glorantha

[Lord Twig]

Ken, we think alike I see.

[SDLeary]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

(emphasis mine)

Produce settings like/for Glorantha? Really? Somehow I doubt it. I've included a sort of mini-Glorantha in my campaign world (of Sartar/Prax exiles), but I presume Mr Stafford would sue if it made any money.

Or do you think a world that captured enough of the essence of Glorantha could be sufficiently un-like it to avoid legal problems?

Griffin Island

SDLeary

[lawrence.whitaker]

Its unfortunate really. I would love a Gloranthan sourcebook for BRP but alas it's not going to happen........ Or is it!

Sure it is. Or has. Moon Design's republished RQ works are still in print. Completely compatible with BRP.

And Mongoose's Glorantha the Second Age core book is effectively system agnostic; perfectly usable with either/any system.

[lawrence.whitaker]

Some one could rewrite Glorantha for BRP remembering the couplet...

Only if Greg Stafford gave permission first. Glorantha is a protected Intellectual Property. If you did a 'rewrite' to fit BRP specifically without acquiring a licence or the appropriate permission, they'd be opening themselves to litigation.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by soltakss

RQ came first.

BRP came second.

BRP was RQ with bits filed off. CoC's BRP was BRP with bits filed off. Ringworld was RQ3 with bits added on. Stormbringer was BRP with bits filed off and bits added on.

They are all interconnected.

Where's the problem?

Not quite. Strombringer was far more RQ2 than BRP based. In fact, all the RQ2 era RPGS were RQ2 with bits fired off, except for WoW.

Enen the post RQ3 era games are more CoC based than BRP.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by soltakss

RQM is close enough to the other RQs to count as a valid version.

I'd debate that. In fact I have already. The problem is it is hard to come up with criteria to test for "valid RQ"-ness. Any test that puts RQ, RQ3 and MRQ in the same categories would end up catching RPGs that are not RQ. In fact, there are some non-chasoium RPGS that meet criteria that MRQ fails to pass. One example is Pendragon. Is isn't RQ, but is as close to RQ3 as MRQ-especially with the new way MRQ handles opposed rolls. And Pendragon has experience checks.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by lawrence.whitaker

Only if Greg Stafford gave permission first. Glorantha is a protected Intellectual Property. If you did a 'rewrite' to fit BRP specifically without acquiring a licence or the appropriate permission, they'd be opening themselves to litigation.

Or even if the ersatz-Glorantha was 'system agnostic', presumably. But I was hoping more to elicit opinions as to what essential elements (without infringing IP) would be needed for a Glorantha 'tribute' world (or even a take-off, 'Bored of the Rings' style...). But it's difficult, just like identifying the "RQ-ishness" of RQ2/3 which holds them apart from, and superior to, MRQ.

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by golden wheel dancer

So do you think Greg Stafford will license out First Age Glorantha to Chaosium to use with BRP? Or better still use first age for Heroquest and licence out 3rd age to be used with BRP. That really would be back to the good old days!

Think there is any likelihood?

I would like, but I doubt. I think I will have to build my RQ IV, starting with BRP.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Yeah, I think there is some bad blood between Greg and what is left of Chaosium. It was originally Greg's company, and in the mid 90s, Chaosium did split off into three different companies, with Issaries being the Glorantha company.

While Chaosium could probably broker a deal. I don't think they want to. I think if they were interested in publishing more Glorantha they would have produced HeroQuest.

I really doubt you'll see Greg and Chaosium working together on something again. Otherwise I doubt there evern would have been an MRQ.

According to GS, Chaosium split in 4 (Chaosium itself with CoC, Mythos and SB, Issaries with Glorantha, another company I don't remember the name with Pendragon and Wizard's Attic to handle distribution).
And also according to GS, he MAY have an interest in working with Chaosium: when asked who owns Chaosium, the answer was 33% himself, 33% Lynn Willis, 33% Charlie Krank and 1% Sandy Petersen. But, considering GS view on RQ (already cited by Nick) and the existence of the Mongoose license (that most probably includes an exclusivity clause), I really doubt it could occur.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by soltakss

RQM is close enough to the other RQs to count as a valid version.
...

I disagree on that, but let's NOT start a new flamewar on this.

Originally Posted by soltakss

...
Sure, it's not brilliant and has flaws and I wouldn't use it as my main system, but it has some good ideas and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
...

On, this, I agree.

Originally Posted by soltakss

...
From my point of view, BRP is just another version of RQ. It has a lot of rules I don't like and a lot of things I won't use, just like RQM. Is one better than the other? Maybe, maybe not.
...

Agreed, even if I'm sure than one will be better than the other is.

Originally Posted by soltakss

...
The playtest was interesting but the game seemed to be moving further away from RQ, a bit too far for my tastes.
...

Same for me.

Originally Posted by soltakss

...
It certainly seems more coherent than RQM, but even after playtesting and checking it still needs extensive alterations. That's why I won't be buying the Zero Edition, that and I bought 3 Mongoose RQ books that are now combined into one, so I'll be damned if I buy a Zero Edition and then have to buy a full version of BRP.
...

Same opinion for me, except that I am not buying edition 0 for economical reasons.

Originally Posted by soltakss

...
I'll wait, I'll buy it and I'll use bits of it. It won't be my prime system, any more than RQM will be, but I'll get some of the supplements and I'll use them in my games.

Idem.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster