frogspawner

Apparently, he's also regarded as very "of his time" (the euphemism for grotesquely racist and sexist). Enjoy!

And thanks for sharing. Yes, I for one am absolutely like-minded. Mind you, I like to think a tweak I made - allowing Dodge in addition to Parry - makes BRP more palatable to the average D&D-er. Might that trick be useful to anyone wanting a 'cinematic' version?

Ah, you've spoiled it - now we know you're only joking...

Wow, a refreshingly sensible answer! Thank you, your serious thought is appreciated. You have helped my understanding of this topic, and maybe others'.

Ah, obviously it'll be multi-genre WWII/Fantasy: Panzers & Dragons. Put me down for a review copy of both of them, eh guys? Sadly, I doubt mine'll ever get written. It's too entertaining here...

But they certainly can't call any game "RuinQuest" - that name's reserved for my upcoming BRP-clone RPG...

Now you're misunderstanding my quote! It was the 'without any thought' bit I was thinking of... But, assuming we don't want to make any money on it, wouldn't a GPL be better than OGL? As I understand it, derivatives of a GPL are automatically GPL too (so no creeping protectionism later, under the guise of IP). Meh. I would've thought, since we've found no significant copying of BRP-related material in GORE (just a shade, or 'inspiration'), that you might've shifted your hard line at least a little. Personally, I can forgive Daniel Proctor (the GORE guy) quite a lot for it's introductory section "What is Role-playing? Only kidding!..."

Careful, Rurik - we don't want to upset Jason now, do we? I hope no one thinks I am, either. Just trying to get the Truth here. If, as it seems to be proving, this GORE 'rip-off' accusation is basically groundless - inspired by BRP, rather than copied from BRP - then fine. We'll have suddenly re-gained another OGL BRP-friendly rules-set, another option for anyone who's not so keen on OpenQuest. And also a model for anyone who'd like to do something similar... (I wonder what NickM will say about this though...)

Pretty favourable - that's good!

I know they are not identical. But close. Is the Elric! version even closer? And are there more examples than those I spotted from a 10-minute look-through? In any case "the Law is an Ass". I doubt it would be right to use GORE.

The bits of GORE that worry me seem to have come from Elric!. They are not in the MRQ SRD (not the version I've seen, anyway).

OK, here's what leads me to think that way. GORE, Learning Spells, p35: "If a character locates a spell from someone else's book, he must be able to read the language to understand it. If the character possess fluency in the language equal to or greater than INT x5, he has no problem reading the text. If the skill level is below INT x5, he must succeed in a Language skill roll in order to read it." This I found suspiciously similar to the system (although not the exact words) used in BRP... BRP, p126: "Your character must be able to read the writing to learn from the grimoire. If your character has a skill rating of less than INT x 5% in the language the grimoire is written in, he or she will have to make a successful Language roll each and every time the grimoire is used for a magic purpose." ...But I'm told that mechanism came from Elric! Can anyone please tell how similar the wording is there? And... GORE, Dodge or Parry, p.29: "Each time a Parry or a Dodge is made in a round, there is a cumulative 30% penalty for every subsequent Parry or Dodge. Whichever skill is used first is also used as the starting point from which these calculations are made." Again, the wording in BRP is not an exact match (because, for one thing, it separates the use of Dodge & Parry) but, to me, the figure of "30%" seems a suspiciously close match. Again, I was told (upthread) that comes from Elric! BRP, Parry (and similar for Dodge), p.191: "Each successive parry attempt after the first is at a –30% modifier to the skill rating, cumulative. If the chance to parry an attack falls below 1%, your character cannot attempt to parry." These were just two examples that caught my eye from a casual look-through, the other day after the subject of GORE came up in this thread. Maybe there are other examples. Maybe there aren't. Maybe the wording isn't close enough to be a problem legally. But GORE's source seems apparent and, to me, "dodgy".

From the business point of view, maybe so. But it appears that GORE has used text from Elric!, which is not OGL, or 'open' in any other way. That's naughty. (Though perhaps not illegal - I don't know how exactly it matches Chaosium's copyrighted words, since I don't have Elric. If so, that'd presumably invalidate GORE's OGL). Anyway, it seems GORE is not good from a moral point of view, either. (Nothing to do with it's Cthulhiod artwork. That just shows the target market.)

Absolutely. We want both the freedom of multiple worlds AND the synergy of collaboration. What I suggest is multiple worlds which are virtually identical. The idea of parallel worlds with only slight differences is well-known. By default, all contributions would go into the main SharedWorld. So in the main we'd have collaboration. Ideas that didn't gain widespread acceptance would not be wasted - they would effectively just be on a parallel, otherwise-similar world. We wouldn't need a 'Committee of Ideas' telling people their stuff was bad, or deciding what would be 'exiled' to a parallel: later contributions would decide. All contributions would be included - and either built-upon by later contributors, or not. No idea is wasted. Everything is true.

Yes, very interesting. A bit that seemed most relevant to me was: So, each product consigned to 'Monograph' status instead of fully supported, is one more doomed to "orders of magnitude" fewer sales... (And one more opportunity to support retailers, and get that "ten-fold payoff", that Chaosium loses).

Yes, I think mutiple-planes/dimensions is a good idea - it's the way to go. And it can be used to play to BRP's multi-genre strength. But set up so GMs wouldn't be forced into multi-genre stuff. That needs to be carefully done. Likewise, the plane-crossing mechanisms (spells, portals, aether-ships, faerie mists, whatever) must be set up so they only work when it suits the GM. Players should not be able to use them reliably, to predictable destinations, or frequently (unless the GM wants them to), otherwise GM's could be steam-rollered into swapping campaign worlds (and a load more work), genre's they didn't like, and naughty players might cause mayhem if they knew they could always escape justice... ..and Judges Guild Portals. OK, the idea's been done before. It would be nice to get a different 'take' on it for SharedWorld. I don't know those others - would anyone be so kind as to give us a brief run-down on them, please? PS: And, of course, Worlds of Wonder. So it has a fine BRP pedigree, that'd be good to build on. Mine's still in the post, tho'... PPS: Ta for the #1000 smileys! (And this was a good subject for Post #1001...)

Everything's changed. Now there is Hope! Spot on. Critical twice over: being there for people to see and buy; and showing Chaosium's commitment to the BRP line. Woo-hoo! :party: PS: Post #1000. Do I get a prize? :cool:

A Creative Commons license with a Share-Alike condition should ensure translations or other derivatives of D100Rules (or whatever) should be similarly covered. Wouldn't that guard against the 'bad surprises' you imagine?

I suggest translations of the BRP Quick Start (surely a much less daunting prospect than translating the whole thing!). That and making it available for download from other sites than just Chaosium's (to avoid all that off-putting create-an-account-and-sign-in malarkey). All with permission, of course.

Well done. But it does seem like he wasn't too fastidious about his sources, and 'OGL'-ed some things which weren't his/available to OGLe... Thanks for confirming it. Yes, that was the wording I found suspiciously similar in BRP & GORE regarding sorcery spells. So it does seem best to avoid GORE. I'll give Mr.Proctor the benefit of the doubt over his intentions - to kick-start the then-moribund d100 systems(?) - but we don't need that anymore. Yay! Order of the Stick! "Role Playing Games... Comedy... Hot Dwarf-on-Dwarf action!"

OK. But do we get any sneak previews, or tantalizing hints, or false-statements-about-opposed-rolls, or even an "Edition Zero" ?

What if also available were crib-sheets of BRP versions of creatures/characters in adventures published for the locally-popular systems? (Or maybe that's more a question for the 'legal' thread...)

Not much, I'd imagine - if the 'clone' actually pre-dated 4e. Two points caught my eye: the 30% reduction per parry/dodge, and suspiciously-similar wording about sorceror's learning spells from books in other languages. Neither appears to be in WoW, and presumably not CoC. Could someone please tell me if they are from Stormbringer/Elric (or other)?

From BRP QuickStart, via Google Translator... "Aktionen Zeichen (PCs und NPCs) wirken auf ihre DEX Rang, so DEX jemand auf Rang 15 werden, bevor jemand weiter DEX 14 Rang. Wenn es mehrere Zeichen versuchen auf dem gleichen Rang DEX handeln, sind Angriffe durchgeführt in der Reihenfolge der Waffen-Typ. Angreifer bewaffnet mit Raketen Waffen (Bögen, Pistolen, usw.) werden in der Lage sein zu handeln, bevor die in der Hand-auf-Hand (Nahkampf) zu bekämpfen. Nach diesen gehen Zeichen mit langen Waffen ausgerüstet (Speere, Lanzen, etc.), dann diejenigen mit mittlerer Länge Waffen (Schwerter, Äxte, etc.) und schließlich solche mit kurzen Waffen (Dolche, usw.) oder die sind unbewaffnet. Wenn eine Waffe hat, mehr als einem Bereich aufgeführt sind, kann der Benutzer wählen, welche Bereich zu handeln. Paraden und Dodge auftreten, innerhalb der DEX gleichen Rang wie das Original anzugreifen." Does that make sense to any German-speakers? (I must say, it didn't re-translate back to English well at all!) Either way, you see what I'm suggesting here. Would anyone feel up to the task?

Gah! Now it's Seneschal's frustration I can sympathize with! Don't you remember what it was like in those dark days when there was no decent d100 system alive out there? Channel the energy you would have been using to fight that despair into enthusiasm now! This is the new Golden Age! (We just need to polish it a bit...)