BRP's Hit Locations & Other SRDs

[LivingTriskele]

I'm working on a free PDF that I'm planning on sharing. It discusses how to combine various OGL SRDs in order to custom design rules systems.

I'm planning on using it as a guidelines for publishing my own settings and adventures. It's primarily d20-focused, but I've been planning on demonstrating how to incorporate some BRP elements.

I noticed that though the BRP rulebook includes Hit Locations as an option, they aren't mentioned in the BRP SRD (other than something that looks like a typo in the Shields section). Does this mean I can't use BRP's Hit Location rules? Or can I, now that BRP is under the ORC license? 

Thanks in advanced.
 

[Mugen]

5 hours ago, LivingTriskele said:

I'm working on a free PDF that I'm planning on sharing. It discusses how to combine various OGL SRDs in order to custom design rules systems.

I'm planning on using it as a guidelines for publishing my own settings and adventures. It's primarily d20-focused, but I've been planning on demonstrating how to incorporate some BRP elements.

I noticed that though the BRP rulebook includes Hit Locations as an option, they aren't mentioned in the BRP SRD (other than something that looks like a typo in the Shields section). Does this mean I can't use BRP's Hit Location rules? Or can I, now that BRP is under the ORC license? 

Thanks in advanced.
 

OGL BRP and ORC BRP are completely disconnected. BRP-OGL SRD is not under ORC licence and BRP ORC is not under BRP-OGL, and Chaosium already stated that they won't change it. BRP-OGL is more or less a thing from the past, but Chaosium saw no reason to withdraw it.

BRP-OGL is also not the same as Wizards of the Coast's Open Gaming Licence, and is more restrictive.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Mugen

[LivingTriskele]

Thanks Mugen. I ended up contacting Chaosium directly. Pasting the responses I got below: 

 

From Neil Robinson 

Everything in the new BRP rulebook (Basic Roleplaying: Universal Game Engine) is available if they correctly give us accreditation per the ORC license. That includes hit locations.

From Jason Durall

Hi Steve - 

The new BRP edition released under the ORC includes hit locations, so they are free for you to use. 

The old SRD is still available and usable, but has been completely subsumed into the ORC edition.

We are working on an SRD of the new edition, but it is still in development. You can, however, extract the text from the .pdf of the BRP core book and use the ORC portions as you see fit. (stuff that will not be in the ORC and SRD includes art and product identity, such as when the text mentions other Chaosium products) 

Best,

Jason

 

[RosenMcStern]

CAUTION: you cannot mix different licenses. You can merge multiple SRDs that use the WotC OGL, and multiple ORC SRDs, but you cannot merge them together.

[LivingTriskele]

Thank you. This would be a major concern. I'd like to confirm the legality of it. Can you please provide me with a link/reference to the statute? I'd like to be 100% sure before I make changes to this project.

[Ron Hale-Evans]

There's no "statute". What Rosen is referring to is the basic incompatibility of free culture licenses (or open source licenses, etc.) It might be that the ORC, WotC OGL, and Chaosium OGL are all compatible (I haven't checked), but that would be a happy coincidence, because we can be pretty sure they weren't written that way deliberately. I would read the three licenses very carefully, preferably with the help of a lawyer, before publishing any project that attempts to mix and match.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

[LivingTriskele]

Thanks. Someone from another forum gave me the same advice. Looks like I have to put my glasses on and read the fine print. 

[Mugen]

2 hours ago, Ron Hale-Evans said:

There's no "statute". What Rosen is referring to is the basic incompatibility of free culture licenses (or open source licenses, etc.) It might be that the ORC, WotC OGL, and Chaosium OGL are all compatible (I haven't checked), but that would be a happy coincidence, because we can be pretty sure they weren't written that way deliberately. I would read the three licenses very carefully, preferably with the help of a lawyer, before publishing any project that attempts to mix and match.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

To be honest, even if it was legal to mix BRP ORC and d20, I think it would be a pretty bad idea, given how different both systems are.

It could be possible and quite easy to change the roll-under d100 mechanism in BRP with a roll-over d20 one.

But introducing the hit location system from RQ in d20 would simply break the game.

[LivingTriskele]

That depends upon which aspects of which SRDs you're using. Bear in mind that the roots of both systems share similarities that go back to the old days (RuneQuest and AD&D). Mathematically, cool aspects of BRP can be applied to d20 characters. Especially if you drop 3.5s level-based approach to character generation and exchange it for the d20heroSRD’s point-based system. I’m nearly done with a document that I’d hoped to share. Apparently, it doesn't really matter now. I’m going to finish the current draft (call it an indulgent study of d20 dice-based RPGs) and then pull all the BRP content out it, for a version that will be made free to the public. If you’d like to read the original draft, feel free to PM me.

[LivingTriskele]

More clarification from Chaosium

From Jason Durall

Hi Steve - 

The advice below is incorrect. 

You can mix and match the content because the ORC explicitly gives you the right to do so, just as if Wizards of the Coast chose to, they could publish the text of BRP in its entirety. 

The ORC does not contain terms preventing such a mixing, and to the best of my knowledge, the OGL does not either. Only material that is still under copyright, etc. is prohibited. 

I'm obviously not a lawyer (though I just asked one sitting across the table here and he concurs). Don't take this as legal advice, but as far as Chaosium goes, the content we released under the ORC is free for use however you see fit. In the past, OGL publishers mixed material from other systems (such as FATE) without any legal threat. 

Best,

Jason

From Neil Robinson

Yep. For OCR we just need the credit notification about the license.

I have no clue about the SRD though.

Neil

[g33k]

On 7/11/2023 at 1:07 PM, LivingTriskele said:

Thank you. This would be a major concern. I'd like to confirm the legality of it. Can you please provide me with a link/reference to the statute? I'd like to be 100% sure before I make changes to this project.

n.b. these are *licenses* i.e. civil contracts between private parties
No "statutes" (laws passed by the gov't) are relevant, except the one(s) governing such licenses.

When you decide to unilaterally merge two properties, which have two different licenses that had not been designed to commingle... you assume all the risk.

Now, they're pretty liberal licenses.  It could very-well be that there is little or nothing that would prevent you from doing so...  I'm not a lawyer, though!

I'm pretty sure the WotC OGL-1 and the ORC licenses each require your derived product include copies of the respective license, so your combined product will need *both* licenses included.

I suspect you'll need to track what content comes from which license, and indicate such appropriately:  publishing OGL-licensed material under the ORC license (or vice versa) could be a problem, insofar as one could construe that the other license would cover the material.

Chaosium has stated that they *DO* have an issue with the OGL (or they'd likely have OGL'ed BRP previously), so I presume they'd object to a publication that seemed to OGL the BRP rules.  Maybe @Jason D or @Jeff could chime in...?   I don't know how WotC would feel about their (previously-OGL'ed) content appearing under the ORC license.

I reiterate:  I am NOT a lawyer!
I strongly suggest you consult one.

[Mugen]

On 7/12/2023 at 6:09 AM, LivingTriskele said:

That depends upon which aspects of which SRDs you're using. Bear in mind that the roots of both systems share similarities that go back to the old days (RuneQuest and AD&D). Mathematically, cool aspects of BRP can be applied to d20 characters. Especially if you drop 3.5s level-based approach to character generation and exchange it for the d20heroSRD’s point-based system. I’m nearly done with a document that I’d hoped to share. Apparently, it doesn't really matter now. I’m going to finish the current draft (call it an indulgent study of d20 dice-based RPGs) and then pull all the BRP content out it, for a version that will be made free to the public. If you’d like to read the original draft, feel free to PM me.

Yes, RQ1 can be described as OD&D without levels and thieves skills as the basis of every character ability.

You could also make very similar games by following one of these two paths:

1. Remove levels from d20
2. Replace d100 roll under by a d20 roll-over in BRP

But the second path will require less work than the first one to have a working game system, as magic and health depend on characters' level in d20, whereas the second option is almost immediate.

 

 

[Jason D]

11 hours ago, g33k said:

Chaosium has stated that they *DO* have an issue with the OGL (or they'd likely have OGL'ed BRP previously), so I presume they'd object to a publication that seemed to OGL the BRP rules.  Maybe @Jason D or @Jeff could chime in...?   I don't know how WotC would feel about their (previously-OGL'ed) content appearing under the ORC license.

I reiterate:  I am NOT a lawyer!
I strongly suggest you consult one.

 

Our feelings about the usage of the material are irrelevant. With the release of BRP under the ORC, the material is yours (meaning, anyone's), to do what you want with it. 

We chose not to release the earlier edition of the abbreviated BRP under the OGL because we saw, several years ago, that it had serious problems that became glaringly evident earlier this year. 

We don't, however, have any idea what WotC's position on the issue is, so the response to combining material from BRP with anything released under the OGL is anyone's guess. 

Remember, though, that the OGL is not just the governing document for d20, as many games have been released under those terms that aren't based on the d20 SRD (Fate 2.0, Open d6, FUDGE, etc.), and many games have been released that hybridize aspects of other games under the OGL and Creative Commons licenses. 

https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Open_Game_Systems#Open_Game_License

My personal advice is that if you have concerns using material released under the OGL in your ORC licensed game, then don't. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Jason D

[LivingTriskele]

13 hours ago, Mugen said:

Yes, RQ1 can be described as OD&D without levels and thieves skills as the basis of every character ability.

You could also make very similar games by following one of these two paths:

1. Remove levels from d20
2. Replace d100 roll under by a d20 roll-over in BRP

But the second path will require less work than the first one to have a working game system, as magic and health depend on characters' level in d20, whereas the second option is almost immediate.

The first path is actually easier if you use the d20HeroSRD as a foundation (it's d20 and it's done away with character levels in favor of a point-based character generation system (similar to GURPS or Champions/HERO System).

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by LivingTriskele

[g33k]

9 hours ago, Jason D said:

Our feelings about the usage of the material are irrelevant. With the release of BRP under the ORC, the material is yours (meaning, anyone's), to do what you want with it ...

My specific issue -- as the OP is planning ORC/OGL rules-hybrid -- is what happens if the commingled result gets BRP rules effectively licensed by the terms of the OGL (and similarly, what will WotC think of having their OGL'ed rules released under the ORC?).  Which is a thing that could happen, if the OP crosses the streams.

Maybe this is a non-issue; dunno, IANAL.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Guys, the point is extremely simple. Here is what Article 2 of the WotC OGL says: "No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using
this License."

Now, if you want to find yourself arguing in a court of justice that including said open game content in a product released under the ORC license does not imply "applying other terms and conditions", go ahead. But don't say you were  not warned.

Of course this does not mean that Hasbro will sue you. But putting yourselves in a position in which Hasbro could sue you... well, is it really necessary to comment further?

[LivingTriskele]

Excellent. Thanks. This is very helpful. I'll reach out to Hasbro and see if I can get a definitive interpretation (or maybe permission) from them (just to leave no stone unturned). I'll post the response, if any, here.

Thank you all for your contributions.

[Atgxtg]

35 minutes ago, g33k said:

My specific issue -- as the OP is planning ORC/OGL rules-hybrid -- is what happens if the commingled result gets BRP rules effectively licensed by the terms of the OGL (and similarly, what will WotC think of having their OGL'ed rules released under the ORC?).  Which is a thing that could happen, if the OP crosses the streams.

Maybe this is a non-issue; dunno, IANAL.

 

I suspect it is a non-issue. 

Mostly it doesn't matter what a company thinks about something, what matters is what they can do about it, and what the fallout of what they do about it. Pathinfinder exists and will probably overtake D&D as the most pouplar RPG preciesly because of what WotC did about things. THey tried to lock OGL  the barn door after the horses got out with 4E and The One, and both times it backfired. Likewise if Chasoium got overzealous about something it would most likely hurt them and lead to Mthras and other BRP adjacent RPGs picking up marketshare. Classic Fantasy, BRP ROme and such were orginally BRP products. They switched because of the differences between the BRP and Mythras licenses at the time.

 

Yeah a company can often choose to take action on something but other 3rd party publishers and fans will see it and react to that. For instace if Chasoium went after a company for using hit locations, something that exists in many other RPGs they'd have to pay legal fees, alienate at least one third party publisher, alarm other 3rd parties, and generate back blood with fans. Then probably lose in court as Chasoium doesn't own hit location mechanics and cannot protect it anyway. Remeber game mechanics aren't really protecable by copywrite, that's why MRQ could exist and use so many of the Chaosium RQ game mechanics (we asked on the Mongose forums), and why there are tons of knockoffs of Yahtzee that exist, just by another name. So much of this stuff isn't protacable, and what is might not be worth going after as it could cause a company more harm that good. WotC is the poster child for this. 

 

Besides in most caes there is a more diplomatic way to get the point across such as  "Gee I'm sorry, but Walktapi are a Glorantha exclusive monster for RuneQuest and not covered under the OGL or ORC so you can't use them. " 

 

 

[Atgxtg]

16 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

Of course this does not mean that Hasbro will sue you. But putting yourselves in a position in which Hasbro could sue you... well, is it really necessary to comment further?

Technically wouldn't that be be WotC, not Hasbro? Not that it would make much difference from LivingTrikele's perspective. It would probably hurt WotC/Hasbro more that it would help them too. I mean they are already bleeding customers and 3rd party support. At this point they would do well to just shut up, smile, and thank Asmodeus that someone still wants to make OGL content. 

This could become moot if D&D goes ORC, which is might have to. 

 

Oh, BTW on a related note there is a comment by Loz about mixing ORC stuff with Mythras Imperative and Classic Fantasy Imperative that might be relevant here.

But yes - people will be free to mix and match Mythras and Classic Fantasy Imperatives as they see fit, and bring in material from other ORC systems (like BRUGE) if they so wish. Just abide by the ORC license terms, giving correct and accurate attribution, and not using restricted content, and you're home-free.

 

 

Because the way I'm reading the OGL and ORC is that if the content is considered open and can be used without restriction under any licence, then it is open and can be used without restriction with anything else that is open and available under any other licences. That's how AEG was able to do L5R supplements that had stats for their L5R RPG and for D&D/3E Oriental Adventures. And vice versa for that matter. Both companies let sonme stuff go into the OGL so that they could share. 

 

It really looks like OGL actually restricts the licence holder more that 3rd parties, which makes perfect sense considering what it is supposed to do, namely allow and encourage third party support to increase a given RPGs dominance. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Atgxtg

[LivingTriskele]

So, I finally posted the question WotC D&D Beyond Forum.

It was up there for no longer than 20 minutes before someone deleted it. 

[g33k]

1 hour ago, LivingTriskele said:

So, I finally posted the question WotC D&D Beyond Forum.

It was up there for no longer than 20 minutes before someone deleted it. 

D&D Beyond isn't, I think, the right place.
That's really the place where they monetize their non-OGL content, the IP that isn't released under open license.

I don't know what the correct place *would* be, honestly... very-likely, directly reaching-out via e-mail.

However, do note that D&D5 is moving over to CreativeCommons (not OGL), and I'm guessing that D&D3.x / OGL queries aren't likely to be anywhere near the top of their priority list.

[LivingTriskele]

Thanks, I ended up opening a Customer Support ticket. We'll see.

[RosenMcStern]

Your chances of getting an answer are very low. And in any case, any answer you get from customer support will in no way be legally binding. No executive manager or attorney at WotC will ever feel obliged to abide with an opinion the support gave to a customer.

The only remote hope you have to get a significant answer is to write in official form (on paper, or via legally binding email channels) to someone at WotC in charge of licensing, introducing yourself as a potential licensee. In that case their answer would have a chance of being legally binding.

[LivingTriskele]

I'm actually corresponding with someone at D&D Beyond now (been trying to get an answer as to why my post was deleted). After a ton of deflection this is this this guy's response: 

Soliciting and/or offering medical, legal, or other professional advice. 

Original post below:

I'm nearly done working on a free PDF that discusses how to combine various OGL SRDs in order to custom design rules systems. Part of this project involves combining rules from various WotC d20 SRDs with Chaosium’s BRP ORC License (both of which presume to be “Open”). I’ve already reached out to Chaosium, and they are totally fine with it.

However, after having posted this topic on other TTRPG forums, a question regarding the legality of mixing OGL SRDs in this way still comes up—specifically in regards to the WotC OGL 1.0a’s clause regarding “no additional terms or conditions.”

I’m wondering if any WotC employees out there could offer a definitive take on this clause (despite the notion that game mechanics can’t even really be copyrighted, I’d like to dot all my Is and cross all my Ts).

Thank you in advance.

[Atgxtg]

What legally questionable material do you wish to incorporate? Most game mechanics for OGL games are  by necessity OGL, and most of what isn''t OGL can usually be mimicked in some way.  So what's the problem stuff?