LivingTriskele

Now I’m considering lowering each Power Level’s starting points by 75, in order to include Personality Types and Cultural Skills, so, for example: 175 for Normal characters + 260 (20 for each 13 Personality Type Skills) + 40 for Cultural Skills. In this way, Personality Type has less impact for higher Power Levels, which makes sense to me. The reason why I want to use Personality Types and Cultural Skills is to encourage the generation of well-rounded characters. The above plan is theoretical. I’m not sure how it would work in actual practice. I need to make a few test characters to see.

I just realized that I misinterpreted the rules for Personality Types. If I use Personality Types, that adds an extra 260 Skill points during character generation (on top of the starting amount of 250 points for Normal characters and 40 points I was planning on giving for Cultural Skills). Granted, it’s 260 points spread out over 13 Skills (20 points each), essentially raising the base chances of Skills the players may or may not dump more points into, but it seems like a lot. Even if I significantly lower the number of points for Cultural Skills, or remove Cultural Skills entirely it seems like a lot (which is a bummer because I really liked the idea Cultural Skills and Personality Types). Do you think this is too much?

Truth is, I'm trying to write something for the Basic Roleplaying Design Challenge announced last month, and I want to dial in the character creation guidelines in a way so veteran BRP players will appreciate it, but also ensure my D&D players create the most appropriate character they can, the first time around, and get a satisfying introduction to BRP. Towards that end, I’m thinking it’s worth somehow encouraging the generation of well-rounded characters in the guidelines. So far, the best way I can think of doing this is by having the guidelines require players to spend a certain number of points on noncombat skills.

Yeah, the moment they start starving because they can't find a job, I think the importance of being well-rounded might kick in. I could do something arbitrary like require players to spend at least half their default starting points on noncombat skills. So, 250 for Normal characters would be 125. Or maybe 1/3rd rounded down, so 83 points. That might make sense.

Truth! That's the reason why I like to throw the occasional foe at them that I know they can't beat in a strait fight. I think that they will have some extra points left over, after maxing out their main skills, for things that they’ll need to develop in game.

Another thing I need to navigate is how to incorporate different species/races that are on average just more powerful than most humans. Giving them more points to allocate over Characteristics doesn’t seem fair, but neither does forcing them start of weaker than the average member of their species. I suppose I could use in-game disadvantages, like being the subject of xenophobia or having unusual dietary needs.

I’m hoping (sort of assuming) that with 5 Skills maxed at 75% they’ll still have a few points left over for “hobby” skills that they can’t necessarily depend upon, but will get some satisfaction improving in game.

This got me thinking that I’d actually like to use both. The campaign setting I’ve been working on emphasizes psychological archetypes, and the Personality Types optional rule fits nicely with what I have going on here. But I also want to use Cultural Skills. I can think of two ways of doing this. Allow the players to take their 40 Cultural Skill points and use them either on Cultural Skills or Personality Type skills OR split the 40 down the center—20 points for Cultural Skills and 20 points for Personality Type skills.

It does. I was considering using that approach, but I’m on the fence. I’m inclined to give my players as much freedom in character creation as possible. I think they’ll just be happier. BRP by default is more lethal than D&D (which they are all used to), so I’m hoping a little freedom in character generation will compensate for that.

I’ve been comparing the BRP core rules with Magic World. A total of 40 bonus Cultural Skill points per character with the standard 250 Normal characters as per the BRP core rules, is the same number as Magic World’s 30 bonus Cultural Skill points combined with its 260 for Professional Skills—only without the limitation of the total points being broken down into smaller allocations (i.e., +20% x 4 over any Skills). I know my players and expect them to max out their primary Skills. With a total of 290 Skill Points, I’m guessing it’s safe for me to expect they can max out about 5 skills at 75%, taking into consideration various base chances. Also, I’m planning on using Skill Bonuses. Would you say this is a fun starting point? To be honest my impressions of BRP have probably been more idealistic than practical. Hence me coming to the veterans for advice 😄 I’ve had a great time using it to run the occasional Call of Cthulhu game, but most of my attempts at running RuneQuest were with the Avalon Hill edition, which were met with frustration by players forced to begin the game with skills at 30%, if I recall. I know that with Easy tasks, Skill percentiles are doubled. Going forward I hope that alleviates some of the that frustration (still my players haven’t stopped me from collecting most Chaosium publications out of love and appreciation).

Hi BRP hivemind. Looking for some advice regarding implementing Cultural Skills in a campaign. I’m planning on listing a set of skills for each culture, for the players to choose from. The players are going to start with an equal amount of cultural bonus skill points to allocate over their respective chosen cultural skills. My question is A) what’s a good TOTAL amount of bonus points to allow for cultural skills per character, and B) what’s a good maximum of bonus points to be allocated per each chosen cultural skill? I’m considering a total of 40 bonus cultural skill points per character with a maximum +15% per combat skill and +35% per non-combat skills. Does that seem fair?

Thank you! This is hopeful and helpful. I've meaning to reach out Green Ronin, and actually Steve Kenson himself.

Sadly, since the vast majority of this project is based on OGL rules (specifically the d20HeroSRD), it probably makes the most sense to either avoid or rewrite the BRP aspects I’d hoped to incorporate. That said, I can see applying the basic approach I’m using for this project to an entirely BRP/ORC friendly set of rules as well (which, the more I think about it, is probably what I’m going to end up doing).

I had a feeling it would come down to the game-rules-can’t-be-copyrighted conclusion. Since this all just a labor of love anyway, I’m still going to finish it. Maybe it can be a prototype for a public open-source SRD. If not, I'm okay with it just being a collection of obsessively curated house rules 🤪

I think the new question in my mind is--what exactly are "protectable expressions of game mechanics.” I've always vaguely assumed this to mean things like specific classes, monsters and spell names, but I could be wrong. For example (from what I understand) actual d20 game mechanics (i.e., Difficulty Classes) are not protectable.

Sure thing! And I appreciate everyone's contributions on this thread!

So, I reached out to Azora Law, and got a response almost immediately (posting it below for posterity's sake). I hear you looking for a safe harbor in which to operate your business, and while I can give you my belief, if WotC takes a contrary position, you could still get sued. And you could still lose. I absolutely can’t offer an opinion on what WotC can or can’t do under the OGL (particularly to someone that isn’t my client.) IMO, the “no additional terms” provision of the OGL and ORC relate to license limitations. That is to say that when you license stuff out, you can’t ask users of your content to agree to different restrictions than the ones you were subject to. Moreover, the “no additional terms” has nothing to do with adding or subtracting content. Being direct to your question: “Do game mechanics from separate open sources qualify as additional terms or conditions?” The game mechanics themselves do not qualify as additional terms or conditions, but let’s assume you take a license to use some game mechanics (call those the “Series A Mechanics”) under one license (“License A”) and you take a different license to use other game mechanics (“Series B Mechanics”) under a different license (“License B”). And let’s assume License A and License B have at least slightly different terms. If License A and License B relate to your entire product, then you have a conflict and you are probably violating one or both licenses. When we addressed a related question in the AxE, we provided the attached guidance (emphasis added): Can I use OGL licensed content in my ORC Product? o The OGL stipulates that “Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of the OGL License” (OGL Sec. 2). So we do not see any way that Wizards of the Coast’s Open Game Content you got a license to use under the OGL could be licensed out by you under the ORC unless they published an SRD type document with the ORC Notice in it. Despite that, if you published an OGL product, you could strip out any protectable expressions of game mechanics you received under an OGL license, and release that new product under the ORC. I hope that helps. Kindly, Brian

That's great advice! Thank you! WotC's customer support just got back to me yesterday (I asked them if game rules qualify as "terms and conditions." It took them 13 days to tell me that they aren't able to clarify the wording of their own license: Hello,Unfortunately, Wizards of the Coast cannot provide assistance with, or legal interpretations for, questions related to our licenses. If you require further assistance with something beyond what can be found on our website, we recommend that you consult with a lawyer or other legal professional of your choosing qualified to interpret such documents. Permissions TeamWizards of the Coast Next stop, Azora Law. Thanks again!

Hey Atgxtg, thanks for taking the time to contribute. To be honest, this is a labor of love and gift I'd like to share with a community I adore. It's a way of giving back to a hobby that has been such a tremendous boon in my life. This document will be free. I've got no intention of making any money off of it.

RosenMcStern: True that.

The question is in combining SRDs from different OGLs (d20 and ORC). In this case it would be Hit Locations with a d20 system built more like GURPS than D&D. I don’t think it’s necessarily a problem, but it feels like I’m getting pulled into arguments regarding scripture at the Council of Nicaea (it’s a good thing I’m a Gnostic at heart : - )

I'm actually corresponding with someone at D&D Beyond now (been trying to get an answer as to why my post was deleted). After a ton of deflection this is this this guy's response: Soliciting and/or offering medical, legal, or other professional advice. Original post below: I'm nearly done working on a free PDF that discusses how to combine various OGL SRDs in order to custom design rules systems. Part of this project involves combining rules from various WotC d20 SRDs with Chaosium’s BRP ORC License (both of which presume to be “Open”). I’ve already reached out to Chaosium, and they are totally fine with it. However, after having posted this topic on other TTRPG forums, a question regarding the legality of mixing OGL SRDs in this way still comes up—specifically in regards to the WotC OGL 1.0a’s clause regarding “no additional terms or conditions.” I’m wondering if any WotC employees out there could offer a definitive take on this clause (despite the notion that game mechanics can’t even really be copyrighted, I’d like to dot all my Is and cross all my Ts). Thank you in advance.

Thanks, I ended up opening a Customer Support ticket. We'll see.

So, I finally posted the question WotC D&D Beyond Forum. It was up there for no longer than 20 minutes before someone deleted it.

Excellent. Thanks. This is very helpful. I'll reach out to Hasbro and see if I can get a definitive interpretation (or maybe permission) from them (just to leave no stone unturned). I'll post the response, if any, here. Thank you all for your contributions.