Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


JonL last won the day on November 11 2019

JonL had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

875 Excellent

About JonL

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 10/23/1974

Profile Information

  • Location
    St. Louis, Missouri - USA


  • RPG Biography
    Not all the way back, but pretty far.
  • Current games
    Mechwarrior using the One Roll Engine.
  • Location
    St. Louis, Missouri - USA
  • Blurb
    I play in a group that sets Tolkien's song lyrics to string band music, The lonely Mountain String Band http://lmsb.me

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Were it's release to be announced tomorrow, it would suddenly become relevant.
  2. Part 2 raises the question of whether Paladin is considered part of KAP for purposes of 1(e). I recall there were Feudal Japan and Hellenistic era adaptations of Pendragon in the works at one point as well.
  3. This is still not a straight answer on "originating-in vs appearing-in", nor an answer to the question in the post to which you replied. I have no desire to clone CoC, KAP, etc, but between the ambiguous language in 1(e) and y'all being deliberately evasive about it, I wouldn't currently feel comfortable using this license for a game set anyplace on Earth. There are CoC adventures set just about everywhere. I can respectfully follow the prohibitions on Arkham or Miskatonic U without any difficulty whatsoever, but you are for whatever reason refusing to go on record that Massachusetts in general is not also prohibited. This shouldn't be a hard question to answer, and yet you continue to refuse to do so. How is anyone supposed to place their confidence in the license in that context?
  4. With all due respect, this is the second time in as many weeks that Chaosium has kindly and thoughtfully answered a question about how Arthuriana is to be handled while completely ignoring the general case question in the same post. Why are you doing this?
  5. Distinguishing between Uther's distinct portrayal in the GPC (clearly prohibited) and Uther as portrayed in one of Malory's influences is indeed a fine point that may require special attention. However, clarifying whether the license language prohibits any real-world location/place name or historical figure that's ever shown up in a CoC supplement should not be a hard question to answer.
  6. JonL


    How about adding a relevant associated attribute to the die roll when trying to roll over the skill on advancement checks? That way you learn faster in subjects for which you have greater aptitude, and more slowly where you're weaker. If that's too big a bump-up you could do 1/n * attribute, attribute -10 or something instead.
  7. (Replying in the discussion thread to keep the Q/A thread clean.) Despite my vehement calls for greater clarity and precision, I don't see their choice to carve out exceptions for certain properties as illegitimate in any way. That their approach to doing so silos BRP off from the broader open content ecosystems is a regrettable consequence, but it's an understandable choice they have every right to make. I don't expect them to abuse the unclear language either. Better language would protect adopters' work from the possibility of less friendly successors to the rights in the future though. Go for it! Check out what's being proposed over in this thread. Make something awesome!* * Presuming "setting X" is not Prohibited Content 😉
  8. While I won't pretend that I like the choices you've made with this license, I do respect them. I'm not bringing things up in some sort of spiteful gotcha game. Even if your reasons for doing so are good and wise, the path you have chosen is already going to deter adoption to a fraction of what it could have been. I'm asking you to pin down vague language, undefined details, etc. because those are things someone with an idea for a project needs to be able to clearly understand in order to decide whether BRP makes sense as a foundation for their work. I'm trying to help you help your potential licensee authors feel comfortable and confident in choosing BRP. If Chaosium continues to dismiss or refuse to clearly and directly answer what should be simple general case questions like appearing-in vs originating-in or what you mean by "story element" that isn't covered by the other items on the list, do you think that will make potential adopters more inclined to choose BRP as a platform for their projects, or less?
  9. The challenge of describing how incompatibly licensed rules interoperate in a single text without giving rise to content that is a derivative work of both sources and thus invalidating compliance is not to be underestimated. If it was just seperate stat blocks side by side in a monster book, or maybe a book with all the setting info up front and two appendices containing seperate parallel game mechanics implementations for each license-realm - maybe it could be done to the satisfaction of all upstream license holders. That's a lot of work and risk to take on for a small reward. Much wiser to stay within a single license realm and fill whatever gaps you have with original content.
  10. JonL

    Heortland - draft

    I bet Rikard is being held for ransom by the Lunars, but the local lords are keeping that quiet and refusing to pay so as to maintain their power. Hopefully a hero will arise who can unite the diverse peoples of New Malkonwal and free their King...
  11. Changing "from any of the following:" to "originating in any of the following:" in 1.(e) would clear up most of this.
  12. Eegad, how would anyone who doesn't have that old book even know that Wells's Martians were in it?
  13. @Jeff thoughtfully clarified the intended scope of the Mallory prohibition in the Q&A thread. We have still yet to see a clear statement on the general case of proper nouns etc. present within prohibited works that originated elsewhere. I don't for one minute believe that they intend to prohibit Massachusetts along with Arkham and Miskatonic University, but the current license text could be read either way.
  14. Something that is more commonly done is for the owner of an original work to do parallel releases under different licenses. Fate for example is available under both the OGL & Creative Commons licenses. Works that derive from it must select one or the other license, and may thus intermingle with other content governed by the same license.
  15. Section 2 of the WotC OGL specifies that no other terms and conditions may be applied to Open Gaming Content governed by that license. Open Gaming Content governed by the BRP-OGL terms thus cannot simultaneously comply with that mandate. One could, in theory, if one were very careful, aggregate Open Game Content governed by each license side by side in the same work. One would have to clearly and unambiguously designate which OGC is governed by which license, and ensure that no cross-pollination takes place. That is to say, no OGL-OGC can derive from BRPOGL-OCG, nor vice-versa. I could see it being practical for something like a dual-statted setting guide, where most of the book is proprietary IP rather than OGC anyway. Building a blended ruleset OTOH would be rather difficult. At best, you might be able to do something very modular, like grafting Aspects from OGL Fate onto BRP. That wouldn't have to intertwine with the rest of the mechanics, so you could probably steer clear of cross-pollination. I can't see it being worth the effort that double-compliance would require (or the risk of it being challenged) when there are regular OGL D100 rulesets already available though.
  • Create New...