Fantasy Concepts: An OGL Fantasy Saga Project

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'd just like to point out that an Open Content project obviously does not have to come exclusively from OGL sources-- otherwise nobody would ever create anything new.

You seem to have overlooked both original content and derivative content.

I think you can manage to create an Action Point = Force Point analog (ie, mechanics that are derivative of existing Open Content) without violating copyrights.

If WOTC sent you a letter tomorrow, having read not a single word of your project, and they politely asked you to abandon it, you'd abandon it. No threat of lawsuit, no strongly worded letter, just a "Please, we'd rather you not pursue this..."

If WOTC has a serious problem with your Fantasy Saga Edition, whether they are right or wrong, they'll find a way to lean on you, and you'll fold. Let's be realistic: Neither BFG nor Samardan is going to be the first to step up and challenge the OGL in court.

Avoid copyright issues and I don't think you have much to worry about with respect to derivative content.

That's not legal advice, just practical advice.

 

[Kunimatyu]

I think it's a very nice idea, actually, I can't stop thinking about a fantasy game based on the saga rules.
If you allow me to give a very personal opinion: I enjoy a more "realistic" (to me, D&D is realistic enough for that matter) game, that allows a more immersive roleplay and a deeper roleplaying atmosphere. I like games that you can play with the "tailored" or "status quo" styles. Saga rules are excessive cinematic. They are all about "simulating" the movies and lack many RPG elements. Also, the saga core book is much more focused on combat than PHB, that it almost turned into a miniature rulebook.
So, if you are able to bring the SAGA rules to a medieval fantasy setting without bringing all the design concept and phylosophy behind the SWSE and the style of gaming it exclusively enforces, you will have success, for my taste.

And if you also happen to allow me to give specific ideas about anything, i'll be glad

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here, man -- most of the innovations of the Saga system involve making things more cinematic, and removing those, well, removes the innovations that people like about it.

I'm also a bit confused on "more immersive roleplaying" and "deeper roleplaying atmosphere" - do those even have a definition applicable to a new rules set?

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

I'd just like to point out that an Open Content project obviously does not have to come exclusively from OGL sources-- otherwise nobody would ever create anything new.

You seem to have overlooked both original content and derivative content.

I think you can manage to create an Action Point = Force Point analog (ie, mechanics that are derivative of existing Open Content) without violating copyrights.

If WOTC sent you a letter tomorrow, having read not a single word of your project, and they politely asked you to abandon it, you'd abandon it. No threat of lawsuit, no strongly worded letter, just a "Please, we'd rather you not pursue this..."

If WOTC has a serious problem with your Fantasy Saga Edition, whether they are right or wrong, they'll find a way to lean on you, and you'll fold. Let's be realistic: Neither BFG nor Samardan is going to be the first to step up and challenge the OGL in court.

Avoid copyright issues and I don't think you have much to worry about with respect to derivative content.

That's not legal advice, just practical advice.

Wulff speaks wisdom.

But, this thread was supposedly for discussing elements in Saga that need the fantasy (or in some cases, D&D) treatment.

So what can be added to my first post, quoted here for convenience?

But no matter the goal, here are a few issues I feel are essential to using Saga for fantasy:

•Magic, of course. Using the Force powers as a baseline, one will get a nice magic feel, IMO. However, spellcasters do enjoy fireballs and the like, and we need a system for allowing such things, keeping them viable and still not just playing D&D. As has been discussed in the E6 threads, it would be nice if 'D&D spells', that is those spells that sooner or later more or less controls the way the DM can construct his scenarios (Commune, Teleport, Raise Dead, Save or Die spells, and others) could be kept optional.

•Classes. Warriors, Scoundrels etc. And we need a dedicated Spellcaster (Magic-User) Class.

•Equipment. In Saga, characters seem much less dependant on equipment, which is nice. But we need to make different kinds of armor and weapons viable choices. Otherwise, no one will use anything but a long sword since you only crit on a 20. Rapier and such needs to be viable.

•Healing. How hard? How easy. Reserve points, perhaps.

•Stunts and challenges from Iron Heroes/Mythic Heroes would fit Saga Fantasy well, I think. So would action zones.

•Monsters. I feel Beasts fill that role for a vast majority of monsters. The different kinds of monsters (giants, vermin, predators, etc.) could get a template that modifies certain abilities (so that Vermin are immune to mind affecting, Predators might get an attack bonus etc.) - I would certainly do something for outsiders (since demons must be powerful) and dragons (even more so). Undeads as well. The True20 Bestiary might be a good source for ideas.

•Mass Combat. I had an idea about having companies/armies have stats like vehicles do and fighting it out like two vehicles or something like that. I think it could work really nice.

At the same time, we need to keep Saga's streamlined play. So the above mentioned should (must) be doable without rules by exception or whatever it's called.

 

[EditorBFG]

So what can be added to my first post, quoted here for convenience?

I think Wulf is saying that, in the quest to avoid deriving from copyrighted material, it is important that this not just be a mad-lib of existing OGC. New things must be invented.

And he's right.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

I think Wulf is saying that, in the quest to avoid deriving from copyrighted material, it is important that this not just be a mad-lib of existing OGC. New things must be invented.

And he's right.

Uhm.. yes. But how is that related to the quote? :\ I'm referring to a lot of OGL, sure, but the point is identifying those areas that need addressing to use Saga for fantasy.

Nevermind, let's start inventing

 

[Flynn]

I'd just like to point out that an Open Content project obviously does not have to come exclusively from OGL sources-- otherwise nobody would ever create anything new.

You seem to have overlooked both original content and derivative content.

I think you can manage to create an Action Point = Force Point analog (ie, mechanics that are derivative of existing Open Content) without violating copyrights.

If WOTC sent you a letter tomorrow, having read not a single word of your project, and they politely asked you to abandon it, you'd abandon it. No threat of lawsuit, no strongly worded letter, just a "Please, we'd rather you not pursue this..."

If WOTC has a serious problem with your Fantasy Saga Edition, whether they are right or wrong, they'll find a way to lean on you, and you'll fold. Let's be realistic: Neither BFG nor Samardan is going to be the first to step up and challenge the OGL in court.

Avoid copyright issues and I don't think you have much to worry about with respect to derivative content.

That's not legal advice, just practical advice.

I haven't forgotten, but I just want to make sure that I can point to something and say "my work is derivative of this OGC." Just being overly cautious, I guess. Grim Tales struck me as the same kind of approach, a synthesis of great ideas combined with some newly created material with roots in existing OGC. I will definitely take your words into consideration.

Thanks for dropping in,
Flynn

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I haven't forgotten, but I just want to make sure that I can point to something and say "my work is derivative of this OGC."

I guess my point-- not having seen Saga, mind you-- would be that you could look at the Force Point mechanic, whatever it may be and however it ties into the existing d20 mechanics, and clearly show that it is, itself, derivative of Open Content.

And that surely you could get to the same point through much the same route without violating any copyrights.

 

[HeinorNY]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here, man -- most of the innovations of the Saga system involve making things more cinematic, and removing those, well, removes the innovations that people like about it.

I'm also a bit confused on "more immersive roleplaying" and "deeper roleplaying atmosphere" - do those even have a definition applicable to a new rules set?

Making things too cinematic kills some of the verossimilitude that any RPG(even in aminimum level) needs to, well, be considered a RPG. I like SAGA rules by what they can be, not for what they are now.

And also, making things more cinematic requires a cinematic "source". I wonder what source this project would rely on.

BTW, as a RPG book, SAGA is a very advanced miniatures game!!

 

[Kunimatyu]

Making things too cinematic kills some of the verossimilitude that any RPG(even in aminimum level) needs to, well, be considered a RPG. I like SAGA rules by what they can be, not for what they are now.

And also, making things more cinematic requires a cinematic "source". I wonder what source this project would rely on.

BTW, as a RPG book, SAGA is a very advanced miniatures game!!

Is there another way you can phrase this? I'm not understanding you at all here.

 

[Flynn]

I guess my point-- not having seen Saga, mind you-- would be that you could look at the Force Point mechanic, whatever it may be and however it ties into the existing d20 mechanics, and clearly show that it is, itself, derivative of Open Content.

And that surely you could get to the same point through much the same route without violating any copyrights.

I think we're on the same wavelength here, but in my desire to bring that to the forethought of those that would be reading the thread and who might not be considering such details, my emphasis came across incorrectly.

In short, you have put my concerns in much better words that I have been able to muster.

Thanks, Wulf,
Flynn