Chaosium Releases Basic Role Playing SRD

Chaosium has released the Basic Roleplaying System Reference Document (SRD).



The Basic Roleplaying SRD is based on Basic Roleplaying, the simple, fast, and elegant skill-based percentile system that is the core of most Chaosium roleplaying games, including Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, SuperWorld, and others.

Under the provisions of the Basic Roleplaying Open Game License (OGL), designers can create their own roleplaying games using the Basic Roleplaying rules engine, royalty-free and without further permission from Chaosium Inc.

For further details and to download the SRD document, see our Basic Roleplaying SRD information page.

This uses an opening gaming license, but not THE Open Gaming License (the commonly used one published by WotC nearly 20 years ago). It is based on similar concepts, but this uses the BRP Open Game License. A notable difference is that instead of "Product Identity") (which in the original license typically includes trademarks, proper names, a handful of iconic monsters, etc.), this license used "Prohibited Content" which expands that to include mechanics, or "substantially similar" mechanics to some selected features of the rules system. For example, part of the prohibited list includes:

"Augments: The use of one ability — whether skill or characteristic — to augment another ability of the same or a different type, in a manner substantially similar to those of the RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha rules."

Obviously you can make similar mechanics without using this license, but if you use this license you agree not to use mechanics similar to those in the prohibited content list.

The prohibited content list also contains Le Morte D'Arthur, and the Cthulhu Mythos.

 

[Michael O'Brien]

Thats interesting. I just quickly checked it --

"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."

Do the terms "BRP" or "Basic Roleplaying" appear in any of those books? It seems unlikely that it wouldn't, but if it does it looks like it qualifies as a "trademark... from any of the following".

(I mean, obviously they're giving you explicit permission to put it on the cover in the form of that logo).

Yes, we give explicit permission for use of the BRP logo and trademark in the OGL. The required legal copy also specifically identifies us as owning the BRP logo and trademark, which implies use, as well.

 

[Dreamscape]

Ryan says he encountered "off the scale" hostility to the idea of the OGL

Note that the hostility came from within WotC, not legitimate contractual questions from potential users.

 

[Lucas Yew]

Note that the hostility came from within WotC, not legitimate contractual questions from potential users.

Why am I not surprised... (Hint: Ha$bro) And what kind of user-gamer would resist such a free deal?

Like, that OGL is essentially its developers' oath saying they won't ever pull a Lorraine Williams on potential fan works derived from the license, commercial or not, as long as you don't mess with PI designated proper noun and some more minor stuff. Considering how brutal the lawyers in the States are notorious for, the OGL was a game changer, no wonder.

While nowdays the even better CC-BY-SA (or even more lenient CC variants) exists, the OGL continues to be my personal gold standard of roleplaying game publishers' goodwill.

 

[M.T. Black]

Note that the hostility came from within WotC, not legitimate contractual questions from potential users.

If you listen to the chat with Chris Pramas, toward the end he discusses his experience with the OGL. He notes both the hostility toward it from within WOTC but also some from third-party game makers.

As a related aside, Chris Lindsay has said that it took him 4 years to persuade WOTC to create the DMs Guild. I can testify firsthand that there was a LOT of hostility toward the DMs Guild in the early days from various sources. Many people were simply furious that it existed (and some still are). Even if they weren't planning to release or buy stuff on it.

 

[Dreamscape]

I seem to remember some 3PPs not being too happy with the DM's Guild and similar programmes due to the copyright issues, but it has undeniably taken off big-time with the fan publishers. So much so that it's getting a bit tricky digging out the good stuff, but still. I also remember a little unhappiness from the Traveller 3PP community that they'd have to go that route with Mongoose Traveller 2E instead of the OGL and logo licence they'd been used to with 1E. That resulted in the Cepheus Engine, which now has a large user base.

 

[Morrus]

Why am I not surprised... (Hint: Ha$bro)

It predates Hasbro’s ownership of WotC.

 

[Sunsword]

If you listen to the chat with Chris Pramas, toward the end he discusses his experience with the OGL. He notes both the hostility toward it from within WOTC but also some from third-party game makers.

As a related aside, Chris Lindsay has said that it took him 4 years to persuade WOTC to create the DMs Guild. I can testify firsthand that there was a LOT of hostility toward the DMs Guild in the early days from various sources. Many people were simply furious that it existed (and some still are). Even if they weren't planning to release or buy stuff on it.

Obviously, either those publishers overcame those feelings or were replaced by other publishers. What I'd like to know is why would I choose the BRP OGL over the Legend OGL? No, I can't use "Compatible with BRP" but I can create a "D100 Powered RPG" for people to use akin to the "5E Rules" logos that can be made.

I don't see how anyone expects people to follow the BRP OGL when rules can't be trademarked. I think Chaosium has made the same mistake WotC did over 4E.

I think Chaosium would have been better to not release the BRP OGL and simply stick to their Community Content Platforms than to channel the previous Chaosium management team's blunders and foster hostility amongst their fans. 5E owes a lot to the OGL, the OSR that used it for a base, and for learning from the conflict the GSL created amongst its fans. An honest BRP OGL could have been as good for CoC & Pendragon as the OSR has been for WotC embracing all editions and servicing them with PDFs and POD products.

Finally, would Green Ronin Paizo exist without the OGL and would Pathfinder exist without the GSL?

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Obviously, either those publishers overcame those feelings or were replaced by other publishers. What I'd like to know is why would I choose the BRP OGL over the Legend OGL? No, I can't use "Compatible with BRP" but I can create a "D100 Powered RPG" for people to use akin to the "5E Rules" logos that can be made.

The game that BRP came from, Runequest, was not even the first percentile-based system published. That honor goes to Boot Hill in 1975. And then there was Chivalry & Sorcery in 1977. Runequest was 1978. And then another fairly big player for that time, Rolemaster first came out in 1980. So there are other ways to do a d100 system without having to slap any logos on it.

This may be a discussion for another thread, but I am now very curious if there were issues and/or conflict between Chaosium and ICE (publisher of Rolemaster) back in the early 80's over the similar mechanics? After all, for a while there, Rolemaster and the Tolkien-licensed Middle-Earth Roleplaying (MERP) were much bigger in the market.

 

[Sunsword]

The game that BRP came from, Runequest, was not even the first percentile-based system published. That honor goes to Boot Hill in 1975. And then there was Chivalry & Sorcery in 1977. Runequest was 1978. And then another fairly big player for that time, Rolemaster first came out in 1980. So there are other ways to do a d100 system without having to slap any logos on it.

And you cannot trademark game systems. The just appears to be a huge gaff to me.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The game that BRP came from, Runequest, was not even the first percentile-based system published. That honor goes to Boot Hill in 1975. And then there was Chivalry & Sorcery in 1977. Runequest was 1978. And then another fairly big player for that time, Rolemaster first came out in 1980. So there are other ways to do a d100 system without having to slap any logos on it.

This may be a discussion for another thread, but I am now very curious if there were issues and/or conflict between Chaosium and ICE (publisher of Rolemaster) back in the early 80's over the similar mechanics? After all, for a while there, Rolemaster and the Tolkien-licensed Middle-Earth Roleplaying (MERP) were much bigger in the market.

I think this is true, but there was more to the BRP system than just being percentile. Opinions may differ, but I think the scope of RuneQuest’s design at the time elevated the game and, in it’s stripped down version was arguably the strongest of the ‘first wave’ of RPG systems to come through the initial years of RPG design. In Worlds of Wonder, we also have to acknowledge BRP as the first genuine attempt at creating a universal, generic system.

I’ve no problem with Chaosium trademarking BRP, although they’ve already done this with the BRP Rulebook (the so called 'Big Gold Book’). The problem as I see it is the attempt to create an ‘open licence’ for the rules when a) it isn’t open, and b) the system is already openly used under a multitude of other names.