dragonewt

I had to order my physical copy of BRP from overseas. Even though I already have RQ2/3, CoC and other BRP/D100 material, I wanted to support the product.

I would say that given the enormous scope of of information, Jason made a splendid effort collating it and weaving some structure in. It is only after this effort that we now have the chance to review the whole and have the opportunity to reflect accordingly. It is easier to see where changes can be made once the initial effort has been made.

Could it be that systems like Savage Worlds are more exciting and appeal to a larger and more excitable demographic where the level of entry and enthusiasm needs to be tweaked appropriately to suit them? I am just stirring up thoughts. For the record, BRP/D100 appeals to myself, both from a nostalgic point of view and because it is the type of system that appeals to me and stimulates me even if I found it anew. What does appeal to the average role player these days? What do they like? What do they need? Do the majority require something that has an low entry level so that they can play as soon as possible with limited time?

I am unable to locate the Beholder trademark. Am I missing something? I am interested in views regarding section "C.09 What went wrong with the D20 effort?" of the following link: THE UNAUTHORIZED UNOFFICIAL OPEN GAMING LICENSE OGL D20 FAQ

You never know, this could be the BRP/D100 project I am working on. :innocent: Although juggling this with an unrecognizable BRP variant Spawn of Fashan would be hard work. For those seeking illumination regarding the last refrence: REAL MEN, REAL ROLEPLAYERS, LOONIES AND MUNCHKINS

Well done. Will there be a version that includes the core and required rules, rather than requiring the 400 page BRP toolkit?

How could BRP be more popular? Maybe it needs a "BRP for Dummies"... :eek: "I went from First Level Barbarian to Epic Level Dungeon Master..." :thumb: "It saved my marriage." :party:

I listed that point to provide contrast regarding how that path does not help make BRP more popular. It helps me, but doesn't help BRP. Given that this thread is discussing license alternatives for 3rd party D100 supplements, and not specifically BRP, I want to know what legal and moral options we have for a generic D100 system.

Of the 6 CC license variations that are available, I would be considering the Attribution-ShareAlike. Creative Commons Legal Code - Attribution-ShareAlike Regarding translations to other languages, the following is said: See also: Creative Commons Licenses Any thoughts?

I guess the options left for someone like me are: - Use OpenQuest or MRQ SRD (OGL), without any benefit for non-english speaking groups. - Unable to work with BRP, unless there is a commercial agreement, which does not meet the free hobby angle I want to take. - Investigate other D100 related Creative Commons (CC) or OGL options. - Create my own legal D100 rules interpretation and release it under the CC or GDL. - Work with a non-D100 CC, GDL or OGL gaming system. - Write my own game system and release it under a GDL or CC license. None of these effectively promote or support BRP or D100. BRP seems to limit itself. Which is a shame.

How does this differ when compared with the GPL, BSD or GNU Free Documentation Licenses?

Order of the Stick #32

They may want to protect the use of these words, however, what legal protection exists? Does it only stop people within the scope of OGL content? Or can the noun "beholder" still be used to describe a "watcher" type monster in a non-OGL work, which would be subject to copyright law that is not tainted by OGL. Would this mean that I cannot use the term "runner" as a noun for any type of fast legged monster? In many ways it seems that the OGL was a restrictive trap, and not the open license (maybe like the GPL) people assumed it to be.

I would say that WoTC are walking a fine line themselves. Some nouns are clearly unique, but others are not. If I create my own world and publish it, it does not grant me the power to control any noun I choose to. I wonder if there is a legal requirement for WoTC to trademark these words before declaring them out of bounds. This one is dubious: "Windswept Depths of Pandemonium". I am sure there is prior art somewhere. "Beholder" is another one. As in "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I watch with amusement as Games Workshop issues cease and desist letters to various fans sites, yet the whole feel of "Beastmen and Chaos" in that combination seems to have origins elsewhere, both from human myth, but more so from the combination and identity that provides a degree of uniqueness to Glorantha.

Yes it was a bad joke, and I also did not clearly express myself. I think what we are saying is: - Use of "generic" skill names is fine. Even when (perhaps in RPG early days) only one game used a particular name for a generic skill. For example, there was a point in time when only one game would have been using 'acrobatics'. - Use of skill names that can be trademarked or are 'unique identity' cannot be used. But it is the use of unique identity rather than the skills themselves that is being raised. If my game was the first and only game to have the "inline skating" skill, then there should be no issue if other games use the same skill name as "inline skating". However, if my game was able (due to permission from the trademark owners) to use the trademarked term "rollerblading" as a skill, other games could only represent that skill with "inline skating". I am sure the owners of the Star Trek franchise would take the same view regarding the "Bat’leth" skill.

Perhaps we could find ways and people who would like to translate OpenQuest or GORE. This is the easy option for some of us, as it is OGL. Does Chaosium have any interest in translating BRP to other languages?

These predated BRP (1980), by their inclusion in RuneQuest 2 (1979). Confused? Which is the retro clone of itself? RuneQuest II hasn't been released yet. :shocked: :innocent:

Well, there goes my idea of having an acrobatics or dodge skill. I need to think of a new name for the "use sword" skill.

Chaosium; meet Mongoose.

Hence the sneaky reference to my content. I am not planning a supplement. Yet, the problem with BRP as it stands now is that it has 400 pages to quote over and over, which is not my intention. However, the BRP core book is really a toolkit. Yes, I am the kind of person who doesn't mind referencing it along with a plethora of other odds and ends of material and house rules in games I run. However, there are some people who want a complete system in one book that they can just pick up and play, and achieve something with the basic book. I think this is partly one of the reasons why systems such as Savage Worlds are so popular. There is plenty of supplemental material for Savage Worlds that references the core rules, but the core rules are not a chore for the more common demographic to use and expand on. Maybe this is one way to make BRP more popular, which is rather topical in a current thread. I am considering something that I can hand out to a local group of players or at a convention, and have one work of reference. The intention is to provide people with the benefit and joy of a D100 system, yet without the overhead of needing to own the same library and plethora of books and notes (as myself), without the question of which options will be used this time. I am looking to experiment with something that sources the toolkit, but is a mostly complete solution in one book per gaming session/group. With a database driven documentation system, in theory, a dynamic range of books can be made as required for a given game, genre or type of play.

I am still interested in the idea of releasing a free product using BRP. What options are open to me? With OpenQuest, I can blend my content with the rules and provide a self contained OGL product. However, what options do I have with BRP? Could my free end product only provide background material with a few new spot rules, while only making reference to the BRP core rules?

How could this be viable when someone wants to release a free/open product?

There would be no need for a conventional two dimensional map which restricts lands to an absolute relationship in all directions. However, a list of relative connectivity would still be needed. This could include notes regarding what method connects different lands or islands, how long a journey would take, the navigation difficulty, risks, and any required means of travel (such as a conventional seafaring boat, flying, instant wormhole no bigger than a cart, or join hands with twenty singing friends).

Within reason, there would be no need to map the different "lands" in relation to each other. This allows a degree of separation and mystification. The lands exist, and we only need to know that a few defined and undefined paths exist between them. Given the seas of fate, sands of time or aether that surrounds a land; if any character knows how to navigate, it means they know the ritual or general awareness to feel their way from land to land (Second star on the right, then on till morning). This reintroduces concepts like the helmsman, or the spice navigator. Something similar to the way hyperspace is portrayed in Babylon 5 might also be useful, where there are navigation beacons and known paths, but the further you deviate away from these the more chance you have of being 'lost' forever (perhaps roaming the Delta Quadrant ). In addition to this, there could be a few known 'point to point' portals or interstices that are more reliable and consistent. In some cases a dream, or in other cases the tunnel under the bridge in the local common, or behind a wardrobe door. Stone circles or mushroom fairy rings could be other alternatives (perhaps when the stars are right). I have always liked the dragonewt roads in Glorantha.

I run plenty of worlds that do not interact with others. However, the only "sharing" might be the initial concept and starting point with some publications that are made by others along the way, such as Glorantha. If there is no interaction at the play level, then it isn't really shared. I always interpreted "shared" to mean "we share usage and interaction of one instance of a world" (rather than just sharing the world template).