License alternatives for 3rd party D100 supplements

[Rurik]

Well that is a stupid rule to steal. A magician with an 8 INT only needs a 40% skill in the language to not need a roll but a magician with an 18 INT needs a 90% in the skill to not need a roll?

The fact that Gore contains such a stupid rule is pretty much proof that the mechanic was lifted from straight from Elric! without any thought. If any thought had been put into it I'd think a different mechanic should have been used.

I'd say it is coincidence that the BRP and Gore text are so similiar - they resemble eachother more than either resembles Elric!, which simply states "An adventurer must be able to read the writing to learn from the Grimoire.If possessing less than INTX5% skill in the tongue, use a language roll to judge comprehension."

[GianniVacca]

Frankly I do not understand all the fuss about GORE. Bridge is similar to whist, so should people stop playing bridge??? If the guy who invented the wheel had patented it, we would still be living in caves.

[seneschal]

While I've supported GORE here, I think we can all agree that the ideal situation is to have Chaosium lovingly publish our works (paying us cash in the process) and put them on store shelves. :thumb:

On the other hand, if Chaosium decides that my D100 Sixties hippie soap opera campaign, New Age Commune, the RPG, just doesn't fit in with the rest of it's product line ... well ...

[peterb]

The fact that Gore contains such a stupid rule is pretty much proof that the mechanic was lifted from straight from Elric! without any thought. If any thought had been put into it I'd think a different mechanic should have been used.

So what? What's the fuss? There's no damage done to Chaosium in any way.

[Thalaba]

If the guy who invented the wheel had patented it, we would still be living in caves.

Hmmm... <Wonders: What if the guy who invented the patent had patended it? >

[Rurik]

While I've supported GORE here, I think we can all agree that the ideal situation is to have Chaosium lovingly publish our works (paying us cash in the process) and put them on store shelves. :thumb:

On the other hand, if Chaosium decides that my D100 Sixties hippie soap opera campaign, New Age Commune, the RPG, just doesn't fit in with the rest of it's product line ... well ...

Yeah, anything so I can keep playing my character Peace Dog. He's finally got his Free Love skill up to 85%, and it has such nice synergy with his 'Tobacco' Rolling 90%.

I just hope you you don't do anything earth shattering when the campaign moves into the 70's, like introduce bad shallow glitzy flashy pop music or a new drug or anything like that. Oh well - if you do I suppose you can always fix things in the 80's.

[seneschal]

New Age Commune is the only role-playing game where you kill your ties to the Establishment and the Family takes your stuff.

[Agentorange]

Hmmm... <Wonders: What if the guy who invented the patent had patended it? >

What if there were no hypothetical questions ?

sorry

[Rurik]

The fact that Gore contains such a stupid rule is pretty much proof that the mechanic was lifted from straight from Elric! without any thought. If any thought had been put into it I'd think a different mechanic should have been used.

So what? What's the fuss? There's no damage done to Chaosium in any way.

Don't get me wrong - I am not a GORE hater. I have recommended it numerous times in the past and only stopped doing so because it is unsupported.

I remember when GORE came out and it was long before BRP Edition 0 was released - in fact at the time I think a lot of people had were less than convinced we would ever actually see BRP. It was based on the MRQ SRD, and clearly seemed a reaction to the fact that MRQ was much more different that previous BRP versions than many people liked, so GORE used the SRD and made it much more like BRP.

Did they lift rules straight from Elric! - I'd have to say yes based on the rule in the above quotes (what struck me was 'what a stupid rule to copy'). Is that evil? It never struck me as such at the time. If the author tried to copyright the entire contents of GORE, as apparently he did, that is deplorable, but he also apparently backed off.

I am a big supporter of Open Gaming, and while MRQ wasn't a perfect system by any means it scored a lot of points with me for being open. Is GORE bad for using it? Is OpenQuest bad for using it? It is a matter of degrees I suppose. I never thought of either as bad, being expressions of open gaming.

I know MGP is not a favorite around here, and that some feel they are ripping off the IP of Chaosium - but if you want to see some vitriolic accusations of ripping off IP's and being a deplorable thief and probably even a baby eater just check what was being said about Charlie and Chaosium over at Moorcock's official site before Chaosium licensed (or sold the license?) to Mongoose. Moorcock being the creator of Elric and all.

Stafford is one of the original authors of RQ and he grabbed the TM when Hasbro/WotC graciously let it expire. Stafford licensed it to MGP. I don't see where the evil is. If WotC had re-released RQ3 before the TM expired would they have been evil?

So Mongoose has paid Greg Stafford/Issaries for use of the RQ Trademark, has paid Chaosium for the Moorcock License, pays Moorcock for the EC license and furthermore resolved the whole Moorcock/Chaosium thing to all parties satisfaction. Those Bastards.

Honestly, the Moorcock thing did bug me quite a bit. Moorcock was a very influential author on me since I picked up the Eternal Champion in a used bookstore when I was 12, and the game that 'saved me from D&D" was Stormbringer 1st edition, which I bought because it was Moorcock - from that day forward BRP has been my primary rule system. So while the Moorcock/Chaosium row did pain me, I think this whole GORE thing is kind of overblown, largely because GORE right now is almost completely insignificant.

There. Misunderstand the point of one of my quotes again and I may subject you to an even longer dissertations on subject of varying relevance to the original topic.

[Trifletraxor]

Although one or two folks agree with me, the consensus of the board seems to be that GORE is (insert reverb here) EVIL or unnecessary, or both. ;-(

It has its flaws, but I like the fact that it's free.

Does Chaosium have control of, or own, the Cthulhu mythos?

Are the works of Lovecraft in the public domain?

The works of Lovecraft recently entered the public domain. Chaosium only have the copyright for the Call of Cthulhu RPG (and all its supplements). It is however too established as has too much support for the other Cthulhu RPGs to have a fighting chance against it.

Yeah, anything so I can keep playing my character Peace Dog. He's finally got his Free Love skill up to 85%, and it has such nice synergy with his 'Tobacco' Rolling 90%.

Tobacco? Right...

SGL.

[frogspawner]

The fact that <some RPG> contains such a stupid rule is pretty much proof that the mechanic was lifted from straight from Elric! without any thought. If any thought had been put into it I'd think a different mechanic should have been used.

Careful, Rurik - we don't want to upset Jason now, do we?

Don't get me wrong - I am not a GORE hater.

I hope no one thinks I am, either. Just trying to get the Truth here. If, as it seems to be proving, this GORE 'rip-off' accusation is basically groundless - inspired by BRP, rather than copied from BRP - then fine. We'll have suddenly re-gained another OGL BRP-friendly rules-set, another option for anyone who's not so keen on OpenQuest. And also a model for anyone who'd like to do something similar...

(I wonder what NickM will say about this though...)

[vagabond]

Well that is a stupid rule to steal. A magician with an 8 INT only needs a 40% skill in the language to not need a roll but a magician with an 18 INT needs a 90% in the skill to not need a roll?

The fact that Gore contains such a stupid rule is pretty much proof that the mechanic was lifted from straight from Elric! without any thought. If any thought had been put into it I'd think a different mechanic should have been used.

Well, there is the issue that a sorceror needs a minimum INT of 15 in Elric!,

so in reality, they need a minimum of 75% in a any language. I don't recall

if GORE also required a minimum INT of 15. However, the rules is still kind

of weird in that the higher the INT, the higher the necessary skill. The

rule should probably be a flat 75% in language confers sufficient fluency

for spellcasting purposes.

My problem with GORE is not that it exists, but it is that when it was originally

released, it did not adhere to the OGL properly, and attempted to close every

bit of text as PI even though it was a direct violation of both OGLs it

referenced. I am glad that issue was corrected, but it has permanently

soured my opinion of the product.

Ian

Edited December 7, 2009 by vagabond

[vagabond]

Chaosium licensed (or sold the license?) to Mongoose.

To the best of my understanding - sold it. If they had licensed it, I would

expect Chaosium could produce and sell material based upon the EC license

as well. However, since they seem to not be able to, it appears that the

agreement was an outright sale and release of all interest in it.

Ian

[Rurik]

The fact that <some RPG> contains such a stupid rule is pretty much proof that the mechanic was lifted from straight from Elric! without any thought. If any thought had been put into it I'd think a different mechanic should have been used.

Careful, Rurik - we don't want to upset Jason now, do we?

But Jason is allowed to lift rules straight from Elric! I think the rule could use some improvement but there is no question about whether it was moral for him to do so.

[vagabond]

I've been meaning to reply to this:

I am interested in views regarding section "C.09 What went wrong with the D20 effort?" of the following link:

THE UNAUTHORIZED UNOFFICIAL OPEN GAMING LICENSE OGL D20 FAQ

Anyway, I always find it interesting when people say the d20 OGL failed in a

general sense, and then go on to say it failed as an open source effort.

Especially when they base that failure upon comparison with GPL software.

For one, the d20 OGL did not fail entirely. It was actually very successful, and

led to the rise of such companies as Mongoose, Green Ronin and others. I would

say that the big stumble occurred in the migration from 3.0 to 3.5, which led

to a splintering of efforts, and then the restrictions placed on 4.0 which

is not truly OGL'd. Hasbro, WotC and D&D enjoyed a bit of a renaissance.

Now, as to the concept of the d20 OGL (and RPG OGLs in general) also was

not a complete failure, as evidenced by the amount of material, companies

that sprang forth, and new OGLs created. OGLs provided a means for designers

to release toolkit versions of their systems so that other designers could build

upon those toolkits and return some of their effort back to the community.

This worked quite well. The issue raised in the section you note is almost a

non-issue. Who cares if designers chose not to open up their own material?

That kind of is their right. As long as they did not attempt to close material

already open, and clearly marked open game content as such, then all is

good. But that wasn't the point of the line used - the point of the line was to

basically protect the things the designers wanted to protect. The rule of the

OGL is declare all OGC as OGC, and the rest can be PI. And that is what was

done for the most part. Designers had to declare previous OGC as OGC, and

could provide new OGC if they so chose, and then the rest would remain IP

and protected. I see no problem here. I see no problem with people trying to

make money using a license as it was intended.

Ian

[NickMiddleton]

...(I wonder what NickM will say about this though...)

What I said 11 pages back:

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, or when GORE was released and frankly, the more often it happens, the more contemptible it gets, not less.

As for licenses, I'll repeat what I said earlier as well:

If you want to do something for BRP, ask Chaosium. If the BRP brand / specific rules set isn't important, just use the OGL and the OGC it gives you access to.

Nick

[Atgxtg]

Why would you use GORE, an unsupported system, over OpenQuest, which is supported?

In theory because someone liked the way GORE did something better than the way OpenQuest did. Personally I'm not a GORE fan, but if I were running something as a GM, I'd use whatever I felt would work best for my game. If I thought GORE was better than OpenQuest I'd use it.

From a publishing standpoint I could see someone using GORE because it better suited whatever they were trying to write. After all, it's not hard to write a supplement that doesn't even refer to the rules as such, and just lists stats. That said stats are fairly compatible with a host of RPGs isn't actionable or even objectionable.

[peterb]

If you want to do something for BRP, ask Chaosium. If the BRP brand / specific rules set isn't important, just use the OGL and the OGC it gives you access to.

Well, this is (to some extent at least) true for a commercial project of course. But if all you want to do is to publish your own adventure or setting on your own website (or a site like this) then go ahead. Just don't copy text, art etc.

If you plan to do your own BRP clone, then the OGL route is the fastest approach. Still, you could write your own d100 compatible game. Just use your own words.

[Atgxtg]

These were just two examples that caught my eye from a casual look-through, the other day after the subject of GORE came up in this thread. Maybe there are other examples. Maybe there aren't. Maybe the wording isn't close enough to be a problem legally. But GORE's source seems apparent and, to me, "dodgy".

No problem whatsoever legally. The wording is the only copyright issue. Someone could copy all the rules from Elric, assuming that they change the wording. Where they would get in trouble is with the characters and setting.

As far a morally, I doubt everyone will have the same opinion. I for one thought it was pretty shoddy for Greg Stafford to be able to buy the right to the RQ name (after Chaosium let them lapse) and then lease it out to Mongoose to do whatever they wished with. Legally, Mongoose could do anything with the name they wished, including putting it on a line of D&D 3.5 supplements. Legally they can also call their RPG RuneQuest or RuneQuest 2, or even RuneQuest 12 if they so desire. That's what they paid for.

Personally, I don't think it is morally right for them to call their RPG RuneQust or RuneQuest 2 or RuneQuest II, and would prefer that they use something else, in order to avoid confusion with the previous games from Chasoium. But that's me. Other don't see this as a moral problem.

Likewise, not everyone sees GORE as a moral problem. The authors followed the letter of the law. System can't be protected by copyright, so legally are fair game. Personally I found Mongooses advertising of MRQ to have been misleading and morally objectionable (I think even legally actionable), with exaggerations as to the involvement of Steve Perrin and Greg Stafford in the development of MRQ. Yet most people didn't have a problem with it.

[frogspawner]

But Jason is allowed to lift rules straight from Elric! I think the rule could use some improvement but there is no question about whether it was moral for him to do so.

Now you're misunderstanding my quote! It was the 'without any thought' bit I was thinking of...

Anyway, I always find it interesting when people say the d20 OGL failed in a general sense, and then go on to say it failed as an open source effort. Especially when they base that failure upon comparison with GPL software. ... I see no problem with people trying to

make money using a license as it was intended.

But, assuming we don't want to make any money on it, wouldn't a GPL be better than OGL? As I understand it, derivatives of a GPL are automatically GPL too (so no creeping protectionism later, under the guise of IP).

What I said 11 pages back:

Meh. I would've thought, since we've found no significant copying of BRP-related material in GORE (just a shade, or 'inspiration'), that you might've shifted your hard line at least a little.

My problem with GORE is not that it exists, but it is that when it was originally released, it did not adhere to the OGL properly, and attempted to close every bit of text as PI even though it was a direct violation of both OGLs it referenced. I am glad that issue was corrected, but it has permanently soured my opinion of the product.

Personally, I can forgive Daniel Proctor (the GORE guy) quite a lot for it's introductory section "What is Role-playing? Only kidding!..."

[threedeesix]

It's a restatement of the MRQ SRD. I've always seen GORE as trying to fill the same niche that Classic Fantasy has entered lately.

Not really, where Gore is essentially emulating the same genre (horror) with very similar rules (BRP), Classic Fantasy is only emulating the genre of D&D, but not the rules.

Put another way, Gore attempted to grant the reader a way of playing a game like COC, with rules like COC, making itself an alternative to that game. Where Classic Fantasy allows the reader a way of playing in a setting like D&D, but with totally unrelated rules. If you like levels, uber hit points, and a D20 " roll high" game mechanic, you won't like Classic Fantasy.

I have never read Gore so I'm not posting this as either for or against the concept, just wanted to get my game out of the discussion.

Rod

[frogspawner]

Personally, I don't think it is morally right for them to call their RPG RuneQust or RuneQuest 2 or RuneQuest II, and would prefer that they use something else, in order to avoid confusion with the previous games from Chasoium. But that's me. Other don't see this as a moral problem.

But they certainly can't call any game "RuinQuest" - that name's reserved for my upcoming BRP-clone RPG...

[seneschal]

I have never read Gore so I'm not posting this as either for or against the concept, just wanted to get my game out of the discussion.

Rod

Awww, no room here for false modesty. You really want us to discuss Classic Fantasy as much as possible, in every context possible, with as many people as possible, to generate as many sales as possible. After all, "no publicity is bad publicity. A chicken in every pot; a Classic Fantasy on every shelf!"

[Thalaba]

But they certainly can't call any game "RuinQuest" - that name's reserved for my upcoming BRP-clone RPG...

Or RuneQuetzal, reserved for my South American game.

[Rurik]

I have never read Gore so I'm not posting this as either for or against the concept, just wanted to get my game out of the discussion.

Rod

Too late - you and your product have had your names sullied by mere inclusion in this thread. You are now guilty of ripping off Chaosium, Micheal Moorcock AND Gary Gygax, and may the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Himself just a rip-off of Cthulhu) have mercy on your doomed soul when the Thetans destroy the earth in 2012.

Have a nice day.