Members | Sign In
All Forums > Products and Releases
avatar

d100 Games Universal Logo

posted Jan 21, 2013 13:05:46 by lawrence.whitaker
Posts from Caravan: Book of Quests Preview moved here.
page   1
3 replies
avatar
lawrence.whitaker said Jan 21, 2013 13:11:29
Sergio Wrote:
Just starting to read it, but the mention to the several brands of BRP fantasy in the first page is excellent. I would love to see this happening more often, the companies producing BRP-derived games cross-selling their products. And, as I said before, I would love to see a d100 logo on the cover of all of them...

lawrence.whitaker said about 13 hours ago
the mention to the several brands of BRP fantasy in the first page is excellent. I would love to see this happening more often, the companies producing BRP-derived games cross-selling their products. And, as I said before, I would love to see a d100 logo on the cover of all of them...

I thought it would be a good idea because, as a free scenario, others who don't have RQ, but do have OQ, Legend or BRP, might be interested in picking it up.

A D100 logo to unify everyone? I don't think its a bad idea at all, but I think it might take a lot to achieve consensus between the various publishers. There'd need to be some form of license or formal agreement in place - something that benchmarks what qualifies for the logo. For example, just using d100 as the main resolution dice wouldn't be enough: you'd need to codify skill % roll under. And there are other, IP considerations too. It might be possible, but I think a lot of effort.

SergioMascarenhas said about 5 hours ago
Well, yes but on the other hand, you only need to get to a minimal agreement on the core components of the game: roll under percentile based skills, core stats, and little more. And you don't need all publishers to agree to it from the start. I think that the only ones that need to get on board on day D are Chaosium, TDM and maybe the publishers of Open Quest. If these three agree to it, other smaller publishers will happilly get on board afterwards. Including foreign publishers from France, Germany, Spain, etc.

The question is, why do it at all? For two reasons:
Market awareness. The rpg market is small, and dividng one of its strands even more does no good to that strand.
Cross-selling adventure books and supplements.

All I say is that as a consumer and long time fan of BRP-derived games and the companies that produce them I would love to see this happening.
avatar
lawrence.whitaker said Jan 21, 2013 13:19:18
Well, yes but on the other hand, you only need to get to a minimal agreement on the core components of the game: roll under percentile based skills, core stats, and little more. And you don't need all publishers to agree to it from the start. I think that the only ones that need to get on board on day D are Chaosium, TDM and maybe the publishers of Open Quest. If these three agree to it, other smaller publishers will happilly get on board afterwards. Including foreign publishers from France, Germany, Spain, etc.


Chaosium would have to be onboard before anyone else. Such an initiative stands or falls with their involvement.

a minimal agreement on the core components of the game: roll under percentile based skills, core stats, and little more.


Having worked on collective agreements, contracts, statements of work and intent, I can categorically state that even simple proposals like this rapidly turn into complex negotiations where the devil lives, breathes and does a merry jig in the detail.

Plus, who does it? Who has the time and resources? Who approaches the core companies, brokers the talks, drafts the initial document, works with them to iron-out the detail? Its a full time project in and of itself - and one that detracts from the day to day running of the business.

As I said before, I think its a good idea, and I agree with the reasons, too. But I also know that the amount of effort involved is no trivial thing. There are some politics to consider... these would influence any discussions, no matter how simple to begin with.
avatar
BruceMason said Jan 21, 2013 14:21:55
Personally I don't see the benefit and if anything I see it causing more problems. The main issue is who would benefit from it?
Everyone on this forum is aware that RQ6, BRP, Legend, Renaissance, OQ are family members. For us, putting a d100 logo is largely irrelevant.
So presumably it is to help someone who doesn't know this. Perhaps someone has a bought a copy of Legend because it's cheap and is looking for something to play with it. Perhaps he picks up Savage North because it has a d100 logo on it. At this point, the problems start. OQ doesn't have hit locations so the stat blocks look odd. What does 17 Hit Points mean? The magic looks sort of familiar but often isn't and many of the skills are different. If the person is a very experienced gamer who is used to converting systems then perhaps he can re-engineer the mechanics but more likely he either complains because he thinks he's been conned or simply puts it away and never buys anything else.

Basically I think a d100 logo is likely to cause more trouble than it solves. And that's before getting into knotty questions such as would CoC or the Laundry be included? Is it an open logo or does someone have to sign a licence. Fundamentally, what does it mean?

Philosophically: I would rather see different systems explore their own paths, be creative, try new stuff. I don't want to see a 'monopolistic' d100 logo which, say it worked, would tend to cause publishers to narrow the scope of their invention so that their work is as compatible with other d100 works.

That's my take on it.
Login below to reply: