Jump to content

Vile

Members
  • Content Count

    1,343
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Vile last won the day on November 10 2016

Vile had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

423 Excellent

1 Follower

About Vile

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://dreamscapedesign.net/

Profile Information

  • Location
    The Underworld

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Rolling percentages since 1983!
  • Current games
    AEON:engineâ„¢
  • Blurb
    Crafting the finest table top role-playing games for your diversion.

Recent Profile Visitors

4,168 profile views
  1. Look on this as playtesting a new product. I sincerely hope this is understood in the spirit that it is intended, i.e. constructive criticism. Removing ambiguity in the form of the "substantially similar" clause can only be a good thing. I also see a potential problem for Chaosium in including the BRP logo within the document rather than as a separate logo licence, because the OGL does not tie publishers to compatibility with the SRD. There's no guarantee the end product would be recognisable as BRP even though it has the logo on the cover.
  2. Thanks, I haven't followed any HeroQuest conversations so this was a bit confusing, to say the least.
  3. Well, this is an old thread, but better than opening a new one. Re: the above, is this Questworld SRD for the Heroquest game rather than the old BRP boxed set?
  4. To expand upon this, if not the above, is this new BRP logo and SRD the "5th edition" of Basic Roleplaying going forward? If 3PPs put out product with the BRP logo on their books, does Chaosium expect buyers to see the SRD or the BGB as the core system? All other SRDs with logo licences in my experience have an actual rulebook to refer back to. Or is the intent to get publishers to develop complete games based on the SRD, somewhat like Chaosium's tradition of all lines having their own variant rules built into the core book? By the way, there is a typo under prohibited content: it says "Dragn Lords of Melniboné".
  5. Not going to get into the Legend SRD, I'm talking about the WoTC OGL 1.0a. It's a robust contract that has encouraged hundreds if not thousands of 3rd party publishers to use it. Not sure why all this talk about retroclones - that ship has sailed, and it's only ever really been about D&D (except for Cepheus Engine, maybe). Presumably the point of having a BRP logo licence is to produce supporting content for the Big Gold Book, such as adventures, settings, variant magic systems or the like, which would then increase interest in the core system. That's why WotC invented the OGL and 3.5E SRD after all, though that didn't play out quite as planned. Or maybe it did, and D&D wouldn't otherwise be the cultural phenomenon that it has become. Anyway, the point is, introducing those "substantially similar" restrictions seems counter-productive, and those relating to RQG and Pendragon don't even belong to BRP (if we're still talking about the BGB as the base?). Why not just put those terms in the prohibited list? Will the BGB be retro-fitted with the new logo, by the way?
  6. I think this is the crux of the matter, not what is or isn't in the SRD. The OGL is successful because it offers a cast-iron guarantee to users and requires no oversight from its creators. If there is any uncertainty a potential author is better off trying to negotiate an actual licence (e.g. for a Magic World adventure).
  7. Coincidentally, I saw this in a Hobbylink Japan flash sale: https://www.hlj.com/dynamite-action-grendizer-spazers-set-evt57312
  8. Nice! Still glued though, right? I look forward to the day when we get PoD indistinguishable from mass printed hardbacks (I don't doubt it's coming).
  9. Well, that I won't argue with.
  10. But, in reply to the OP, would you say that cults are an essential part of a MW setting? I would argue they are not.
  11. I think they play the same, even if the skill names and the toys characters use change. I haven't tried many alternative percentile games, because I've been happy with this one since 1983. I played WHFP 1E but I don't remember what it was like, except that it didn't catch on with me. Most of the other games I play really are "other". I think randomisation in RPGs is great because, as you say, it makes people try something different. Would be interesting to see what you did for your MW generator. Many people of course swear by point-buy all the way, but I think there is a happy medium where players get to make meaningful choices while the dice take away the tedious ones (and perhaps throw in some unexpected excitement).
  12. The packaged professions in several BRP games take some of the pain out of that, but not all. Limiting the number of skills in your game is one way of shortening the process, but I'm a fan of short skills lists and others are not. I have to say that the BRP previous experience system I found the most "fun" was the one in the RQ2 appendices - pretty fast although limited in its options, but then another strength of BRP is that characters who start out the same can develop in very different directions.
  13. I don't know why your question is about fantasy, specifically, because the things I like about BRP rules apply to just about any setting - and I have used them to run games in just about any setting. The idea of percentile skills is so basic that it doesn't need any adjustment no matter what kind of game you play. I still feel it's the most direct and effective translation of real-world activities into dice rolling that I've found.
×
×
  • Create New...