Travern

5 minutes ago, AndreJarosch said:

If "The Orville" can run on TV for multiple seasons, and CBS dosen´t has a problem with it it is far enough away for them to be mot misinterpreted as being "Star Trek", even if it uses similar props, settings and storylines... but it clearly NOT Trek.

Except Fox did not negotiate a license with CBS for The Orville and is instead relying on the fair-use right to parody in copyright (and, of couse, its in-house counsel since those are notoriously murky legal waters).  A less reassuring analogy might be the Star Trek fan projects that CBS/Paramount/Viacom has clamped down on from time to time, depending on the different copyright-policing stances of its shifting corporate ownership.  Most recently, CBS and Paramount Pictures have issued guidelines for non-commercial fan-films, but this is not a license and, AFAIK, has not been tested in court.

One presumes that parody/pastiche of Prohibited Content would not be acceptable to Chaosium for an OGL BRP game, correct?

26 minutes ago, Jeff said:

If you do not feel that you can create content that is not substantially similar to material from Chaosium's past and current products - then this license is probably not for you. If you want to use BRP to create rules for your own unique settings, then this license should be easy to comply with.

The difficulty that arises is that the BRP OGL does not make any mention of "substantially similar" material in Clause 1(e), which defines Prohibited Content maximally ("all" and "any").  While this looser interpretation is the position of Chaosium's current management as expressed in this forum, there's no guarantee in the license itself that this would be Chaosium's policy in the future.

Another problem is that elsewhere in this thread, Chaosium staff have ruled out game ideas that are not "substantially similar" to existing Chaosium RPGs because of the Prohibited Content definition.  A parodic steampunk Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court RPG or a Nimue-loving Merlin in a contemporary urban fantasy RPG have been deemed unacceptable simply because they rework material in Malory, even though these do not resemble the King Arthur Pendragon RPG and would not cause confusion in the marketplace.  This is the maximal definition of "all works related to Le Morte d’Arthur" and suggests that Chaosium reserves the right to make similar sweeping prohibitions.

On 4/5/2020 at 5:49 AM, MOB said:

Hastur is Cthulhu Mythos. So no, that is Prohibited Content.

This identification of Hastur in the Cthulhu Mythos is not technically accurate.  August Derleth's depiction of Hastur as “Him Who Is Not to be Named” is unequivocally a Cthulhu Mythos figure (Lovecraft barely alluded to Hastur and did not describe it in his stories, however).  The original Hastur of Ambrose Bierce and that of Robert W. Chambers, which pre-date it, are not part of the Cthulhu Mythos.  An alternate-history/weird fin de siècle RPG based on Chambers's The Repairer of Reputations and other tales from his collection The Yellow Sign and Other Stories should be acceptable to Chaosium.  After all, Chambers created The King in Yellow before HPL was even writing juvenilia.

Fair use and the public domain must be able to coexist with the moral rights of authors, intellectual rights, and copyright for cultural contributions to flourish.  If either side begins to eclipse the other, culture as a whole suffers.

3 hours ago, MOB said:

Quote

With regards to Section 10's  <%30 revised/new content threshold for permitting continuing use of a previous version of the license after a new version is published:

By what metric is 30% to be measured, word-count? Percentage of pages with changes on them? Something else?

Is the 100% to which the %30 is compared the entire publication, or just the portion that is BRP Open Game Content?

These distinctions would be relevant to cases such as a new printing with mostly unchanged text but updated art & layout, or a new edition of a setting or campaign guide that contains few/minor changes to BRP Open Game Content rules material, but more substantial changes to the publisher's proprietary setting or background info.

30% by total word count of the entire Work.

If a book contains 30% or more new or revised text by total word count it is considered a new work for the purposes of the license. 

Many thanks for this answer—this helpfully clarifies the revision question.  Will the BRP OGL Clause 10 be updated to reflect this?  Meanwhile, the question of whether BRP Open Game Content is included or not in the total word count remains open.  For shorter works, this could pose a significant hurdle. 

5 hours ago, MOB said:

Quote

Where does the BRP OGL draw the line between derivative works from the public domain that appear in the various Chaosium product lines enumerated in Clause 1(e)  and those that are considered transformative works that count as Chaosium's intellectual property (i.e. Prohibited Content)?

If someone would mistake your content for material from one of the Chaosium games listed under Prohibited Content, it's not transformative.

And thank you also for this important clarification.  Will this be incorporated into the FAQ until the BRP OGL's language is revised?  The former currently does not address this at all.  ("Q: Can I Make A Game Using Public Domain Material? A: Unless the materials are on the list of prohibited content, you can certainly do that. Make that Jules Verne game you always wanted, or something based off the works of Alexandre Dumas, or an ancient Roman trip to the moon inspired by Lucian of Samosata. Just make sure of two things: 1. this isn’t on the list of prohibited content; and 2. it is really public domain.")  And Clause 1(e)'s ambiguous language remains in effect.

Quote

@JonL & @Travern & IIRC @others -- I'm personally sympathetic to your POV... and it seems to me that I share some of your qualms.

Nevertheless, I will go ahead and suggest that your question as formulated (and as you note, posed repeatedly to Chaosium) is at least as inadequate to the purpose as you find the BOGL.

If you look upthread to what Jeff said (that I quoted here), I don't see how your "originating" vs "appearing" distinction helps refine the issue (Arthuriana, in that case) in any meaningful way.  Mallory "originated" very little AFAIK; it's mostly about how he put things together...

To be clear:  I do not suggest your concerns are unwarranted (as I say, I share many of them); just that the specific clarification you request isn't, so far as I can see...

Just to note, @g33k, in this case "originates in" is intended to cover what copyright considers to be valid work, which can be either unique creations or unique treatments, i.e. sufficiently transformative work based on existing properties.

For example, Malory did not come up with the legend of the Questing Beast, which goes back to the Perlesvaus, but he did retell its legend based on Suite du Merlin in his Morte d'Arthur.  (It's possible this alone would not be enough to pass muster by 21st-century copyright standards—maybe only Malory's text would be ruled valid—but copyright as we know it didn't even exist as a legal concept in the 15th century.)  Thankfully, the case of Malory in Pendragon is clearer in Clause 1(e), which at least unambiguously rules "all works related to Le Morte d’Arthur" fall under "Prohibited Content"—which, in turn, applies to any and all genres and settings.  Anyone wanting to use the Questing Beast in their OGL BRP games will have to stick to the Perlesvaus's version.  Unfortunately, other examples that we're bringing up here are less clearly defined in the BRP OGL.

Since INAL, much less a copyright lawyer, I can't furnish Chaosium with new boilerplate language for this, but Clause 1(e) needs to reflect this distinction.

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

Its to encourage third parties to use the BRP system without harming our IPs.

This is a perfectly understandable goal for Chaosium as a licensor.  The problems that arise stem from ambiguous language in the BRP OGL, e.g. what counts as a Chaosium IP, i.e. "Prohibited Content" in Clause 1(e), or how to calculate what is considered "thirty percent (30%) or more revised or new content" in Clause 10.

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

Magic should be setting specific.

Thanks, this is a helpful piece of general guidance (and a useful tip for game design in general).  Would it be possible to incorporate this into the FAQ?

6 hours ago, Jeff said:

If you want to build your game off BRP, you need to comply with the license. It is a contract between Chaosium and the user after all. Chaosium is letting the user create derivative works from its IP (BRP) without having to pay royalties. In exchange, the user agrees to follow the terms of the license.

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

We wall off certain rules, certain settings, but if you have something you want to publish that we aren't already doing, you can.

This conversation is simply the process of determining what these are since, again, people have questions about what counts as Prohibited Content.  It's much better to settle these now rather than later, after people have begun work on their OGL BRP projects.

For example, the BRP FAQ encourages, "Make that Jules Verne game you always wanted".  However, since Clause 1(e)'s list of Prohibited Content counts the Call of Cthulhu line which includes Cthulhu by Gaslight, does that mean Captain Nemo and Phileas Fogg are off limits because they appear in that supplement as NPCs?  What does that mean for the other famous fictional heroes and villains featured in that supplement, viz. Allan Quatermain, Count Dracula, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, Doctor Moreau, Dorian Grey, Fu Manchu, The Invisible Man, The Phantom of the Opera, Prof. Challenger, Prof. Moriarty, Prof. Van Helsing, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, Varney the Vampire,  and Victor Frankenstein and Frankenstein's Monster.  For the purposes of Clause 1(e), these definitely count as "proper names"/"characters" and their write-ups describe events from their originating fictional works, i.e. "story elements".   Are vampire-hunting OGL BRP games unacceptable if they feature these characters, or ones about consulting detectives, steampunk adventure, gothic horror, or fin-de-siècle thrillers?

Chaosium staff's previous answers suggest they're probably OK, but that's not unambiguous from the language in the BRP OGL, which is in effect the final word.  The Prohibited Content's clause does not distinguish between what appears in and what originates in, which leaves open this issue of transformative vs. derivative works.  Chaosium understandably does not want the BRP OGL to be interpreted as an opportunity to ransack its intellectual property. How it has maximally defined this in the BRP OGL, however, may include public domain works and cultural figures that would normally be acceptable subjects for game design.  Clarifying the language should be a priority now, before it becomes a licensing problem later.

2 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

HG Well's Martians are fine to use in general, regardless of being in Malleus - just write them up in your own words, etc. That's like the CoC King of Chicago book having the City of Chicago in it. Using the City of Chicago is fine as well - just write it up in your own words. When asked these sorts of questions, I usually ask myself "can I reasonably imagine that item/person/place being used in a non-cthulhu way" (or non-RuneQuest way, or non-Pendragon way, etc.)

I hope that helps.

Many thanks for the clarification—that's good to know.  Would it be possible for this to be incorporated in some form into the FAQ (if not the BRP OGL)?  Cheers,

These kinds of cameos and allusions appear throughout the Call of Cthulhu line.  Personally, I love them, but they have the potential for legal exposure now.

19 minutes ago, JonL said:

We have still yet to see a clear statement on the general case of proper nouns etc. present within prohibited works that originated elsewhere. I don't for one minute believe that they intend to prohibit Massachusetts along with Arkham and Miskatonic University, but the current license text could be read either way.

This ambiguity remains an issue since, as written, the Prohibited Content clause covers the entire Call of Cthulhu product line, which includes plenty of non-Cthulhu Mythos creative works.  For instance, the now-out-of-print Malleus Monstrorum includes H. G. Wells's Martians from The War of the Worlds.  Does this mean that they cannot appear in an OGL BRP sci-fi space opera?

14 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

Isn't Lovecraft’s work in the public domain?

Please, let's not open the copyright can of worms that is the Cthulhu Mythos in this thread (yes, HPL's work is basically out of copyright, but so much work has been done on the Cthulhu Mythos since then that it's tricky to go back to "first principles").

More important, Chaosium is under no obligation to license competition to their flagship game under the BRP OGL.  That would be tantamount to asking them to furnish a knife to cut their sails.  Besides, anyone wanting to create Cthulhu Mythos gaming material has many options within existing CoC licenses, from the Miskatonic Repository to small publisher and commercial licenses.

49 minutes ago, Jeff said:

I'm sure you can find another source for your cyberpunk treatment of Merlin and Morgan le Fay than Malory. But honestly, this whole discussion smacks of angels on pinheads. Are you planning on publishing a cyberpunk game with Merlin and Morgan le Fay? Heck are you planning on publishing a game based on Malory? Then we are happy to chat. 

Or are you just raising hypotheticals on an Internet forum for the sake of raising hypotheticals?

Thank you very much for the response, Jeff.  I'm afraid it's still unclear to me if Chaosium is reserving the right to consider characters from Malory to be Prohibited Content regardless of the setting (the most drastic interpretation), only the chivalric Matter of Britain (the narrowest needed to protect Pendragon's IP), or just the Arthurian setting (the middle ground).

Clarifying this would allow potential RPG designers to draw their own conclusions about how to resolve other particular concepts that could potentially fall under "prohibited content".  (Elsewhere on the web I've seen some ludicrous over-interpretations about the BRP OLG forbidding basic fantasy tropes because of RuneQuest and Stormbringer.)  If the answer is that people must check with Chaosium first to receive permission to use the BRP OGL in such cases, then this ought to be spelled out in at least the FAQ, though any waivers granted through this process will, by their nature, complicate the license.

I'm raising these hypotheticals because I genuinely worry that the ambiguous language in the Prohibited Content clause could scare away potential development of OGL BRP.  And I'm sticking to hypotheticals because I have no emotional investment in them, unlike, say, the homebrew systems that people on this forum have put their creative effort into.  If one wanted, for instance, a cyberpunk-sorcery game right now, one could always try… Shadowrun, but I think I speak for everyone here when I say I would prefer an OGL BRP alternative with a richer setting.

An open license for Basic Roleplaying has been on my wish list for a long time, and I would like it to enjoy the success that similar projects from other publishers have seen.

P.S. By the way, I think that BRP OGL's language covering Lovecraftian horror, while sweeping, is unambiguous and entirely correct: "all works related to the Cthulhu Mythos, including those that are otherwise public domain".  Anyone wanting to create works in this subgenre should have no questions about whether they can adapt BRP (no) or must work within existing CoC licensing options (and Chaosium's options, from the Miskatonic Repository to small publisher and commercial licenses, cover everything they could need).

On 3/28/2020 at 7:31 PM, JonL said:

If "from" after that list of things means "originating within" the following list of enumerated titles and lines, then you're right.

That would make the Le Morte prohibition nearly meaningless though, as Mallory drew from so many prior works.

If "from" means "appearing within," then the Mallory prohibition includes Arthur & co., but sweeps up all the real world locales and gods along with it.

Best to get these ambiguities sorted out sooner rather than later, IMO.

It really would be better to sort out the ambiguities of the Prohibited Content clause in its current form now than later.

Here are three hypothetical RPG ideas, none of which are retroclones of Pendragon, but which may present varying degrees of problems with Chaosium's BRP OGL, specifically: "The following items are hereby identified as “Prohibited Content”: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, place names, etc.), plots, story elements, locations, characters, artwork, or trade dress from […] all works related to Le Morte d’Arthur" in the Prohibited Content clause.  (For the purposes of discussion, we'll assume that all of them have distinctive designs, art direction, title logo, etc. so as not to cause confusion in the marketplace with any existing Chaosium product.)

• Merlin in Manhattan RPG: A cyberpunk-sorcery setting for contemporary urban fantasy.  Is this in compliance with the BRP OGL if it uses such characters as Merlin and Morgan le Fay who appear in Malory's Morte d'Arthur?
   
• A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court RPG: Based on Mark Twain's novel, a steampunk RPG satirizing feudal Britain.  Is it this in compliance despite its Arthurian setting and Twain's use of Malory?
   
• The Sword in the Stone YA RPG: A young-adult light fantasy game revolving around Merlin's whimsical tutelage of Wart (Arthur) and similarly de-aged Knights of the Round Table (the PCs). Is this in compliance because of T. H. White's focus on a time in Arthur's life that Malory does not discuss?

As I said, I think Open BRP is excellent news that will only benefit the RPG hobby, but these questions with Prohibited Content should be addressed before people start making RPGs with it.

32 minutes ago, Toadmaster said:

I would assume "prohibited content" is legalese for check with us first.

It's more like "you shall not pass", which is why it's important to spell things out from the start.  It seems to be analogous to the "Product Identity" restrictions of WotC's OGL for D&D, but where that specifies their intellectual property that cannot be used under the license, Chaosium's is much more generalized—which is why we need clarification.

12 minutes ago, craigm said:

Thank you for the clarification.

You're welcome.  I don't know the reason for Pelgrane's decision, though I assume it would still be kosher to mix the OGL Gumshoe SRD v2 with other OGL properties.  (The latest version contains content from Gumshoe One-2-One, QuickShock, and The Yellow King Roleplaying Game.)

19 minutes ago, craigm said:

GUMSHOE is multi-licensed (OGL and Creative Commons), but like most things you can negotiate another license with the publisher to not have to abide by that license. Bubblegumshoe (Evil Hat) was released without conforming to either the OGL or Creative Commons licenses. (Though, to be fair, the Creative Commons BY Attribution license is the simplest license to abide by, they just negotiated a different license).

The Gumshoe SRD v2 was OGL and Creative Commons, but v3 is only Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution Unported License.

6 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

 They can't enforce copyright on public domain works, but they can restrict the use of the game rules anyway they wish. They could include a clause against the use of purple text. Their rules, their rules. It is a lot easier and friendlier to make individual exceptions than to play wack a mole against every use that comes to close to their existing IPs.

If you want to make a cyberpunk game featuring King Arthur and his chrome knights of the round table I would expect chances are pretty good you would get a green light because nobody could confuse that with Pendragon. What you describe is pretty different but only they could say if it is far enough for their comfort. 

In the case of Cyberpunk Camelot, I would also think that Chaosium wouldn't have a problem with it, but the license in its present state doesn't preclude it falling under “Prohibited Content”.  I brought up a hypothetical The Sword in the Stone YA RPG precisely because it's similar, but not too similar, to Pendragon—only Chaosium can say whether they believe that, for the purposes of their open license, it would unfairly compete with their existing product or cause confusion in the market.

I simply would like for the “Prohibited Content” section to be clearer about what is considered prohibited content when it comes to "proper names (characters, deities, place names, etc.), plots, story elements, locations, characters".  As written, it causes confusion between their IP and elements in the public domain and real world.

6 hours ago, Vile said:

Look on this as playtesting a new product. I sincerely hope this is understood in the spirit that it is intended, i.e. constructive criticism. Removing ambiguity in the form of the "substantially similar" clause can only be a good thing.

Precisely.  I'm proposing a hypothetical game merely for the purposes of this conversation*, though clarification from Chaosium at this point would be very much appreciated.  On the whole, I think Chaosium creating an open BRP is excellent news and will only benefit the RPG hobby.  We're just kicking the tires before we take it out for a drive.

* Although I'm becoming more curious about creating a rules-lite BRP as an entry-level system for a younger market, a little like FATE Accelerated vs. FATE Core.

1 hour ago, JonL said:

As written, you can't use any proper noun from KAP or any of the other enumerated lines. As I alluded to above, that language seems in my (not a lawyer, but took upper level college courses in logic, semiotics, and philosophy of language) reading to inadvertently capture broad swaths of real-world locations and entities. If "locations" from Masks of Nyarlathotep are prohibited, can you set a game in New York, London, Cairo, and Kenya, or Shanghai?

I assumed this clause referred to creative work, because anything else is unenforceable.  ("All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, place names, etc.), plots, story elements, locations, characters, artwork, or trade dress" sounds, I would argue, like a set of examples covering material specifically created for the prohibited games.)

If Chaosium were to argue that my hypothetical The Sword in the Stone YA RPG competes with King Arthur Pendragon, it would have to be on other grounds than being set in, say, "Lorgres", "Cambria", or "Cumbria".  Would you have to call Britain "Breteyne" to comply with the license?

EDIT: Similarly, would TSitS be in compliance if it simply referred to Merlin as "Merlyn" and Arthur as "Artur" (though he's just Wart in White's book)?

On 3/27/2020 at 2:03 AM, fmitchell said:

P.S. "... and all works related to Le Morte d’Arthur"? So anything Arthurian is off limits? (EDIT: By which I mean something like Merlin or Morgan le Fay or the Grail in another era.)

You'd have to figure out how to create a BRP game that doesn't duplicate Pendragon. It would be absurd to expect Chaosium to sanction direct competition to its existing products. The FAQ says up front: "You are certainly entitled to create your own game using creatures, stories, characters, or locations derived from the Le Morte d’Arthur – you just can’t use Chaosium’s BRP system to do that. Chaosium already has a game that does just that (King Arthur Pendragon), the BRP-OGL does not allow you to publish your own variant of King Arthur Pendragon."

Using mythological figures like Merlin or Morgan le Fay in other settings, such as Urban Fantasy, should be completely acceptable.

On the other hand, if you were to create a version of The Sword in the Stone (provided you could get a license from T. H. White's estate and/or Disney…ha!), that ought to be kosher as long as you came up with new mechanics to reflect that setting's much lighter tone and whimsical approach to the Matter of Britain*—and avoided anything that could cause confusion in the market (e.g. titles, art design).

* EDIT: I'm thinking of a young-adult game—again, to avoid direct competition with an existing Chaosium title.  And for further clarification, I picked The Sword in the Stone because the novel focuses on Arthur's youth, which Malory does not discuss.

Ah-ha!  I just remembered the novel Soon I Will Be Invincible by Austin Grossman.  Its cast includes a few over-powered characters, but for the most part, its setting deals with street-level superheroes and supervillains, treated comparatively realistically.

2 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

You could easily produce a rationale for executions and mass starvations to power enormous magical workings. 

On 2/28/2020 at 9:43 AM, Valyar said:

I like this sheet, remind me of the party sheet in Fantasy Ground's ruleset for CoC7 which is super useful.

Interesting—I haven’t seen this, and I’m now curious to check it out.

23 hours ago, g33k said:

What I do for this is use 3x5 cards as "GM's mini character-sheets" at the table.  Character & player name, whatever stats/etc I need.  It is tremendously more versatile than any fixed sheet...

This certainly sounds like a helpful Keepers tool, especially if you have the time to customize them.  I’ve also seen something similar for GMs to hang over the edges of their screens (it looks like someone launched a Kickstarter for something similar for D&D).

23 hours ago, g33k said:

But I've got to admit, there's some good work put into this!  And I see the time-savings in having all the formatting & labeling &c done and pre-printed...

So I'm wondering:  what about setting up just your little mini-character-sheet format from the "Table Tracker", only in an array for printing out and cutting up into 8 (or so) mini-sheets to use in the ways I outlined above? 

That’s a possibility.  I want to get a better sense of what Keepers regard as essential information first, while I’m working on finalizing this table tracker.  Personally, I prefer a single sheet for the purposes of organization, but I appreciate there are many different approaches.

On 2/24/2020 at 8:30 AM, Darius West said:

That is a very pulp take on the setting, and is a bit like making the Nazis all involved in the mythos.  Idk if it actually makes the story better.  One of the main adversaries in any CoC game is the fact that very few people in authority understand that the mythos is real, and consequently the players have to come up with plausible explanations for terrible things that happened that will satisfy the local police etc.  Scale this up in Soviet Russia, where your actions are scrutinized more harshly unless you are some sort of "party darling" who can do no wrong in the eyes of Stalin and Beria.

Yes, Hite’s take is definitely pulp-horror rather than straight horror, with all the complications you mention.  It could be scaled down in a more serious campaign by having the Mythos-worshipping official(s) lower down on the hierarchy, even as their ambitions threaten to unleash vast terrors.

On 2/24/2020 at 8:30 AM, Darius West said:

There is a tendency, given the threat of the mythos, to think that it needs to be involved in human politics and can be used as an explanation for human evils.  In a way this is something of a cop-out.  Not only does it dehumanize human evils, but it also sort of lets these acts off the hook, because "the mythos dun it".  I think it adds something to a game when players are forced to come to terms with what Hannah Arendt called the banality of evil.  Part of the real horror is when your players have to start making very uncomfortable moral choices to survive in a world where bad people are in charge.

Hite makes a similar point in Achtung Cthulhu about avoiding blaming Nazi atrocities on the Mythos: “Nyarlathotep did not dictate the Wannsee Conference memoranda on the Final Solution; Mengele was not channelling Y’golonac in his surgeries. Playing it that way lets the Nazis off the hook: they were only following orders from Cthulhu’s nightmares! Rather, point your causality in the other direction: humans who build industrial-scale gas chambers, massacre towns down to the children and house pets, and torture women in low-pressure capsules are the kinds of humans who find the Mythos.”

14 hours ago, carnage_lee said:

Would it be OK to try and turn this into an aid that could link back to Investigator sheets stored on The Dhole's House?

That’s an interesting idea—let’s revisit this once I’ve finalized it.  (I’d also like to clear further  usage with Will Doyle since he created the original version for D&D and was kind enough to OK my CoC version)  Cheers,

Thanks.  It’s a work in progress, though.

Here’s the “Keeper’s Revenge” version.

Inspired by Will Doyle/@BeholderPie's table tracker for D&D/AL, I whipped up this minimal version for Call of Cthulhu to help Keepers organize convention one-shots and FLGS pick-up games.

Would people be interested in a version with more skills for concealed rolls besides the favorites Listen and Spot Hidden? Navigation and Psychology are obvious candidates, as are APP and Credit Rating for NPC’s general reactions to PCs.  (How often do Keepers here make concealed rolls for Disguise, Fast Talk, Intimidate, Navigation, Persuade, Psychology or Stealth anyway?) What of professional information along with the PC’s name, or how about a space for phobias/manias/injuries?

(I also have a more detailed version with Sanity and Hit Points for Keepers who prefer to keep score of those and only describe effects to players.)