGL. So, Elric of Melnibone, Hawkmoon, etc. are not OGL. They may use OGL rules, which you can take from the SRD, but the actual text cannot be lifted from Elric or Hawkmoon. 2) You are allowed, by the OGL text, to define non OGL material. This can be purely descriptive material, or it can be game mechanics. If there is a section of game mechanics derived from the MRQ OGL, then that section must be OGL, and must be clearly defined as such. However, any mechanics which are not derived from the OGL may remain closed. As a matter of fact, the OGL states that one need only clearly identify what material is OGL, and material so identified is the only material that is considered OGL. The rest is closed. 3) As Jason pointed out, and as I state in 1), Chaosium released the Distinctive Traits prior to the existence of the OGL and DragonLords of Melnibone. As such, they can publish that text in their own works and not claim it is OGL since they "own" the text. However, it is clearly possible to reuse the Distinctive Traits in any OGL game since they are freely available through the existence of DLoM. As far as licensing BRP and using either d20 or MRQ OGL material, you would have to discuss it with Chaosium. I am inclined to believe that it is not a problem as long as a) you include the OGL license text as required, you clearly define the OGL sections as OGL, including any rules derived from the OGL text, and c) clearly state the rest of the material is not OGL. However, IANAL, and clearing it with Chaosium first, and then reviewing it with a Copyright Lawyer, is a good idea. -V

For starters, Elric in SB1-4 is in the 90%s for both attack and parry without Stormbringer. Still a Master by the rules, but not 100%. Secondly, in Elric's epic battle with Yyrkoon, one must remember two things. 1) Yyrkoon is wielding Mournblade. As a result, he benefits from the significant enhancement Mournblade provides with respect to parrying and sustenance. Yyrkoon receives a number of "mortal" blows. 2) Elric actually starts "pulling" his blows - wishing both to be in control over Stormbringer (as opposed to Stormbringer running the battle) and to spare Yyrkoon's life. This is when Yyrkoon gets nicked. Again, I have found in my experience that BRP as found in Elric! is a pretty good fit for the saga. My biggest gripe is the sorcery - this is where I find Mongoose's version to be a better match. But, combatwise, I find BRP to work quite well. -V

Stormbringer has its own entry. Elric has two entries, one with Stormbringer, and one without (150% Greatsword - for supposedly the first or second greatest swordsman in the known world according to Tanglebones). And, I only provided an example of how what happens in the book can be represented in the rules. You were the one so intent on the 880% attack and 2d8+1d6+17d10+1d6 damage. I just showed how the mechanics could emulate what happened in the saga within the rules. I find it actually does a decent job while staying within the system design. Sure, there could be some changes made, but overall, it works very well and consistently. Sounds like over complication to me. Again, and effort was made to represent the major characters and powers within the system design. And, again, I find it does a solid job of this. There are things I like about MRQ Elric as well, but there are also things in that ruleset that I don't. So, I play a mix. Do I use the 880% Stormbringer attack? No - because Stormbringer never enters play. Do I limit beginning characters by not allowing initial to hit 100%, yes - unless a good reason is supplied. Even so, with the given 250 points and all of the beginning skill levels, you might hit one skill above 100% at the get go, but if you try to bump up another that high, you are seriously limiting your other skills. -V

Sure, but in this one instance, he could have "rolled poorly" and done the minimum 21 HP. Even with a crit, that's a measly 42 HP damage. Halved for Bellbane, and it's back to 21 HP. Without the crit, it's a measly 11 HP rounded up. But now you have created a different set of mechanics. Why not keep it unified? Again, examine the effects, not the numbers. The effects work out very well. And yes,Nick - that is Stormbringer's skill, not Elric's. Stormbringer can kill gods after all. -V

Not only did the 880% allow for more parries (and ripostes), but it also allowed for more criticals and major wounds, even if the attacks were split and Stormbringer did not drain all of the foe's POW. Concentrating on the mechanics as opposed to the effects will pretty much trash any game adaptation of any novel or movie. It's no the number that's important, it's the results that are derived from it. -V

Contact Dustin at Chaosium. He'll direct you properly. -V

In SB1-4, the Riposte rules worked as so: Every successful Parry by a "Master" (i.e., 90% or better in both Attack and Parry with the parrying weapon) can be turned into an extra attack whenever the parry occurs. There is no limit, for each parry made, a subsequent riposte may be attempted. However, each successive parry is at -20% per attempt, and each successive riposte/attack is -20%. Again, there is no limit to the number of parries and ripostes performed each round. And, if the combatant parries and ripostes before his regular attack that round, when his regular attack occurs, it is also performed at the appropriate multiple of -20% (i.e., if the combatant as already parried and riposted twice in the round before his normal attack, the normal attack occurs at -40%, and then any subsequent ripostes in the round would start at -60% and continue form there). In Elric!/SB5, it was defined thusly: While wielding two weapons, the second/offhand weapon starts at 1/2 the skill level of the same weapon when used in the primary hand. Add this entry on he sheet separately (i.e. have a RH Sword and LH Sword skill). When using two weapons, once per round per combatant, a critical parry allows the character to make a riposte with the weapon that didn't parry. This is a free attack that occurs during the DEX rank of the parry. -V