Announcing the Basic Roleplaying System Reference Document and Open Game License

[Toadmaster]

10 hours ago, NickMiddleton said:

The problem is that the current license / SRD document license conflates several things: an Open Content License and a System Trademark License, and then embeds both in what is ostensibly a System Reference Document but is in fact so thin in detail it’s worthless.

It’s hard to read this as a genuine, OGL conversant, attempt to encourage ”Open BRP content” I’m afraid. Discounting conspiracy theories of deliberate self sabotage (patent nonsense), I can only assume there’s some fundamental dissonance between Chaosium’s understanding of the OGL and related topics and, y’know, the rest of the industry...

BRP was a 16 (?) page booklet, this is a 23 page booklet with 2 pages of legalese so it is more content than the original BRP.

I guess I fail to see how opening up the original basic game rules is so thin in detail as to be worthless unless you simply have no interest in the game which is fine, but seems an odd complaint. I don't like D&D 3E so the OGL is worthless? To me yes, to others obviously not. Perhaps I misunderstand your point because I do believe you are a fan of BRP. 

 

8 hours ago, Travern said:

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.

 

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.

 

I would assume "prohibited content" is legalese for check with us first. Not a lawyer but I wouldn't think anything in this ties their hands from allowing exceptions that won't take away from their existing games. "Prohibited content" makes it easier to respond to "is "not" Pendragon ok?" that is in fact very similar to Pendragon  with a simple "no" rather than spending time to point out all of the issues.

I guess this ultimately comes down to how you view the licence holders. Are they reasonable people willing to work with fans on some edge cases or hard asses unwilling to look at fringe cases. It strikes me that there are some who seem to view this offer as an insincere gotcha rather than a legitimate offer to open BRP up for use by others. Not saying you are one of these, just seems like a lot of glass is half empty here, although that has been my experience in general with these kinds of arrangements. They tend to bring out the complaints from fans that they don't go far enough with some apparently wanting unfettered access to everything.

 

 

[Travern]

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.

[JonL]

1 hour ago, Toadmaster said:

I guess this ultimately comes down to how you view the licence holders. Are they reasonable people willing to work with fans on some edge cases or hard asses unwilling to look at fringe cases.

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. 

[Tanaka84]

5 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

I guess this ultimately comes down to how you view the licence holders. Are they reasonable people willing to work with fans on some edge cases or hard asses unwilling to look at fringe cases. It strikes me that there are some who seem to view this offer as an insincere gotcha rather than a legitimate offer to open BRP up for use by others. Not saying you are one of these, just seems like a lot of glass is half empty here, although that has been my experience in general with these kinds of arrangements. They tend to bring out the complaints from fans that they don't go far enough with some apparently wanting unfettered access to everything.

 

 

I see it the other way around, it comes down to how the license holders see potential licensees.

Where I live, when you enter a store you are either forced to leave your bags at the entrance or you can't go in. Also, you have to show your bag/backpack/whatever when you are leaving...

This license feels a lot like that. I understand why they ask people to show their bags, I know they are protecting their store (IP). But still, it sucks being treated like a criminal, specially when  in the long run it´s not effective. Those who will actually steal (make retroclones or copy a product) will do it regardless of your security/license. And you are just making life harder for people who actually want to make something with the BRP ruleset.

In fact, with this license, it´s easier to use another OGL game and make your P3nDr4G0n "totally not a clone" game then to build something with OpenBRP.

And yes, that´s probably not their intention. But that´s how it comes across.

If this is the route they are taking, I wish them the best, and I hope a lot of great products come out of this license. But I personally think that they should change the name. "Open" has a very strong and well defined meaning amongts creators

Edited March 30, 2020 by Tanaka84

[MOB]

Our new website dedicated to BRP:

 

[Lordabdul]

Thanks for the SRD/OGL Chaosium!  This is a new thing that gives BRP fans something they didn't have before, so that's definitely a step in the right direction.

Of the 2 problems that have generated 6 pages of discussion, it seems only one is really a problem: whether the license language is clear enough around Prohibited Content. This creates uncertainty that makes potential authors hesitate to use this license, which goes against the original intent of the license. I personally wouldn't sweat it -- even though Chaosium is effectively saying "we would know if we saw it" and others are saying "dude, that's not clear enough", it's not like Chaosium is some giant opaque corporate entity that would sue your ass with a small army of expensive lawyers. I'm confident they would act in good faith if the 3rd party is also acting in good faith, and that everybody can reach an understanding when treading gray areas. We're all human, and games are supposed to be for fun.

The other problem is about the presence of Prohibited Content in the first place. It's true that, as far as I can tell, the BRP SRD is more restrictive than comparable licenses. It prevents people from using stuff specific to existing Chaosium games while, say, the Gumshoe license does the opposite and includes most things from Gumshoe games, from TimeWatch's Chronal Stability mechanic to Mutant City Blues' powers and The Yellow King's shot cards and so on. But it's really up to the publisher to decide what they think will work for their IP and business. And if Chaosium wants to give a nudge to game designers to come up with innovative mechanics instead of recycling existing ones, well, that's something that aligns with the company's original DNA, doesn't it?

Edited March 30, 2020 by lordabdul

[Loïc]

Thanks !

I won't interfeer in the debate about your decision to open the BRP licence, I don't have enough law skills to have any judgement about it. And especially american law skills, because here in France we have very different laws about intellectual property. I just hope/imagine you strongly thought about it and about how to do it before taking any decision, so I wish you success and no disappointment with the SRD !

As for me, with a BRP fan point of view, I really hope this will be an opportunity to see new original materials arise. I will anyway continue to buy Chaosium products, owing to their quality, and because it is the best way to support and thank them. Maybe opening the BRP licence is indeed risk-taking, and so we can salute and must support Chaosium for this.

[MOB]

11 hours ago, Tanaka84 said:

In fact, with this license, it´s easier to use another OGL game and make your P3nDr4G0n "totally not a clone" game then to build something with OpenBRP.

Yes. Sorry to have to belabour the point, but if you want to make your game using BRP, you now can - there's nothing stopping you publishing your own original creations, settings, games, and unique ideas using the BRP system. But if you want to make a thinly veiled retroclone of Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, Pendragon, etc., we didn't open that door.

[Travern]

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.

Edited March 30, 2020 by Travern
Including exact language from the Prohibited Content clause

[Tanaka84]

2 hours ago, MOB said:

Yes. Sorry to have to belabour the point, but if you want to make your game using BRP, you now can - there's nothing stopping you publishing your own original creations, settings, games, and unique ideas using the BRP system. But if you want to make a thinly veiled retroclone of Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, Pendragon, etc., we didn't open that door.

No need to apologize :). I understand what you are trying to say, I just disagree..

A. Legend, OpenQuest, Renaissance D100, Revolution D100, DG and other OGL products already let you make games like BRP. So in truth what this license allows is for people to say that their products are BRP compatible. But you could always make a game inspired by the system just not attach it to the brand.

      A.1. Even if i agreed that BRP and other OGL products are substantially different. BRP is a very big family of games. In truth, this very short SRD only lets you use a very specific subset of that ecosystem. To put it in perspective, GUMSHOE has way fewer games than BRP and yet the SRD is a whooping 170 pages. We can agree that it's overly generous, and probably a pain for potential developers since it's too much info to go through. But they have access to the full system. At this point we can't say the same thing for BRP's license

B. There is a lot stopping you... for example, look at the way you defined  prohibited content... "X is substantially similar to Y" Y being in all cases a product in your line. So let's say I want to make my own game using BRP because I loved RuneQuest, cool, I know what augments are. But I never touched CoC 7th edition. If I come up with the idea of making a reroll mechanic where the player gets a worse outcome if they fail a second time (free league's year zero engine has this very rule, so it's not original to CoC) I just breached the OGC license as per your definition. 

Does that Imply that I need to buy and read every BRP book to know what I should avoid?. OTOH, Substantially is an extremely vague term, so I could ask you if something is ok and you can say yes, while Jeff further down the line could say "nope, that looks too much like y".

Justin Alexander's point is another aspect to consider. Your license unintentionally infects future works derivative of the original OGC, since any WORK that is a revision (such as the same book with a different system) has to be published with the most up to date license. I know that's not your intent, but the poor wording is there.

Once again, I'm painting you like bad guys when I know you are nothing of the sort. But that's what happens when a license is based on mistrust. Now the potential developer has to carefully consider if their setting/mechanic is different enough as to not displease the owner of the license, they are constrained from using certain rules, settings, ideas, names, and so on, that's a lot of hurdles to jump... or they could use any of the aforementioned OGLs and avoid the hassle.

That's what I meant when I said that it's easier to make an OGL compatible Pendragon clone than to make a new game with new rules using the license as it currently stands. You are inadvertently making life harder for developers who want to publish original BRP material without affecting or disuading the ill-intended crowd. 

C. The sad truth is that Chaosium can't open the door (nor close it) because you don't have the keys. Thinly veiled clones of RuneQuest and CoC are available today, without the license. I would never touch them since I find it in bad taste. But they exist, and we all know it. That ship has sailed.

Please, please, don't take this post in bad faith. I want you to succeed, I want BRP and QW to be big brands in the hobby (hell, I'm still waiting QW's to publish my own game). But out of all the OGL games out there, no company had problems with "thinly veiled clones" except WoTC and Mongoose. In the first case, the OSR was born out of people's frustration with WoTCs lack of support for previous editions of D&D, and the later because mongoose backtracked their open content in favor of TAS so the community just made their own thing (cepheus engine) and called it a day.
 

The moral of the story is that clones aren't due to OGL's but rather due to a disconnect between the license owner and potential licensees.

Edit to add: Also, what really kicked off the competition between PF and D&D was WoTC walking back on their OGL license for 4E.

 

Edited March 30, 2020 by Tanaka84

[Rick Meints]

1 hour ago, Tanaka84 said:

The moral of the story is that clones aren't due to OGL's but rather due to a disconnect between the license owner and potential licensees.

Setting aside what WotC and Mongoose may have done, a lot of clones exist for one other simple set of related reasons. A number of people want to write their own version of a game or game supplements for it without bothering with an IP license of any sort, including paying any royalties.

Edited March 30, 2020 by Rick Meints

[craigm]

3 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

Setting aside what WotC and Mongoose may have done, a lot of clones exist for one other simple set of related reasons, a number of people want to write their own version of a game or game supplements for it without bothering with an IP license of any sort, including paying any royalties.

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.

[craigm]

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.

[Rick Meints]

11 minutes ago, craigm said:

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.

If you want to get a license to write Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, Pendragon, 7th Sea or HeroQuest material, the license options are already available from Chaosium. Feel free to visit our website and check out the options available. You can also publish material for Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, 7th Sea, and HeroQuest via our community content options we have on DTRPG. None of these licenses are hard to obtain, hard to maintain, or onerous in their burdens on the licensee. Feel free to speak with any of our current licensees for their feedback on working with Chaosium as a licensee. While I didn't mention every system Chaosium has published, even some of the ones we aren't currently publishing new material for are also available for licensing.

I'd very much like to know why all of the above options, plus the new option of the BRP license just doesn't work for you, or for that matter, anyone else. All I ask is please be specific, and also mostly speak for yourself. A vague example of "I want to write X, but your license options don't allow it" is far better than saying our license options are (insert vague negative word or phrase). 

[Tanaka84]

1 minute ago, Rick Meints said:

Setting aside what WotC and Mongoose may have done, a lot of clones exist for one other simple set of related reasons, a number of people want to write their own version of a game or game supplements for it without bothering with an IP license of any sort, including paying any royalties.

That may be the cases, but what percentage of people are we talking about here? Aren't you just assuming people's motivations?

Keep in mind that there are no "compatible content" (IP infringing products for sale) for licensed games like Dresden Files, Atomic Robo, The Princess Bride (FUDGE based with OGL rules) or popular D&D settings like Eberron/Ravenloft (I'm leaving FR out of this because it's so generic and broad that it's almost impossible to avoid IP with any epic fantasy adventure). I don't want to come off as rude but each one of those IPs (except for Atomic Robo) is hundreds of times more popular than Glorantha will ever be.
 

Look at Free League Publishing, they released their own community content program as well as their OGL, and people have published more in the program than outside of it, even if the program takes 50% of the price. Same deal with 5th OGL, people are happily using WoTC program instead of exploiting the OGL to publish without IP licensing. And considering that D&D is as huge as it is, it's kind of amazing that there hasn't been a single product violating their IP.

I can think of a one game based on OGL that is infringing IP like there is no tomorrow, and still ,the team behind it never charged a dime for it. Because they just wanted to revive a cool game, not leech of someone else's creation. But it was a defunct game, even if the brand is alive and well.

How can you explain this phenomena if, as you said: " a number of people want to write their own version of a game or game supplements for it without bothering with an IP license of any sort, including paying any royalties."?

I cannot stress this enough, plagiarism has nothing to with an OGL license.

 

 

[g33k]

15 hours ago, Tanaka84 said:

...

In fact, with this license, it´s easier to use another OGL game and make your P3nDr4G0n "totally not a clone" game then to build something with OpenBRP.

...

EXACTLY.

And that's their intention.

Open BRP is not supposed to enable you to clone -- or make a thinly-veiled "totally not a clone" -- for any of Chaosium's games.

 

And frankly, that's entirely reasonable.

 

Other Dark-Ages settings are fair game with BRP.

Arthuriana can be done in Fudge, or OGL-d20, or with any of the many other SRD's that are out there.

 

[AndreJarosch]

11 minutes ago, g33k said:

EXACTLY.

And that's their intention.

Open BRP is not supposed to enable you to clone -- or make a thinly-veiled "totally not a clone" -- for any of Chaosium's games.

 

And frankly, that's entirely reasonable.

 

Other Dark-Ages settings are fair game with BRP.

Arthuriana can be done in Fudge, or OGL-d20, or with any of the many other SRD's that are out there.

 

Why would someone try to clone an already existing game that is perfect (KAP)?

I acknowledge that TDMs Mythic Britain is a different kind of Arthurian game, not trying to copy KAP at all. 


If you want the more romantic Malory approach: Play KAP!

[Rick Meints]

8 minutes ago, Tanaka84 said:

That may be the cases, but what percentage of people are we talking about here? Aren't you just assuming people's motivations?

Keep in mind that there are no "compatible content" (IP infringing products for sale) for licensed games like Dresden Files, Atomic Robo, The Princess Bride (FUDGE based with OGL rules) or popular D&D settings like Eberron/Ravenloft (I'm leaving FR out of this because it's so generic and broad that it's almost impossible to avoid IP with any epic fantasy adventure). I don't want to come off as rude but each one of those IPs (except for Atomic Robo) is hundreds of times more popular than Glorantha will ever be.
 

Look at Free League Publishing, they released their own community content program as well as their OGL, and people have published more in the program than outside of it, even if the program takes 50% of the price. Same deal with 5th OGL, people are happily using WoTC program instead of exploiting the OGL to publish without IP licensing. And considering that D&D is as huge as it is, it's kind of amazing that there hasn't been a single product violating their IP.

I can think of a one game based on OGL that is infringing IP like there is no tomorrow, and still ,the team behind it never charged a dime for it. Because they just wanted to revive a cool game, not leech of someone else's creation. But it was a defunct game, even if the brand is alive and well.

How can you explain this phenomena if, as you said: " a number of people want to write their own version of a game or game supplements for it without bothering with an IP license of any sort, including paying any royalties."?

I cannot stress this enough, plagiarism has nothing to with an OGL license.
 

I never mentioned plagiarism, or referred to it. I suggest you read my post, specifically the one directly above yours, for the main thrust of my approach to this discussion. As for IP like Dresden files, Princess Bride, Ravenloft, and similar, I don't see why that applies to the license options we offer. You are welcome to belittle Glorantha, but I don't see how that relates to the discussion either. I don't remember ever saying anything about anyone violating our Gloranthan IP, or wanting to. If you read my previous post you will see I mention how we have a wide variety of community content programs available. 

As for my statements about "a number of people want to...", as the person who has had to send out DMCA letters, C&D letters, and contact numerous websites to take down things that violate our IP, I have more than just an assumption about people's intentions. I can't point to websites showing such unauthorized content because we have had the content taken down. I know that other companies do likewise, including WotC, but I am not going to speak for them with specifics about what they did. I've sat in seminars about this specific problem at the GAMA Trade show. I've talked with other companies about it as well. As for "not charging a dime", that is not a factor at all.  

[Richard S.]

2 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

I'd very much like to know why all of the above options, plus the new option of the BRP license just doesn't work for you, or for that matter, anyone else. All I ask is please be specific, and also mostly speak for yourself. A vague example of "I want to write X, but your license options don't allow it" is far better than saying our license options are (insert vague negative word or phrase).

Like I've said earlier in the thread, I've been working on a game of my own for a year or so that uses pushing and a slightly modified version of RQG's augments (using increments of 15% rather than 25%, capping at 45%, and you can use augments to inflict penalties on people). While I could come up with unique mechanics that fill the same function, especially for augmenting (pushing would be harder since it would probably need a meta currency and I really want to avoid that), I'm just frustrated that these two, non-setting dependent rules have been seemingly arbitrarily declared "prohibited", especially since I've had them in my game since I started. That's pretty much the only problem that I personally have with the SRD.

[Tanaka84]

14 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

 

I'd very much like to know why all of the above options, plus the new option of the BRP license just doesn't work for you, or for that matter, anyone else. All I ask is please be specific, and also mostly speak for yourself. A vague example of "I want to write X, but your license options don't allow it" is far better than saying our license options are (insert vague negative word or phrase). 

I know this wasn't intended at me, and I feel like I may be bothering you Rick, so I'll shut up after this post

- As it is now, the BRP license does not allow the creators to use mechanics from Chaosium games in other setting of their own creation. Specifically, the Push rules are neither CoC specific nor original. And like I stated before, since it not clearly layered out what "substantially" means, a creator has to either make a wild guess, or is going to constantly have to get back to you guys to see what's fair game.

- The magic system you are prohibiting are extremely generic, "spent point do stuff" and "read and memorize spell" are well trodden mechanics in RPGs, so once again, without a clarification of what substantially means a developer is walking on thin ice.

- A creator has no guarantee that once their development cycle begins the license won't be updated changing stuff that might render their work illegal.

- The license as written is infectious, the wording on clause 10 needs revision to indicate that WORK does not need to abide to the BRP license if it doesn't use what you designate as open content.

- Remixing current content is also hard to pull off, for example, superhero + Cthulhu is right out of the picture, since it wouldn't neither fit CoC for community content program (or maybe it could, now that I think about it) nor the License since it's working with the Mythos.

Getting those things sorted out would work a long way towards a more welcoming license.
 

[Jeff]

21 minutes ago, Tanaka84 said:

That may be the cases, but what percentage of people are we talking about here? Aren't you just assuming people's motivations?

Keep in mind that there are no "compatible content" (IP infringing products for sale) for licensed games like Dresden Files, Atomic Robo, The Princess Bride (FUDGE based with OGL rules) or popular D&D settings like Eberron/Ravenloft (I'm leaving FR out of this because it's so generic and broad that it's almost impossible to avoid IP with any epic fantasy adventure). I don't want to come off as rude but each one of those IPs (except for Atomic Robo) is hundreds of times more popular than Glorantha will ever be.
 

Look at Free League Publishing, they released their own community content program as well as their OGL, and people have published more in the program than outside of it, even if the program takes 50% of the price. Same deal with 5th OGL, people are happily using WoTC program instead of exploiting the OGL to publish without IP licensing. And considering that D&D is as huge as it is, it's kind of amazing that there hasn't been a single product violating their IP.

I can think of a one game based on OGL that is infringing IP like there is no tomorrow, and still ,the team behind it never charged a dime for it. Because they just wanted to revive a cool game, not leech of someone else's creation. But it was a defunct game, even if the brand is alive and well.

How can you explain this phenomena if, as you said: " a number of people want to write their own version of a game or game supplements for it without bothering with an IP license of any sort, including paying any royalties."?

I cannot stress this enough, plagiarism has nothing to with an OGL license.

 

 

Honestly, I am cool if other IP owners do what they want with their IP. Hold onto it like jewels, give it all out, give some of it out, whatever. But honestly, I don't really care what others are doing. If you want to publish a game building off the BRP rules, now you can. If your interest is in creating your own variant of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, or Pendragon, well you can't do that.

Seems pretty simple to me.  

 

[craigm]

27 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

If you want to get a license to write Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, Pendragon, 7th Sea or HeroQuest material, the license options are already available from Chaosium. Feel free to visit our website and check out the options available. You can also publish material for Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, 7th Sea, and HeroQuest via our community content options we have on DTRPG. None of these licenses are hard to obtain, hard to maintain, or onerous in their burdens on the licensee. Feel free to speak with any of our current licensees for their feedback on working with Chaosium as a licensee. While I didn't mention every system Chaosium has published, even some of the ones we aren't currently publishing new material for are also available for licensing.

I'd very much like to know why all of the above options, plus the new option of the BRP license just doesn't work for you, or for that matter, anyone else. All I ask is please be specific, and also mostly speak for yourself. A vague example of "I want to write X, but your license options don't allow it" is far better than saying our license options are (insert vague negative word or phrase). 

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.

[Jeff]

1 minute ago, Richard S. said:

Like I've said earlier in the thread, I've been working on a game of my own for a year or so that uses pushing and a slightly modified version of RQG's augments (using increments of 15% rather than 25%, capping at 45%, and you can use augments to inflict penalties on people). While I could come up with unique mechanics that fill the same function, especially for augmenting (pushing would be harder since it would probably need a meta currency and I really want to avoid that), I'm just frustrated that these two, non-setting dependent rules have been seemingly arbitrarily declared "prohibited", especially since I've had them in my game since I started. That's pretty much the only problem that I personally have with the SRD.

Were you planning on publishing this game? In which case, my question is why you put that work in without asking for a license?

If you weren't planning on publishing your game, then nothing has changed. We aren't going to send out the game police to stop you from playing a home-brew variant.

[Lordabdul]

3 hours ago, Travern said:

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?

Heh I would actually play that!

[Austin]

46 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

A vague example of "I want to write X, but your license options don't allow it" is far better than saying our license options are (insert vague negative word or phrase). 

I'm interested in writing my own Bronze Age fantasy RPG based on fiction and world-building I did before I began exploring Glorantha, which was heavily inspired by the Iliad, Herodotos, and Thucydides involving wars between city-states and broader culture clashes tied together within a unified mythic background. I would use D100 mechanics because I like the simplicity of percentile skills, but I have ideas to give a game a more "pulp"-like feel than RuneQuest's hyper-lethal simulationism. I'm of the (naturally self-biased) opinion that my design notes indicate a game and setting which, while maybe not revolutionary, is still notably not RuneQuest or an RQ clone.

Under the BRP OGL, this game couldn't use the staple POW×5% mechanic for its "low magic" or "common magic," if any. Just making a Bronze Age fantasy RPG itself might violate the OGL. I couldn't use any sort of percentile-rated ability system to describe a character's connections to their community, and toward their fellow adventurers.

While such a game is extremely hypothetical and I'm mainly focused at the moment on cutting my design teeth with RuneQuest and Jonstown Compendium content, if I wanted to make the above, hypothetical, game, I'd probably end up building from the ground up rather than utilizing the BRP OGL. If I wanted to use BRP, I feel like it would be more contingent on marketing thoughts than on game design thoughts.

2 hours ago, Tanaka84 said:

Please, please, don't take this post in bad faith. I want you to succeed, I want BRP and QW to be big brands in the hobby (hell, I'm still waiting QW's to publish my own game).

Heartily, heartily agree. The only person I can ever speak for is myself, but I'm completely in agreement. I want Chaosium/BRP to be successful and healthy, and Chaosium protecting its own IP and game lines makes complete business sense.

Edited March 30, 2020 by Crel
Typo.