JonL

Section 2 of the WotC OGL specifies that no other terms and conditions may be applied to Open Gaming Content governed by that license. Open Gaming Content governed by the BRP-OGL terms thus cannot simultaneously comply with that mandate. One could, in theory, if one were very careful, aggregate Open Game Content governed by each license side by side in the same work. One would have to clearly and unambiguously designate which OGC is governed by which license, and ensure that no cross-pollination takes place. That is to say, no OGL-OGC can derive from BRPOGL-OCG, nor vice-versa. I could see it being practical for something like a dual-statted setting guide, where most of the book is proprietary IP rather than OGC anyway. Building a blended ruleset OTOH would be rather difficult. At best, you might be able to do something very modular, like grafting Aspects from OGL Fate onto BRP. That wouldn't have to intertwine with the rest of the mechanics, so you could probably steer clear of cross-pollination. I can't see it being worth the effort that double-compliance would require (or the risk of it being challenged) when there are regular OGL D100 rulesets already available though.

They don't have any say over what people do with PD Mythos elements or any other PD work. They do however own the official BRP as-such, and may set conditions on its use. They aren't saying others can't play in the PD parts of the Mythos sandbox. They are simply declining to license BRP for such an undertaking.

(Taking this over here so as to not clutter the Q/A thread with responses.) I appreciate the reasonable and timely reply to the second question, @Jeff. While it sort-of implies an answer to the first question, please answer the first one explicitly as well. You can see from @Robert's posts above the implications of the lack of clarity on this point. I recognize that it must frustratingly seem like everyone is engaging in needless hair-splitting when you've got a clear understanding of how it's supposed to work in your head. Please recognize that the license text needs to clearly convey your intended meaning on its own, and adjust its wording to unambiguously reflect that meaning. As the Attorney in the room, surely you can appreciate the need for clarity and precision in contract language. While I'm glad to see/hear that there have been positive responses to it in its current form, please realize that concerns like the ones we're discussing will also drive others away who might otherwise make it a bigger success. Chaosium/Moon Design have nothing to lose by more clearly and rigorously articulating their intent, and broader adoption of their licenses and tools to gain thereby - which is what everyone here wants.

Some species' common names get treated as proper nouns, some don't. Specific varieties often are, e.g. "Roses" vs "flowers." I don't think there's a clear cut answer as to whether they are as a general case. The license should make it clear in its specific context though, especially as "story element" remains undefined within the license text. I'll go post in Q&A over what they intend "story element" to mean.

Reserving the rough pairing of the 7 Virtues of Chivalry vs the 7 Deadly Sins as part of what makes KAP unique makes a lot of sense. Prohibiting games built using the BRP SRD from using a similar dynamic with different personality traits relevant to their own themes, less so.

For clarity's sake, the full list is: "...trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, place names, etc.), plots, story elements, locations, characters, artwork, or trade dress from any of the following...". I keep bringing up Britain itself because if "from" is meant to mean "originating within" than it is not a prohibited place name or location. That standard puts most of the characters in play though, unless "related to Le Morte d’Arthur" is meant to also include the sources from which Mallory drew. If Arthur et al are prohibited because "from" means they are merely "present in" KAP & Le Morte d’Arthur+related, that standard casts the absurdly wide net which Chaosium obviously does not intend but is nonetheless implicit in a reading that prohibits proper nouns the various authors included but did not invent. I agree that it's ludicrous to think they are trying to do that, but if the "from" includes mere presence rather than origination, and "story elements" is on the list distinct from the proper nouns, just how far one has to steer clear of archetypal themes is an open question. @Jeff's example of the Lunar occupation of Sartar with the serial numbers filed off is pretty clear. How about a game about Rome occupying Gaul or Britain though? It gets much fuzzier if the prohibition includes referenced influences rather than being constrained to original story elements. The changes necessary to remove this kind of ambiguity would not be hard to make, if they wish to do so.

It's totally legitimate for Chaosium/Moon Design to take steps to both safeguard their own property and diligently honor their obligations to their own upstream licensors, past and present. OTOH, would be adopters of the license need to be able to clearly understand what is or is not allowed without having to badger C/MD for answers. If the prohibitions are generally only meant for proper nouns etc. originating in the various works & lines, state that unambiguously rather than muddying the waters by having Le Morte d’Arthur in the same sentence. Sartar and Britain require different handling. If any reference to The Matter of Britain is prohibited, say so in such a way that Britain, Jesus Christ, and every real-world place that's had a CoC adventure set there aren't placed under a cloud in the same breath. If you would rather clearly enumerate specific Arthurian elements that are prohibited to protect KAP, do so. Don't make people have to guess what "from" implies or whether or not any given piece of Arthuriana written before or after Mallory's time is sufficiently "related to Le Morte d’Arthur" as to be prohibited. WRT mechanics, if CoC7-style pushes are prohibited, how different would a double-down and re-roll with higher stakes rule have to be to not be substantially similar? What would a not-substantially-similar to RQG augments/passions "my motivations, related capability, or personality helps my performance" rule in a percentile system look like? Could an author/designer tell that from reading the license? If reasonable people can look at the license and see a lot more prohibitions than "Just don't clone our products or rip off proprietary settings." why not clarify the language to match your intent?

Something to keep in mind is that the fine people at the helm today will not be so forever. The rights could also change hands. That the people currently involved are not exploitative sharks is not a reason to ignore flaws that could become a problem down the line. Hopefully they will listen to feedback that can help make this more successful while still protecting their interests.

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.

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? In trying to prohibit original/unique IP from proprietary fantasy worlds and ideas from stories and games based on/in historical or folklore settings in a single sentance, there is no logical differentiation being made between Sartar and Britain. A non-compete clause is totally reasonable, I just wish this one were rigorously implemented. One more paragraph would do it.

Deities and locations from Pendragon are prohibited. I get what the intent is, but how does the language as written not exclude Jesus, Wotan, or London? Please clarify the language such that the letter and spirit of the text align.

Arkat (sshh, don't tell).

No way is that an unbreakable rule. Jenarong proved the falsity of it, and Khordavu as well. There are likely other instances if one were to comb through the lists.

One of my annoyances with Death and Beast rather than Eternal Battle for Storm Bull in RQG is Death clashing with his paternal fertility aspect. He may not embody Life per se, but he's a virile family bull.

@HeartQuintessence, you should check these out.

They enthusiastically embrace and cultivate it, but it predates them

The sense in which I was speaking had little to do with mechanics or runes. The Orlanth cult is the primary vehicle by which Heortling boys are taught to be a man. The Ernalda cult is the primary vehicle by which girls are taught to be a woman. Whatever deeper mysteries lie beyond, defining and expressing gender norms and work is their main presence in day to day life.

Orlanth and Ernalda are also somewhat extreme cases for gendered cults, since they are also cultural exemplars for normative gender performance. Women who follow Lhankor Mhy wear beard tokens because it's the symbol of their lord, not because they are ritually men.

I strongly suspect that a Nandan male could meet the motherhood requirement for priestly status through Heroquesting as a female figure on the other side. Hero(ine)-forming would be another theoretical possibility, but maintaining that long enough to carry a child to term would be... "impractical" seems like an understatement.

Gender requirements for cults are one of the first things I hit with the "All means about 6/7" stick when interpreting the setting.

It now occurs to me, that being descended from the Pentans, the Grazelanders are eligible to take the Ten Tests in Dara Happa to become Emperor. By extension, so too would be the descendants of a Feathered Horse Queen and King of Dragon Pass couple. Man, what a way to dethrone the Red Emperor that would be.

Ask David Dunham very nicely? It looks like he's got some of the Enclosure material uploaded to his Glorantha site, but not that particular bit that I can see.@jajagappa is prepping a revised New Lolon Gospel for a Johnstown release so who knows, maybe some other blasts from the past will get a re-release. @soltakss has some fun theme-and-variation on HoG from different perspectives in his quest collection too. @Iskallor ran a PBF on rpg.net a few years back wherein the PCs get sucked into a Zorak Zoran quester's run at Hill of Gold, and (being PCs) knock it off the rails in the most awesome way possible.

Three Blows Struck in Anger follows the Women in Refrigerators pattern pretty well, as far as that goes.

I'd be pleasantly surprised for someone in the US who hasn't specifically devoted attention (whether formally or casually) to the intersection of comics fandom and Feminist literary critique to be familiar with Gail Simone's critical writings, let alone someone farther afield with a different native language. In Ivarna's case, I don't think she's an example of the fridging-trope, despite being literally frozen. Her fate matters to Heort, sure, but the whole world is falling apart. She also has a broader place in the Heortling cultural narrative as an exemplar of normative womanhood, rather than being narratively nonexistent outside Heort's pathos (though we have less of that material to read thanks to the historical gender imbalance in the RPG creator/consumer space, it is at least specifically mentioned as being part of the in-fiction context). Finally, and crucially in the context of Simone's work, she gets better by the end - and probably comes back stronger than before if you place her story in the context of Ernaldan initiation. A key point in Simone's work that often gets overlooked in hot-takes is that while bad things happen to comics characters all the time (Drama!), the men usually are back in fine form by the end of the next arc or two, while the women who get crippled/depowered/killed/exiled/whatever often don't get better for years or decades - if ever. When Bane snapped Batman's spine in the 90's, he was back in the the cowl inside two years. When Batgirl was similarly injured, she was a wheelchair-bound for 20+. When Hawkeye died in 2004, he reappeared in a reality-warp story that ran for much of '05-'06, and was fully back in '07. When Wasp (seemingly) died in '08, she didn't disprove that until 2012. (I actually prefer a resurrection story like that getting more time to breathe, but the double standard is nonetheless crappy.) Circling back to Glorantha for contrast, when Kallyr suffers setbacks, even fatal ones, she bounces back and continues her great work. Only when her oath to liberate her people is fulfilled does she finally lay down her burdens and accept the final rest.