Jonstown Compendium and gloranthan games

[Uzz]

Hi there,

Both Chaosium's Questworld SRD page and BRP SRD page indicate under "I want to set a game in Glorantha" : check with Jonstown Compendium.

Does it mean it is possible to propose a Gloranthan TTRPG distinct from RQ or QW ? Jonstown Compendium's rules seemed to tell the opposite (material for RQ, 13G and QW only). Can anyone help me figure out what is actually possible ? Thx 🙂

Edited April 4 by Uzz

[jajagappa]

If you're looking to create Glorantha content then you can do so as part of the Jonstown Compendium community program, but it needs to be material for one of the three noted game systems (RQ, 13G, or QuestWorlds). It's straightforward following the community content guidelines to write and publish your Glorantha material. @Nick Brooke can provide lots of guidance on what is or is not allowed with that.

If you're looking to do something else related to Glorantha, then you would need to talk with Chaosium as anything else would require licensing arrangements. In that case @MOB would be the right contact.

[MOB]

43 minutes ago, Uzz said:

Does it mean it is possible to propose a Gloranthan TTRPG distinct from RQ or QW ? 

You could propose it, but if you wanted to commercially release a Glorantha TTRPG you'd need a license as Glorantha (the setting, its characters, gods, locations, etc) is not open content, it belongs to Moon Design Publications who is the majority owner of Chaosium. 

[Nick Brooke]

To be clear, the only QuestWorlds rule set Chaosium allows creators to use on the Jonstown Compendium is the game that was previously called HeroQuest: Glorantha (published in 2015).

Hero Wars (trade paperbacks, published in 2000), HeroQuest (first edition, big red book, published in 2003) and HeroQuest (second edition, generic / non-Gloranthan, published in 2009) rules are deprecated, and you can’t publish anything for them through the community content programme.

“Rolling your own” Gloranthan rules using the QuestWorlds SRD (e.g. so as to reimplement deprecated features of those earlier rulesets) is explicitly not permitted. Some people have funny notions about what the marketplace is for. We are trying to make sure people know what they’re buying when they pick up a “QuestWorlds” product from our community content programme.

[Nick Brooke]

The only Basic Role-Playing (BRP) rules you can use on the Jonstown Compendium are RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha (2018) and RuneQuest Classic (which is a reprint of second edition RuneQuest, RQ2).

You can’t publish for Avalon Hill’s third edition of RuneQuest (RQ3), as although Chaosium owns those rules we don’t currently support them. You can’t publish for the first edition of RuneQuest (RQ1) because RuneQuest Classic is Chaosium’s only supported retro edition. (I know this will disappoint at least one person, and probably no more than that.)

You can’t publish anything for any Mongoose or Design Mechanism edition of RuneQuest (including those now  called Legend and Mythras), as Chaosium doesn’t own those rules and we can’t let you use them.

You can’t publish generic BRP material on the Jonstown Compendium, it has to be set in Greg Stafford’s world of Glorantha and use one of the two supported BRP rule-sets (RQG or RQ2).

To date, nothing has yet been published using the RuneQuest Classic rules, but we can live in hope.

[Nick Brooke]

For completeness’ sake: you can also publish adventures and sourcebooks for the 13th Age Glorantha rules system on the Jonstown Compendium. This is by generous permission of our friends at Fire Opal Media. (And other than some 13AG conversion notes for Six Seasons in Sartar, I’m unaware of any publications using this rule set.)

That’s your lot. Anything else isn’t allowed under the community content agreement, and you’ll have to negotiate a licence with Chaosium directly.

Finally, we generally discourage people from writing variant rules for our games (a new combat system, a variant sorcery system, etc.). We want you to write for the games we publish, not for the “better” versions you’ve house-ruled into existence.

If you’ve written a scenario that needs spot rules for an encounter or a new system for tracking campaign resources (i.e. your new stuff is thematically linked to playable content), that’s probably fine. But don’t replace our rules, especially not with somebody else’s. We can’t allow that: we don’t own anybody else’s rules.

[Uzz]

Thanks to all of you for the answers, both clear and complete. I was misled by this line :

[Nick Brooke]

If you want to set a game in Glorantha, you can use the gamist D20-rolling 13th Age Glorantha class+level system, the narrativist, largely-statless QuestWorlds system (specifically what used to be sold as HeroQuest: Glorantha) or the simulationist D% BRP-defining RuneQuest system (in either of the editions currently available from Chaosium). Knock yourself out!

[g33k]

44 minutes ago, Uzz said:

Thanks to all of you for the answers, both clear and complete. I was misled by this line :

When you look to any line on that table that suggests either the JC or MR programs, you need to consult (and abide by) the specific rules & restrictions of that program.

SRD's do not ever permit you to violate other restrictions external to the SRD (e.g. no matter how liberal a "commercial-OK" SRD is, you had better not write and sell a "Pirates of the Caribbean" RPG without a license from Disney, or a GoT/ASoIaF RPG without a license from GRRM).

SRD's do not have the legal right or authority to grant such over-broad permissions, despite any "do what thou wilt" language in the SRD/license; that'd be like me granting you ownership over Tesla Motors (I am not, for the record, Elon Musk; I do not own any shares of Tesla Motors; I have no rights to grant ownership thereof.  So too with any "rights" granted in an SRD -- an owner/issuer of an SRD (and associated open license) can only grant rights they own).

The SRD's obviously cannot list all the restrictions of the JC, the MR, DTRPG itself, or other potential programs (such as the BRP Design Challenge).  For one thing, those programs need to be able to change independently, without needing to mod the SRD's to reflect the new changes.  So, even though Chaosium owns the Glorantha IP, they rely on the pre-existing JC rules to enforce the JC context for Glorantha.  Similarly, you may not write your own complete Cthulhu game (even one based on a Chaosium SRD) to sell via the MR program.  Also, DTRPG is a wholly-independent organization, and JC/MR need to abide by any & all rules set by them... and obviously cannot need to alter the SRD & licensing any time DTRPG modifies their rules.

I have not done a close reading of the ORC license.  I don't know if it explicitly tells you not to engage in such shenanigans (IIRC, the older (2020?) BRP-OGL document explicitly disallowed you from using any IP for which you were not licensed (which struck me as kind of a "duh!" element, but then... I've seen people do stupider, and I think Chaosium wanted to be disassociated from such stupidity (and associated stupid legal risks)).

(note:  I am not a lawyer.  Please consult a lawyer before you do anything with any IP owned by anyone else... especially not owned by Disney, who now employs agents who multiclass Lawyer/Sith )

 

[Uzz]

The table clearly indicates that if I want to create a Runequest Glorantha scenario, I can publish it through Jonstown Compendium.

I just can't figure out what the other line means. If I set a game in Glorantha to play with friends, using whatever mechanisms I want, well, I don't need JC or any publishing tool. If I create a game of my own, set in Glorantha, I can't publish it through Jonstown Compendium, since it's against the JC restrictions. I guess that line in the table is just wrong and there's nothing here to wonder.

Edited April 3 by Uzz

[Tatterdemalion Fox]

Yes, the line itself does come across as confusing: perhaps it's gesturing towards campaign structures like The Company of the Dragon or Valley of Plenty? Not scenarios for Glorantha, precisely, but intended for others to use in making their own campaigns. After all, the whole Six Seasons trilogy is explicitly playable across any of the three Gloranthan systems (even poor orphaned 13th Age), and Valley of Plenty is a campaign framework for QuestWorlds now.

Or it's just as simple as "oh, if you want an answer to this question, go to a different document which will tell you the answer, which is no."

[The Prettiest Parrot]

7 hours ago, Nick Brooke said:

To be clear, the only QuestWorlds rule set Chaosium allows creators to use on the Jonstown Compendium is the game that was previously called HeroQuest: Glorantha (published in 2015).

Sorry, this has me a bit confused. The content guidelines (This page) lists the Game Formerly Known as HeroQuest: Glorantha and the QuestWorlds SRD separately when it lists the rules you can use. It looks like pretty explicit permission to use the SRD for the Jonstown Compendium. Should we assume that's outdated/incorrect at this point?

[Nick Brooke]

5 hours ago, The Prettiest Parrot said:

Sorry, this has me a bit confused. The content guidelines (This page) lists the Game Formerly Known as HeroQuest: Glorantha and the QuestWorlds SRD separately when it lists the rules you can use. It looks like pretty explicit permission to use the SRD for the Jonstown Compendium. Should we assume that's outdated/incorrect at this point?

I think that would be wise. Otherwise you could waste a lot of time e.g. retrocloning Hero Wars from the SRD and then find your JC submission rejected because we explicitly told you not to do that.

[Nick Brooke]

Jonstown Compendium FAQ. The last page or so is highly relevant to this thread. There have been about half a dozen QuestWorlds releases (all using HeroQuest: Glorantha) in the 4+years the programme has operated.

[g33k]

@Nick Brooke -- I am very confused now; or maybe you are?

You appear to be contradicting your own FAQ, in regards to the "Jonstown Compendium Content Guidelines" document:
 https://help.drivethrurpg.com/hc/en-us/articles/12723268545943-Jonstown-Compendium-Content-Guidelines

As referenced by @The Prettiest Parrot:

6 hours ago, The Prettiest Parrot said:

... The content guidelines (This page) lists the Game Formerly Known as HeroQuest: Glorantha and the QuestWorlds SRD separately when it lists the rules you can use. It looks like pretty explicit permission to use the SRD for the Jonstown Compendium. Should we assume that's outdated/incorrect at this point?

19 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

I think that would be wise. Otherwise you could waste a lot of time e.g. retrocloning Hero Wars from the SRD and then find your JC submission rejected because we explicitly told you not to do that.

I don't see that "retrocloning Hero Wars" is under discussion...?  They were asking about HQ:G and the QW SRD.

But you are explicitly saying to assume the "Content Guidelines" doc is outdated/incorrect??!?

 

You apparently want us "instead" to consult the FAQ:

17 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

Jonstown Compendium FAQ. The last page or so is highly relevant to this thread. There have been about half a dozen QuestWorlds releases (all using HeroQuest: Glorantha) in the 4+years the programme has operated.

But that FAQ cites (right up front) the selfsame "Jonstown Compendium Content Guidelines" document called out by @The Prettiest Parrot....

Hence my confusion!

###

As a probably-unrelated issue:  the link in your FAQ is broken for me (cloudflare DNS error "Error 1034 Ray ID: 86ef0f52d8eecee5 • 2024-04-04 05:57:15 UTC").

So, I cannot be absolutely certain the two "Jonstown Compendium Content Guidelines" documents ( one referenced in your FAQ vs. one referenced as "This Page" above) are the same version; but the live document (at "This Page") Is dated just a few weeks ago (March 11, 2024 13:42) so I'd presume current/correct.

Remember, citizen:  the Computer is Your Friend!  Hail Harshax!

[Nick Brooke]

Please read the end of the FAQ.

[The Prettiest Parrot]

I don't mean to be a pain, but I think there's a disconnect about what all is unclear. It's pretty clear that you guys want playable content, and you don't want people to re-implement older rule systems.

What isn't clear is if we can publish a Gloranthan scenario that uses the QuestWorlds rules instead of the ones in HeroQuest Glorantha, where those rulesets differ. I think the big difference comes with Extended Contests. HeroQuest: Glorantha has a single set of rules for them, but QuestWorlds has a few different options for Sequences. I've run both systems and found those all play pretty differently. There's some other mechanical differences here and there, but I don't think any of them matter so much.

That's a difference that'll come up even if you're only publishing a scenario, with absolutely no new rules in it at all. And I don't think it's a time-wasting niggle, because that's pretty fundamental to writing a scenario. You have to know which rules you're using! If I'm publishing a scenario, can I use either Extended Contests or Sequences?

Or for a really concrete example: Right now, I am running a QuestWorlds game set in Umathela. I'm big on planning (and forcing my players to read essays about historical agriculture; they're very tolerant) so I have a lot of stuff I could theoretically publish. (Layout is hard.)

Publishing the setting stuff is clearly fine, and so are the scenarios. But, unlike HeroQuest: Glorantha, QuestWorlds doesn't have any baked-in support for making magic and whatnot distinct from other keywords. And that stuff isn't necessary, you can treat it all like normal abilities, but I did add some things:

-An "Initiation" character creation method, which is basically Prose for an immature character, then playing an initiation scenario and swapping a few abilities as we go.

-Magical abilities as a distinct category, but using myths as the keywords instead of cults. That is to say, I have a player with a score in How Orlanth Conquered Yelm, not a score in Storm Rune (Orlanth).

Those rules aren't replicating any older editions. If you're working from QuestWorlds, they're not replacing anything. They're additive, to support the the specific setting and scenarios in it, which seems OK according to the FAQ. If we're working HeroQuest: Glorantha, that amounts to rewriting the magic rules, so it's probably not kosher. If I wanted to publish my Umathela scenarios and setting handouts, could I include those?

 

I know that's a lot of text and I really appreciate your time on this. I'm clearly a partisan for QuestWorlds on this; I think it's a much better system than HeroQuest. I'm just not clear if you knew how much the rules differences between the two systems matter if you're writing a playable scenario. You're welcome to restrict the Jonstown Compendium to HeroQuest: Glorantha's rules, but you should probably purge references to the QuestWorlds SRD from the content guidelines in in that case. It's profoundly misleading in ways that are very important.

As I type this, I realize this is all probably temporary if you intend to republish a version of QuestWorlds: Glorantha that does have the same rules as the SRD in it. Which may be the entire disconnect? I obviously don't know your plans there, but it seemed like a plausible cause of confusion.

[Nick Brooke]

Don’t use the QuestWorlds SRD: use the rules previously published as HeroQuest Glorantha instead.

If you use the QuestWorlds SRD and write something that doesn’t work with the rules formerly known as “HeroQuest Glorantha,” we will remove it from sale and advise you to use the rule system we told you to.

Do you need me to use shorter words?

[Nick Brooke]

If you’re writing an Umathelan campaign setting sourcebook for the rule system previously known as HeroQuest Glorantha that includes lots of playable material, scenarios, episodes, campaign outlines, bestiary, characters, a starter village (or whatever), etc., and you want to include some short new rules for Umathelan magic keywords that are compatible with HeroQuest Glorantha, knock yourself out: they support playable material, and we’re happy for you to do that.

I’ll warn you that two categories of material that sell particularly poorly on the Jonstown Compendium are exotic settings and QuestWorlds releases. But hopefully you knew that already.

The naming confusion is partly because Chaosium has sold the HeroQuest trade mark. That probably makes the guidance more confusing than it needs to be, but since hardly anybody is writing for that system, it doesn’t matter much. And as you can see, some people like to be confused.

[radmonger]

1 hour ago, Nick Brooke said:

Do you need me to use shorter words?

No, just ones that stay consistent from post to post, and with what is in the FAQ.

Currently, the FAQ clearly states that Questworlds, shortly to be published by Chaosium, is an allowed system, distinct from Heroquest:Glorantha.

Quote

Your work can use any rules and setting materials from the books and materials published by Chaosium

• RuneQuest Roleplaying in Glorantha
• RuneQuest Classic
• HeroQuest Glorantha (but references in your work to this rules system and
  game line should call it “QuestWorlds,” as Chaosium no longer holds the
  trademark for “HeroQuest”)
• QuestWorlds SRD
• 13th Age Glorantha

But you here are saying you will 'remove from sale' any supplement that makes use of it.

 

 

 

[Nick Brooke]

OK, I’ll see if we can delete all mention of the SRD from both the Guidelines and the FAQ. Thanks for your input.

[Tatterdemalion Fox]

Wasn’t Valley of Plenty pulled from sale and then republished specifically to change it from HQG to QuestWorlds? Isn’t the QuestWorlds SRD the only legally available version of the rules previously known as HQG for anyone who didn’t manage to snap a copy up before the HeroQuest trademark was sold off?

I understand the concerns about folks trying to recreate Hero Wars material, but restricting use of QuestWorlds sure seems like it’s saying: if you want to make anything narrativist for the JC, you’d better already be In The Club.

On the third hand, for all we know, this is stalling before the proper QW release, at which point various FAQs will be updated. And what’s absolutely certain is that this is well in the realm of speculation by this point.

(Bleakly funny: the directive to just buy the older HQ books, as “most of them are available in print and/or PDF format from Chaosium,” in that FAQ.)

EDIT: Orlanth on a bicycle, this forum hates trying to copy/paste things on mobile. I apologize for the sudden change in font size there at the end.

Edited April 4 by Tatterdemalion Fox

[radmonger]

3 hours ago, Nick Brooke said:

OK, I’ll see if we can delete all mention of the SRD from both the Guidelines and the FAQ. Thanks for your input.

Obviously that is not a great policy for Questworld fans, including me. But if that really is the policy, it is better it be made clear now, rather than after someone has spent hundreds of hours writing something in contravention of it.

[Nick Brooke]

42 minutes ago, Tatterdemalion Fox said:

Wasn’t Valley of Plenty pulled from sale and then republished specifically to change it from HQG to QuestWorlds?

No, it was not.

Valley of Plenty was pulled from sale when the authors decided they wouldn’t be bringing out any of the sequels they’d mentioned. They republished it when they decided that they might do that after all. They then pulled the print edition when people had weird expectations about getting updated pages mailed to them for free. This was entirely a Troupe Games initiative.

[Nick Brooke]

2 minutes ago, radmonger said:

it is better it be made clear now, rather than after someone has spent hundreds of hours writing something in contravention of it.

Or, indeed, millions.