Announcing the Basic Roleplaying System Reference Document and Open Game License

[Jeff]

10 hours ago, JonL said:

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.

A game involving Rome occupying Gaul or Britain is not a problem AT ALL. First off, the Lunar Empire is not the Roman Empire. Beyond both being iempires n an "ancient world" they don't really have that many resemblances - not in history, not in institutions, not in religion, not in costume, and the list goes on. Nor are the Orlanthi Gauls or Britains. See previous point.

And the Roman Empire really existed. If we wanted to block off specific historical settings, we could have. But we didn't.

Jeff

[Jeff]

So why is this different from the WotC OGL? Well largely because we have a different business model than WotC. Our settings are what are valuable to us - the cosmology, entities, storylines, etc. of RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, etc. Some rules tie directly into the setting - like the Runes of RuneQuest, or the Sanity mechanic of Call of Cthulhu. We’ve removed those mechanics that we think are uniquely tied to a given setting (or with a specific edition of a game) but let you do whatever you want with the rest. Without paying us royalties.

If somehow it offends you that we aren’t letting you make your own retroclone of Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest, well that was never our intention. And if it offends you that this is a different OGL than WotC or is somehow not worth being called an Open License because it is different from how that term is used elsewhere, you can go pound sand. I really don’t care.

[g33k]

29 minutes ago, Jeff said:

So why is this different from the WotC OGL? Well largely because we have a different business model than WotC. Our settings are what are valuable to us - the cosmology, entities, storylines, etc. of RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, etc. Some rules tie directly into the setting - like the Runes of RuneQuest, or the Sanity mechanic of Call of Cthulhu. We’ve removed those mechanics that we think are uniquely tied to a given setting (or with a specific edition of a game) but let you do whatever you want with the rest. Without paying us royalties.

If somehow it offends you that we aren’t letting you make your own retroclone of Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest, well that was never our intention. And if it offends you that this is a different OGL than WotC or is somehow not worth being called an Open License because it is different from how that term is used elsewhere, you can go pound sand. I really don’t care.

Whoa...  Sorry, Jeff!

I get there may be a few of us who have seemed to be hinting around the idea of retrocloning some of your games, and I totally get you're annoyed at that; if my own example with Corporia seemed to be one of those hinting at it... I humbly apologize!

I'm not interested in retrocloning any of Chaosium's games.  I've got RQG, or RQ2/RQClassic if I wanna roll it Ol'School, etc.  Anything of Chaosium's that I DON'T have, I'm entirely happy to buy if I wanna run it.  Not my motivation, at all!

But frankly, there's a few phrases -- I think they may be "terms of art" in publishing or in law, that seem simple to you -- that have people confused.

For me, the biggest issue is being puzzled at the mechanical bits... why can't we use "Passion" and "Augment" rules to combine/enhance skills, give personality a mechanical weight... stuff like that.  How different do those have to be, to be permissible?  Etc.

I don't want to step on Chaosium's toes; you've given us a gift, and I don't want to abuse it.  I want to figure out what I can't do -- q.v. above:  not interested in retrocloning! -- and it helps me do that if I understand the why's and the fundaments.

That is 100% of my own interest; and (it seems to me) that of most of the people in this thread.

[Jeff]

15 minutes ago, g33k said:

Whoa...  Sorry, Jeff!

I get there may be a few of us who have seemed to be hinting around the idea of retrocloning some of your games, and I totally get you're annoyed at that; if my own example with Corporia seemed to be one of those hinting at it... I humbly apologize!

I'm not interested in retrocloning any of Chaosium's games.  I've got RQG, or RQ2/RQClassic if I wanna roll it Ol'School, etc.  Anything of Chaosium's that I DON'T have, I'm entirely happy to buy if I wanna run it.  Not my motivation, at all!

But frankly, there's a few phrases -- I think they may be "terms of art" in publishing or in law, that seem simple to you -- that have people confused.

For me, the biggest issue is being puzzled at the mechanical bits... why can't we use "Passion" and "Augment" rules to combine/enhance skills, give personality a mechanical weight... stuff like that.  How different do those have to be, to be permissible?  Etc.

I don't want to step on Chaosium's toes; you've given us a gift, and I don't want to abuse it.  I want to figure out what I can't do -- q.v. above:  not interested in retrocloning! -- and it helps me do that if I understand the why's and the fundaments.

That is 100% of my own interest; and (it seems to me) that of most of the people in this thread.

OK, the reason for that is we strongly associate Passion and Augment rules with RQG and Pendragon. They aren't core to the BRP system but they are core to RQG. I mean I am flattered that Augments and Passions have become such popular rules, but they've not really been part of any BRP games until RQG came along. 

[Tanaka84]

5 hours ago, Jeff said:

So why is this different from the WotC OGL? Well largely because we have a different business model than WotC. Our settings are what are valuable to us - the cosmology, entities, storylines, etc. of RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, etc. Some rules tie directly into the setting - like the Runes of RuneQuest, or the Sanity mechanic of Call of Cthulhu. We’ve removed those mechanics that we think are uniquely tied to a given setting (or with a specific edition of a game) but let you do whatever you want with the rest. Without paying us royalties.

If somehow it offends you that we aren’t letting you make your own retroclone of Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest, well that was never our intention. And if it offends you that this is a different OGL than WotC or is somehow not worth being called an Open License because it is different from how that term is used elsewhere, you can go pound sand. I really don’t care.

Well, WoTC didn't make everything OGL either . For example, certain monsters like the beholders are protected by IP, and in the 5e SRD feats are missing, (well, there is just one + the rules so people can legally make their own), racial subtypes, magic items, and all names and story elements of their settings (That's what the DM's vault is for). And let's not forget that back in the day the 3E SRD didn't include XP tables (tehee).  So in the end, the licenses are similar in that regard.

How they handled feats this time around (which I thought was brilliant) is one route you could explore if you feel inclined to add something to the SRD. Put in the stripped version of each (or some) magic system(s)  and a sample spell so that developers may use them as a starting point. I think that could go a long way in clarifying what you mean by substantially different.

If I understood your examples, it's pretty safe to make a magic system with magic points equal to POW and roll POWx5 to cast spells (the fundamentals of battle magic) but with a different feel, and spell list than the one found in a Runequest product. If that is the case, adding something as basic as that should put people at ease.

OTOH, I really don't think that it's fair to presume that the people showing concern in this forum are offended because they can't "make their own retroclone". Wanting to use a mechanic or testing the limits of the limitations imposed != making a retroclone. Like I said a thousand times before, the Push mechanic isn't neither original nor specific to the CoC setting, and allowing it's use doesn't automatically allow people to make X of Cthulhu. I can see it working in a hundred different settings. So there is room there for people going "hey, why can't I use this" without them wanting to steal your toys. 

As for the last part, let me get this off my chest, don't bother reading it since you don't really care about it, but still have the need to say it:

It's not about "worth", Open isn't a title or a rank. But it is a concept. It's a community accord that goes all the way back to 1983 with the free software movement. There is an underlying moral and ethical argument behind the concept. Hell, some argue there is an ontological argument. So yeah, when people use the Open License concept without understanding (or choosing to ignore)  the notion of freedom behind it and the ethical implications, those within the movement get pissed because you are appropriating and misusing a concept that has over 40 years of history behind it. And hundreds of hours of thought and debate put into it. The Open License community is protecting their ideas just like you are protecting yours.
 

 

 

 

[Robert]

7 hours ago, Jeff said:

A game involving Rome occupying Gaul or Britain is not a problem AT ALL. First off, the Lunar Empire is not the Roman Empire. Beyond both being iempires n an "ancient world" they don't really have that many resemblances - not in history, not in institutions, not in religion, not in costume, and the list goes on. Nor are the Orlanthi Gauls or Britains. See previous point.

And the Roman Empire really existed. If we wanted to block off specific historical settings, we could have. But we didn't.

Jeff

 

From the BRP SRD Page 1 Section 1(e)

Quote

All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, place names, etc.), plots, story elements, locations, characters, artwork, or trade dress from any of the following

and

Quote

including those that are otherwise public domain; and all works related to Le Morte d’Arthur

From Book V Le Morte D' Arthur

BOOK V.
 CHAPTER I. How twelve aged ambassadors of Rome came to King Arthur to  demand truage for Britain.
 CHAPTER II. How the kings and lords promised to King Arthur aid and  help against the Romans.
 CHAPTER III. How King Arthur held a parliament at York, and how he  ordained the realm should be governed in his absence.
 CHAPTER IV. How King Arthur being shipped and lying in his cabin had a  marvellous dream and of the exposition thereof.
 CHAPTER V. How a man of the country told to him of a marvellous giant, and how he fought and conquered him.
 CHAPTER VI. How King Arthur sent Sir Gawaine and other to Lucius, and  how they were assailed and escaped with worship.
 CHAPTER VII. How Lucius sent certain spies in a bushment for to have  taken his knights being prisoners, and how they were letted.
 CHAPTER VIII. How a senator told to Lucius of their discomfiture, and  also of the great battle between Arthur and Lucius.
 CHAPTER IX How Arthur, after he had achieved the battle against the  Romans, entered into Almaine, and so into Italy.
 CHAPTER X. Of a battle done by Sir Gawaine against a Saracen, which  after was yielden and became Christian.
 CHAPTER XI. How the Saracens came out of a wood for to rescue their  beasts, and of a great battle.
 CHAPTER XII. How Sir Gawaine returned to King Arthur with his  prisoners, and how the King won a city, and how he was crowned
 Emperor.

From the BRP SRD Page 1 Section 1(e)

Quote

All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, place names, etc.), plots, story elements, locations, characters, artwork, or trade dress from any of the following

and 

Quote

...,Worlds of Wonder...

From the 1982 Worlds of Wonder Boxed, Magic World, Section IV Creatures Great and Small

Chimaera, Demons, Dragons, Dwarves, Elves, Ghosts, Goblins, Horses, Manticores, etc, 

=============================================================================================================================

Chaosium's intent as expressed by your reply is not clearly stated in the license. The license is specifically designed to preclude the use of public domain material in a way that prevent the release of a retro-clone using the open content of BRP. However as a result of that it also precludes the use of the same elements in any supplemental material based on the BRP SRD. A fallout of the fact that so much of fantasy tabletop roleplaying is based on the fantasy elements introduced first in Dungeons & Dragon which Chaosium took partial advantage of in Runequest and full advantage of in Magic World. Along with that many important fantasy elements of Dungeons & Dragons were taken from the Le' Morte d'Arthur. 

In addition from my copy of King Arthur Pendragon 5th edition (and earlier editions) Appendix Two: Characters and Creatures covers a wide range of character types and creature commonly used in fantasy medieval settings whether they are based on the myths of King Arthur or not. 

The problem don't stop there. Call of Cthulu and many related products from Chaosium also covers many elements used in tabletop RPG settings targeting the modern era. Again a strict reading and a focus on excluding public domain material means those elements are not available for use in a supplement based on the BRP SRD.

For works shared under the Open Game License 1.0a or a Creative Common License it is far more clears about what is allowed and not allowed. The open content can be used under the terms of the license, and the rest is treated under traditional copyright law including the use of the public domain.

While you can clarify things here, when it comes to a dispute the license text is the authority not what is posted in a internet forum or on a website. This reply and other replies only adds to the confusion of what allowed or not allowed by the license. I or any other author should not have to come here to find out what is or is not covered. The BRP OGL is requiring more restriction for the use of the BRP SRD, and these restrictions are vaguely written. 

Edited March 31, 2020 by Robert

[Austin]

19 minutes ago, Robert said:

From the 1982 Worlds of Wonder Boxed, Magic World, Section IV Creatures Great and Small

Chimaera, Demons, Dragons, Dwarves, Elves, Ghosts, Goblins, Horses, Manticores, etc, 

How does this fall into prohibited content? I don't think these are either proper names or characters.

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Crel said:

How does this fall into prohibited content? I don't think these are either proper names or characters.

A monster is a character. 

For example Carrion Crawlers, Beholders, and Mind Flayers are unique monsters found in Dungeons & Dragon that are the original work of Gary Gygax or TSR. It clear that Wizards can choose to share them or not. When the D20 SRD came out they were not found in the open content and moreso Wizards explicitly explained that they were among a list considered to be product identity and thus not available for use via the OGL.

The BRP OGL has among other things a restriction on one's use of public domain material if it was published in a Chaosium product. Because of Wizards  D20 SRD there is precedent for a company to have control over the IP rights when the "character" is a type of monter. As far as I understand limiting one's ability to use the Public Domain is something that can be part of a license (or contract) in exchange for something of value. In this case the BRP rules declared as open content. The OGL 1.0a has also has structurally similar clause whereby by using the open content you give the right to cite compatibility without a separate license. 

Since the above list is found in a Chaosium product by the wording of Section 1(e) it is considered prohibited content. The same with list of medieval characters and creatures found in various editions of King Arthur Pendragon.

None of the above is unique or unusual in the world of licenses and contracts.

The issue I am raising in my reply is whether the license convey Chaosium's intent. While I do have an opinion on its inherent fairness and other points, my reply is about whether the license by itself clearly and completely state what Chaosium is sharing and the conditions in which it is being used. Based on the responses of Chaosium staff here and other areas, it doesn't for the reason in this reply and in my previous reply. 

 

[JonL]

  

3 hours ago, Robert said:

From the 1982 Worlds of Wonder Boxed, Magic World, Section IV Creatures Great and Small

Chimaera, Demons, Dragons, Dwarves, Elves, Ghosts, Goblins, Horses, Manticores, etc, 

3 hours ago, Crel said:

How does this fall into prohibited content? I don't think these are either proper names or characters.

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.

Edited March 31, 2020 by JonL

[JonL]

 (Taking this over here so as to not clutter the Q/A thread with responses.)

Quote

Are all proper nouns and story elements appearing in an off limits work prohibited, or only those originating in those works?

Are works that Mallory drew upon when writing Le Morte d'Arthur prohibited, or are only later works that draw upon his considered "related?"

10 hours ago, Jeff said:

Just Mallory and works drawing on his creations. You want to base your setting directly off the Mabinogion, go for it. Or you want to directly use Prophetiæ Merlini without later filter from Mallory and those who drew upon him, go for it.

 

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.

Edited March 31, 2020 by JonL

[SDLeary]

3 hours ago, Crel said:

How does this fall into prohibited content? I don't think these are either proper names or characters.

The SRD does not define "characters" in this case?? It could be argued that a monster in a bestiary is a character controlled by one of/the hosting player, the Gamemaster.

SDLeary

Edited March 31, 2020 by SDLeary
clarity

[g33k]

2 minutes ago, Jeff said:

OK, the reason for that is we strongly associate Passion and Augment rules with RQG and Pendragon. They aren't core to the BRP system but they are core to RQG...

Thanks for that!  👍

 

14 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 ...  but they've not really been part of any BRP games until RQG came along. 

But of course KAP really IS one of the BRP systems (just hiding behind a d20)... 😉

So they've been there for a while.  😁

 

[Sam E.]

13 hours ago, Jeff said:

 And if it offends you that this is a different OGL than WotC or is somehow not worth being called an Open License because it is different from how that term is used elsewhere, you can go pound sand. I really don’t care.

Wow.  And with that ... 

[TrippyHippy]

16 hours ago, Jeff said:

Same deal with the Cthulhu Mythos. Don't have Cthulhu or Deep Ones in your game.

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

Edited March 31, 2020 by TrippyHippy

[Travern]

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.

[TrippyHippy]

52 minutes ago, Travern said:

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.

I just asked a question. 

[g33k]

20 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

I just asked a question. 

It's a perennial flamefest; there are ... a LOT of strong opinions.  "Just asking (this) question" is like tossing a honey-glazed ham into an enclosure filled with starving Honey-Badgers.

(also:  "just asking a question" has become trollspeak for "intentionally trying to start flamefests & other drama" ... just sayin')

 

Here's a brief essay; I'm not qualified to judge the merits of this analysis, or whether it's neutral, biased, etc...  It was just my 1st hit when I google'd:

https://lovecraft.fandom.com/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_H._P._Lovecraft

 

Edited April 1, 2020 by g33k

[TrippyHippy]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

It's a perennial flamefest; there are ... a LOT of strong opinions.  "Just asking (this) question" is like tossing a honey-glazed ham into an enclosure filled with starving Honey-Badgers.

(also:  "just asking a question" has become trollspeak for "intentionally trying to start flamefests & other drama" ... just sayin')

 

Here's a brief essay; I'm not qualified to judge the merits of this analysis, or whether it's neutral, biased, etc...  It was just my 1st hit when I google'd:

https://lovecraft.fandom.com/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_H._P._Lovecraft

 

It isn’t being a troll to ask a question about the wording of something. By the same token, you could argue that saying ‘just sayin’’ is trollspeak too. Its the way people choose to respond to it that makes it so.

The comment I cited was weird as there is already lots of competition for Cthulhu Mythos games and I can’t see how Chaosium or anybody else can claim others cannot use ‘Cthulhu' or 'Deep Ones' in their games, regardless of what system they use (including BRP). Is there a current trademark status on those terms or not? It’s not a question about whether Chaosium is any under obligation to license competition for Call of Cthulhu,  it is a legitimate question about whether they are in any legal position to prevent it?

Whether it is a trolling question, I dunno. It isn’t intended to be, but again, it depends on how people choose to respond to it. 

[JonL]

24 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

The comment I cited was weird as there is already lots of competition for Cthulhu Mythos games and I can’t see how Chaosium or anybody else can claim others cannot use ‘Cthulhu' or 'Deep Ones' in their games, regardless of what system they use (including BRP).

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.

Edited April 1, 2020 by JonL

[g33k]

6 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

It isn’t being a troll to ask a question about the wording of something. By the same token, you could argue that saying ‘just sayin’’ is trollspeak too. Its the way people choose to respond to it that makes it so.

The comment I cited was weird as there is already lots of competition for Cthulhu Mythos games and I can’t see how Chaosium or anybody else can claim others cannot use ‘Cthulhu' or 'Deep Ones' in their games, regardless of what system they use (including BRP). Is there a current trademark status on those terms or not? It’s not a question about whether Chaosium is any under obligation to license competition for Call of Cthulhu,  it is a legitimate question about whether they are in any legal position to prevent it?

Whether it is a trolling question, I dunno. It isn’t intended to be, but again, it depends on how people choose to respond to it. 

As per the link, it's a complicated question; as @Travern says, it's "a can of worms."   In the context of "CoC the RPG," it's a moderately (in)famous can of worms!   While (at least parts of) the Mythos sit undeniably within the public domain; the devil (and the flamewars) are in the details!  There are DECADES of flamewars in those details.  I join in the "let's not," suggest you read the link I provided, and Google 'round some more, if you really want to delve into it.

 

What the new Chaosium BOGL license forbids isn't using the Mythos; they forbid  using BRP  in conjunction with the Mythos... specifically, the new Open BRP doc, logo, etc.

And they get to do that!

There is also, at this point, a fair bit of "the Mythos" that actually originates within Chaosium's own work, none of which is in the public domain, and which Chaosium requires another (non-OGL) license (such as with Stygian Fox, Golden Goblin, etc) to use.

And they get to do that!

 

Then there's the flamed and debated copyrights being asserted over parts of the Mythos, based AFAIK on claims by Arkham House as founded by A.Derleth.  See that 10' pole over there?  Yeah, not picking it up, not going within pole's reach of any of the rest of the debate!

[TrippyHippy]

1 minute ago, g33k said:

As per the link, it's a complicated question; as @Travern says, it's "a can of worms."   

As explained before, it’s only 'a can of worms’ to those who want to make it so. Indeed, if any can of worms have been opened it was the release of the BRP document that did it. I’m just asking questions and I’m not interested in a flame war about it. If you have a 10’ pole and want to keep your distance then do so, but there is no need to try and shut others down. 

[TrippyHippy]

26 minutes ago, JonL said:

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.

Clearly explained and understood. I just don’t know how the legal process would work, really, when Chaosium doesn’t actually own these terms or concepts. The same is true for King Arthur Pendragon. Say, somebody makes a scenario using BRP and includes a reference to Merlin or Camelot in it, would there be legal precedence from the BRP document to stop them? 

[g33k]

1 minute ago, TrippyHippy said:

As explained before, it’s only 'a can of worms’ to those who want to make it so ...

Read the link upthread.  Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

Quote

... TSR included an entire chapter on the Cthulhu mythos (including statistics for the character) in the first printing of Dungeons & Dragons sourcebook Deities & Demigods (1980). TSR, however, were unaware that Arkham House, which asserted copyright on almost all Lovecraft literature, had already licensed the Cthulhu property to the game company Chaosium. Although Chaosium stipulated that TSR could continue to use the material if each future edition featured a published credit to Chaosium, TSR refused and the material was removed from all subsequent editions.

 

The issue of (c) as applied to "the Mythos" is categorically NOT as simple as you assert.

[TrippyHippy]

Just now, g33k said:

Read the link upthread.  Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

 

The issue of (c) as applied to "the Mythos" is categorically NOT as simple as you assert.

That circumstance occurred 40 years ago when Lovecraft’s work was not in the public domain. Now it is, and circumstances are different.

[g33k]

6 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

... Say, somebody makes a scenario using BRP and includes a reference to Merlin or Camelot in it, would there be legal precedence from the BRP document to stop them? 

Yes:  right there in the "using BRP" part.

(edit:  as I understand it / I Am Not A Lawyer / etc)

Edited April 1, 2020 by g33k
AIUI / IANAL / etc