Prime Evil

On 10/21/2018 at 4:46 PM, Chaot said:

Remember the Big Book of Monsters. A lot has already been done.

True...but none of those conversions were released under the OGL. This means that they aren't available for third-party use...

This is shocking news. Greg was a giant in the industry and an amazing person. He has given us years of joy. He inspired and influenced an entire generation of game designers. And in addition to his work in the gaming industry, his contributions to Shaman's Drum deserve recognition from everyone interested in alternative spirituality.

My thoughts and condolences are with his family during this difficult time.

Yes, please!

The MRQII Empires book is one of the best releases for that product line. The idea of treating realms and organisations like characters was clever and could be developed a lot further.

The MRQ I version has some poor editing and is inferior to the revision.

This is good news. I'm glad to hear that OpenQuest has a future. But if you don't have doubts about the quality of your own work, you probably don't care about it enough :)

The comment that the OGL situation almost killed OQ is concerning though. My understanding is that even if the MRQ1 SRD is no longer valid under the OGL, OpenQuest is still OK under the provision of Section 13 of the OGL. This section states that if the upstream license was terminated "all (existing) sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License". In other words, so long as you were in full compliance with the terms of the OGL, your sublicense survives when the upstream publisher loses the right to distribute the SRD. In this specific case, the inclusion of Glorantha-specific material in the SRD was a breach of Section 5 of the OGL (Representation of Authority to Contribute). Mongoose did not have the right to release this IP as Open Game Content, so when their license to produce RQ expired they were then in breach of the license. Because they did not cure this breach within the 30-day grace period, their right to distribute the SRD automatically terminated. However, due to the clause about the survival of sublicenses I suspect you are on solid ground provided that you do not reference any of the Glorantha-specific material (thereby falling afoul of section 5 yourself).

On 8/3/2018 at 2:20 PM, g33k said:

I continue to think the BRP chassis is worth attention (even by developers who desire to avoid even potential/theoretical violations of (c)).

I think that the survival of the BRP system over thirty years despite numerous "real-world" problems along the way is a testament to how solid and adaptable it is. If you go back and read RQ2 and compare it with other stuff coming out at the same time, you get a sense of just how brilliant it was.

On 8/3/2018 at 11:40 AM, RosenMcStern said:

For instance, Newt has clarified above that OpenQuest is OGL and all development of games from OpenQuest can pass through the OGL, in the terms indicated in the link he has provided. A link that happens to clearly state that you can make your own game out of OQ without limitations – except the prohibition to misuse IPs by third parties.

And Thule has clearly expressed his wish to create his own game, not just publish scenarios for OQ or Mythras. Or so I understood.

So long as you abide by all of the terms of the Open Game Licence, you can use any Open Game Content (OGC) to create derivative works. This can include adventures or sourcebooks or campaign settings. It can also entire games.  This is what makes things like Renaissance possible. It is also what allowed Paizo to fork D&D 3.5 to create Pathfinder when 4e came out. 

However there are some important limits on this freedom. Firstly, you can't use any material that the publisher of the game has designated as Product Identity (PI). Secondly, you can't infringe on the trademarks of the creator of the source material. So you can't misrepresent your work as an "official" OQ publication. And you can't indicate compatibility with OQ without a separate license with Newt allowing you to do so. So you can't use the OpenQuest logo or say that your work in "Powered by OpenQuest" without permission. This is why many OGL games release the game system as Open Game Content but have a separate trademark licence allowing you additional rights to indicate compatibility with their system.

On 8/3/2018 at 11:40 AM, RosenMcStern said:

Does this make his game “approved by Chaosium”? And if it does not – as I suspect, since it would be very unwise to extend approval to derivative works which might include lawful but questionable contents, like pornography or racial slur -  then why sub-license an allegedly approved system, if this does not make your game “officially approved”?

Nothing in the Open Game Licence indicates that upstream publishers "approve" of any derivative works. The licence is designed so that if you misuse it, upstream publishers are protected against legal liability. If you use OGC for questionable purposes, then you are on your own. If you want to place a stamp on your work saying "approved by Chaosium", you need permission from Chaosium to do so - and they can place whatever restrictions they like on this approval. For example, back in the day there was a section in the d20 licence indicating that Wizards of the Coast could withdraw approval for publishers to use the d20 logo on works that breached community standards. 

That's a very good picture and a very nice article. It seems like a smart approach. I like the fact that you are aligning the worship of Ernalda to historical precursors. It makes everything feel more...um...grounded... 

On 7/18/2018 at 8:45 AM, Matt_E said:

1. I can think of one gamer who has no desire to produce such a variant.

2. It makes no sense to start from the ground up with print runs, in the ultraniche market you imagine.  Start with digital only.

3. That would be an incredibly segmented market.  Unless item 1 above is true, I disagree that there are economically meaningful gaps--and I have already found item 1 to be false.

4. That impression of Sabre is precisely the opposite of the one it made on me.  I found Sabre to be a combination of the worst aspects of d20 and Mythras, and basically a slap in the face to TDM, in terms of exploiting their hard-earned IP in the most barely legal manner...

 

1. Fair enough. That's a personal preference. 
2. I agree with you that digital only is the best approach. However, POD can be a game-changer for small publishers working in niche markets... 
3. The market is fairly segmented. Even so, I get the feeling that many GMs mix-and-match elements from different d100 variants. I'm not sure that the gaps need to be "economically meaningful". Hobbyists write systems for artistic reasons as well as economic ones. Personally, I don't have any issue with the publication of more d100 variants provided that they bring something new to the table. I'll use the bits that I like from a range of different games. 
4. I said that Sabre was "interesting".  There were a few things I liked and a lot that wasn't to my personal taste. I would note that the authors of Sabre credit Mythras and indicate that they use some mechanics with permission from the Design Mechanism. However, obviously I don't know the details of the arrangement. 

On 7/15/2018 at 10:24 PM, lawrence.whitaker said:

The one question I'd ask is, the d100 game you want to produce, is it for personal use or publication? If publication, I'd ask 'Why'? There are already a plethora of d100 games available: RQ, Mythras, Legend, Magic World, OpenQuest, Raiders of R'lyeh, and Revolution d100 (also OGL). Is another needed? I know of another d100 game called Sabre, that is, again, heavily based on the Legend OGL, but leans heavily on Mythras; I'm not sure of its sales, but it's not terribly well known.

I'm not trying to deter you, but I do want you to be aware that it's a crowded market, and how much time you expend on the project depends on your intentions and what innovations you think your version of the rules, whatever their base, can bring to the market. The approach will also determine, to some extent, if you use the OGL, or cleave to Mythras or RQ (using one of its licensing models and with permission: contact Chaosium directly for clarification).

But I think you'll find all the publishers in the community - TDM, Chaosium, d101, and Alephtar, are very happy to answer questions and be as supportive as we can. I can't answer for Mongoose: they rarely post on this board, and I haven't visited the Legend Forum on the Mongoose site for a very long time. So happy to answer any more questions you may have, publicly or privately.

Lawrence

I think every gamer has the desire to produce a variant of their favorite RPG incorporating their own house rules and reflecting their own preferences. I'm no exception here - I've got my own private d100 variant that I've worked over the past few years. My aim was to build a variant closely aligned to grimdark sensibilities (Joe Abercrombie, Mark Lawrence, Glen Cook, Anna Spark Smith, et al). But developing a published work is different to designing something for your own personal enjoyment.

Keep in mind that the market for d100 games is a tiny segment of the overall RPG market. Print runs aren't huge by commercial standards and margins can be tight.

The d100 market is crowded, but there are still a few gaps that an enterprising designer could fill. I think there is space for a system a bit lighter than Legend / Mythras, but with a bit more crunchy than OpenQuest. There is also room for genre-specific implementations of the various d100 systems. For example, I've thought seriously about developing a cyberpunk variant of Legend or Mythras. I think such a game could work surprisingly well and there is little competition in this space at the moment. 

Another approach might be to test the waters by developing a sourcebook for an existing game, either under the OGL or a traditional licensing arrangement. I used to run a Spells of Legend thread over on the Mongoose forums where I posted new spells once or twice a week. I've also considered gathering my own contributions into a new work. It's worth noting that many people mix-and-match material from different d100 variants, so this can still reach a wider market.

As an aside, I'm glad that you mention Sabre - it's an interesting system midway between D&D and Legend / Mythras.

I'd also point out that Arc Dream declared some portions of their updated Delta Green rulebook as OGC. These develop the MRQ II / Legend game system in a different direction to the one chosen by RQ 6 / Mythras. 

Does this mean that TDM will out-tweet Donald Trump?

One final note, specific to the d100 game family. Be very careful about using anything from the System Reference Document from the first edition of RuneQuest published by Mongoose. This is easy to find on the internet, but there are legal problems with it. The SRD inadvertently contains some Glorantha-specific material that is the intellectual property of Chaosium (via Issaries). Mongoose lost the legal right to release this material when their licence to publish RuneQuest terminated as per the section of the OGL relating to "Authority to Contribute". This means that you are infringing on Chaosium's rights if you use any of this material. My understanding is that pre-existing publications under the MRQI SRD (e.g. OpenQuest) are ok, due to the section of the OGL indicating that sublicenses survive any breach. But trying to produce anything new using this SRD is a legal minefield. Stick to the Legend OGC, which is on stronger legal ground.

Also, it is good manners to respect the immense contribution that Chaosium has made to the hobby. The folks there are nice people and have been happy to licence third-party publishers in the past, but they have a legal responsibility to defend their trademarks and prevent people from ripping off their IP.

9 hours ago, Jeff said:

Additionally, in my considered opinion the statement "you can't copyright game mechanics" is oft-repeated but also never been upheld by an appellate court. I can certainly see a court concluding that "you can copyright game mechanics" (in fact, with the right facts, I think a court certainly would conclude that you can copyright game mechanics to some extent) - the only question is whether there is ever a plaintiff deep-pocketed enough to test that proposition.

I would second the opinion that this is a dangerous area. Although the law may not protect raw game mechanics, it does protect specific expressions of those those mechanics. So even if you change the wording and file off the serial numbers, you can still land up in hot water if your work constitutes plagiarism of an existing intellectual property. This can be a bit subjective - you might think you have done enough to distance yourself from the source material, but the law might disagree. So be careful here!

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, if you intend to produce anything under the Open Game Licence, be sure that you understand your rights and responsibilities. The OGL is a legally-binding contract between yourself and the owners of whatever Open Game Content you use. In particular, note that you cannot indicate compatibility with any game system without a separate trademark licence or compatibility licence offered by the publisher. Not only does this mean that you can't mention Mythras or Runequest, it also means that you can't mention Legend or OpenQuest without a separate agreement with the publisher. In these cases, the publisher has been generous enough to offer a compatibility licence, but you need to understand what you are getting into here - the publisher can't revoke the OGL because the licence is "perpetual", "worldwide" and "non-exclusive", but they can pull the plug on the trademark licence at any time. This happened with D&D when the transition from 3.5 to 4e occurred. WotC withdrew permission to use the d20 brand in favour of their more restrictive GSL. It also happened when Mongoose transitioned from the 1st edition of Traveller to the 2nd edition. This is the reason why the Cepheus engine exists. Once again, I would emphasize that you need to understand exactly what you are signing up to and where the boundaries are.

If you are looking at produce material based upon Open Game Content, I strongly recommend watching the five-part video series by Matt Finch in which he explains your rights and obligations under the Open Game License (OGL).

Matt is a lawyer and is well-known in the Old School Renaissance (OSR) movement. He worked on one of the first D&D retroclones (OSRIC) and subsequently published his own game (Swords & Wizardry).

As a lawyer, Matt is in a good position to explain what each section of the Open Game License means and how to use it. The videos take almost an hour to chew through, but clarify how to use the Open Game License to "publish" your own material:

Part 1: What is the D&D Open Game License and How to Use it

Part 2: What is the D&D Open Game License and How to Use it

Part 3: What is the D&D Open Game License and How to Use it

Part 4: What is the D&D Open Game License and How to Use it

Part 5: What is the Open Game License and How to Use it

As a minimum, You have to comply with the terms of the Open Game License - which means that you need to attach a copy of the licence to your work and update Section 15 to list all of the works that you are using Open Game Content from.

You also need to clearly identify what parts of your work are designated as Open Game Content and which parts are Product Identity.

And if you want to indicate compatibility with the Legend game system and use the Legend logo on your work, you need to comply with the trademark license that was available on the Mongoose site - http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/leglogopack.zip

This seems to have gone AWOL during a recent reorganization of the website, but the key bit of text is:

The entire text of the Legend RPG is designated Open Game Content, as is the entire text of all books in this line with plain colour covers and the words ‘… of Legend’ in their title.

By using any Open Content material in any of these books, you also have permission to freely use the Legend Compatible logo on any publication or web site where this Open Content is used or modified. The Legend Compatible logo may be re-sized but may not otherwise be altered in any way.

Legend, the text of Legend rulebooks, the Legend logo and the Legend Compatible logo remain Copyright Mongoose Publishing 2011.

Any and all artwork included in Legend rulebooks is specifically not designated as Open Content, and may not be used without written permission from Mongoose Publishing.

The compatibility pack did contains a copy of the Legend logo for third-party publishers to use. I can probably dig out a copy of the trademark license and logo if folks are interested.

On 6/8/2018 at 2:44 PM, Mankcam said:

Now we just need a new name for it...

 

 

 

How about "Multiverse"?

I only just read this thread, but would also like to add my voice to those wishing Ken a full recovery. 

I don't mind the existence of multiple games derived from BRP that interpret the system in different ways. The fact that so many different interpretations are possible shows how rich the core game engine is. It also indicates why it has survived so long. It is nice to have the Big Gold Book as the "Rosetta Stone" to allow seamless translation between d100 variants. But people don't play 'BRP' itself - they play in game settings built upon the system. Chaosium has chosen - for sound financial and artistic reasons - to focus their efforts on giving us solid interpretations of the system customised for specific settings. The advantage of this approach is that they can really polish the system to make it shine.  The disadvantage of this approach is that it leaves folks who want to use the system as a toolkit to build their own homebrew settings. But that's OK - we now have plenty of third-party variants focusing on this gap. This is where systems such as Mythras, Legend, OpenQuest, Revolution d100, or Rennaisance come into the picture. I don't see this as fragmentation so much as an elaboration of the common heritage. None of the other systems is likely to give us a fantasy setting as detailed as Glorantha, but then RQG can't easily be divorced from that setting either. I'd argue that at the moment, we have the best of both worlds - Chaosium producing their strongest material in two decades and a range of third-party d100 variants are covering the homebrew market. Why shouldn't everyone be happy with this outcome? 

And here's the real secret - BRP has always been a rules-light system. The core mechanics can be summarised in less than twenty pages. You don't actually need massive rulebooks. And if you really want, it is trivial to use things from one d100 game with another anyway. But don't tell anyone I told you that... 

On 6/7/2018 at 5:55 AM, Jeff said:

But it ain't RuneQuest if you can't lose your left leg!

 

We need this on a t-shirt!

Wow...you know how to get our attention, don't you? 

It's been quiet on the OpenQuest front for a while, so this is great news. And RoH is a fantastic SF setting! 

This is amazing news. I'm glad to see that the Design Mechanism has landed this license!

I tend to encourage use the Concert Casting rules from Blood Magic for the creation of undead. I also introduced an Exorcism ritual that can be used to de-animate undead and drive off extraplanar threats. The problem is that the participants are effectively helpless while performing the banishing ritual...

Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!

But seriously, has anybody considered forking the Legend system now that Mongoose seems to have abandoned it?

I know we've got Mythras as the natural successor to MRQII,  but the Legend ruleset has the advantage of being something we can freely tinker with as a community. 

Congrats! Looking forward to receiving it!