As the title says.

https://www.chaosium.com/blogannouncing-the-basic-roleplaying-system-reference-document-and-open-game-license/

Personally, I like the idea they have finally (officially) made their rule system "open" to be used by indie game creators. But they also have a listed of prohibited mechanics (such as passions and all of their magic systems). Their reasoning seems to stem from not wanting people to just make a retro clone of Call of Cthulhu or King Arthur Pendragon. But the wording of it seems to be confusing people or even making them worried that if it's too close to one of their products they might get handed a lawsuit.

I'm kind of on the fence. I understand protecting their IP, but their OGL could use a second pass. While they mention all the magic systems from Runequest being prohibited, there is no mention of Call of Cthulhu. And while the SRD is a stripped down version of their rules, it also makes no mention of whether anything from the BRP rulebook 4th edition can be used.

I have been working on a homebrew fantasy campaign that uses BRP as well as a list of ideas from the OSR. I was never going to publish it, but this announcement of the license has me intrigued, at the very least.

I always assumed that Jeff's vague-posting about the Mongoose RQ SRD being illegal was just intentional scaremongering to put off people from cloning their game, but this new hybrid OGL/ SRD/ logo licence of theirs is swinging me toward the opinion that they really don't understand how the real OGL works or what it was for. This thing is mostly a set of restrictions publishers need to follow in order to use the BRP logo - a logo they just made up, for a "system" which has never been clearly defined, and which only exists under that name in a rules encyclopedia stuffed with rules variants either stripped from or outright prohibited in the SRD.

Quote(e) 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 any of the following: any releases from the
product lines of Call of Cthulhu, Dragn Lords of Melniboné, ElfQuest,
Elric!, Hawkmoon, HeroQuest, Hero Wars, King Arthur Pendragon,
Magic World, Nephilim, Prince Valiant, Ringworld, RuneQuest, 7th Sea,
Stormbringer, Superworld, Thieves' World, Worlds of Wonder, and any
related sublines; the world and mythology of Glorantha; all works
related to the Cthulhu Mythos, including those that are otherwise
public domain; and all works related to Le Morte d'Arthur. This list
may be updated in future versions of the License.

And instead of answering questions they are mostly going on about not wanting people to clone their games.

If anyone wants the BRP logo on their book it's useful, I guess. They just need to learn a whole bunch of Chaosium games inside-out to make sure nothing in their book is "substantially similar". Otherwise, it's a straightjacket.

Yeah, I was really confused by how they set it up.

I'm not here to tell them how to run their company. But if they were seriously worried about people combining X + Y + Z together to retro clone one of their IP's, then maybe they should instead just release the entire Big Golden Book, and then just have in their license that you can create anything you want, but one thing must be missing. Like, if you want to do a Lovecraftian game, then you can't have the current settings/time periods or use the title 'Call of Cthulhu' or the actual entities (maybe you want to use the CoC rules to create that Victorian-set Dracula game that feels more like the Hammer films). Or, you can use the Pendragon rules, but it must be an original setting (no Arthur or Charlemagne). Or maybe you can use the Runequest rules, minus the Runes, stuff that is original IP, etc.

That, I think, would allow more freedom to TPP's, as well as give Chaosium more peace of mind. Maybe its a little more complex. I don't know. But I feel like there could be a more 'open' way of doing things without so many restrictions that seem vague at best.

It looks like an attempt at damage control over the recent proliferation of D100 systems rather than a real desire to open the BRP system. By not going with the WotC OGL v1.0a and introducing their vague "In addition, game mechanics that are substantially similar to the following unique or characteristic features of other Chaosium games are Prohibited Content" clause they are basically saying here's an open gaming licence, but we can shut you down any time we like. The total opposite of what an OGL is meant to be: a secure and simple licence that requires no further contact with the owner. Reminds me a bit of the WotC 4E SRD, and look how that went down.

I'm not telling nuChaosium how to run their business, either, but this is such a missed opportunity it's not funny. If their only concern is to stop retroclones they should take Mongoose to court and see if they can get the original MRQ1 SRD declared in breach of the OGL (good luck with that).

Quote from: Vile;1125145It looks like an attempt at damage control over the recent proliferation of D100 systems

I can agree with that. In fact, that was my initial thought. That the wave of products using OpenQuest as well as OpenCthulhu and Raiders of Rleyh (which from the rumblings on forums, seems Chaosium was rather pissed about). After reading the announcement, I thought about how all these products must have forced their hand after having a topic called "Just a Reminder: BRP is not Open Gaming Content."

I am not sure how I feel about Chaosium (what's this 'NuChaosium' thing?). I mean, after the Kickstarter disaster, they seemed to have brought the company into the modern age, with a steady stream of products (I think they are out-producting WOTC with amount of content released), their own 'Adventurer League' type system, their own version of the DMGuild, and have even gotten live streams of gameplay. While it feels like the company is healthier than ever, I cannot feel like it is becoming more corporate. More like WOTC. And this OGL they released seems like a half-measure.

I'm still interested in using it for any potential future products, but until there is clarification in the contract, anything I create is going to remain personal use.

I was never a fan of their system for their own games. I have zero interest in converting other materials to it.

1. It's 23 pages and is very light on useful info. You could go with tons of other Open Content and combine with Legend to get a better game.
2. It's WAY too restrictive. There's nothing left besides the resistance table (which Mythras/Legend does better anyways). EDIT to add: no sanity, no passions, etc. All restricted IP...
Frankly it was a terrible approach and somewhat useless. It's kind of insulting to be honest. I'm trying to figure out what they hope to gain from it? If you are a publisher, you are going to have to fill in a ton of blanks.

Quote from: Vile;1125145I'm not telling nuChaosium how to run their business, either, but this is such a missed opportunity it's not funny. If their only concern is to stop retroclones they should take Mongoose to court and see if they can get the original MRQ1 SRD declared in breach of the OGL (good luck with that).

It looks to me like they just want to protect what little value they can inject into such a logo. Logically, if they were going to sell third party products through their own little walled gardens, they would insist on only selling those with the logos.

Quote from: trechriron;1125155Frankly it was a terrible approach and somewhat useless. It's kind of insulting to be honest. I'm trying to figure out what they hope to gain from it? If you are a publisher, you are going to have to fill in a ton of blanks.

Exactly my thoughts.

There's no compelling reason for publishers to use their BuRP, especially with the restrictions. Every D100 fan knows you're making stuff for them by just putting listing your game as "D100 OGL"

Even if their BuRP wasn't made of suck, NuChaosium is such a craptastic company of imbecilic wokeness there's no way I'd support or promote them.

But I've dabbled with the idea of a classic Magic World / Stormbringer retroclone using the OGL.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1125167But I've dabbled with the idea of a classic Magic World / Stormbringer retroclone using the OGL.

You should dabble with the idea without using the OGL. Easier and less restrictive.

And then make a Toon clone with d20 mechanics and slap the BRP logo on it, just for fun.

Okay, there's so much wrong with the first page that I only now noticed this gem on page 2:

Quote12. Reputation: You must not copy, modify, or distribute Open Game
Content connected to this License in a way that would be prejudicial
or harmful to the honor or reputation of the Contributors.

What? :confused:

It is worse than that

Quote10. Updating the License: Chaosium or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of the BRP Open Game License, including updates to the Prohibited Content list. Material published under any version of the License can continue to be published Using the terms of that version, but You agree to Use the most recent authorized version of this License for any new Open Game Content You publish or for revised or updated works with thirty percent (30%) or more revised or new content.

So while you can continue to release your older work under the previous license they can blow up your product line by arbitrarily altering the Prohibited list.

Quote from: estar;1125203So while you can continue to release your older work under the previous license they can blow up your product line by arbitrarily altering the Prohibited list.

Good summary of the problems with Clause 10 on this Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/hexcrawl/status/1244345075116707844 - You can't even remove the licence once you release your product under it, it seems. They couldn't have written a worse trap for users if they'd tried - but then again, maybe they did try and just didn't expect to get caught out.

Wow, I finally read the license end to end. There are so many 'related' or 'related to' traps or worse that I can't imagine anyone accepting it.

Quote from: Vile;1125222Good summary of the problems with Clause 10 on this Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/hexcrawl/status/1244345075116707844 - You can't even remove the licence once you release your product under it, it seems. They couldn't have written a worse trap for users if they'd tried - but then again, maybe they did try and just didn't expect to get caught out.

Given how well that worked for the 4E GSL for Wotc, banking on gamers being stupid was well a stupid move on Nuchaosium.