deleriad Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 TGFKARQII appears to be the game that will probably be known as Legend. Planet Mongoose blog goes into detail about it. Most interesting thing, trying to parse it, is that they are using an 'open' licence for Legend. A very open licence. Want to use the text? Then do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RosenMcStern Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 RQII is now Legend! Still, the sound of it has some sinister implications. As for the license, I had hoped they would understand that the OGL is not a complication but a necessity (Moon Design requires a written acnowledgement of the HQ Gateway license for very good reasons, even though there is no SRD). They did not. Best wishes to those who want to make Legend-compatible products. This will definitely not include Alephtar Games. Quote Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickMiddleton Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 As for the license, I had hoped they would understand that the OGL is not a complication but a necessity (Moon Design requires a written acnowledgement of the HQ Gateway license for very good reasons, even though there is no SRD). They did not. Best wishes to those who want to make Legend-compatible products. This will definitely not include Alephtar Games. IIRC Moon Design DON'T use the OGL though. SOme sort oif license, if you wish to protect you trademark is essential I agree, but I'm not sure that's where MGP are going: Finally, we have decided to proceed with an 'open' licence for Legend. This will allow anyone to publish pretty much anything they like using the RQII/Legend mechanics. However, we are going to make it easier to operate and be a part of. There will be no registration required and no complicated contracts or agreements. You will simply abide by a few very easy rules (such as not copying the front cover designs of our books), put a Legend Compatible logo on the front, and you will be good to go! There will be no SRD - instead, you may freely use anything that appears in the core book range - from the schedule above, this will include the main rulebook, Monsters of Legend, Arms of Legend and Vikings of Legend. And yes, when they appear (likely in summer 2012), Samurai and Pirates of Legend too! "Legend" would be challenging to register a trademark on I suspect - and prepping an SRD is clearly more work than MGP are prepared to go to (plus, it does encourage people to produce their OWN core rulebooks). On the other hand, setting up a trademark license that says "you can say Compatible with Legend" in return for following a couple rules lets them keep core book sales themselves and everyone's supplements help their core sales. What they DON'T want is Clockwork & Chivalry switching to BRP or OpenQuest and at this stage they can't openly admit that the core text is likely to remain "closed", but that they are planning avery relaxed "referencing / claiming compatibility" approach, but that's how I read: So, if you want to construct your own Viking saga, for example, you can do so using Vikings of Legend as the foundation, and then publish it alongside our core book. Note, NOT "You can publish your own standalone Viking saga using text from out core books". Which to be honest, is what I thought was the only sensible move when they first mooted some sort of open license for notMRQ2. They want to encourage third party support, NOT third party cloning (albeit the irony of this, given it's Mongoose is hilarious...) We'll see what they do come the autumn - I'm still waiting for an announcement related to this that has the "Wow!" factor that convinces me not-MRQ2 will still be around this time next year to be honest... Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tedopon Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 We'll see what they do come the autumn - I'm still waiting for an announcement related to this that has the "Wow!" factor that convinces me not-MRQ2 will still be around this time next year to be honest... It would be incredible if the product and their faith/investment in it failed that quickly. I'm more interested in what is going on with the system in two years. Quote 121/420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RosenMcStern Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 IIRC Moon Design DON'T use the OGL though. SOme sort oif license, if you wish to protect you trademark is essential I agree, but I'm not sure that's where MGP are going: Moon Design uses a license that has some validity, i.e. it binds both parties. Actually, IANAL, but the person who made the policy and paperworks for the lightweight (but functional) HQ Gateway license _IS_ a lawyer. OTOH, would the fact that Matt Sprange said in his blog "Just put Compatible with Legend on the front cover", without any signed agreement whatsoever, protect the third party in case Mongoose changes its mind? Not that it has _EVER_ happened that Matt Sprange changed his mind, of course. "Legend" would be challenging to register a trademark on I suspect I suppose Ridley Scott would agree with you What they DON'T want is Clockwork & Chivalry switching to BRP or OpenQuest and at this stage they can't openly admit that the core text is likely to remain "closed", but that they are planning avery relaxed "referencing / claiming compatibility" approach I.E. the same license model as BRP, except you do not pay for it. Which to be honest, is what I thought was the only sensible move when they first mooted some sort of open license for notMRQ2. They want to encourage third party support, NOT third party cloning (albeit the irony of this, given it's Mongoose is hilarious...) Changing the licensing model every other year is a sure way to ensure third party support We'll see what they do come the autumn - I'm still waiting for an announcement related to this that has the "Wow!" factor that convinces me not-MRQ2 will still be around this time next year to be honest... The appearance of this new game is a Legend... Quote Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleriad Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 IIRC Moon Design DON'T use the OGL though. SOme sort oif license, if you wish to protect you trademark is essential I agree, but I'm not sure that's where MGP are going: "Legend" would be challenging to register a trademark on I suspect - and prepping an SRD is clearly more work than MGP are prepared to go to (plus, it does encourage people to produce their OWN core rulebooks). On the other hand, setting up a trademark license that says "you can say Compatible with Legend" in return for following a couple rules lets them keep core book sales themselves and everyone's supplements help their core sales. What they DON'T want is Clockwork & Chivalry switching to BRP or OpenQuest and at this stage they can't openly admit that the core text is likely to remain "closed", but that they are planning avery relaxed "referencing / claiming compatibility" approach, but that's how I read: Note, NOT "You can publish your own standalone Viking saga using text from out core books". Which to be honest, is what I thought was the only sensible move when they first mooted some sort of open license for notMRQ2. They want to encourage third party support, NOT third party cloning (albeit the irony of this, given it's Mongoose is hilarious...) We'll see what they do come the autumn - I'm still waiting for an announcement related to this that has the "Wow!" factor that convinces me not-MRQ2 will still be around this time next year to be honest... Nick It does say explicitly "instead, you may freely use anything that appears in the core book range" and they have previously said that instead of creating a SRD that you can just treat the book as if it were a SRD so it seems that might be the way they're going. That said, I don't know any more than anyone else here. From watching how they operate this looks like a bit of a "hail mary" approach. Throw the rulebook up in the air and see who runs with it. As for what happens next. I have no interest in the reprints. I have them already. Spider God's Bride might be of interest. The only thing worthwhile about the Deus Vult setting (in my eyes) was Gareth Hanrahan's writing. Personally I reckon TGFKARQII will stand or fall by 3rd party products. The more open the text is, the more the chance that something compelling emerges from the crowd. Assuming there is a crowd. One thing that might be an issue is that RQII was fairly complementary to BRP. Neither was open and both had their niche. I always got the impression that sales of one had the potential to help the sales of another. If Legend is completely open then there'll be an immediate opening for adaptations to other genres and self-publishing. Should that start to take off it risks competing BRP rather than complementing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icebrand Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 But... But... LEGEND? C'mon!!!! How come mongoose is publishing RQ under an original name? I wish they think this through... It's such a let-down!!! Can't they go for something like... IDK, GORP, or RuneSlayers, or even HeroWars... Quote "It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vile Traveller Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 If Legend is MRQ2 with Glorantha excised and no new unique material added, there would be very little point in producing an SRD because none of that material would be copyrightable anyway. Essentially, the SRD would be the rules, just less verbose (not saying the text is verbose!). But I do believe a logo licence (as opposed to an OGL) would be more reassuring for 3rd party publishers. The RPG industry is full of people who have been screwed over because of shoddy contractual arrangements. I would be very leery of printing a bunch of books with a compatibility logo on the front on the basis of not-even-a-handshake. And without the logo, anybody could make products "compatible" with a generic roleplaying system as long as they don't plagiarise the text. I hope they see sense and introduce a logo licence when they've had time to think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoking Frog Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Not too long ago, I looked at various permutations of "open" content and "compatible-with" trademark licenses. My first impression of what Mongoose intends to do is that is is unwise, but ultimately may not really matter. Because game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, "open" content for games is actually not very important. I can take anyone's game system and, so long as I don't use their exact words, put together a book that does nothing new and call it whatever I want. So I could cobble together "SmokingFrog's Totally Derivative, Nothing New RPG" and use the benefits of self-publishing to try to take money from some gullible gamers. So it seems to me that essentially all of the value you will get from doing a "compatible-with" product is in the trademark. The trademark "Alphetar Games" tells me the source of the product, and the value of the trademark is precisely that my prior experience with their books leads me to assume their next book will also be good. So even if "BRP Accountants: Adventures in Office Cubicles" doesn't look too interesting, I might buy it just because I have faith in the company, which faith, of course would soon disappear . . . But a trademark like "Compatible with Legend" doesn't tell the consumer anything about the source of the book. That logo is valuable to third-party publishers only to the extent that Mongoose has created a valuable market for its Legend game. That is, only to the extent that the "compatible with" logo promises sales for third-party books. But if the consumer starts to view a compatibility logo, like say "d20" for example, as just meaning "really likely to be a pile of crap," the logo is worthless and it may in fact hurt the value of the original game publisher's trademarks. Paizo and Pinnacle Entertainment care about the quality of third-party books that use their compatible-with logo because they don't want their own trademarks to be damaged by some scoundrel putting out a pile of crap. But Pathfinder and Savage Worlds are popular enough that it might be worth if for a scoundrel to put out a garbage product and hope that no one notices until it is too late. For that reason, I think that doing nothing to control the quality of third-party products using your compatible-with logo is unwise. But in the end, that should only matter if Mongoose is able to expand the market for Legend products greatly. Since from what I can see the number of third-party publishers who will be doing compatible products will likely be fewer for Legend than for MRQII, and since the RQ part of MRQII is gone because of apparently poor sales, the whole thing might be utterly without consequence. This may be an odd case where the quality of the third-party books -- like Clockwork & Chivalry -- may actually make the parent trademark more valuable. Some day Mongoose might even be studied in business schools. Edited June 16, 2011 by Smoking Frog Quote My avatar is the personal glyph of Siyaj K'ak' a.k.a. "Smoking Frog." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camazotz Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Well, I for one am happy, if only because "Legend" flows more easily off the tongue than Wayfarers, and the guys behind the actual Wayfarers game appear to have gotten a nice distribution deal out of this affair. Moreover, my long-running RQII project for my Realms of Chirak campaign can now see the light of day as a Legend-compatible product. Better yet, I suspect it will be easier to get my FLGS to carry Legend and showcase it as "its own thing," something they have been largely unwilling to do with RQII since it was overshadowed by the legacy of MRQ, which burned my FLGS with stock that they couldn't move due to poor sales, bad rep, and that whole incident with the shoddy book binding a few years back. Seriously, I have had to beg the FLGS to special order RQII books for me and my cohorts over the last year, and I could never quite determine if the books were simply that difficult for them to locate through their distirbutor, or they were simply reluctant to buy books, even with myself and my group asserting we would buy them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 With luck RQII/Wayfarer/Legend could become History. Does anyone still think Mongoose Publishing is a good thing for BRP? Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoking Frog Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Moon Design uses a license that has some validity, i.e. it binds both parties. Actually, IANAL, but the person who made the policy and paperworks for the lightweight (but functional) HQ Gateway license _IS_ a lawyer. OTOH, would the fact that Matt Sprange said in his blog "Just put Compatible with Legend on the front cover", without any signed agreement whatsoever, protect the third party in case Mongoose changes its mind? Not that it has _EVER_ happened that Matt Sprange changed his mind, of course. One thing I don't particularly like about the HQ Gateway license is the effect of 10.1, which gives MD the right to terminate the license, and 10.3, which requires the terminated licensee to destroy any remaining stock after only 30 days. If MD decides to changes its business model and stop the free license, they can put the third-party suppliers in a bind. I would prefer a longer time to be able to sell off my remaining stock, although obviously it can't be indefinite. Your willingness to get into this sort of arrangement seems to turn on the amount of trust you have in MD not pulling the rug out from under you. But it would seem that that will be the case with any license where the other guy has the right to terminate you in his discretion. Quote My avatar is the personal glyph of Siyaj K'ak' a.k.a. "Smoking Frog." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilHibbs Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Does anyone still think Mongoose Publishing is a good thing for BRP? They produced what I consider to be the best incarnation of the RQ/BRP system so far, and a cracking set of Gloranthan publications that I'm having a great time running. I accept that they also produced some stinkers, though, and made a lot of enemies early on. I wasn't burned by an early negative experience, I bought into Mongoose RuneQuest after they put their house in order. I can understand that some people are skeptical about whether they might revert to their earlier form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilHibbs Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 One thing I don't particularly like about the HQ Gateway license is the effect of 10.1, which gives MD the right to terminate the license, and 10.3, which requires the terminated licensee to destroy any remaining stock after only 30 days. Good grief that's hideous. Why would anyone agree to that licence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rust Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Good grief that's hideous. Why would anyone agree to that licence? It could still be acceptable for someone who publishes by print on demand. Quote "Mind like parachute, function only when open." (Charlie Chan) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seneschal Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 "Legend," huh? So, how do Tom Cruise and Tim Curry figure into this? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089469/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thalaba Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Legend? Maybe it's short for "Legend in his own mind". Quote "Tell me what you found, not what you lost" Mesopotamian proverb __________________________________ Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rust Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Legend? Maybe it's short for "Legend in his own mind". Hmmm ... "Matthew Sprange - I am Legend" could be a good line for Mongoose's marketing ... Quote "Mind like parachute, function only when open." (Charlie Chan) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 They produced what I consider to be the best incarnation of the RQ/BRP system so far, and a cracking set of Gloranthan publications that I'm having a great time running. I accept that they also produced some stinkers, though, and made a lot of enemies early on. I wasn't burned by an early negative experience, I bought into Mongoose RuneQuest after they put their house in order. I can understand that some people are skeptical about whether they might revert to their earlier form. You think MRQ is the best version of RQ/BRP! Oh, maybe you mean MRQII? As for reverting to eariler form, I think the current form is bad enough. Tick off RQ fans with the RQII name, then drop the name and leave fans and 3rd party vendors in the lurch. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilHibbs Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 You think MRQ is the best version of RQ/BRP! Oh, maybe you mean MRQII? As for reverting to eariler form, I think the current form is bad enough. Tick off RQ fans with the RQII name, then drop the name and leave fans and 3rd party vendors in the lurch. Yes, I mean MRQ2. Dropping the RQ name isn't ideal, but if they're pouring good money after bad into the RQ/Glorantha licence hole, I don't blame them for ending it. Sub-licencing the RQ brand to 3rd party vendors must have been a tricky prospect given that it isn't their trademark, and the 3rd party vendors must have known that. If they wanted to hitch a ride on the goodwill of the RuneQuest name, then they must have realised the ground on which they were treading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Meints Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 As to the HeroQuest Gateway license: It is mainly geared for print-on-demand (POD) publishers which would realistically not have large stocks of books in inventory. Like all agreements, specific adjustments to terms can be negotiated. Thus far, all agreements have gone smoothly, and we have not even felt the need to consider terminating a license. Quote Hope that Helps,Rick Meints -Â Chaosium, Inc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RosenMcStern Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Good grief that's hideous. Why would anyone agree to that licence? Apart from Rick's reply above about short-time notices, I have dealt with licenses issued by Issaries, Moon Design, Mongoose and Chaosium. Guess who is the only one of the four mentioned above who actually did pull a license and left me with stock in the warehouse? Quote Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rust Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Guess who is the only one of the four mentioned above who actually did pull a license and left me with stock in the warehouse? And put the blame on you, see Planet Mongoose, 24/05/11: On this note, we were accused on one forum of deliberately stuffing over 3rd party publishers who have warehouses stacked full of RQ-branded books. This is absolutely not the case. The issue here is that said publishers dropped comple- tely off our radar and, as far as we knew, they were not publishing anything - it is fundamentally _not_ our job to chase after said 3rd party publishers. It is their duty to keep us in the loop. If they had, like the chaps working on Clockwork & Chivalry always have, they too would have been informed before we made the announcement. It is not our intention to stuff anyone over, but we also expect anyone operating a business using our property to take responsibility for their own work. If you just tell us what you are doing and when, you'll find we are quite helpful! Quote "Mind like parachute, function only when open." (Charlie Chan) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoking Frog Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 As to the HeroQuest Gateway license: It is mainly geared for print-on-demand (POD) publishers which would realistically not have large stocks of books in inventory. Like all agreements, specific adjustments to terms can be negotiated. Thus far, all agreements have gone smoothly, and we have not even felt the need to consider terminating a license. I was not making a major criticism of the license. In fact, I am impressed that you all did that much work on it. I just thought that the 30 days was a bit short, compared to the 6 month period that a licensee gets if he terminates the license. If most folks do POD, then it probably isn't something to quibble over. (I know RosenMcStern had complained that he had printed books in his warehouse that he's stuck with.) I know it seems odd to some to enter into an agreement where the other side has the right to terminate you at their sole discretion, but I think you'd have to be crazy to let someone use your IP for free without having an unrestricted right to terminate the agreement at any time. A license for a particular period of time or that cannot be revoked except under certain conditions is going to be anything but free. But that's why I said that your willingness to enter into this sort of agreement really is going to depend on your trust that the other side won't do something to make you regret investing the resources. Quote My avatar is the personal glyph of Siyaj K'ak' a.k.a. "Smoking Frog." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoking Frog Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 And put the blame on you, see Planet Mongoose, 24/05/11: That is the sort of quote that makes me really reluctant to entangle myself with someone. The rights and wrongs of who should have been talking to whom is maybe debatable. But I was turned off by the self-righteous lack of concern about their partners. ("it is not our job . . . ") Contrast that with Rick Meints comments a few posts up. There's a lot to be said for a charitable, friendly attitude about things. Quote My avatar is the personal glyph of Siyaj K'ak' a.k.a. "Smoking Frog." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.