Ah has the rights to RuneQuest. Chaosium have the rights to Glorantha.
> Does AH have the rights to the name RQ -
Yes, they most certainly do. Recent speculation is that they consider this more important than the actual game. AHs business practices passeth all understanding.
>could Chaosium produce another "version" of its BRPG?
They could certainly produce another variant if it was demonstrably not particularly derivative of RuneQuest. They cannot produce RQ4, but they could produce Elric! in Glorantha, if that is what you asking. I don't think this would be easy to do while still making anybody happy - the magic system is by far the most Gloranthan bit and the most obviously RQ not BRPO bit.
> Does AH actually =
>own the system?
Yes indeed.
>How similar to RQ4 is G:TG going to be?
Not very at all. I don't know much about what G:TG is going to be , but I haven't heard anyone suggest that its going to be like RQ4. Pendragon was mentioned, but I think this was more about a few Pendragon core concepts, rather than the rules being really similar.
The whole idea of G:tG was to make a new game, one that reflected the years of experience in designing game systems since then.
danm mentioned in passing
>(OJ Simpson is
>objectively INNOCENT, after all!)
No, OJ Simpson is objectively Not Guilty of the criminal act as charged, but more than likely committed the crime, presuming you accept the evidence of the legal system as objectively true (unwise). The example is highly appropriate, though, as sloppy thinking and vague and inappropriate use of terminology (like Not Guilty = Innocent) is the essential substance of the 'subjective vs. objective' debate.
Martin bellowed
>Oh and in case anyone thinks I'm being arrogant,
>angry, insulting and derogatory - your damn right
And I'm sure its just what we deserve.
Cheers
David
End of Glorantha Digest V4 #542
Powered by hypermail