craigm

Honestly I'm tickled pink that as someone who never got to experience these with new-RPG smell I'll get that opportunity. I'd like to think that folks who imprinted on these classic titles would jump at the chance to share their love of the old stuff with folks like me. I'm just happy that Chaosium is putting in the effort to keep their legacy from going out of print. I wish more companies had the will and means to do this.

Here's a non-Facebook encumbered link: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/645319106/openquest-3rd-edition

Honestly I'm busy working with other open systems at this point, so my interest in writing anything for BRP has cooled considerably since the announcement. I'm still taking a wait-and-see approach.

And this is what I was saying earlier about this license. Instead of clarifying everything up-front you've now committed to answering these sorts of questions for folks. This was one of the beauties of the WotC OGL: It was crystal clear what you could use. WotC doesn't have to field these sorts of questions. They said "No Beholders, etc." and we were off. I hope you'll reconsider adopting something similar.

Small aside: as someone who recently liquidated his GURPS collection to the FLGS and watched as the core rulebooks disappeared almost instantly while everything else mostly sits on their shelves I can echo this sentiment. Some systems are better at selling the rules than others.

Honestly the only thing this license has inspired me to create are forum posts, an account on another site, and restless nights thinking about this, so I'm going to bow out of the conversation. Here's hoping for positive change and continued kindness.

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/273935/Texas_court_affirms_game_mechanics_not_protected_under_copyright_law.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_clone#Copyright_protections (waves hand at all of the -opoly games)

As someone who has noodled with the idea (eg: not committed) of publishing a game using a d100 ruleset I'd have to ask myself one question about the BRP OGL: "If I weren't a Chaosium employee, what does this license grant me that other licenses don't grant me" At this point there are only a handful of major advantages: The ability to use the BRP trademark The ability to use the SRD document in some capacity The ability to reword any other mechanics from BRP systems, providing they're not too similar to existing material Whereas if I chose another OGL system I have the following major advantages: The ability to use substantial parts of their SRD The ability to use mechanics from their and other systems Less cognitive overhead and stress about similarities with existing properties As someone who doesn't have a lot of time for creation, where would I put my energies? Is being able to say that my game is part of the BRP system worth the trade-offs? This isn't about how open the system is, it's about how much load you're putting on both yourselves and potential adopters of this system. With this license Chaosium have chosen to be in the "what can I do with this system" arbitration business. From the responses I've seen in this forum I can see that this isn't the business Chaosium folks want to be in. Neither do we. My thought is that we can do better. As a community of folks who want to see this succeed we can help make this better. We can help make this a license where Chaosium's fears of releasing too much of their IP can be assuaged, and the community's fears of ticking off Chaosium can be diverted to making great stuff. The only reason for the pushback is because we care. If nobody cared then there wouldn't be this discussion. Folks wouldn't take the time to tap out long screeds about how the license doesn't promote the kinds of growth we've seen in other communities.If we didn't care we'd just nod, smile, and go on doing what we've done before. So, which way do we go?

At least the sky here in Michigan is that lovely shade of overcast pink. Nothing wrong there. No siree.

I don't have specific plans for BRP at the moment, but I am writing a Fate-based RPG for the Pepper&Carrot webcomic (https://peppercarrot.com). Part of the reason I went with Fate is because it aligns with the Creative Commons License of the Pepper&Carrot Comic. The license (Creative Commons BY 4.0) allows me to use the rule set with proper credit to the original authors and adapt it to my game. I'm also planning on releasing it like-and -kind so others can release their own versions of the game and adapt it to their needs. However, if I were to use BRP for a RPG (let's use Pepper&Carrot as an example) I'd have the cognitive load of understanding what is permissible content and what is (using the terminology of the OGL) Product Identity. The FAQ is quite clear on this (which is appreciated) but I don't have vast knowledge of each of these systems. Also if I were to create a magic system I'd be looking for examples of how one might be implemented. Since I know what can't be used (the FAQ clearly states this) I'd have to look elsewhere. But where? Other OGL implementations? the BGB? At this point I know more about what I can't use than what I can use, so I'm more likely to abandon this and use something else instead that has more clarity. That's just one instance, but it highlights what I'm noticing when thinking about BRP and how to use it for my own needs.

Also I'd like to reiterate that my own interests aren't in getting access to an IP without proper licensing. I've been fortunate to have an opportunity to speak with Kevin Siembieda of Palladium Books at Penguicon about why his company was so protective of its IP. Listening to him talk about the various licenses that he's had and the ways that folks tried to undermine his licenses and his IP explain why he goes to the lengths he does. I understand completely why Chaosium would be in a similar position, and I'm grateful that there's even this conversation being had.

Which is why a license like the OGL / Creative Commons is important for those of us who want to abide by a license that gives us permission to use the content and IP and allow others to do the same.

Thank you for the clarification.

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). That said, I think what you're referring to is something that uses two licenese (OGL and another license) in order to exist. The difficulty with that is ensuring that the licenses don't conflict. The Free Software Foundation maintains a list of Open Source Licenses for software that are compatible with the GNU Public License (GPL) without interfering. Someone would have to do the work of ensuring that the OGL and the BRP Open License won't conflict.

My concern is that if folks don't adopt this license (again, cognitive load from trying to understand it and navigate it) will Chaosium revisit what worked and what didn't work or will it be chalked up as "we tried" and abandoned? Again, I think there's some real value here, but I'm starting to feel like what cold be an opportunity won't pan out. (I'm a huge fan of open licenses, as I've stated earlier, so I'm keen to see this experiment work out).

I think the confusion with this license (and why it's created more mental strain and work for those trying to understand it and those trying to explain it) is it's more about what you can't do than what you can do. Having a skeletal version of BRP that can have things added on later (save for all of these things listed in the license) means the creator is going to have to navigate what can be bolted on later. When I look at a game like Fudge there is not only the skeletal system but also a wide variety of systems to bolt on or take away. Fudge is a joy to read because it gives some direction to the creators. It's what prompted the offshoot of Fate along with the other titles in the Fudge line. I know that Chaosium is not in the "making BRP successful" business so I'm wondering if, like Fudge, there could be a community effort to build out this document. Perhaps the next edition of the BGB could incorporate these contributions and make something really special for the community of creators. We've seen what folks have done with the OGL and D100 systems. I feel that this license, while generous, misses some of the points that make this community so special. It misses giving the community a box of mechanics to bolt on to the system. It's a lot of cognitive overhead to keep in mind what can be used and what can't be used. With Fudge the cognitive overhead was fun (I could use all of these things, but which ones would benefit the game I want to run / create), but with this it's "which ones will be fun, which ones will violate the license, and which ones will violate someone else's license". I think a few more moments to clarify and expand this SRD would help immensely to reduce the cognitive load, both for Chaosium and the community. Otherwise anyone using it is going to have an awful lot of questions and receive exhausted and curt answers.That's not a great way to expand the community.

Honestly in my perfect world the BGB would be the open gaming content (minus the Product Identity, illustrations, game master advice chapters, etc. ). To me that book is mostly mechanics. That we're even having this conversation at all gives me hope that this could be expanded in the future. The license makes me think that the only things that would tick Chaosium off are creating clones of existing books like CoC, KAP, Nephilhim, and the like. Maybe expanding the SRD with the mechanics of something like the BGB would help clarify which mechanics are fair-game and which ones would cause Chaosium to be unhappy with the result.

Thank you, Chaosium! I think it's good, in part because it shows effort from Chaosium to recognize that such content is valuable. My hope is that this expands over time and doesn't shrink. It starts the conversation and shows what Chaosium has no issue with and what will tick them off. That's all a license really does.I'm grateful that we've started the conversation. Other game publishers and game systems would be wise to take notice.

Consider too that Chaosium was practically (if not actually) bankrupt not 5 years ago. I'm sure they are being cautious at the moment with whatever they pursue until they can get enough cashflow to take on some more of the pet projects that are floating around. As a former GURPS fan I'm still pleased that Chaosium is publishing as much as they are. (Also hoping for an OGL-adjacent BRP, but that's just me talking here)

Hi all, I've been a long-time GURPS fan (started around 2008 and collected many of the books for GURPS 3e and 4e). I finally realized that GURPS for me was moribund because there was only one company keeping it alive. I'm thrilled to find that there are several companies keeping the BRP-style systems alive, and many of them are OGL based (along with Mythras' liberal "Gateway" license). I'm really enjoying the different perspectives and takes on the rules. It's helped me understand the rules better and how best to hack with them. Also it's opened me up to different settings, many of which are best-in-class versions of various settings. I think the OGL and open licenses are key to helping a game system grow, and I'm heartened that Chaosium is also considering opening their systems up even more (even if they're not OGL-specific, there's always Creative Commons. ) I sold off my GURPS stuff and archived my PDFs so I could focus on more open systems. I'm grateful there are so many and hope to make contributions to this community.