theodis171

Just a small thing I noticed,

there seems to be a small error in the "Random Characteristics by Species" table on p.17.

Dwarfs are stated to have 2D6+12 DEX and 3D6 CON. Shouldn't that be the other way round?

Kind regards

2 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

Clearly explained and understood. I just don’t know how the legal process would work, really, when Chaosium doesn’t actually own these terms or concepts. The same is true for King Arthur Pendragon. Say, somebody makes a scenario using BRP and includes a reference to Merlin or Camelot in it, would there be legal precedence from the BRP document to stop them? 

They don't have to. If you would do as you say you would violate the license. It's not a law, it's a contract. You can use any D100 system you like, but not BRP - at least not for publishing. They could even demand to put the Word "Fnord" at the end of each sentence. Not fine with it? Don't use the license.

That's the entire point of the nine pages of thread above.

29 minutes ago, soltakss said:

I think that might be missing the point.

People who want to use the Legend OGL to create a system that uses Prohibited Content, for example to retrofit Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest, can.

What they can't do is to use the BRP OGL to do that.

If people don't want to use the BRP OGL but want to use a Legend OGL to make something similar then fine. They can't put the BRP OGL Logo on it or call it BRP.

The point is that Legend OGL is not just any other system, but functionally identical, sans the logo and gives you more to work with to boot. So this whole thing leaves a head-scratching "why bother?". (It is a bit ironic, though that Legend OGL is held by Mongoose who did everything in their might to de-OGL their Traveller 2e).

That being said, I can't speak for the Open Cthulhu project but I do know some of the folks of the German Deutsche Lovecraft Gesellschaft e.V. Their intention of doing Fhtagn (including a meticulously well-kept list of everything Mythos in the public domain) was entirely to have something for themselves because they didn't like the route CoC 7e was going. Still, these folks buy nearly everything CoC they can get their hands on.

I get why Chaosium went this route, but in this case, well-meant is not well-done. A better wording of the license would have gone a long way and the SRD really isn't one in all but name.

45 minutes ago, g33k said:

Honestly, I'm fine with not trying to retroclone RQ, Coc, KAP, and other Chaosium products... does that really seem too onerous, too restrictive?

Even if you don't, it's just a bad offer. Take "Fhtagn" for example. They make use of a modified OpenQuest engine based on the new Delta Green and disentangled rules and setting. The rule SRD alone has 127 pages to work with.

Also, the term “substantially similar”really is a blocker. Legally it means "similar in function or capability or otherwise competitive to the products or services being developed, manufactured or sold by the Company, or are marketed to substantially the same type of user or customer as that to which the products and services of the Company are marketed or proposed to be marketed"

It essentially means Chaosium can throw a wrench in your project whenever it is cosmic horror, middle age fantasy or involves rune magic and they feel like it.

6 hours ago, Richard S. said:

I think the point that Theodis was trying to make was "why make it with the BRP liscense instead of another one that lets me do the exact same thing with less restrictions?" What do I get from BRP that I don't from some other D100 OGL like Openquest or Legend or Lore 100?

My point exactly. Additionally, you get more to work with.

1 hour ago, fmitchell said:

That's the intent, I know. What prospective third party publishers may see might be different.

Clearly I'm not a lawyer, so I did not know "substantially similar" is a legal term. What constitutes "substantially similar", however, is -- as far as I can tell -- decided case-by-case, in a lawsuit. That may be a problem.

The point of an SRD (at least as far as I understand it) is to encourage fans and publishers to build an ecosystem of games, adventures, and assorted supplements with broadly compatible rules. Other "open licenses" like Wizards' OGL and Creative Commons define unambiguously what licensees may and may not do with the licensed text. To use the BRP SRD, a commercial publisher leery of lawsuits might run the prospective product by people at Chaosium, which requires time and extra effort on both sides. Even if using the BRP SRD requires no licensing fee, that extra time and effort may make commercial publishers think twice.

For the reasons you mentioned and after having a look at the really bare bones 27 pages document, the question arises - why bother? There is the Legend SRD, there is Mythras, OpenQuest springs to mind... hell, for the German speaking follks out there there is even the Fhtagn RPG.

On 9/5/2019 at 9:35 PM, Jakob said:

I've taken a closer look at the rules segments of this, and it has rekindled my interest in RD100. I'm looking forward to the revised rules - I didn't really warm to the "first edition" (or however it should be called), but I still like a lot of the ideas behind the system.

Same here. The revised quickstart fixes a lot for me and I really can't wait for the international edition. The system is easy to grasp, once you wrap your head around what's trying to accomplish and the rules make sense.

For me, this is a perfect blend between traditional, with fixed characteristics and (not too many) skills, and modern, with traits and narrative options while retaining the simple intuitiveness of D100.

Oh, and I really, really like that it is in full colour now.

On 9/7/2019 at 12:57 PM, RosenMcStern said:

The International Edition will be in English, too. The new SRD is not complete yet. At this stage we know 90% of the rule changes we wish to introduce, but clarity is the main goal to achieve for the English text, so there might several more iterations to pass.

Can I make a wish? The Roll for Effect table on p.48 in the original RD100 is wrong.

This bugged me since I bought it. If this would be corrected, I'd probably buy two of the international edition. 😉

Kind regards,

Stephan

7 hours ago, Sigtrygg said:

Is Outpost 19 still available in print or is it only pdf now? It looks like a fine addition to my FW pastiche...

With a little luck, you can still find it on Amazon - even in mint condition, last I checked.

The rules system would be of interest to me. Personally, I despise CoC7, am ok with no-frills BRP and really like Magic World/Elric!.

On a related note...

I just dug up Outpost 19 - nearly forgot that I have it on my shelf for years - and read it this time. Fits nicely with what I have in mind. The technophobia of the Gate Wardens and the Quertzl fit perfectly with my other great source of inspiration: Zozer Games' "Hostile" setting (greatly recommended). Just a sprinkle of other-worldly horror added, and a campaign seems good to go (after a test-scenario on a con later this year). I think the only thing I'm really going to change is the fate of the Alpha Centauri main world. It's a pet-peeve of mine, but I like this system since I was a child. So no - every other system is up for blow-up, but not this. 😉

Kind regards,

Stephan

Yes I know. I have them both. Only got better. ;-)

Kind regards,

Stephan

This would have been nice, since I intend to do cyberpunk/Shadowrun with it. Took a long, hard look at OpenQuest, RD100 and even Mythras, but the Stormbringer rules just do it for me since I first used them in 1989. :-)

Kind regards,

Stephan

Sounds great. :-)

Any chance that the errata is already worked in? 

It's been a while now. Any update on the estimated delivery? 

On 5.12.2016 at 2:56 AM, pansophy said:

p.48: Roll for Effect table, 'Attacker' and 'Defender' should be exchanged when reading the outcome

I just downloaded RD100 from DriveThru and this still seems to be wrong.

Just pledged. 

Delta Green made this wise decision in its new version too. Doesn't hurt playability a bit.

Being abstract and keeping the fun bits while ditching the nonsense is the right way in my opinion. Case in point: "Lethality Rating" for automatic and heavy weapons. Fast, intuitive _and_ realistic - work of beauty.

kind regards,

Stephan

4 hours ago, Newt said:

It's more a bug fix + small update to the Combat chapter (to bring it in line with the work I did on OQ). 

Great. It's on my list. Any time frame? ;-)

So OpenQuest hardcover it is (for now), as soon as DriveThru has it back on the order page.

Will River of Heaven be revamped too or is it a bug-fix release?

Oh, and... great work! As far as I am concerned, OpenQuest ist the best set of BRP rules currently available.

kind regards,

Stephan

Hi all,

I'm going to buy the OpenQuest hardcopy. Good thing ist just got updated. Will order River of Heaven too.

Got a question, though. Are the DriveThru PODs the only versions that exist or is there a separate print run? And will River of heaven get some updates ,too?

kind regards,

Stephan