MRQII is now not Wayfarer it is Legend

[RosenMcStern]

And put the blame on you, see Planet Mongoose, 24/05/11:

LOL. That publisher is Asterion, not us (although the "accuser" is possibly me). They are the only other 3rd party publisher using RQ. Also, I may be mistaken, but I remember Ken Walton stating on the C&W blog that they were informed by Mongoose the day before they made the announcement. Oh, and the statement that the publisher fell off their radar is horse poo of the finest quality. He knew that they were publishing stuff. He has a darn copy of anything they published, just as he has a darn copy of everything we published for MRQ1. He just ignores the stuff submitted to him by anyone (except Angus).

And BTW, I have 30-something copies of books in the warehouse,so my complaints are purely a matter of principle, not of money. On the other hand, Asterion has 2400. Coupla orders of magnitude of difference...

Edited June 16, 2011 by RosenMcStern

[rust]

Oh, and the statement that the publisher fell off their radar is horse poo of the finest quality ...

Apart from that, not keeping an eye on what the third party publishers are doing

with the license ("our property") would seem rather ... unwise.

[Smoking Frog]

And BTW, I have 30-something copies of books in the warehouse,so my complaints are purely a matter of principle, not of money. On the other hand, Asterion has 2400. Coupla orders of magnitude of difference...

30 is not too bad, but 2400 is painful to think about. I'm curious, if you don't mind divulging "trade secrets," whether the Mongoose license had any provisions covering what the parties could do after the license was terminated.

[RosenMcStern]

I only used the Logo license, which was public so no trade secret, and it says that publication should cease. In theory, I could sell them all at the auction in Castle Stahleck, as that is a private affair, but this would give Rick a sore throat.

I do not have the details about negotiated licenses (C&W and Asterion) and, basically, it is their business, not mine, but I know that both parties have found a settlement.

Apart from that, not keeping an eye on what the third party publishers are doing

with the license ("our property") would seem rather ... unwise.

IANAL, but I think that under US law, it might even invalidate your rights to your IP, as you are not protecting it.

[K Peterson]

With luck RQII/Wayfarer/Legend could become History.

Does anyone still think Mongoose Publishing is a good thing for BRP?

Is there that much bile for MRQII among BRP fans? I don't follow these forums that regularly, so perhaps that's the norm and I've just missed it.

To answer your question: no, I think that Mongoose Publishing is probably quite a bad thing for BRP - at least in terms of fantasy/historical campaigning. Strong competition, a more focused rules set, hell - a pretty damn entertaining rules set for sword & sorcery rpging. If there was emphasis (product lines) for other genres of rpging, using the BRP core, developed or pushed aggressively by Chaosium, then the relevance of Mongoose Publishing would probably evaporate.

But that hasn't happened in the 3 years since BRP's release, and there aren't signs of that ever happening. And, I blame the publisher for that.

[rust]

Is there that much bile for MRQII among BRP fans?

No, not really, in fact MRQII has been welcomed and treated very friendly by

most - but the publisher, Mongoose, is considered as having a rather tarnished

reputation, and his decision to basically kill MRQII by removing all Glorantha con-

nections and turning it into a generic fantasy system was not exactly applauded.

[NickMiddleton]

Is there that much bile for MRQII among BRP fans?

For MRQ2, not really, no. It's a highly regarded variant of the BRP/RQ rules written by well respected members of the community. The company it was/is published by however are not universally well regarded, for a number of reasons that stretch back a number of years and not all of which are specifically related to MRQ/MRQ2/Glorantha.

Suffice to say that Mongoose polarise opinion in a way that MRQ2 itself does not.

(I could be a politician me...)

Nick

[Smoking Frog]

IANAL, but I think that under US law, it might even invalidate your rights to your IP, as you are not protecting it.

Under US trademark law, if you don't enforce your rights against people who violate your rights, your trademark will eventually lapse. The logic of this is that trademarks are the way you identify your products to the consumer. If you don't care about other products having your trademark, you obviously don't think this is how consumers identify your product. If I remember rightly, there needs to be a pattern of violations without any enforcement, so there's not much danger if you are inattentive while you only have a handful of licensees. And there's no problem at all if the licensees, being good boys and girls, are actually abiding by the license requirements. But obviously it's not the best course to take if you have valuable trademarks.

[lawrence.whitaker]

and his decision to basically kill MRQII by removing all Glorantha connections and turning it into a generic fantasy system was not exactly applauded.

Your assertion is inaccurate. It was a decision reached mutually and amicably with Issaries. It wasn't unilateral by Mongoose which is what you're implying (and none of the press releases I've seen have indicated anything to the contrary). And, as far as 'not exactly applauded' is concerned, well, that's wrong too. There's been quite a lot of praise for divorcing MRQII from Glorantha (do check out the threads regarding this on RPGnet and The RPGsite is you want some proof).

[fmitchell]

There's been quite a lot of praise for divorcing MRQII from Glorantha (do check out the threads regarding this on RPGnet and The RPGsite is you want some proof).

QFT

Like its "inspiration" BRP, MRQII is a fine generic RPG system (slanted somewhat toward fantasy). Whatever the business maneuverings involved, cleanly separating the system from a specific game world can only be a good thing. (Unless Mongoose does its all-too-common slapdash job on Wayfarer / Legend, or somehow screws up on their promise of making the whole system open content.)

[Jeff Richard]

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.)

Let me just jump in here. Under the HQ Gateway license, our main remedy for most breaches of the license is termination. So if you breach the HQG license (by including Gloranthan material, by reprinting large sections of the rules without our permission, by writing FATAL 2, etc), we are going to terminate the license and then you have 1 month to get rid of your stock. That's pretty much the only context I can ever imagine terminating the HQG license and I think everyone producing product under the license is aware of that.

Jeff

[Smoking Frog]

or somehow screws up on their promise of making the whole system open content.)

As I noted above, since game mechanics can't be copyrighted anyway, I don't think whether the game is "open content" will matter. What should matter to a potential outside publisher is whether the "Compatible with Legend" trademark or the "uses the Legend system" trademark is likely to sell books. The transaction costs involved in arranging a licensing agreement are fairly small in an industry where folks are happy to let you use their logo for free so long as they think your book will generate some interest. Ultimately I would expect whether the rule system is "open content" would not be a particularly important factor in an outside publisher's decision of whether "compatible with Legend" or "compatible with BRP" or "compatible with HeroQuest" or something else is the best way to go for their book.

[rust]

And, as far as 'not exactly applauded' is concerned, well, that's wrong too. There's been quite a lot of praise for divorcing MRQII from Glorantha (do check out the threads regarding this on RPGnet and The RPGsite is you want some proof).

Sorry, I forgot to add the usual "over here".

Here Runequest with the Glorantha setting was still a rather well known brand,

which now disappears from the shelves and is replaced by Legend, which is un-

known and for most roleplayers just another generic fantasy system in a market

where there are already dozens of that kind, most of which come and go rather

quickly. For those who liked the Glorantha setting, the game is now dead, and

for those looking for a generic fantasy system it is just one of already too many

options, and it will be very difficult to convince them that it is good enough to

spend money on an English language game when there are so many in German.

From my point of view, and from what I hear over here, divorcing the system

from the well known setting and changing its well known name into an unknown

one eliminated the one real advantage, brand recognition, it had over other sys-

tems available over here. Add to this the fact that Mongoose has a very bad re-

putation over here, whether deserved or not, and the start for Legend will be a

very difficult one.

[Smoking Frog]

Let me just jump in here. Under the HQ Gateway license, our main remedy for most breaches of the license is termination. So if you breach the HQG license (by including Gloranthan material, by reprinting large sections of the rules without our permission, by writing FATAL 2, etc), we are going to terminate the license and then you have 1 month to get rid of your stock. That's pretty much the only context I can ever imagine terminating the HQG license and I think everyone producing product under the license is aware of that.

Jeff

Let me reiterate that I was not making a major criticism of the license and in fact I was impressed with what you all put together. If I had a Tardis, I think I'd go back and write my original comment differently. I labor under the disability of actually being a lawyer, so I usually think about what if things don't work out or go terribly wrong, what will happen to me/my client. (One of the most bitter disputes between former business partners I ever saw was one that started over who got to use the company's hockey tickets. It sounds nutty, but people are funny.) And I think it is perfectly reasonable for a someone to change his mind about the sort of business model he wants to use. Even if someone can't see a reason he would change his mind now, it's not a crime for him to change his mind later, and I think it's best for agreements to explicitly recognize that.

If I were negotiating a license agreement, I might ask for a provision where if I'm terminated for breach of the agreement, I have to cease selling my stock immediately, but if I am terminated for any other reason, I get 6 months to sell it off. (That's not original to me, by the way, I stole the idea from a standard agreement I read once.)

[RosenMcStern]

his decision to basically kill MRQII by removing all Glorantha con-

nections and turning it into a generic fantasy system was not exactly applauded.

To strengthen what Loz already stated, the perception of the decline of RuneQuest in the 80s as caused by its decoupling from Glorantha is a common thought among old hardcore fan. But it is not the truth. The reasons were different. A lot of people like RuneQuest, but not Glorantha, so making the ruleset generic is no "seppuku". The reason for most skepticism is the relationship between MGP and other actors, not the quality of the product or the appeal it may have to the public. Fans will still like the game.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

While I share the general belief that decoupling MRQ2 from Glorantha will not harm the game (based on my personal decoupling of RQII from Glorantha back in the 80's), we shall have to wait and see how successful the rules are on their own merits when Legend comes out later this year. RuneQuest magic, in particular, has always been extremely Gloranthan. And it is undeniable that the name RuneQuest still has a lot of power in the RPG community.

I wish it well, and I hope Mongoose sort out the logo licence and we get some 3PP action.

From my point of view, and from what I hear over here, divorcing the system from the well known setting and changing its well known name into an unknown one eliminated the one real advantage, brand recognition, it had over other systems available over here.

Wait, you're forgetting its other one real advantage: D100!

Edited June 17, 2011 by Vile

[Jeff Richard]

Let me reiterate that I was not making a major criticism of the license and in fact I was impressed with what you all put together. If I had a Tardis, I think I'd go back and write my original comment differently. I labor under the disability of actually being a lawyer, so I usually think about what if things don't work out or go terribly wrong, what will happen to me/my client. (One of the most bitter disputes between former business partners I ever saw was one that started over who got to use the company's hockey tickets. It sounds nutty, but people are funny.) And I think it is perfectly reasonable for a someone to change his mind about the sort of business model he wants to use. Even if someone can't see a reason he would change his mind now, it's not a crime for him to change his mind later, and I think it's best for agreements to explicitly recognize that.

If I were negotiating a license agreement, I might ask for a provision where if I'm terminated for breach of the agreement, I have to cease selling my stock immediately, but if I am terminated for any other reason, I get 6 months to sell it off. (That's not original to me, by the way, I stole the idea from a standard agreement I read once.)

FWIW, I am also a lawyer and the exact same issues were in mind. The HQ Gateway license is designed so that folk who want to publish stuff using the HQ rules can - without doing much more than letting us know what they want to do and then giving us a few copies of the final product. That's about all there is to it.

Naturally the contract is designed to be flexible enough as to protect Moon Design from a wide variety of potential problems, but for the publisher who wants to do their own books using the HQ rules and doesn't want to hassle with Moon Design, it is pretty ideal. If you proposed to do a big print run and big marketing push and wanted some additional security because of the scale of your investment, of course we'd be open to changing certain provisions - but then again, you are already not the "no-hassle" publisher.

Jeff

[rust]

Fans will still like the game.

But this is exactly the problem I see, because I am aware of many Glorantha fans

here, but not of many (ex-)MRQ II fans. For example, using the Search of my ho-

me forum, I find a number of posts where Glorantha has been mentioned, but on-

ly one post where MRQII has been mentioned, the Burg Stahleck program of this

year.

I really do not want to be a spoilsport, and I really wish Legend all the best, but

if what I hear is anywhere close to representative (which may or may not be the

case), Legend is very far from being a guaranteed success. Over here, that is.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Let me just jump in here.

And let me just welcome you to BRP Central there, Jeff!

[RosenMcStern]

For example, using the Search of my ho-

me forum, I find a number of posts where Glorantha has been mentioned, but on-

ly one post where MRQII has been mentioned, the Burg Stahleck program of this

year.

If you check rpg.net or the Mongoose Forums, you will find many posts asking "where to start in Gloranthta" that indicate that a gamer has started to grok RQ, and is becoming curious about Glorantha. If you check the Italian forums, you will see that we have launched a pre-order campaign for Monster Coliseum. We already have 60 supporters, and only three of them have played in Glorantha so far. So there ARE fans who appreciate the game system but know nothing of Glorantha.

[Jack Tar]

...For those who liked the Glorantha setting, the game is now dead...

What?! I know this has been said before and elsewhere, but I don't see the letters from all your books suddenly evaporating or one's imagination imploding because of this decoupling. I'm pretty sure most of the published books are not intended to be one-use-only.

Perhaps the addiction to Glorantha new-chrome is dead.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

I don't think anyone's debating the merits of "the" system. It's why we're all here. Glorantha has always been a bit of a double-edged sword since RQII - people love it or hate it because of its detail. I personally believe that this is mostly based on misconception, because almost all of that detail is concentrated around a tiny portion of the world, and much of Glorantha is a lot less background heavy than most fantasy settings. Still, it's people's impressions that count when making a gaming purchase.

I think the effect of losing the RuneQuest name will be much more severe than losing Glorantha, though. Unless you've been following these events (in which case you're probably already a fan), you will see "Legend" and "Mongoose" on a shelf and draw your own conclusions. I think Mongoose have their work cut out for them if they want to make Legend a success (as opposed to just minimising their losses, which is also a possibility).

[RosenMcStern]

For those who liked the Glorantha setting, the game is now dead

I fail to locate the announcement by ISSARIES that there will be no more RuneQuest books for Glorantha. Has anyone seen such a statement?

[deleriad]

Sad though I am personally to see the end of Glorantha Second Age for RQ/BRP I can't say that I've seen any significant interest in the setting. I suspect that if anything more people were playing 3rd Age Glorantha with some form of BRP than 2nd Age Glorantha. Still I will keep my second age campaign using RQII into its 4th and final year as the PCs become players in the fall of the Clanking city. Here's hoping that someone finds some way to produce some more 2nd age material.

[Smoking Frog]

FWIW, I am also a lawyer

It can happen to the best of us.

I'm sure I have a skewed view of the ease of negotiating a contract for a small-sized transaction. For someone with no legal background, you must be right that a standard "no hassle" contract really would be a big benefit. And of course if you're a reasonable person dealing with reasonable people, things tend to go smoothly.