Jump to content

Jakob

Members
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Jakob last won the day on November 22 2016

Jakob had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

106 Excellent

About Jakob

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://swanosaurus.blogspot.de

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Been a writer for German Edition of CoC; played lots of RPGs since 1984. Co-owner of fantasy bookshop Otherland in Berlin, where we hold monthly RPG nights.
  • Current games
    RuneQuest - Adventures in Glorantha; Dungeon Crawl Classics - Peril on the Purple Planet
  • Location
    Berlin, Germany
  • Blurb
    Loves reading new rules, hates learning them!

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm taking the opportunity to mention that the Mythras Gateway license is really the most creator-friendly one I have encountered (and I've read a lot of these licenses recently). A lot of the so-called "community content programs" go far beyond protecting their own IP and take away your IP or block you from using it. And a lot of them are not as up-front about this as one would wish (you don't get to read the terms of the Cypher System CCP before you are actually ready to publish something for it on drivethru rpg - so you've already done all the work, and then you find out that you can only publish it by giving up your IP ...). The Gateway license lets you keep your IP and is very straightforward about what it allows and what it doesn't. And it's extremely fair.
  2. I'd suggest looking into either Mythras (if you want a complex, extensive set of BRP-derived roles) or OpenQuest (if you want to go rules lite). Mythras has the so-called Gateway licence, which is, from all that I hear, very creator-friendlich. You can contact Lawrence Whitakter ("Loz"), one of its authors and publishers, here on the boards. OpenQuest ist totally open to everyone, you don't even need a license - there's a third edition in the works right now. You can contact OQ's author also here through the message boards ("Newt").
  3. Yes, sounds defintely like the first or 2nd edition of Unknown Armies.
  4. To be honest, that's pretty much the extent of it for me ... I read some parts of the rules in earnest - basically everything up to advanced combat; and at some point, I just felt lost. I feel that I should not need to read a set of rules several times before understanding them well enough to give them a spin. Of course, if I play something for I while, I keep re-reading sections, but to be honest, when I try out a system (especially one based on a "school" I already know, like BRP), I normally expect to be able to run a first game (warts and all) based on reading about a third to half of the actual rules. Afte reading a while in RD100, it became clear to me that I'd probably have to work through the whole thing two times to get a grasp of the basics. Something that especially stuck with them were the rules for Fate points - I just couldn't follow the text, I didn't understand what "activating" and "de-activating flaws" actually meant, and the whole thing just felt overwrought to me; however, I can't say if that is a problem with the actual rules or with their presentation. On the other hand, I love the concept of traits, of advantage, I like the fast-and-easy character creation, I find it very interesting how armour works, and I think I like how strike ranks and hit points are basicall merged to interact (though I have some reservations about the bookkeeping).
  5. Okay, I'm satisfied that I have understood the rules correctly! I'll have to see if the rules fit my planned campaign - they sound great for Stormbringer/Elric (I think the edition of Stormbringer I played didn't have them in this form, but I'm not sure, it's been so long ...). However, I'm planning for something more low-key with less active cosmic forces.
  6. Sounds good - I'm pretty happy with the core rules from what I've read, I just want to see them spelled out more clearly (I'm a lazy role-player - if something seems to complicated in reading, I usually never try it out, even if it might be simple in practice ...).
  7. I'm just re-reading Magic World with an eye to using it for a new campaign, and I'm wondering whether I'm getting the Allegiance rules right. Allegiance Check: Roll UNDER current allegiance to raise Allegiance by d6. Okay, that kind of makes sense - the stronger your bond, the more likely it is to increase. Allegiance Test (if you act against allegiance): Roll UNDER corrent allegiance to avoid losing d6/d8(shadow) from your score. Also makes sense - a stronger bond is harder to weaken. If you make use of your allegiance Benefits, you have to make an Allegiance Check at the end of the session - that would be the one where Allegiance can go up (not go down). Also makes sense, especially if you think of the clichees about shadow: the more you are using its power, the farther it draws you in. However, all in all, it looks as if Allegiance is bound to skyrocket from a certain point on, especially when it is beyond 100%. Given the hefty Benefits of Allegiance, this seems problematic. Am I getting the rules right? How do others read this? Has anyone ever encountered problem with a player powergaming an allegiance to the extreme?
  8. While after reading the new Quickstarter, I'm very much looking forward to the international edition, I'm also quite curious about that license ... so this new stand-alone RD100 game will incorpate the revisions, anyway, right?
  9. 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.
  10. There are probably good reasons for that. If Chaosium is okay with the Legend OGL, it may still not be wise to state that publicly, because that might imply that it is waiving intellectual property rights it might or might not be able to claim; and that might have further repercussions in case someone else tries to publish their own derivative works. Personally, I can't imagine chaosium trying to pull the plug on Legend and products based on the Legend OGL; for one thing, I guess it's a much more murky case than Open Cthulhu, because the only thing really connecting Legend to chaosium's intellectual property is that its rules are derived from the rules Mongoose has designed based on earlier edition of RQ (and the way I understand it, general rules mechanisms aren't really copyright-protected, only the wording and specific trademarks like "RuneQuest"). Also, it is clear that chaosium and The Design Mechanism (developers of RQ6/Mythras) came to an agreement that allowed TDM to re-brand RuneQuest 6 as Mythras and continue it. It would seem strange if Chaosium would suddenly decide to consider the whole bunch of Legend-OGL-based games (Mythras, OpenQuest, Renaissance) an infringement on their copyright. However, I don't have any inside knowledge, nor any in-depth knowledge on the legal side of these things ... To me, it seems to make most sense that Chaosium won't state outright that they're okay with Legend-derived games, but that they very well might just keep letting them do their thing - but please don't take this as legal advice! I don't expect Jeff or anyone else to answer to this post or further direct questions about the Legend OGL; I guess in business, there's sometimes no way around speaking legaleeze - or not speaking at all about some things.
  11. Actually, the German edition of Stormbringer had very similar covers, and I think they took the core box cover from the french edition that was current back then: http://www.drosi.de/systeme/sturmbringer.htm
  12. I'be been toying for some time with the idea to try and extricate the mythology of Laird Barron's horror cosmos from his works ... that would make for a great modern horror setting in a Lovecraftian tradition that is still quite distinct (and contains no Cthulhu mythos trappings at all). But I'll never get around to it. Maybe someone else will do it for me ...?
  13. No, but I might give it a try at some point ... I don't know, it just turned me off that the cover of "The Two-Headed Serpent" looked so specifically "Indiana Jones" to me. There's nothing wrong with that, I just thought: "meh, again someone using Indiana Jones aesthetics to signal pulp." It feels a little worn. The cover above looks fresher, to me.
×
×
  • Create New...