Jump to content

Jackals: Bronze Age Fantasy Roleplaying powered by OpenQuest


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It does raise the bar for OpenQuest 3's production values, gulp! :D

Am I the only one in hype for the upcoming OpenQuest powered bronze age rpg coming from Osprey? https://www.amazon.com/Jackals-Bronze-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Osprey/dp/1472837428/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=

Hey everyone, John-Matthew here. Someone reached out to the Iconic podcast about Jackals, and mentioned they heard about the game on this thread, and I came straight over. I wanted to say how exc

32 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

Standard WotC OGL 1.0a is pp.270-71.

SDLeary

Unfortunately they've declared the whole book doesn't contain any Open Game Content, so it doesn't contribute anything back to the OGL ecosystem.

Edited by craigm
typos.
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, craigm said:

Unfortunately they've declared the whole book doesn't contain any Open Game Content, so it doesn't contribute anything back to the OGL ecosystem.

Interesting. I missed that at the end of the colophon. I'm not sure it really matters though; while a nice looking game, I haven't come across anything yet that I'd really like to use someplace else; so far to me (still haven't had a chance at at real read) is OQ2 in a specific setting and renamed characteristics.

SDLeary

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bilharzia said:

Thanks for the correction, it doesn't mention that in the contents and the 'no open content' disclaimer is unusual.

Not as unusual as you might imagine. The Mongoose Runequest 2 / Glorantha books used a similar statement ("This game product contains no Open Game Content."), and it has appeared in subsequent OQ supplements and in the River of Heaven series. It's a catch-all statement that seems to be used to indicate that the author doesn't wish for any of the mechanics or setting to be reused without permission (whether that permission is impossible to transfer in the case of Glorantha, or requires special agreement in the case of the others is left as an exercise for those wishing to figure that out).

Edited by craigm
clarification
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, craigm said:

Not as unusual as you might imagine. The Mongoose Runequest 2 / Glorantha books used a similar statement ("This game product contains no Open Game Content."), and it has appeared in subsequent OQ supplements and in the River of Heaven series. It's a catch-all statement that seems to be used to indicate that the author doesn't wish for any of the mechanics or setting to be reused without permission (whether that permission is impossible to transfer in the case of Glorantha, or requires special agreement in the case of the others is left as an exercise for those wishing to figure that out).

It's not the "no open open game content" disclaimer that's unusual, it's that plus the OGL used at the same time that I think is unusual. No Mongoose Glorantha books ever used the OGL as far as I'm aware.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Bilharzia said:

It's not the "no open open game content" disclaimer that's unusual, it's that plus the OGL used at the same time that I think is unusual. No Mongoose Glorantha books ever used the OGL as far as I'm aware.

The Mongoose Glorantha books are a strange case because the "This book contains no open gaming content" was redundant. I think that might have been a hold-over of their disclaimers from their d20 books.

The OGL is not a guarantee of open gaming content. It has two categories of content: product identity and open gaming content. Both must be explicitly be stated according to the license. That leaves a third category of content: content that is in the weird limbo of not being either category. If a book doesn't contain any open gaming content then it's safe to say that the authors and publishers wish no derivative works of that content unless made by some other special arrangement. Just because it has the OGL license at the end doesn't mean the book is open, only that it is fulfilling a legal requirement stated by the license to state where the derivative content originates.

Hope this helps!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bilharzia said:

Again, it's the combination of the two that seems unusual, I have no difficulty in understanding the OGL, but thanks for Crag- 'splaining it.

You're welcome. Licenses are a hobby for me, so I tend to pay special attention to them. It's a great conversation starter at dinner parties. 😁

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is that you can't close what has already been declared open content. If you use open content from another OGL work, it is open content and should be declared as such. If you didn't use any open content from another source and you aren't opening any of your content, then there is no logical reason to use the OGL for your book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spellslinging Sellsword said:

I think the point is that you can't close what has already been declared open content. If you use open content from another OGL work, it is open content and should be declared as such. If you didn't use any open content from another source and you aren't opening any of your content, then there is no logical reason to use the OGL for your book.

If you're using an OGL licensed work you are required to copy the OGL and cite where the material originates. So in the case of Jackals they had to put in the OGL license because it came from OpenQuest, which came from Legend. The part that I find troublesome with declaring that the book has no open content is that the open content had to come from somewhere for folks to be using it. So instead of having a clear list of what was open content and what could be considered open content I have to "pop the stack" to figure out where the open content came from. It's not that it's wrong, it's that it makes more work for me, and I am a fan of "share and share alike" in my licenses. (Aside: I find things where folks borrow from a permissive license and then declare "All Rights Reserved" a little disheartening, but that's just me).

Just because a work uses the OGL doesn't mean it has Open Gaming Content, or that it gives you the ability to enjoy the same rights that were granted to it in their derivation. It just means you get to do more work to figure things out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Finally, Jackals arrived at my place after a failed preorder via Amazon and other shipping vicissitudes. The little book is lovely as the other Osprey books and the game inside seems really excellent. 

I jumped quickly to reading the Clash System and I like it immensely. It modernizes in intelligent ways the venerable d100 system, while remaining recognizably tied to its RQ/BRP roots (via Open Quest mostly, but I think I have spotted direct nods to BRP).

I'm still reading but almost everything seems excellent. The only thing that could be better is the character sheet. It's ok, but far from elegant.

All in all, I'm super excited by this line and look forward to the campaign book.

 

   

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also pretty impressed by it - the setting really feels like a living and breathing thing. Not sure about clash points in combat yet, they might be a little to fiddly for me, but on the other hand, their use seems to be mostly reactive (counter-attack, dodge missiles, enhance a succesful attack), so maybe they won't lead to that much analysis paralysis ...

Like the mettle/valour concept (though it seems that it makes fighters a lot hardier than in standard BRP).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

The setting is great, the additions to the Basic mechanism is good, but the magic is - for me - problematic. It feels a bit added, but not wanted. Like plastic in a biological body. I think after some games I need to find a better conversion from Mythras...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NurgleHH said:

The setting is great, the additions to the Basic mechanism is good, but the magic is - for me - problematic. It feels a bit added, but not wanted. Like plastic in a biological body. I think after some games I need to find a better conversion from Mythras...

Could you tell us a little bit about how Jackals magic system works? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are less Rites and they depend on your human race. You need a an Attribut and a derived Attribut to cast the rituals. Only a ritualistic can do the rituals. The number of rituals is very limited, so a ritualist is very limited in his Special ability. Ok, being fair, Openquest is a very light version of a full D100-System. So I will try it, but when it not satisfy our groups wishes I change with the world to Mythras. I think it is simple to convert it. One other thing I miss is the graphics for all the races of the bestiary. Would be great to get them later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...