OpenBRP Project

[Austin]

2 hours ago, craigm said:

As someone who doesn't have a lot of time for creation, where would I put my energies? Is being able to say that my game is part of the BRP system worth the trade-offs?

This isn't about how open the system is, it's about how much load you're putting on both yourselves and potential adopters of this system. With this license Chaosium have chosen to be in the "what can I do with this system" arbitration business. From the responses I've seen in this forum I can see that this isn't the business Chaosium folks want to be in. Neither do we.

My thought is that we can do better.

As a community of folks who want to see this succeed we can help make this better. We can help make this a license where Chaosium's fears of releasing too much of their IP can be assuaged, and the community's fears of ticking off Chaosium can be diverted to making great stuff.

The only reason for the pushback is because we care. If nobody cared then there wouldn't be this discussion. Folks wouldn't take the time to tap out long screeds about how the license doesn't promote the kinds of growth we've seen in other communities.If we didn't care we'd just nod, smile, and go on doing what we've done before.

So, which way do we go?

Here's my suggestion: let's put a more robust SRD together ourselves, under the BRP OGL. Organize it by theme and/or genre packs, like "OpenBRP: Fantasy", "OpenBRP: Space Opera", "OpenBRP: Wuxia", "OpenBRP: Western", and so on. Use the base of the BRP SRD, and try making something which a new designer could come along, and use to create their own RPG & setting. They wouldn't be official, but they could at least provide a collective base ground within a genre to work from. So Fantasy having a core simple magic system, Space Opera having core rules for space ships & combat, and so on. Basically bolting the rules necessary for basic genre tropes onto Chaosium's SRD, then checking to make sure it isn't substantially similar to one of their products.

(Note: I'm not necessarily claiming I have the design chops and knowledge to do this, or the management skills to organize this, or the time and energy to do so... but I'd be willing to try if needed, and certainly willing to help put together an "OpenBRP: Fantasy" SRD.)

[Richard S.]

It's a neat idea for sure - I was kinda thinking the same thing, in fact - but it'll be hell to pull off a coordinated effort for this. A lot of stuff can probably be pulled from the BGB, like basic magic for fantasy, spaceships and other vehicles for sci-fi, etc. etc. I was also thinking that maybe something that's just a collection of alternate rules would be neat to have, pulling together ideas like percentile characteristics, d20 based, bonus and penalty dice, hard/extreme successes, and the like.

[Austin]

18 minutes ago, Richard S. said:

A lot of stuff can probably be pulled from the BGB, like basic magic for fantasy, spaceships and other vehicles for sci-fi, etc. etc.

Yeah, I figure as much as possible would be pulled from BGB, while avoiding plagiarism.

[Austin]

1 hour ago, trechriron said:

Or... you can look at the Legend material that is open (tons of it) and the open content in the new Delta Green and perhaps filter in a little open content from other open games (D6, d20, Action! System, Entropy System... the list is pretty large) and not reward a company for putting together THE WORSE OGL terms I have ever seen in the many years I've been a publisher groupy.

I'm not interested in discussing the license in this thread (considering there's plenty of space and ongoing debate in the other BRP OGL threads), but rather potential solutions the community could provide.

[Loïc]

I do agree with this topic's idea. I think many of us do want to develop at least a few rules that could complete the SRD according to our own aspirations. Exchange ideas here could both emulate our reflexion and avoid to fall in prohibited contents by mistake (I don't know all BRP rules by heart although I'm running Chaosium games since about 25 years...).

Concrete example: I already wonder how I could replace - without plagiarism, as said Crel - the Sanity mechanics (a prohibited content - what I do well understand since it is a deep trademark of CoC). A mechanism designed to manage fear effects and their consequences is still necessary for many genres (horror settings of course, but also many Sci-Fi or adventure settings). Maybe a POW vs POW check on the Resistance table? This could work when a PC is faced with a supernatural creature or even a terrifying animal (man-eater tiger for example). But then what about scary scenes (dismembered corpse...)? A table recording many and many situations with allocated POW scores seems too much complicated. A generic POW score for "normal" but macabre scenes, necessarily lower than the lowest POW score of supernatural creatures/monsters? And maybe the PCs POW scores should have a limit that could avoid them to make any check for "normal" sights (e.g. POW 15 or more means no check)?

This is just a first draw, as it comes. And maybe it is still prohibited content... Let me know if that's the case!!! 😉

And since this is a first draw, I'm sure some of you have much better ideas on this matter...

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Loïc said:

I do agree with this topic's idea. I think many of us do want to develop at least a few rules that could complete the SRD according to our own aspirations. Exchange ideas here could both emulate our reflexion and avoid to fall in prohibited contents by mistake (I don't know all BRP rules by heart although I'm running Chaosium games since about 25 years...).

Concrete example: I already wonder how I could replace - without plagiarism, as said Crel - the Sanity mechanics (a prohibited content - what I do well understand since it is a deep trademark of CoC). A mechanism designed to manage fear effects and their consequences is still necessary for many genres (horror settings of course, but also many Sci-Fi or adventure settings). Maybe a POW vs POW check on the Resistance table? This could work when a PC is faced with a supernatural creature or even a terrifying animal (man-eater tiger for example). But then what about scary scenes (dismembered corpse...)? A table recording many and many situations with allocated POW scores seems too much complicated. A generic POW score for "normal" but macabre scenes, necessarily lower than the lowest POW score of supernatural creatures/monsters? And maybe the PCs POW scores should have a limit that could avoid them to make any check for "normal" sights (e.g. POW 15 or more means no check)?

This is just a first draw, as it comes. And maybe it is still prohibited content... Let me know if that's the case!!! 😉

And since this is a first draw, I'm sure some of you have much better ideas on this matter...

I suggest looking at the "Madness Meter" mechanics from Unknown Armies.  (Google "Unknown Armies" "Madness Meters").

Note some threads here; it has been looked at before.  I saw some interesting ideas outlined by @SDLeary, and thought his notions might play really well with the 80%-forcing thresholds of Runes/Passions in RQG.  But maybe make them 90%...?  If you're that "Hardened" (e.g. to violence) you automatically react with violence, it becomes reflexive  (etc...)

Last but not least:  note that CoC-style "SAN" mechanics are almost a parody of genuine "mental health" issues; some report they are actually offensive to some people.

I don't want to give offense to ANYONE, but I frankly kind of like this "not like the real thing" feature... "Cosmic Horror" IMHO doesn't & SHOULDN'T make you go "insane" or "mad" in any regular, therapist-or-psychiatrist-can-help sense of the word.  They impose something alien & unnatural into your mind, and it doesn't follow the normal "rules" and organic / biochemical / behavioral processes of regular mental health issues.

Might there be separate rules for "ordinary" fear/horror/etc, and genuine Cthulhoid Cosmic Horror...?

[Loïc]

Indeed, if there's a hope to give a cure/therapy to "ordinary" fear, cosmic and/or alien horrors maybe shouldn't be allowed to be cured at all, or at least in very few proportion. Probably it depends on the setting?

Thanks for the references, g33k, I'm goind to have a look at these! 👍

[g33k]

I like the idea of "open sourcing" (via the fans) some "genre packs" of extended rules ...

Is anybody actually working on this?  Is there any effort (besides this topic/thread right here) to coordinate such a project?

 

[Richard S.]

2 minutes ago, g33k said:

I like the idea of "open sourcing" (via the fans) some "genre packs" of extended rules ...

Is anybody actually working on this?  Is there any effort (besides this topic/thread right here) to coordinate such a project?

 

I've been making some notes for a fantasy supplement. I'm thinking of pulling mostly from magic world, since that's been fantasy BRP for a while.

[g33k]

2 minutes ago, Richard S. said:

I've been making some notes for a fantasy supplement. I'm thinking of pulling mostly from magic world, since that's been fantasy BRP for a while.

Not my own 1st priority, but good to know.

For other fans' reference -- are you open to folks reaching out to you to collaborate on this project?

[Dethstrok9]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Not my own 1st priority, but good to know.

For other fans' reference -- are you open to folks reaching out to you to collaborate on this project?

I was going to try to make a game using the OGL, but I've been researching it all over the place and have decided it would be easier and more benificial to simply create my wn system for it. That being said, I would be happy to help out on this noble project to salvage the BRP OGL:) (so to answer your question, yes)

[Austin]

4 hours ago, g33k said:

I like the idea of "open sourcing" (via the fans) some "genre packs" of extended rules ...

Is anybody actually working on this?  Is there any effort (besides this topic/thread right here) to coordinate such a project?

I've got a handful of mental notes for outlining an "OpenBRP: Fantasy" which I might type up and post. I've been waiting to see if there's more expressed interest in doing such a project before putting time and energy into it.

[Cross Planes]

I have a sincere question, why is the BRP-OGL a better alternative than the Legend OGL if I want to publish something?

[Guest Vile Traveller]

13 minutes ago, Cross Planes said:

I have a sincere question, why is the BRP-OGL a better alternative than the Legend OGL if I want to publish something?

Different logo - "Legend Compatible" vs. "BRP".

[g33k]

7 hours ago, Cross Planes said:

I have a sincere question, why is the BRP-OGL a better alternative than the Legend OGL if I want to publish something?

The core of BRP is a simpler mechanic than Legend, with its Combat maneuvers, Action Points, etc.

If you want a leaner game-engine, the advantage goes to BRP.

As others have noted, the new BRP-OGL is a VERY abbreviated game; some even call it "incomplete."  You may find you need to build-out your mechanics some... 

If you'd rather use pre-made rules for EVERYTHING (and just slap your own setting into the rules), advantage goes to Legend.

 

If you feel that either Chaosium or Mongoose (and either BRP or Legend) has more "cachet," more "street cred," then advantage goes whichever way your feelz go.

 

Did any of this help?

[g33k]

12 hours ago, Richard S. said:

I've been making some notes for a fantasy supplement...

 

7 hours ago, Crel said:

I've got a handful of mental notes for outlining an "OpenBRP: Fantasy" which I might type up and post. I've been waiting to see if there's more expressed interest in doing such a project before putting time and energy into it.

@Richard S., meet @Crel.

@Crel, meet @Richard S.

 

I hope you have a very productive association!  😇

[Cross Planes]

16 hours ago, g33k said:

The core of BRP is a simpler mechanic than Legend, with its Combat maneuvers, Action Points, etc.

If you want a leaner game-engine, the advantage goes to BRP.

As others have noted, the new BRP-OGL is a VERY abbreviated game; some even call it "incomplete."  You may find you need to build-out your mechanics some... 

If you'd rather use pre-made rules for EVERYTHING (and just slap your own setting into the rules), advantage goes to Legend.

 

If you feel that either Chaosium or Mongoose (and either BRP or Legend) has more "cachet," more "street cred," then advantage goes whichever way your feelz go.

 

Did any of this help?

It did. Thank you. With Delta Green using Legend I feel that BRP's simplicity has been channeled.

[Austin]

On 4/6/2020 at 5:15 PM, Richard S. said:

I've been making some notes for a fantasy supplement. I'm thinking of pulling mostly from magic world, since that's been fantasy BRP for a while.

What, vaguely, did you have in mind?

My mind was moving toward basically trying to make D&D 5E, BRP-style. I know, I know, blasphemy. But doing something with a simple, playable core centered around standard medieval fantasy tropes, which focuses on building upon the SRD (and no matter what doesn't remove parts, for maximum compatibility). I make the comparison to 5E because that's my impression of the system—an efficient and complete, albeit setting-less, engine.

If I can steal some time from other projects during my upcoming weekend, I'll write up and post a brainstorm & outline document.

(@g33k see, us kids can play nice together .)

[Lloyd Dupont]

On 4/8/2020 at 7:39 PM, Crel said:

My mind was moving toward basically trying to make D&D 5E, BRP-style

Hi Crel.... It's work in (slow) progress.. but it's starting to be usable...

Can you let me know what you think of this set of homemade homebrew rules.. I think they should help bring the D&D feels to BRP.. (particularly Fireball are usable!)
But it's work in progress somethings could be written better..

Also I try to keep everything concise... let me know if it's .. too concise....

EDIT updated the homebrew rule file.. added some Magical Item creation ideas... and movement idea for combat

BRP - Homebrew.docx

Edited April 10, 2020 by Lloyd Dupont

[AndreJarosch]

2 hours ago, Crel said:

My mind was moving toward basically trying to make D&D 5E, BRP-style.

For BRP this was already done in october 2009: 
As the Chaosium Monograph 0383 "Classic Fantasy"* by Rodney Leary

* Updated edition for Mythras in April 2016 as The Design Mechanism 500 "Classic Fantasy"
 

[rsanford]

On 4/8/2020 at 7:43 AM, AndreJarosch said:

For BRP this was already done in october 2009: 
As the Chaosium Monograph 0383 "Classic Fantasy"* by Rodney Leary

* Updated edition for Mythras in April 2016 as The Design Mechanism 500 "Classic Fantasy"
 

Yeah this is already done in a big way and it's great. And Rodney is actively supporting it!

Edited April 10, 2020 by rsanford

[Raleel]

On 4/8/2020 at 10:27 AM, rsanford said:

Yeah this is already6 done in a big way and it's great. And Rodney is actively supporting it!

I would third it. I would also note that, while Rodney's work is pointed towards 2e, the bard that he has is fairly easily restructured into 5e, and can form a basis for other classes. The fighter he has already looks a lot like a Battlemaster, because so many of the special effects look like combat maneuvers. I put together a Warlock (totally untested) based on 5e, and my monk (complete to rank 3, but it should be easy to infer the last two ranks) certainly takes some queues from later editions. For similar games, i have some notes on a 13th Age Occultist conversion and a 4e swordmage conversion, the latter based very much on the aforementioned bard.

[g33k]

While I am 100% in agreement with @Raleel @rsanford @AndreJarosch (if you want "D&D" but with BRP-driven mechanics, you want RL's "Classic Fantasy" line!) ...

... I think you guys are off-point.

I think the thrust of @Crel's remarks (and effort) is NOT to capture the "D&D Vibe" (particularly class/level) but to produce a simple but robust (rather than minimalist, as per the original BRP-OGL from Chaosium) fantasy rendition of BRP, that can serve (at least the fantasy segment of) BRP'dom the way the WotC OGLs serve the d20 crowd.

 

Dunno, maybe I have missed the point.  Maybe they really  are  trying to reinvent @threedeesix's wheel...?

In which case... give it up now, boys!  That stuff is SO good, and it's SO deep, that any new efforts at this point will look a lot like someone announcing that they've found a way to harness refined petroleum to move a carriage with no horse!

😁

[Ian Absentia]

18 minutes ago, g33k said:

I think the thrust of @Crel's remarks (and effort) is NOT to capture the "D&D Vibe" (particularly class/level) but to produce a simple but robust (rather than minimalist, as per the original BRP-OGL from Chaosium) fantasy rendition of BRP, that can serve (at least the fantasy segment of) BRP'dom the way the WotC OGLs serve the d20 crowd.

You mean like Magic World?  Which is frustrating to many, because...there it is already, just sitting there.  But yes, I welcome a "generic" fantasy roleplaying engine that isn't an emulator for a different sort of roleplaying experience.  Something very close in mechanics to RuneQuest, but not tied to Glorantha.

!i!

[g33k]

8 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

You mean like Magic World?  Which is frustrating to many, because...there it is already, just sitting there.  But yes, I welcome a "generic" fantasy roleplaying engine that isn't an emulator for a different sort of roleplaying experience.  Something very close in mechanics to RuneQuest, but not tied to Glorantha.

!i!

MW seems an apt simile, yes.   I could wish for Chaosium to just strip MW down to a text-only doc, and OGL that.  I bet it'd help them move the last copies out of their warehouses.

 

But I looked at @Lloyd Dupont's DOCX (linked above).  He's doing a couple of other things there...

• He's incorporating many of the latest-generation BRP-variant bits&bobs into his rules; it's very much NOT aimed at a "lowest common denominator" simple rule-set
• He's hybridizing in some d20'isms, particularly of the Feat/Stunt variety

I think a lot of his stuff is more what I'd want to see in a "Companion" or "Extended" or "advanced" ruleset, not the core.  Sometimes -- maybe even most of the time -- there's parts I'd like to include.  But I really think the lean & minimal core is a superior approach.  That said, I see no problem that "core/basic" and "companion/advanced" rules cannot be simultaneously co-developed.  Indeed, I think that's a better way to do it.  I know RL's "CF Companion" book was eagerly -- often impatiently -- anticipated for years before it came out...