Jump to content

Tanaka84

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About Tanaka84

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    I've been playing for over 18 years, started with ad&d and have tried and played dozens of different games, from savage worlds to small indie games.
  • Current games
    Star wars ffg
  • Location
    Caracas Venezuela
  • Blurb
    College professor, social psychologist, happily married, geek, lover of rpgs video games and pop culture.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. If it works like the BRP license, then, if you want to publish anything Glorantha related you have to do it through the Jonstown Compendium, likewise if you want to do anything with the Mythos you use the Miskantonic license. What seems to be absolutely off-limits without any kind of permission is anything related to Arthurian legend. So, picture it like this, you have three licenses from Chaosium Jonston <- Glorantha related stuff Miskatonic <- Mythos related stuff Anything else sans Arthurian legend <- Questworlds OGL
  2. Well, WoTC didn't make everything OGL either . For example, certain monsters like the beholders are protected by IP, and in the 5e SRD feats are missing, (well, there is just one + the rules so people can legally make their own), racial subtypes, magic items, and all names and story elements of their settings (That's what the DM's vault is for). And let's not forget that back in the day the 3E SRD didn't include XP tables (tehee). So in the end, the licenses are similar in that regard. How they handled feats this time around (which I thought was brilliant) is one route you could explore if you feel inclined to add something to the SRD. Put in the stripped version of each (or some) magic system(s) and a sample spell so that developers may use them as a starting point. I think that could go a long way in clarifying what you mean by substantially different. If I understood your examples, it's pretty safe to make a magic system with magic points equal to POW and roll POWx5 to cast spells (the fundamentals of battle magic) but with a different feel, and spell list than the one found in a Runequest product. If that is the case, adding something as basic as that should put people at ease. OTOH, I really don't think that it's fair to presume that the people showing concern in this forum are offended because they can't "make their own retroclone". Wanting to use a mechanic or testing the limits of the limitations imposed != making a retroclone. Like I said a thousand times before, the Push mechanic isn't neither original nor specific to the CoC setting, and allowing it's use doesn't automatically allow people to make X of Cthulhu. I can see it working in a hundred different settings. So there is room there for people going "hey, why can't I use this" without them wanting to steal your toys. As for the last part, let me get this off my chest, don't bother reading it since you don't really care about it, but still have the need to say it: It's not about "worth", Open isn't a title or a rank. But it is a concept. It's a community accord that goes all the way back to 1983 with the free software movement. There is an underlying moral and ethical argument behind the concept. Hell, some argue there is an ontological argument. So yeah, when people use the Open License concept without understanding (or choosing to ignore) the notion of freedom behind it and the ethical implications, those within the movement get pissed because you are appropriating and misusing a concept that has over 40 years of history behind it. And hundreds of hours of thought and debate put into it. The Open License community is protecting their ideas just like you are protecting yours.
  3. Exactly, but I´m not talking about them, I´m talking about the potential developer who wants to do something new, looks over the license, sees vagueness (plus the lack of mechanics in the SRD) and goes "nope, I´m going to use something simpler and with more things I can take". Consumers still get the product, but BRP looses a developer... this what I´ve been trying to say since the start.
  4. Look I´m not having this discussion to be right. I´m having it because I have a long line of research on the psychology of piracy. And one of the biggest predictors of illegal behavior is how mentally taxing the legal route is. My perception is that your license as it is needs rewording because people will prefer to use the least cognitive taxing alternative (a legend derived OGL) instead of going through the hoops to use your logo. It´s very clear to me that your license is flexible, but not because I read it, but because Jeff has given examples in this thread that imply that, just copy their posts and paste it on the F.A.Q and call it a day. If you need a more detailed opinion on why I think that, and link to the science behind it, my inbox is open, I love Chaosium and I want to see you do great. I really wish you all the best with this license (and the QW license) and stay healthy Have a wonderful day.
  5. Sorry, it's true you didn't mention plagiarism, and I didn't want to imply that, my slip up since English is not my first language, apologies. When I mentioned those IPs I was pointing to the fact that all those games are published with rules based on OGL rulesets and you don't see people making "their own variant of X or Y setting" (To quote Jeff) with the intent to sell them or pass them as their own original creation. I'm not belittling Glorantha in any way, I would ask you to please refrain from making assumptions about me. My only point is that Glorantha is a less popular setting than those mentioned and as such, draws a smaller audience (A really amazing audience mind you). Since the pool of people who consume those IPs is larger and there are no overt or massive efforts to produce/develop products for them without seeking a license, it follows that for a setting like Glorantha the pool of possible people who want to produce content without a license is minimal. I'm assuming that you are talking about webpages that make content for your products like zines, adventures, characters, and even illegal PDFs/scans, and you know what? although I like the idea of community driven content, I perfectly understand why they have to be shut down. You have to protect your IP. But you are kind of validating my point here. They exist regardless of the fact that you allow or don't allow Sanity, Spirit Magic, Sorcery in your license. Which has been my main point all along, restricting your license isn't going to stop them because they are already doing it.
  6. I know this wasn't intended at me, and I feel like I may be bothering you Rick, so I'll shut up after this post - As it is now, the BRP license does not allow the creators to use mechanics from Chaosium games in other setting of their own creation. Specifically, the Push rules are neither CoC specific nor original. And like I stated before, since it not clearly layered out what "substantially" means, a creator has to either make a wild guess, or is going to constantly have to get back to you guys to see what's fair game. - The magic system you are prohibiting are extremely generic, "spent point do stuff" and "read and memorize spell" are well trodden mechanics in RPGs, so once again, without a clarification of what substantially means a developer is walking on thin ice. - A creator has no guarantee that once their development cycle begins the license won't be updated changing stuff that might render their work illegal. - The license as written is infectious, the wording on clause 10 needs revision to indicate that WORK does not need to abide to the BRP license if it doesn't use what you designate as open content. - Remixing current content is also hard to pull off, for example, superhero + Cthulhu is right out of the picture, since it wouldn't neither fit CoC for community content program (or maybe it could, now that I think about it) nor the License since it's working with the Mythos. Getting those things sorted out would work a long way towards a more welcoming license.
  7. That may be the cases, but what percentage of people are we talking about here? Aren't you just assuming people's motivations? Keep in mind that there are no "compatible content" (IP infringing products for sale) for licensed games like Dresden Files, Atomic Robo, The Princess Bride (FUDGE based with OGL rules) or popular D&D settings like Eberron/Ravenloft (I'm leaving FR out of this because it's so generic and broad that it's almost impossible to avoid IP with any epic fantasy adventure). I don't want to come off as rude but each one of those IPs (except for Atomic Robo) is hundreds of times more popular than Glorantha will ever be. Look at Free League Publishing, they released their own community content program as well as their OGL, and people have published more in the program than outside of it, even if the program takes 50% of the price. Same deal with 5th OGL, people are happily using WoTC program instead of exploiting the OGL to publish without IP licensing. And considering that D&D is as huge as it is, it's kind of amazing that there hasn't been a single product violating their IP. I can think of a one game based on OGL that is infringing IP like there is no tomorrow, and still ,the team behind it never charged a dime for it. Because they just wanted to revive a cool game, not leech of someone else's creation. But it was a defunct game, even if the brand is alive and well. How can you explain this phenomena if, as you said: " a number of people want to write their own version of a game or game supplements for it without bothering with an IP license of any sort, including paying any royalties."? I cannot stress this enough, plagiarism has nothing to with an OGL license.
  8. No need to apologize :). I understand what you are trying to say, I just disagree.. A. Legend, OpenQuest, Renaissance D100, Revolution D100, DG and other OGL products already let you make games like BRP. So in truth what this license allows is for people to say that their products are BRP compatible. But you could always make a game inspired by the system just not attach it to the brand. A.1. Even if i agreed that BRP and other OGL products are substantially different. BRP is a very big family of games. In truth, this very short SRD only lets you use a very specific subset of that ecosystem. To put it in perspective, GUMSHOE has way fewer games than BRP and yet the SRD is a whooping 170 pages. We can agree that it's overly generous, and probably a pain for potential developers since it's too much info to go through. But they have access to the full system. At this point we can't say the same thing for BRP's license B. There is a lot stopping you... for example, look at the way you defined prohibited content... "X is substantially similar to Y" Y being in all cases a product in your line. So let's say I want to make my own game using BRP because I loved RuneQuest, cool, I know what augments are. But I never touched CoC 7th edition. If I come up with the idea of making a reroll mechanic where the player gets a worse outcome if they fail a second time (free league's year zero engine has this very rule, so it's not original to CoC) I just breached the OGC license as per your definition. Does that Imply that I need to buy and read every BRP book to know what I should avoid?. OTOH, Substantially is an extremely vague term, so I could ask you if something is ok and you can say yes, while Jeff further down the line could say "nope, that looks too much like y". Justin Alexander's point is another aspect to consider. Your license unintentionally infects future works derivative of the original OGC, since any WORK that is a revision (such as the same book with a different system) has to be published with the most up to date license. I know that's not your intent, but the poor wording is there. Once again, I'm painting you like bad guys when I know you are nothing of the sort. But that's what happens when a license is based on mistrust. Now the potential developer has to carefully consider if their setting/mechanic is different enough as to not displease the owner of the license, they are constrained from using certain rules, settings, ideas, names, and so on, that's a lot of hurdles to jump... or they could use any of the aforementioned OGLs and avoid the hassle. That's what I meant when I said that it's easier to make an OGL compatible Pendragon clone than to make a new game with new rules using the license as it currently stands. You are inadvertently making life harder for developers who want to publish original BRP material without affecting or disuading the ill-intended crowd. C. The sad truth is that Chaosium can't open the door (nor close it) because you don't have the keys. Thinly veiled clones of RuneQuest and CoC are available today, without the license. I would never touch them since I find it in bad taste. But they exist, and we all know it. That ship has sailed. Please, please, don't take this post in bad faith. I want you to succeed, I want BRP and QW to be big brands in the hobby (hell, I'm still waiting QW's to publish my own game). But out of all the OGL games out there, no company had problems with "thinly veiled clones" except WoTC and Mongoose. In the first case, the OSR was born out of people's frustration with WoTCs lack of support for previous editions of D&D, and the later because mongoose backtracked their open content in favor of TAS so the community just made their own thing (cepheus engine) and called it a day. The moral of the story is that clones aren't due to OGL's but rather due to a disconnect between the license owner and potential licensees. Edit to add: Also, what really kicked off the competition between PF and D&D was WoTC walking back on their OGL license for 4E.
  9. I see it the other way around, it comes down to how the license holders see potential licensees. Where I live, when you enter a store you are either forced to leave your bags at the entrance or you can't go in. Also, you have to show your bag/backpack/whatever when you are leaving... This license feels a lot like that. I understand why they ask people to show their bags, I know they are protecting their store (IP). But still, it sucks being treated like a criminal, specially when in the long run it´s not effective. Those who will actually steal (make retroclones or copy a product) will do it regardless of your security/license. And you are just making life harder for people who actually want to make something with the BRP ruleset. In fact, with this license, it´s easier to use another OGL game and make your P3nDr4G0n "totally not a clone" game then to build something with OpenBRP. And yes, that´s probably not their intention. But that´s how it comes across. If this is the route they are taking, I wish them the best, and I hope a lot of great products come out of this license. But I personally think that they should change the name. "Open" has a very strong and well defined meaning amongts creators
  10. Same here, I have this idea burning in my mind and I'm waiting for the SRD to work on it :). I could cook a system for the game, but there is already wayyyyyy to much out there, and I want to help promote QW.
  11. Either way is fine, the great thing of a OGL game is that you can have multiple approaches to emulating a genre, just look at Fate and the dozens of iterations of the superhero genre. Having said that, I do beleive the size of the community is something to keep in mind, the smaller the community the smaller the market for alternatives.
  12. I have this wish/expectation that the SRD gets released to the wild during Gencon 2019
  13. Oh DUDE, so not fair, I didn´t realize you had replied over here :), all right,, let´s see: - Shoot I forgot Element Blade was static (really need to have the PDF in front of me when I reply), still, what worries me about the way DE works in basic combat is that you get a very different experience from Advanced to Basic because of the power, once again, in Basic one shotting a dragon is a very real posibility, and very improbable in advanced. - For haste I use the following rule Add Might to Strike Rank in basic combat for the purpose of calculating your rank order, seems to work fine - On the Heal, If there is anything I would add to RD100 is an action that allows to recover RPs in combat or in conflicts, something like 1D2 on a success 1d4 on advantage, so dealing damage is still the optimal choice, but you have something to rely on as a last ditch effort. That would make Heal a lot more interesting in basic combat Ill post the rest, this has been one hell of a week grrrr damn work.
  14. As the title says, i want to know what people are doing with the system (and try to liven up thus place ) as for me, I'm stuck with some dungeon world for now, but I'm working on a Star wars campaign in the old republic, modeling the dark side with motivations is so simple, and yet it feels truee to star wars than any other system. Im also working on an urban fantasy game / PIs who invade peoples dreams.
  15. I already mentioned it in another thread, but newcomers might miss it, we now have a RD100 character sheet up and running at Roll20, its a bit rudimentary, but so are my HTML/CSS skills If you use it and spot anything spotty dont hesitate to contact me
×
×
  • Create New...