Using OpenQuest to publish

[Natural Twenty Games]

I'm strongly looking at using the Classic Fantasy rules to produce an adventure but don't know if I want to end-up going the monograph route. I downloaded the OpenQuest developers kit and picked up the PDF on lulu.com.

As a quick run-through OpenQuest seems to be based on RQ3/Mong Runequest vs. the current incarnation of BRP, i.e. I noticed the SZ stat and armour points for armour.

I started working on some layout elements (see goblin below and some of my WIP cartography in the Classic Fantasy thread) but don't know if I should continue with OQ or just pitch a monograph?

Any drawbacks to using OQ other than the obvious that it won't be potentially OOB compatible with BRP?

[threedeesix]

Any drawbacks to using OQ other than the obvious that it won't be potentially OOB compatible with BRP?

No drawbacks I guess, but if it was to be a monograph and/or a true Classic Fantasy adventure, this author would be quite willing to work closely with you and provide official stats for creatures, spells, classes, etc that have yet to be released.

Rod

Edited November 27, 2009 by threedeesix

[wbcreighton]

Could you provide dual stats so it was useable for either game ?

[Guest Vile Traveller]

This is an interesting question which I am also pondering, especially in the wake of the Mongoose announcement that there will be no SRD for MRQ2. I am more comfortable with the OGL / SRD route. As a 3rd party publisher you have far greater control and freedom than under the rather more formal Chaosium licensing system.

However, as Newt has told me, Open Quest is quite a minimal system if you strip out things like magic and creatures, so anything you publish will be virtually a new game anyway. But I'm still not willing to dismiss the possibility yet, and will be discussing it further on Newt's D101 Forums.

[RosenMcStern]

As a 3rd party publisher you have far greater control and freedom than under the rather more formal Chaosium licensing system.

:confused: What is in the Chaosium license that does not give you control and freedom?

[NickMiddleton]

This is an interesting question which I am also pondering, especially in the wake of the Mongoose announcement that there will be no SRD for MRQ2. I am more comfortable with the OGL / SRD route.

Bear in mind that using an SRD for a rule system released under the OGL gives you no access to Trademarks. Equally however, the material made open content under the OGL (such as the MRQ SRD) cannot be made closed again. So you can carry on using the MRQ SRD, and add whatever open content you wish to it as long as you want. But if MGP pull the MRQ STL (as WotC have done with the d20 STL), then ALL RQ STL compliant publications will have to cease and be repackaged, in accordance with whatever termination conditions MGP stipulate / have stipulated...

If it wasn't of the fact that some decent current and planned projects are adversely affected by all this it would be mildly amusing to watch all this kerfuffle after the flack I got from some quarters for NOT getting Uncounted Worlds tangled in all this nonsense...

As a 3rd party publisher you have far greater control and freedom than under the rather more formal Chaosium licensing system.

Err, there is no "Chaosium licensing system" - there is a sample license (the terms of which were pretty reasonable and flexible by industry standards when it was issued in early '08) that was drawn up in early 2008 - and it's now nearly 2010... My advice would be to put a firm, well reasoned and documented proposal to Dustin (assuming he's back at work after the move back to Texas) as to what you want to do and take discussions from there.

Cheers,

Nick

Edited November 28, 2009 by NickMiddleton

[Newt]

I deliberatly set OpenQuest up to be completely OGL to avoid lisencing nightmares futher down the road, the hint's in the name

That be said I did wake up in a bit of a cold sweat this morning worrying that Mongoose could pull the plug on OQ by withdrawing the OGL that it sits on, then had a quick read of it and realised this is not the case.

SO TO REITERATE OPENQUEST IS COMPLETELY UNEFFECTED BY MONGOOSE'S DECISION NOT TO OGL/SRD MONGOOSE RUNEQUEST 2

re:lisencing and BRP I'd fully recommend getting in touch with Dustin and having a quick chat about what you plan to do. You never know unless you ask

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the Chaosium license is particularly restrictive - just that going through the MRQ SRD would have been less restrictive. I did discuss the licensing with Dustin, and it's still an option I would consider. It does require a much greater level of commitment.

I also understand that you can still publish things under the MRQ OGL, but I don't think you'll be able to have the RuneQuest logo on your 3rd-party product once MRQ2 takes off. The main point of which is purely brand recognition - without that, a publisher could easily write their own D% system, but it would be very hard to make a dent in the market.

The context in which I was wondering about OQ was just an idea that it could possibly become an alternative route of 3rd-party publication for BRP-like games, one which had its own brand recognition yet was still associated with BRP.

[RosenMcStern]

If it wasn't of the fact that some decent current and planned projects are adversely affected by all this it would be mildly amusing to watch all this kerfuffle after the flack I got from some quarters for NOT getting Uncounted Worlds tangled in all this nonsense...

You are a wise man, Nick

As for OpenQuest and GORE, as Newt said, the license they use cannot be revoked. The only problem could be for products that use the RuneQuest logo, and I am not sure that even in this case it would be possible to withdraw the license. However, the RQ logo is currently being used for new products, AFAIK, only by Sceaptune Games and us. Other companies have not produced any more stuff with the RQ logo during the last year, IIRC. And to be very honest, if you look at page count there are only two "indies" that are actually supporting MRQ, Sceaptune and Alephtar.

Edit: I checked, and they can pull the license for the logo. But they also swore they would not do it unless you published pornography or such.

Edited November 28, 2009 by RosenMcStern

[RosenMcStern]

just that going through the MRQ SRD would have been less restrictive.

Mongoose has just shown why this is not, in fact, the case.

The context in which I was wondering about OQ was just an idea that it could possibly become an alternative route of 3rd-party publication for BRP-like games, one which had its own brand recognition yet was still associated with BRP.

For very small press, it is now the only viable alternative. I am not counting GORE in the equation as there is virtually no talk about it, AFAIK.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Mongoose has just shown why this is not, in fact, the case.

Hence my use of the past tense. ;-(

For very small press, it is now the only viable alternative. I am not counting GORE in the equation as there is virtually no talk about it, AFAIK.

There you have it, Newt - you're our best and only friend! >:->

[NickMiddleton]

You are a wise man, Nick

Cold comfort for those caught short - I would rather have been wrong in this case.

Edit: I checked, and they can pull the license for the logo. But they also swore they would not do it unless you published pornography or such.

To quote the last version of the MRQ STL I have (it's no longer available for download at MGP's site as far as I can see):

Mongoose Publishing reserves the right to withdraw the right to use the RuneQuest logo from any third party at any time. Mongoose Publishing also reserves the right to order cessation of sales and the destruction of any remaining stock under this circumstance.

There follow some weasel words about how MGP are terribly fluffy and friendly and would try to be nice about it§, but the license is explicit that MGP have the right to withdrawn permission to use the RQ trademark and logo's whenever they wish and to order immediate cessation of production AND destruction of existing stocks...

JI also understand that you can still publish things under the MRQ OGL, but I don't think you'll be able to have the RuneQuest logo on your 3rd-party product once MRQ2 takes off. The main point of which is purely brand recognition - without that, a publisher could easily write their own D% system, but it would be very hard to make a dent in the market.

Would it though? Oh, in the overall RPG market quite probably. But in the niche of niche that is BRP/MRQ derivatives? With judicious presence at RPGNet, here, the Tavern, and a few well chosen Con appearances I suspect that a fair chunk of the target market will know of your product quite rapidly. An established brand name would obviously help sales, but as Newt has demonstrated one can achieve at least moderate market penetration without it.

To be honest, I think in a way the loss of the MRQ STL will harm BRP precisely because, with the loss of that "umbrella", we will see an even greater profusion of variants of the rule set. And with BRP, MRQ/MRQII, GORE, OpenQuest and d100 Rules do we need anymore? At least under the MRQ STL there was a tendency to focus on producing supplements (which per discussion elsewhere, the consensus seems to be are the life blood of a game), rather than frequently re-packaging / re-writing the core rules (which is odd, because that's exactly the effect the d20 STL did have on d20 / D&D 3.x - probably something to do with size of the market I guess).

The context in which I was wondering about OQ was just an idea that it could possibly become an alternative route of 3rd-party publication for BRP-like games, one which had its own brand recognition yet was still associated with BRP.

See my comments above. The one clear cut advantage of the Chaosium BRP license route (especially now that the RQ STL is apparently dead) is that your publications would carry a well established trademark (BRP), with some traction in both normal distribution and the specialist online retailers; plus, it would be carried by Chaosium in the same section of their catalogue as the BRP core book. But it's clearly not essential.

Cheers,

Nick

§ "It should be noted that Mongoose Publishing is committed to a strong relationship with third parties using the RuneQuest logo and that this instruction will only be given under extreme circumstances that threaten to bring the RuneQuest trademark into disrepute."

Edited November 28, 2009 by NickMiddleton

[kaddawang]

OpenQuest may be the path of less resistance, but you say you want to make a Classic Fantasy-adventure.

Unless you publish it as a mono or a free fan-work, it is going to be an OpenQuest-adventure, isn't it? How would putting CF-terminology(classes, magic etc) into an OpenQuest-publication work? Or am I reading Natural20's intent all wrong?

That being said, I really would like to see what you come up with. So far, the teasers have been great:thumb:

[RosenMcStern]

There follow some weasel words about how MGP are terribly fluffy and friendly and would try to be nice about it§, but the license is explicit that MGP have the right to withdrawn permission to use the RQ trademark and logo's whenever they wish and to order immediate cessation of production AND destruction of existing stocks...

:eek: OMG. I have thirty books in stock now. Should I file for bankruptcy if they pull my license?

To be honest, I think in a way the loss of the MRQ STL will harm BRP precisely because, with the loss of that "umbrella", we will see an even greater profusion of variants of the rule set. And with BRP, MRQ/MRQII, GORE, OpenQuest and d100 Rules do we need anymore?

I suspect you will be proven wrong in this case. Only systems for which someone is providing support will live and thrive. GORE looks comatose to me, for instance. All the variants will be there as pre-made houserules you can use for the two main systems, but without supplements they will be limited to game limbo. Newt's ability to support OQ will determine its fate.

frequently re-packaging / re-writing the core rules (which is odd, because that's exactly the effect the d20 STL did have on d20 / D&D 3.x - probably something to do with size of the market I guess).

D&D lovers, please hit the PgDown key...

Any chance that it has something to do with the crappiness of the rules, instead?

[Natural Twenty Games]

I'll be trying to get ahold of Dustin to start the process of using the Chaosium license and leverage Rodney's work on CF - my goal is to not recreate the rules set (the world doesn't need a whole lot more of those )

[threedeesix]

I'll be trying to get ahold of Dustin to start the process of using the Chaosium license and leverage Rodney's work on CF

Now we're talking. I want to help in any way you need, you have my e-mail. Dustin may still be out of touch. You can always try Charlie. He has been quite fast in responding to me about CF over the last couple of weeks, usually within an hour or two. Of course, I have no idea what he's doing over the holiday weekend.

Rod

PS- We create greate avatars, don't we?

[frogspawner]

Any drawbacks to using [OpenQuest] other than the obvious that it won't be potentially OOB compatible with BRP?

Um, the rules aren't as good?

And, being derived from MRQ1e, they render it out-of-date when they publish a "Mongoose 2E"...

[RosenMcStern]

And, being derived from MRQ1e, they render it out-of-date when they publish a "Mongoose 2E"...

Newt can evolve the system as he pleases, so OpenQuest is not condemned to be outdated.

[Newt]

Um, the rules aren't as good?

Oh common that's a subjective matter, but I'd cheerfully admit that OpenQuest is a happy amateur fun project that was written mainly in my lunch hour at work

And, being derived from MRQ1e, they render it out-of-date when they publish a "Mongoose 2E"...

This one I'm going to be a bit more serious.

OpenQuest was never 100% compatiable with MRQ1, and that wasn't a design goal since the early days of when the game was called SimpleQuest. One of things that came out from feedback, from this very forum, was that the game should break compatiablity with MRQ to become even more streamlined and simple.

These days I'm promoting the game as being 'broadly compatible' with other D100 systems. In that its got the characteristics of other d100 systems, but may differ in some areas of the implementation. And no before anyone asks I'm not going to highlight the differences, go check out the free plain text version - most of the rules are in the first 50 pages or so.

This means that when the adventure/settings books come out you will be able use them with the D100 system of your choice.

This post I made on OpenQuest Companion about the Making of OpenQuest has some bits about compatiblity with MRQ and the process I went through putting it together.

OpenQuest Companion » Blog Archive » The Making of OpenQuest

To conclude

If you want to put out a BRP supplement, go talk to Chaosium and either do it via the Monograph or liscensed route (I'm actually considering doing this myself )

If you want to put out a fun happy D100 project that is BROADLY compatible with BRP/MRQ1/MRQ2, go download the OQ dev kit.

The original poster has choosen the BRP route because they are want to do a BRP product which is the right thing to do.

Please please do not use OQ to do a product that your really want to do with BRP. Its not BRP and the levels of disappointment you will feel will detract from you getting your product out.

[frogspawner]

Newt can evolve the system as he pleases, so OpenQuest is not condemned to be outdated.

Of course, but it IS a drawback for NaturalTwenty, who probably won't want to have to update his adventure after OQ is revised to the forthcoming MRQ2E.

But the main problem is the MRQ/OQ inferior rules-set.

[RosenMcStern]

after OQ is revised to the forthcoming MRQ2E.

Actually, Newt cannot revise it this way, as MRQ 2e is not OGL. I was talking about independent evolution.

But the main problem is the MRQ/OQ inferior rules-set.

And who said it is? I would rather call it different. The actual problems of MRQ1 (physical runes, armour penalty, bad editing) are not there in OQ. And will not be there in MRQ2 - Mongoose said.

[NickMiddleton]

Actually, Newt cannot revise it this way, as MRQ 2e is not OGL. I was talking about independent evolution.

Err, yes he can, I think.

He can't use the RQ trademark (but OQ doesn't anyway), and he can't quote verbatim text from MGP publications that have not been designated Open Content under the OGL. But (see endless discussions here and at every other RPG fan site on the net for the past decade and more), rules are not protected by copyright - he can revise HIS words (in the OQ text) to include new rules, and whether that brings OQ in to line with MRQ2, BRP or WFRP 3e doesn't matter - provided the form of expression is NOT directly copied from a copyright protected source, and the ideas expressed is not protected by patent, it's entirely legal as far as I can see.

Cheers,

Nick

[RosenMcStern]

He surely can. But this could lead to some sort of litigation with Mongoose. Which I would not recommend. If Mongoose stated that the new content is not open, then this means people are not supposed to make MRQ2 clones. WotC allows people to make retroclones of D&D 1st ed, but if someone made a clone of 4e, they would surely complain, regardless of whether such an accusation would stand in a court.

Not everything boils down to legal action. Considering that Newt also makes Hearts in Glorantha, a fan publication with the bless of Issaries, the real trademark holder for RuneQuest, I think (no mind-reading, just speculation) he is the least likely person in the world who would have any sort of misunderstanding about RuneQuest.

[rust]

Besides, I doubt that it really would make much sense to modify OpenQuest

in such a way. In my view it is fine as it is, and any attempt to change or

"improve" it by making it more similar to other systems would have a high risk

of damaging it by introducing contradictions or unnecessary complexities.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

OpenQuest is like a Japanese garden - it was complete when nothing more could be taken away! :thumb: