frogspawner

Or RuneQuetzal, reserved for my South American game.

Nah, that sounds much more like the niberliberthingymebob. Sigurd, dragons, dwarves, cursed treasure hoards all that stuff.

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...

Personally, I don't think it is morally right for them to call their RPG RuneQust or RuneQuest 2 or RuneQuest II, and would prefer that they use something else, in order to avoid confusion with the previous games from Chasoium. But that's me. Other don't see this as a moral problem.

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

But Jason is allowed to lift rules straight from Elric! I think the rule could use some improvement but there is no question about whether it was moral for him to do so.

Now you're misunderstanding my quote! It was the 'without any thought' bit I was thinking of...

Anyway, I always find it interesting when people say the d20 OGL failed in a general sense, and then go on to say it failed as an open source effort. Especially when they base that failure upon comparison with GPL software. ... I see no problem with people trying to

make money using a license as it was intended.

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).

What I said 11 pages back:

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.

My problem with GORE is not that it exists, but it is that when it was originally released, it did not adhere to the OGL properly, and attempted to close every bit of text as PI even though it was a direct violation of both OGLs it referenced. I am glad that issue was corrected, but it has permanently soured my opinion of the product.

Personally, I can forgive Daniel Proctor (the GORE guy) quite a lot for it's introductory section "What is Role-playing? Only kidding!..."

The fact that <some RPG> contains such a stupid rule is pretty much proof that the mechanic was lifted from straight from Elric! without any thought. If any thought had been put into it I'd think a different mechanic should have been used.

Careful, Rurik - we don't want to upset Jason now, do we?

Don't get me wrong - I am not a GORE hater.

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...)

There's a new review of OpenQuest at RPG.net.

Review of OpenQuest - RPGnet

Pretty favourable - that's good!

...the texts are not identical. In fact I doubt that texts in your example are copyright protected here in Europe (exl. the U.K.). They are a bit to trivial IMO.

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.

It's a restatement of the MRQ SRD.

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).

Citation required please.

If this is the case, does this mean that GORE is legally tainted, and therefore legally unusable?

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".

I think the only relevant point is that GORE is no longer supported by the publisher.

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.)

I still see there being two approaches (that are not at all incompatible mind you) - a shared world where the participants work together on pieces of one setting, and a common universe where contributors can link their worlds together. The latest posts seem to have a strong preference for the later approach. ... I also like the idea of collaborating with others, the exchange of ideas is exciting, and already the ideas others have put forth have given me ideas I would never have come up with on my own.

... I don;'t think the "each GM make his own area" approach is a good one. I think for it to be a shared world the countries (technology, religion, etc.) would need to be worked out by committee so that we could have the lands interacting with each other. ... Whatever concept we go with, I'd like to see it become a truly shared setting with a lot of interaction between the various sub-settings, rather than a bunch of setting that have nothing to do with each other.

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.

Thanks for the link, Nick. It was enlightening.

Yes, very interesting. A bit that seemed most relevant to me was:

The online market (including print, PDF, and POD) simply can't compete. As Goodman Games has matured into one of the standard stocklist items for typical game stores, I have seen my overall sales base grow steadily while online sales have dwindled. Online sales now make up a tiny fraction of Goodman Games sales. Yes, PDF sales are the fastest-growing sales segment, that is true, but the hobby market is HUGE compared to the online market - orders of magnitude larger. If you support retailers, they will support you, and that effort pays off tenfold.

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).

I love this idea. To me, as BRP is a multi-genre book, it would be nice if the shared world setting could make use of this facet of the game. Each separate setting should be designed as a standalone world for those that just want to play fantasy, scifi, etc. But still be tied together with one (or more) unifying threads.

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...

TORG... Rifts... GURPS...

..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...)

The problem is that for some of us not much has changed.

Everything's changed. Now there is Hope!

What "impinge". Have a generic Fantasy RPG on the shelves is probably critical to BRP's popularity. So it is certainly on topic.

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:

However, anyone trying to use D100rules in other languages than English could have some bad surprise. Unlikely, but possible.

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?

BRP was translated into Italian 13 years ago. This might happen again, but not in 2010 if I am involved. I have already probed the ground on Italian forums, and there are lots of fans. There are many in France, too.

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.

I took serious issue with GORE when it first came out, because Mr. Proctor tried to copyright the book from cover-to-cover. Even though he lifted almost verbatim text from the MRQ OGL and d20 OGL. I and others kept on him about it, and he finally opened up everything.

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...

Just checked Elric!:

Criticals @ 20%, Impales with "01"

Parries and Dodges decrease 30% with each subsequent attempt in a round.

I chucked GORE a long time ago, so I am not sure what rules you mean

when you refer to learning spells form books written in other languages,

but the rule in Elric! is that if the PC has INTx5% or better in the language,

no roll is necessary. But, if he possesses less than INTx5% skill in the

language, he must roll against the language skill to understand the tome.

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.

Order of the Stick #32

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" ?

Sorry to say, but I do not see much of a success chance for a German translation.

Would electronic product in the local lingo help?

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...)

I wonder what would happen if someone used the OGL and d20 SRD to produce a "retro-clone" of D&D 4e?

Not much, I'd imagine - if the 'clone' actually pre-dated 4e.

The "new" BRP is Worlds of Wonder and Stormbringer/Elric! and Call of Cthulhu, plus a few bits from other Chaosium games.

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?

It's kind of difficult to get excited about a system that most of us have already owned for over two decades.

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...)

It was available before Zero Edition. I discovered GORE around October/November 2007, and discussions on the Goblinoid Games site led me here, where Zero Edition was being hyped but had not yet been released.

Daniel Proctor should sue! Mr D./Chaosium failed to include a copy of the OGL...

PS: In their defence, I expect they intended to - just overlooked it, like other minor things such as Tables of Contents... >:->

I've been trying to help generate marketing campaign ideas, but not getting much support. I mean, if we can't get you d100 die-hards and experts excited about BRP, how will we attract newbies?

Patience! There's been a heck of a lot of interest hereabouts over the last few days. (I for one have certainly been spending too much time on this!)

If we can find out what's legal/moral (in that other thread) then maybe we can publish stuff (QuickStart-UltraLite, How to Use BRP Guides,...) - free stuff people can distribute.

If we can get the SharedWorld going again, we'd give BRP a setting, and hopefully adventures too - again freely distributable.

And maybe one of your slogans will take off...

"BRP: So old it's cool!"

That's why I don't understand the disdain for GORE. It was made available before BRP...

Well, I've just re-read GORE and now I can understand the disdain, and specifically NickM's righteous outrage. It's clearly (new) BRP, with very few changes. Some spells from D&D, increase-rolls from MRQ (or similar? I don't know it that well), Criticals replaced by Impales and Specials renamed Criticals. That's pretty much it for differences, as far as I can tell.

Was it really available before BRP? Was it based on Zero, then? (Or was the 30% per Parry/Dodge reduction in Stormbringer, or some such?)

And he has the gall to put his copyright and an OGL on it!

That said, I think it's pretty good. Just the sort of thing I'd like to do for my own homebrew...

I do not know your expectations...

Mainly I was wondering about example text, interspersed amongst the rules. But other things might surprisingly qualify, like layout, typesetting, section-headings, and I-don't-know-what-all. I guess with what Rosen says about "brand" it could be quite woolly - if some or all of those things taken together can be argued to be "too similar" by an expensive lawyer, then you're stuffed...

... I think it included the entire setting, with all the terms like "Glorantha" or "Pavis", and so on ?

Ah, yes of course. Thanks.

Mongoose licensed the trademark from Issaries, who owns it. It's not just a name, it is a brand.

But the current RuneQuest brand doesn't extend as far as the BRP rules, which derive from, and are closely associated with, RuneQuest? Hmm.