Raiders of R'lyeh!

[Simlasa]

I'm not sure this goes here or not... but I heard the game is based on Openquest rather than CoC...

Anyway, Raiders of R'lyeh is finally out for purchase in PDF form. It's huge and looks great.
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/209168/Raiders-of-Rlyeh-Gamemasters-Guide--Core-Rules?affiliate_id=10748
It's aimed at Edwardian era horror adventures.
It swings in a more action-adventure mode than old CoC... and has rules more in line with Openquest.
It's been a long time coming and I'm kind of excited to finally get the chance to read it.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Simlasa

[7Tigers]

After 4 years of waiting, it is really a nice touch to sell the PDF when the backers still don't have their books / PDF ...

[Raleel]

43 minutes ago, 7Tigers said:

After 4 years of waiting, it is really a nice touch to sell the PDF when the backers still don't have their books / PDF ...

how does the preview compare to what you have as a backer? 

[7Tigers]

I'm afraid I don't have the time or even an interest left toward RoL to give an answer...

[Simlasa]

I wasn't a backer so I know nothing of the current state of things regarding those folks getting their copies. I'd heard they had received some PDFs but I don't know how those compare to the version that's now for sale.

I'd hope there would eventually be a print version, but I'm skeptical of the quality of POD even for smaller books through DTRPG.

[7Tigers]

These days, DTRPG and Lulu POD quality is quite correct.

[Newt]

I've been very impressed by the improvements in DriveThru's colour offering recently and their black and white print is nice and crisp too.  Lulu too is much better than when I first started using them almost ten years ago!

 

[Mankcam]

Well I'm a backer, and the pdf copy I have doesn't have a front cover like the one in DrivethruRPG, so who knows how different it is. My pdf copy is b&w, with no cover. The system for RoR looked pretty good, basically a MRQD100 SRD-based game, and looked to play well. More like Mythras-without-Combat-Manuvers rather than OQ. I think I would have preferred it to have been as simple as OQ or Renaissance, but it still looks reasonably good.

We've had hardly any updates for months, so I have actually given up on this project. The first one I have actually lost interest with.

Four years is a tad too long to tell my troupe to wait for an rpg to be published.

Now that Pulp Cthulhu is published then I'm not looking to do much with RoR, except perhaps mine for Edwardian-era content.

Just waited too long for RoR  I guess.

Yes this is really is quite rude to discover that there is a DrivethruRPG release before backers have even received their finished copies and hard copies. I normally don't gripe, but this really takes the cake. Who knows when or if I'll actually receive the printed book. Very disappointed with the execution of this project, we didn't receive any updates informing us of this public release. 

Bad form

(Which is a pity, considering the rules are quite good)

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Mankcam

[Newt]

17 hours ago, Simlasa said:

I'm not sure this goes here or not... but I heard the game is based on Openquest rather than CoC...

 

Note I'm not a backer, there were too many factors that made it a 'nope' for me, but from a quick look at the preview if they have used the OpenQuest SRD they've built a much more complex game on top of it.  Look at the character sheet for evidence of this. There's a split between Common and Special skills, there's Action Points, Special Abilities, and Hit Locations are back in.  The character gen chapter is a whopping 44 pages (OQ is currently 17), most of which seems to be because they've gone back to full page professions. OQ is free form character generation, and the nearest equivalent to BRP style occupations is ready made concepts of which there is one page devoted to in OQ.  

In my opinion, they've added so much in, that there's probably very little of OQ left in the text. 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Newt

[Newt]

12 minutes ago, Mankcam said:

The system for RoR looked pretty good, basically a MRQD100 SRD-based game, and looked to play well. 

1

Just to confirm is there an OGL with OQ mentioned? Or is it based purely off the MRQ SRD?

[Mankcam]

Just now, Newt said:

Just to confirm is there an OGL with OQ mentioned? Or is it based purely off the MRQ SRD?

I will check this out, but I think it used the MRQ D100 SRD rather than OQ - I will go take a look at my files

 

[Newt]

Cheers it's just a few folk have said its OQ based and I'd like it confirmed one way or another. 

[Mankcam]

I can't find any reference to an OQ SRD, so I assume that reference has been bandied around more as a figure-of-speech, given some of the similarities with skill structure etc.

The last page of my backer copy (released December 2016),  does have a copyright notice which refers to MRQ SRD (2006). 

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Mankcam

[Newt]

Good, then this thread can move into the Basic Roleplaying forum

[Jeff]

On 9/15/2017 at 12:23 PM, Mankcam said:

I can't find any reference to an OQ SRD, so I assume that reference has been bandied around more as a figure-of-speech, given some of the similarities with skill structure etc.

The last page of my backer copy (released December 2016),  does have a copyright notice which refers to MRQ SRD (2006). 

 

Which shows how very long ago this was initially put together, since the MRQ SRD expired upon the termination of the Mongoose RQ license back in 2011 or so. Properly speaking it should be under the Legend SRD.

[Mankcam]

It does also mention Legend Core Rulebook (2011) in the copyright section, I'm not sure if that is the same thing as referencing the Legend SRD or not.

But yes this kickstarter has gone on for far too long unfortunately, and releasing it via DrivethruRPG before backers receive any print versions is really bad form. I suppose we'll see our books one day. The system is quite good, and alot of work has gone into the book, the Edwardian-era flavour is really good.

However the main reason I was after it was to have a set of 'Pulp' rules for BRP. Pulp Cthulhu has been released since, which covers what I was looking for. I am not privy  to the reasons why this project has taken so long, but more communication to backers would have gone a long way to settle concerns. 

I'm still interested in seeing the finished product of RoR, but it is hard to remain enthusiastic under the circumstances. 

Edited September 16, 2017 by Mankcam

[Simlasa]

10 hours ago, Mankcam said:

I am not privy  to the reasons why this project has taken so long, but more communication to backers would have gone a long way to settle concerns.

From what I've read, the guy had health issues... which I've seen corroborated by some folks who have been in contact with him, but none gave specifics.

[TrippyHippy]

11 minutes ago, Simlasa said:

From what I've read, the guy had health issues... which I've seen corroborated by some folks who have been in contact with him, but none gave specifics.

He was going blind, which is something he relayed in an update way back. I imagine that this would have led to all sorts of issues. However, as a backer, I was also a bit miffed that a PDF was released on drivethrurpg without any communication or prioritisation towards backers who have waited four years for it. I'm still awaiting my physical copy, which I assume will be assisted by the funds raised through selling the product online. However, without any clear communication to backers, we might also just assume he's forgotten us. 

Between this, Punkworld and the Call of Cthulhu Tarot, this generally accounts for the Kickstarter projects I have still yet to see fulfilling their promises.  

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by TrippyHippy

[Mankcam]

I don't remember the backer update about the author going blind, and I can imagine that the challenges associated with this project are quite significant. I apologise for my initial rudeness, it was very reactionary, and I am not proud of myself for that response.

Despite such, I still think any kind of public release of products is not good if project backers don't have their products first,. This assumption is standard crowd- funding etiquette these days, so unless other intentions are communicated then backers are bound to be unhappy when they discover a product is out there in th wild before anything has turned up in their homes.

I also feel that perhaps more regular communication to backers would have been appreciated. This is only courteous, and really has a good effect on backer expectations.

For example, I have backed the Talislanta Kickstarter, and the project creator actually died. It was clearly communicated by the project collaborators what had happened, and there was an outpouring of sympathy from the backers. Most of us assumed the project would remain uncompleted, given the tragic circumstances. 

A significant number of the Talislanta backers requested that project funds should now be spent towards something for the project creator's family, as a sign of respect. However the project collaborators have now indicated that they would like to complete the project in honour of the creator. Most of the backers were surprised, and although we have no time frame for project completion, no one appears to be unhappy with the outcome, such as it is.

So clear communication to backers, fans, etc is not only courteous, but something that can have a major impact on how information is received.  

I think that unfortunately this is probably the main failing with the RoR project within recent months.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Mankcam

[MOB]

7 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

Between this, Punkworld and the Call of Cthulhu Tarot, this generally accounts for the Kickstarter projects I have still yet to see fulfilling their promises.  

If you haven't seen them, updates on Punktown, Horrors of War and Writhing Dark (CoC Tarot) overdue Kickstarters, after we recently got in touch with the people behind them. (We didn't follow up on this one because it is not under a Chaosium license).

[TrippyHippy]

22 minutes ago, MOB said:

If you haven't seen them, updates on Punktown, Horrors of War and Writhing Dark (CoC Tarot) overdue Kickstarters, after we recently got in touch with the people behind them. (We didn't follow up on this one because it is not under a Chaosium license).

I did see them, and in that sense I am grateful to Chaosium for keeping these projects alive. It is noticeable that in at least one case, it seems a wake up call from the licensor is the only thing able to get them to post any update in over a year, however. 

Edited September 17, 2017 by TrippyHippy

[Prime Evil]

On 16/09/2017 at 9:03 PM, Jeff said:

Which shows how very long ago this was initially put together, since the MRQ SRD expired upon the termination of the Mongoose RQ license back in 2011 or so. Properly speaking it should be under the Legend SRD.

The OGL notice in Raiders of R'lyeh mentions the MRQ SRD, the MRQ Companion SRD, and the Legend SRD. This seems a like overkill since there is so much overlap between these three sources. And they don't seem to reference any material from the MRQ SRD that is not already in the Legend SRD (such as the Command skill). 

It's a bit weird that their OGC notice references the Core Rules Document - a 275-page version of the rules distributed via backerkit. An updated version of this was to be released alongside the final rulebook, but it still hasn't appeared. 

Out of curiosity, did the MRQ SRD actually expire? I thought the terms of the OGL offered a "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license" to use the Open Game Content in the SRD, provided that the terms of the license are observed? Although use of the RuneQuest trademark is not permitted, my understanding was that material released as Open Game Content remains OGC after termination of the publishing licence? Or is this incorrect? 

[g33k]

9 minutes ago, Prime Evil said:

Out of curiosity, did the MRQ SRD actually expire? I thought the terms of the OGL offered a "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license" to use the Open Game Content in the SRD, provided that the terms of the license are observed? Although use of the RuneQuest trademark is not permitted, my understanding was that material released as Open Game Content remains OGC after termination of the publishing licence? Or is this incorrect? 

I would assume that anything titled "Runequest" was ineligible to be made OGC in the first place:  they didn't have a license to OGL "RuneQuest."

Hence "Legend" with essentially the same rules, but NOT the problematic content / branding ...

 

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, Prime Evil said:

Out of curiosity, did the MRQ SRD actually expire? I thought the terms of the OGL offered a "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license" to use the Open Game Content in the SRD, provided that the terms of the license are observed? Although use of the RuneQuest trademark is not permitted, my understanding was that material released as Open Game Content remains OGC after termination of the publishing licence? Or is this incorrect? 

Yes, the MRQ SRD expired upon the termination of Mongoose's rights to RuneQuest. You can't license things that you don't have the rights to in the first place. The OGL may have stated that it was "perpetual", but since Mongoose never had perpetual rights to RQ, the OGL was not perpetual and that OGL expired when their license did.

Mongoose then created Legend. Presuming that Mongoose properly owns Legend (and assuming that it is not an unlicensed derivative of RQ2/3/BGP for now), then Mongoose has the rights to create an OGL for Legend. But all the MRQ SRDs expired with the underlying license. 

Properly speaking R'lyeh should not be saying it is based on RuneQuest (since that would infringe upon copyright and trademark) but that it is based on Legend.

[Prime Evil]

 

3 hours ago, g33k said:

I would assume that anything titled "Runequest" was ineligible to be made OGC in the first place:  they didn't have a license to OGL "RuneQuest."

Hence "Legend" with essentially the same rules, but NOT the problematic content / branding ...

 

That's clearly covered by Section 7 of the OGL. You are not permitted to use any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with any work containing Open Game Content unless you have an independent agreement with the owner. There is a limited exception for updating the copyright notice at the end of the license. Also, you must agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark. And Section 11 of the OGL states that you can't market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any upstream Contributor. So technically the only place that you could mention RQ at all without a separate agreement with Issaries would be in the list of upstream sources in the copyright notice at the end of Section 15 (assuming the material was correctly released as OGC in the first place).