RosenMcStern

It is a very neat game, and the license part is very well worded. A good example of how to do a D100 game under the ORC. Congratulations to TDM and Rodney for a job well done, which will undoubtedly inspire thousands of hours of retro-gaming fun.

Yes. There will be minor differences (species and size class, character picture with optional hit locations, Operations replaced by another skill for low tech environments;, etc.), but the new generic character sheet will look very much like this, just with a different style.

Red Moon Rising character sheet prototypeI am glad to present to you the first prototype of the Red Moon Rising RPG Character Sheet. We may do some graphic improvements at a later time, but the concept of the sheet is stable now. Link to PDF version below: Red Moon Rising character sheet prototype

You still have a couple of questions to answer: What license are you gonna use to make it publicly available? What other SRDs are you going to reference, and who are you going to credit? Depending on these points, you might or might not be in violation of someone else's IP or license.

Quite useful. So the bottom line is "there is a non-trivial risk in mixing" and the advice is "publish everything under the ORC, even if it was previously under the OGL". Souds like sound advice. Thank you for asking these questions Triskele.

Caution: RQ3 sorcery as written is very fun, but it has a lot of drawbacks. It was an incomplete system, as eventually admitted by the authors themselves. And it certainly does not allow city-spanning spells. Sandy's Sorcery is a much better revision of the sorcery concept. It is the recommended version.

The physical book is out of stock, and we did not think it was a good idea to reprint it with an important rewrite of the core rules coming. In some months you will be able to order Red Moon Rising, which includes a good 80% of the rules in a revised, more understandable format.

APP and CHA often end up being dump stats. Having both will make things worse. Furthermore, APP is relative to your species. In a game with so many different species that look unattractive to one another, it will end up being irrelevant more often than not. And... shouldn't EDU be there in a high tech game, instead? For the rest, it looks gorgeous.

See? The customer relationship guys are prohibited from giving you any answers. It does not matter that what you intend to do is no-profit. If it is about IP, what you are requesting is a legally binding answer that only wotC attorneys can give you.

Your chances of getting an answer are very low. And in any case, any answer you get from customer support will in no way be legally binding. No executive manager or attorney at WotC will ever feel obliged to abide with an opinion the support gave to a customer. The only remote hope you have to get a significant answer is to write in official form (on paper, or via legally binding email channels) to someone at WotC in charge of licensing, introducing yourself as a potential licensee. In that case their answer would have a chance of being legally binding.

Guys, the point is extremely simple. Here is what Article 2 of the WotC OGL says: "No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License." Now, if you want to find yourself arguing in a court of justice that including said open game content in a product released under the ORC license does not imply "applying other terms and conditions", go ahead. But don't say you were not warned. Of course this does not mean that Hasbro will sue you. But putting yourselves in a position in which Hasbro could sue you... well, is it really necessary to comment further?

CAUTION: you cannot mix different licenses. You can merge multiple SRDs that use the WotC OGL, and multiple ORC SRDs, but you cannot merge them together.

Looks juicy.

All of the above points are valid. And i do not see them implemented in detail in M-Space. However, all of these points are addressed in Revolution D100's implementation of conflicts. And you can apply these solutions to M-Space, too, or even to core Mythras task rounds with a minimum of creativity. You don't need much tweaking of the rules, given that the context is really generic and does not use complex variables. As you said, Atg, the idea is certainly correct, but the implementation (or its description) may not be of everyone's liking. I would say "definitely not". Most special effects (bar Compel Surrender) are about a temporary advantage, not the end goal of the contest. You can add effects to contests, but you need different sets of effects for different types of contests. A monumental work.

Atg, you are misrepresenting how extended contests work in a well designed implementation. Have you actually played M-Space, Comae or Revolution D100 conflicts? And please don't mention playing Hero Wars or HeroQuest. They have a questionable implementation of extended conflicts (almost as bad as D&D4). It is for this reason that many people used Mark Galeotti's chained simple conflicts instead when playing HQ.

I have moderator rights only on a sub-folder, not on this forum. I suggest you open another thread yourself with the title "RPG Worlds - world creator for BRP games and VTTs" in Big Red Boldface. This will increase interest. You can then repost the same screenshots there, or provide others. The original posts can stay here. There is a lot of discussion related to your project that can go on. Better have it in a thread that is not connected to one specific VTT implementation. Particularly because Foundry has only a rudimentary implementation of BRP for now, while other VTTs are currently more advanced.

I read it, and the topic here is Foundry VTT. RPG Worlds is a character/campaign creator that should be able to export data to Foundry and other VTTs. It is related, but it is indeed another topic. It is in no way a solution for the current problem of lacking support for BRP in Foundry.

This is all very interesting, but it has nothing to do with Foundry or other VTT. Shouldn't you open another thread with Savage.us in the title?

What's the status of the Fantasy Grounds version? I have not checked it for maybe 10 years, but it should be working fine. I have played several games and campaigns with it. Is anyone, apart from Smiteworks, working on it? The effort to convert it to the UGE version should be trivial, but there might be other issues.

Kudos.

As you know, Revolution D100 does it without disturbing Neper, and keeping mathematics to an absolute minimum: no computations, just comparison. The problem is that this method requires a total paradigm shift from "I want to roll as low as possible" to "I want to roll as high as possible within my skill". The game feels different. Some people will object that it is a different game.

Just to avoid sending broadcast emails: to whom does one address non-public questions about using the ORC license for BRP-related products and derivatives? Jason? Jeff? Scotty? MOB? Chaosium's pet dragon? I stress that this is about subjects that I would prefer to keep undisclosed for now, as public questions clearly belong here.

As the inventor of this method, I thank you for your appreciation 🙂 You can have it scale over 100 by adding extra conditions (ex. add double 1 for 110%, double 2 for 120%, etc.), but it becomes a bit clunky. As for avoiding to roll a third die, it is very easy: Easy roll (Advantage in D&D): you succeed if either your roll or your flipped roll is under your skill; Hard roll (Disadvantage in D&D): you succeed if both your roll and your flipped roll are under your skill. Easy peasy.

Honestly, I would not apply the cumulative -30% to the fixed shiled defence against arrow fire. Regardless of the wording, these percentiles represent a general chance of the projectile hitting the shield rather than some active defence on the part of the target. You mighty object that this makes someone kneeling behind a large shield almost invulnerable to missile fire, but this is exactly what happened with legions or phalanxes: even when showered with arrows, they took very few casualties.