frogspawner

Square by 1.5 meter square, perfect for the dungeon.

Just what I prefer. Great!

These are not actual 1.5 meter squares, most gamers don't have that kind of space available. ... There, I didn't want anyone thinking they needed to build an expansion on their home, or rent a hall to play a game of Classic Fantasy.

Phew, what a relief! Only joking - that wouldn't be a problem here at Frogspawner Mansions, anyway...

I actually did a set of miniatures mass combat rules a la the original Chainmail/Warhammer etc a number of years ago...

I'm not a serious wargamer, but use HOTT for fantasy battles - and it's pretty good. By WRG, a decent pedigree, so it has some authority. Consistently delivers unexpected results and, even more surprising to a die-hard RP-er like me, FUN! The downside: you need fluency in Abstruse Legalese to understand the rules...

As for the hard copy in the UK, that's not my department. But i'd help if I could.

Ah, but you can help! Just keep writing more good stuff, so I can get free postage from Chaosium when I order it all! :happy:

Mongoose bought their Runequest license from the IP owner, they did not just copy it without asking ...

Surely all they bought was the name "RuneQuest"? That's different from a license to the rules, in my book, at least morally.

It's a legal alternative certainly - it's also as morally contemptible now as when Stafford and Sprange first claimed they were going to do it...

I thought they did do it. But just made such cack-handed changes that MRQ turned out to be a different animal.

...or when GORE was released...

Is GORE a BRP-clone, then? (Or MRQ=clone? Or RQ3-clone?) I gave it a look, but all I recall is I wasn't keen.

Yes, but you cannot reference ANY IP you do not hold an explicit license for in such a product.

So, what sort of things are IP that we might not expect to be IP?

Ask Chaosium politely, supplying them with some idea of what you plan to do. Worked for me.

Yes, by far the best way. IF they give the right answer...

Hey! Shouldn't d100Rules be on the Home page, under Works In Progress, with an estimated publication date and all? :confused:

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).

Hmm, that seems like a lot of extra work, just to avoid a map. And people generally like maps...

The idea does have a nice mystical feel to it though.

Can anyone think how we could combine that mysterious uncertainty within a world that's mapped-out?

I think we are derailing this thread a bit. I will now open a new one...

Well, I think it's still on-topic. But it just wouldn't be Chaosium's BRP... >:->

However, you are right about not wanting legal stuff clogging us up on this thread. Back to the kosher ideas...

What legal issues might there be for d100Rules? (I must admit to being worried by this thought myself, when Trif announced it).

Surely there is another alternative (and isn't this what d100Rules is?)...

f) Do a BRP-clone (without using Chaosium's copyrighted words, Logos, or Trademarks e.g. the name "Basic RolePlaying" or even "BRP")

If it's bad, don't publish it. If it's good, it can be turned into a full product.

Presumably, self-publishers usually think their baby is good. Many are trash. It's the buying/downloading public that decides, in the end...

Anyway, what good are licenses? Can't people publish what they like, so long as they don't infringe decency, copyright or trademarks? So long as you don't use Chaosium or Mongoose logos you're fine. Right?

Although I totally agree with Newt about asking Chaosium first - it is always an option - the point is that OpenQuest is open, as any OGL product should be, and so people are perfectly allowed to use it as a BRP surrogate. I do not recommend it, either - if you like BRP try the real thing - but this is an option, and I think someone will do this regardless of newt's (or my own) advice. It's the Open License, baby.

We could do with an OGL clone of BRP then. "BasicQuest"? OpenQuest is still too MRQ-ish for my taste. (Sorry Newt)

I toyed with using Law, Neutrality, and Chaos for a bit, however chose Good, Neutral, and Evil...

Since the rare subject of alignment has come up, just thought I'd mention a mechanism for this I hit upon recently, that others may find useful. In 'Classic' D&D alignment is just a label, and many people object to that. But I'm using the Pendragon style Personality Traits and have decided which ones are Good/Evil or Lawful/Chaotic or both or neither. So by applying a little maths, you can work out what alignment characters are. And since the traits are developed by what they actually do in-game, this gives a measure that's more objective - and hopefully less objectionable.

It has the same number of pages, but an extra chapter. Chapter 6: Miniatures Combat. ... If you don't use miniatures don't let that stop you, there a lot of neat new combat rules in there as well.

Great. Are we talking rules for Wargaming (a la Chainmail) or Square-by-square melee movement (a la D&D3.x) ?

And, when will hard copy be available in the UK?

Anyway, isn't the whole point of a shared world that it changes and grows in part due to PC actions?

I thought we were just sharing the creation (at least, for now, until it IS created). Only after that would PCs get involved, and then we're into "YGWV" territory. At least that was my thinking - anyone else?

Within reason, there would be no need to map the different "lands" in relation to each other.

Mmmm, very nice and mystical. Without a map, though, is it a World at all? And interactions would be very difficult to work out, if someone thought A & B were next-door neighbours, but someone else thought they were far apart, and we'd no way of knowing...

...what if the world was divided up by say misty seas that are hard to navigate. Long ago someone mentioned the shared world having different islands, like Earthsea.

Certainly sounds feasible to me. Now you've mentioned it, we should probably have it! Makes a map tricky, tho' - especially if there could be whole continents lurking in thoses mists. And part of the idea is, I think, to have cultures that can and do interact, so the default option should probably be putting them together.

Q.E.D! And maybe the '32 Generations' is just barbarian hyperbole... (I really should learn not to take what some people say at face value).

I don't necessarily think it would have made them any softer than living next to the Chinese for 800 years (roughly the time span in question) made the Mongols soft and civilized.

True. I guess it's not the number of generations, it's the conditions. But this was 32 generations in the 'Place of Rich Grasses'...

Not so keen on this as the rules - sorry. I wasn't gripped, and only got through The Earliest Days. Maybe it's better later on...

Anyway, 32 generations is a long time to stay somewhere - wouldn't they have gone soft & civilized? Less words, less shaggy goat stories and more deeds of the legendary heroes, please! (Shouldn't each generation turn up at least one hero - or villain - worthy of note?)

Those Birth Omen stories are great!

The bonuses seem trivial, though, and don't do them justice. Maybe something like +30% instead? Alternatively, perhaps the 'Nature of Birth Omens' table could give a multiplier to the Effect bonus: Unexceptional x1, good/poor x2, positive/ominous x3, magnificent/dire x5?

The Dominating Influences could be interesting, but essentially just +1 on a random stat: Roll it, add it on, forget it. Meh. Now, if you had to choose your influence, and maybe got tattooed accordingly and made a social commitment that'd have repercussions later (i.e. it reflected your upbringing/attitudes, rather than just birth-day), that'd give them the importance they deserve. And make them more useful. Perhaps the range could be expanded, too?

Good start!

If there is no interaction at the play level, then it isn't really shared.

The play level is something else. None of your group's Gloranthan adventures will have had any effect on mine - they are in different instances: "Your Glorantha Will Vary", as they say.

Here we're concerned with only the sharing necessary to develop the 'initial concept and starting point', or template, as you say. And hopefully "Your SharedWorld Will Not Vary Much".

But anyway, I'm not sure why there is such concern about making BRP more popular at the moment? The BRP release is only about a year and a half old - compared to other generic systems like GURPS which have been around for decades. It needs a bit of time to build up - but it's doing pretty good already, I think. there is certainly enough variety of support to keep us lot interested. Why put pressure on it?

No pressure. Some guy just said self-criticism (of BRP) might be due, so I started this thread to avoid the terribly negative-sounding title of the previous one (which was also out-of-date). And it's taken off - so clearly it's something many folk hereabouts are interested in doing.

...they may have to summon and bind some Mi-Go to visit you in the night...

Shouldn't worry. These days their summonings only fetch is Nick the Imp - unpleasant, but ineffectual.

Should each of the shared worlds develop more independantly of one another?- No universal things like Sky Mountains. That way people could make their own settings and, as they see what others were doing, they could find similarities and eventually through magic spells, gates or whatever connect to each other. The individual authors could come up with methods that would allow for connections. Authors who have similar worlds and tech levels could slam them together on the same map and begin trade nogotiations...or wars. >:->

Pretty much exactly what I've been suggesting. Except, I'd say that by default everything should be on the same map - just that each author would/could have their own version of the map (with things they didn't like missing, much like GMs would). That way we wouldn't need to stifle grand, over-arching ideas like Sky Mountain, that weren't to everyone's taste.

I think a multi-world idea is interesting, but not really a shared world concept. Much like Worlds of Wonder, it is multiple, separate settings that characters can somehow move through.

Not much to share there. It could just as easily be several separate setting that have nothing to do with each other that a GM could link (magically or otherwise) for his own campaign.

I think that in order for the shared world(s) concept to really work, it must be more of a group effort rather than each author creating his own world. It needs some overarching theme to keep it one setting.

By default, contributions should fit in the core SharedWorld, so that would be a group effort.

Yes, quite like Worlds of Wonder (which btw I just nabbed off ebay - looking forward to that arriving!). Except many of the parallel worlds would be pretty-much the same, with only slight variations on the main shared setting. (E.g. Rurik's has no Trollkin, mine has no Sky Mountain or The Green - because, in my version, the latter has it's own entire plane). The idea of alternate, very-similar worlds is well established. Of course some "Worlds" could be very different - over-run with laser-headed charnjibbers, futuristic, futuristic plus cthulhu...

No - too many fans of one genre or the other will be turned off by such a blend.

Actually, I was just referring to choosing options to recommend in the "genre-primers" Thalaba suggested (to make the Big BRP Book more accessible to newbies), not saying we should define the rules-options to be used in any settings we might create.

We as a group probably would not agree which options are our favourites, but I'm sure we could agree to what the pros and cons are for the various options.

In the absence of consensus, I guess we should emphasize the options Mr.D has used in the QuickStart as the defaults. The trick is to show the possibilities, without making it seem an off-puttingly confusing array.

I'm not sure I consider BRP (or even RQ2/3) "the fairest in the land", either.

"Fairest in the currently in print land"?

For example, I for one, don't care much for Call of Cthulhu, finding the mechanics poor, and the campaign setting pointless. Lovecraft's theme of creatures far more powerful than man; that man is helpless against, strikes me as the worst possible setting for a RPG possible. Yet, others adore the game, and it has been Chaosium's lifeblood for two decades.

Right with you on this one. My (fantasy) campaign is built around the principle that it is possible to defeat the cthulhoids. But maybe we can get some insight into those others' attitude from this guy's recent outrageous ranting...

Ugh this is why i hate going to Gaming conventions. You people (fanboys)... Its a game... You all are ridiculous.

"gritty/re;asotoc"

(Marvellous! It took a good 10 seconds before I could resolve that into "realistic". Was that one specially for me? Thanks!)

No problem with the Green:). -It was designed to latch on to other worlds; first for the shared world, only second as a monograph.

How do you feel about my "parallel plane" idea? When I see The Green on any map, it somehow belittles it. Shouldn't The Green be limitless, a world of it own...?

Cthulhu Rising comes to my mind. It exists both as a series of monographs published by Chaosium and as an ongoing project on its own website, with each of its forms creating support for the other one.

Sounds just the model we need for SharedWorld too! Who does it? A one-man band, or collaborative group?

So what does BRP have going for it? And what can we do to promote that advantage to potential new players?

For new players, it has to be the simplicity and understandability of % skills. So keep it simple. (Then mention the potential to add complexity later...)

As we're considering these options, another question to ask ourselves is "What is BRP's sweet spot?"

It's multi-genre. It's dangerous. Dr.Who meets Starship Troopers?

PS: I was just wondering this very thing, down in the SharedWorld forum...

The other thing that Akrasia brings up is that the BRP book is daunting for all it's options - hard for a newbie to get into. ... This leads me to something we can do as a community - prepare a number of primers on how to use BRP (the core book as written) and select the best options for emulating various settings. These could be titled "How to create Fantasy with BRP" or somesuch, and put up here and maybe on the Chaoisum site.

Good one. Yes, these are needed! On Chaosium's poll evidence two should be enough for starters: Fantasy and SciFi.

Question 1: Should the options be the same in both genres, for common simplicity?

Question 2: Would we ever be able to agree what options to use??

1. System First: people buy a game for its system...

2. Setting First: people buy the game for its setting first...

3. System and setting matter about equally: ....

Hmm, also a good point, that the "Type 2" people are lost to BRP (Except perhaps for the CoC-ers. Hmm - should we wage a civil war on CoC to grab their supporters for BRP?)

Obviously, we have the sensible "Type 1" people here already...