Jump to content

QuestWorlds SRD


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jrutila said:

Great thing this is out now!

About Group Simple Contest boosts @David Scott in some other thread said that the boosts can be bought after everyone has rolled.

Now, in QW2.2 in chapter 4.5.3 it is quite clearly stated that boosts can be purchased before the contest. Is this now the final ruling about boosts?

I'd not seen @David Scott's suggestion. Let me get together with him and see if that is something we want to correct.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And we are live https://www.chaosium.com/questworlds-system-reference-document/ https://questworlds.chaosium.com/ Looking forward to what you all do with this. For errors that you'

...says the person who has a grand total of 2 posts on this board 😜 I don't like Facebook both because of what it means and represents, and because its UI is just plain bad to have conversations

There have been a few tweaks to the QuestWorlds SRD over the past few weeks. The latest version is 0.3 and is at https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/blob/master/docs/QuestWorlds.pdf  

Posted Images

On 4/21/2020 at 11:02 PM, Tanaka84 said:

What seems to be absolutely off-limits without any kind of permission is anything related to Arthurian legend. 

The QuestWorlds SRD says specifically only Le Morte d'Arthur, which would in theory leave other Arthurian legend open as long as it was clearly not about Mallory. This contrasts with the way the SRD treats the Cthulhu Mythos, which is much broader. 

Which actually makes me wonder how Chaosium would feel about an Arthurian game that was clearly distinct from Mallory and Pendragon? A game that was only about the Welsh Arthur Cycle from the Mabinogion, for example? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2020 at 6:33 AM, Ian Cooper said:

If you are playing HQG today, this will hopefully clarify,  provide some tweaks to existing rules, and some options. But it's not significantly different.

Not hugely, but there are a few difference to consider. The way HP awards and advancement are done is significantly different, and worth considering. And some of the changes to advancement are quite significant - like the ability to retrospectively turn any ability into a keyword. 

Removal of specific ability bonuses. Introduction of Benefits of winning contests as standard. 

There are some small but notable cleanups and clarifications to existing contest types. 

But mostly more options. I know I'll be introducing Plot Edits. 

The biggest thing is the variety in contest types. I know the SRD says 'choose one type of long contest per campaign' but I think my game is very excited to try some alternatives to Scored Contests. We will probably be using all three. I have no idea if that will be terrible or not!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have to say that my players liked the sound of Cosmic Zap! and we will definitely be giving it a go. And this is interesting because we have probably tried half a dozen supers games (currently we have a Masks game going) but people still liked the idea and thought it had something different to offer. Can't wait to see what else will come out in the QuestWorlds rules. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 4/21/2020 at 6:15 PM, Scotty said:

You can change it. Download the markdown file, open it (using something that opens markdown - I use Atom), change remove the bold, output as PDF.

I like it a lot - it's not good for when you sit down and read the text, but it tells you what terms are important, and it's fantastic for finding things on the page later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read the 2.3.2.3 on "Tactics" - I don't know if that was in the original HeroQuest rulebook, but if it was, I have forgotten about it. Reading this section was an eye-opener, especially the part about how you can choose a Trait that will help you to overcome one key task within the story obstacle and still succeed at overcoming the whole obstacle by just that one roll. This sounds like a great concept for focussing the narrative without having to worry about whether a Trait is broad enough for all tasks involved in a story obstacle.

As I said, I don't know if that was in RDL's original rules or of it  was added by Ian Cooper (or another contributor), but I'm really grateful for the passage!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, not sure if you are looking for feedback or not here. My first stumbling block was section 2.3.2.2, third paragraph, second and third sentence. That just left me hanging, I really felt like it needed to continue the example to show what the story obstacle might be, to then hightlight why the evasion is not the obstacle. I am probably missing something.

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

I have spotted something that seems to be a leftover from the "Game Formerly Known as HeroQuest". As Story Points are no more spent before a Group Simple Contest is resolved, the sentence in green is not needed anymore.

 

10.3.3.3 Boosting Outcomes
Because they average together the outcomes of multiple participants, group simple contests tend to
flatten outcomes, making victories more likely to be marginal or minor than major or complete.
To overcome this flattening effect, if the outcome of a group simple contest is a tie or victory, you
may spend one or more story points to purchase a boost; a boost assures a clearer victory.


The cost varies by the number of PCs participating:
• 1 story point for 1-3 PCs.
• 2 story points for 4-6 PCs.
• 3 story points for 7-9 PCs.
• and so on…


You may spend twice as many story points as required to gain a double boost. The points may be
spent by any combination of players. They remain spent no matter how the contest resolves. You may
continue to spend story points to bump your individual result.


The boost increases the collective victory level by one step. A double boost increases it by two steps.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 7:59 AM, Steve said:

For errors that you've found, or other feedback, the best way to raise it with Ian is probably to use GitHub - see "How to raise an issue" at https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md

 

Maybe this could/should get edited-in to the OP (ifindeed that's the preferred mechanism for reporting these issues)...?

Edited by g33k
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2020 at 4:53 AM, davecake said:

Which actually makes me wonder how Chaosium would feel about an Arthurian game that was clearly distinct from Mallory and Pendragon? A game that was only about the Welsh Arthur Cycle from the Mabinogion, for example? 

It seems they had no problem with games like Keltia or Age of Arthur, or even Mythic Britain,whose system (Mythras) is closer to Pendragon. All are Arthurian games, set in a more historically accurate 5th/6th century Britain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mugen said:

It seems they had no problem with games like Keltia or Age of Arthur, or even Mythic Britain,whose system (Mythras) is closer to Pendragon. All are Arthurian games, set in a more historically accurate 5th/6th century Britain.

 

That’s different. Those aren’t game engines Chaosium owns, so they can’t require people not to do Arthurian games with them. AFAIK Chaosium doesn’t own the license to Arthurian legends, just their version published in Pendragon books. But they do own QuestWorlds, so they can make it part of the permission to use the QuestWorlds SRD that nobody can use QWSRD with settings from official Chaosium games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SevenSidedDie said:

That’s different. Those aren’t game engines Chaosium owns, so they can’t require people not to do Arthurian games with them. AFAIK Chaosium doesn’t own the license to Arthurian legends, just their version published in Pendragon books. But they do own QuestWorlds, so they can make it part of the permission to use the QuestWorlds SRD that nobody can use QWSRD with settings from official Chaosium games.

But isn't HeroQuest Glorantha already/now a Chaosium setting used with the QuestWorlds SRD?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Johnstown Compendium terms permit use of the Glorantha IP, if you're publishing through there, that's how its permitted. 

Of course the QW SRD license has a no-other-legal-restrictions term, which complicates the picture. 

I doubt they've thought that through all the way.

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

... 

I doubt they've thought that through all the way.

Given that (AIUI) one of the core Chaosium team *IS* a lawyer, I bet they have thought it through.  They've just come to a different conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, g33k said:

Given that (AIUI) one of the core Chaosium team *IS* a lawyer, I bet they have thought it through.  They've just come to a different conclusion.

Maybe so. The now-deleted q&a thread on the BRP version suggested otherwise. I try not to think about it much, as the license situation dealt a deep wound to my enthusiasm for a dear to my heart project that has still not healed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2020 at 4:59 AM, Oracle said:

But isn't HeroQuest Glorantha already/now a Chaosium setting used with the QuestWorlds SRD?

Chaosium is allowed to use QuestWorlds without having to go though the SRD license. They already own the words and can do whatever they want with them.

For us, the Jonstown Compendium and the QWSRD don’t overlap. The QWSRD’s license exists to give permission to copy the text of the SRD, but under agreed limits. Unless you’re cutting & pasting from the SRD, you’re not using the SRD in a way that needs that license, so the license doesn’t apply. The “no Glorantha” means you can’t copy the SRD then add Glorantha material to it and publish your own version of HQG. If you’re creating content for the Compendium, you’re probably not copying SRD text. So the license doesn’t get involved at all.

So for example, I can’t copy the SRD and then add in rules for making Balazaring characters, to publish “QuestWords: Adventures in Balazar”. The license prohibits that. But I can write up a book on Balazar for the Jonstown compendium with character creation material, because the Jonstown Compendium license gives permission to use Glorantha if I publish it there. I just can’t put anything it it taken from the QWSRD text.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SevenSidedDie said:

Chaosium is allowed to use QuestWorlds without having to go though the SRD license. They already own the words and can do whatever they want with them.

For us, the Jonstown Compendium and the QWSRD don’t overlap. The QWSRD’s license exists to give permission to copy the text of the SRD, but under agreed limits. Unless you’re cutting & pasting from the SRD, you’re not using the SRD in a way that needs that license, so the license doesn’t apply. The “no Glorantha” means you can’t copy the SRD then add Glorantha material to it and publish your own version of HQG. If you’re creating content for the Compendium, you’re probably not copying SRD text. So the license doesn’t get involved at all.

So for example, I can’t copy the SRD and then add in rules for making Balazaring characters, to publish “QuestWords: Adventures in Balazar”. The license prohibits that. But I can write up a book on Balazar for the Jonstown compendium with character creation material, because the Jonstown Compendium license gives permission to use Glorantha if I publish it there. I just can’t put anything it it taken from the QWSRD text.

Good summary.

Valley of Plenty is a good example here. It uses the Glorantha IP under the JC terms and targets the QWSRD 0.1 as its reference rules (the version still hewing very close to HQG) - but it doesn't reprint the SRD text or present hacked rules such that the QWSRD license would rear its head. It includes the JC credits & legal page, rather than the QWSRD license text. 

Where it gets goofy is if you wanted to do some rules-modding. Say you want to write a QW supplement that expands and elaborates rules for package keywords (similar, though not identical to HQ1/Mythic Russia). The QWSRD license permits and encourages such rules-modding, and as long as you use all original cultures in any examples (dodging for the moment the Schroedinggers Cat question of whether the QWSRD license language prohibits real-world proper-nouns that appear in works on the prohibited list), you can release your supplement under the SRD license terms, and other authors could use your keyword-building rules in their own games, mod them further, etc.

However, submitting that supplement or others based on it for publication through JC likely runs afowl of incompatible license terms. You (or anyone, really) might possibly publish Glorantha cultural package keywords in the model of your new QW rules via JC, but only if you were very careful to not include any of the new QWSRD-licensed content in the work itself - much like how Valley of Plenty implements rules from the QWSRD but does not state them. Otherwise the terms would contradict (and Chaos would creep into the world...).

Of course, they might reject it anyway and say that when JC talks about "QuestWorlds" they are only referring to rules in the SRD itself (the JC guidelines sometimes say "QuestWorlds SRD", and sometimes "QuestWorlds rules"), or that your submission (without the off-limits rules text) is indistinguishable from a  HQ1 supplement, which is also not allowed. Hard to say. I'm not aware of anyone having tried such a thing. 

Edited by JonL
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Hi,

I have a question for the Chaosium team: can we create universes in French by translating all or part of the QuestWorlds SRD rules ?

I have the same question of principle for BRP ?

 

"Salut,

j'ai une question pour l'équipe de Chaosium : peut-on créer des univers en Francais en traduisant tout ou partie des règles de QuestWorlds SRD ?

J'ai la même question de principe pour BRP ?"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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...