# Chaosium Releases Basic Role Playing SRD



## imagineGod (Mar 27, 2020)

This is the best quote so far:



> This uses an opening gaming license, but not THE Open Gaming License (the commonly used one published by WotC nearly 20 years ago).


----------



## imagineGod (Mar 27, 2020)

Saw the original Chaosium post.


----------



## atanakar (Mar 27, 2020)

Very interesting possibilities.


----------



## imagineGod (Mar 27, 2020)

atanakar said:


> Very interesting possibilities.



The BRP is next only to the d20 in popularity I believe. So wonder which third party publisher will be first to use this SRD for a new game without needing Chaosium oversight now?


----------



## Dreamscape (Mar 27, 2020)

It would be good if it was based on the Big Gold Book. As it is it's less than 20 pages of a very bare-bones percentile system and 2 pages of a whole lot of restrictive clauses. Better off writing your own.


----------



## Von Ether (Mar 27, 2020)

Someone is going to have their work cut out for them since all of the BRP magic systems are prohibited (and the post seems to have changed from last night to further explain that.)

On the other hand, a purely historical game is totally doable.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 27, 2020)

I don't understand the motivation of providing an SRD and OGL if they are going to make it so restrictive. it's not like anyone who wanted to couldn't create a game with a percentile system at its core. Who is this for?


----------



## Jer (Mar 27, 2020)

I don't get it.  Unless there's some necessary requirement for them to have an SRD for the "community" sites on DriveThru I don't see what they gain by doing this and I don't see what another publisher gains from taking advantage of it.  It's like Chaosium still doesn't believe in the benefits of open gaming but have seen everyone else open up their engines and they're taking a half-hearted stab at doing the same?


----------



## oknazevad (Mar 27, 2020)

Yeah, looking at the license and the SRD content this is essentially useless. If you use any of it you *have to *slap that logo on your book, "prominently", regardless of how little you actually use. And let's be frank, between the paucity of content in the SRD and the plethora of restrictions in the prohibited content list, there's so little anyone can or would use. Probably the only aspect that is actually distinctly useful is getting the classic resistance table actually under some sort of license (though as a purely mechanical aspect it's probably not copyright eligible in the first place). But again, if you use one thing then you can't use anything similar to the stuff on the prohibited content list and have to put their logo on both the front and back of the book.

And it's not like there aren't already truly open licensed d100 games out there. Both Mongoose editions of _RuneQuest _(the second under its post-license name of _Legend_) and_ OpenQuest_ (which used the first Mongoose edition's SRD to cover its legal basis) are already out there under the full, true OGL. Those give, without burdensome restrictions and glaring omissions, more than sufficient material to make a d100 game that is truly open. 

So the real question is "why bother?" Between a useless SRD and the least open open license I've ever seen, what do they hope to accomplish? It's truly too little (content), and too late (there's already suitable functionally equivalent alternatives).


----------



## Von Ether (Mar 27, 2020)

oknazevad said:


> Yeah, looking at the license and the SRD content this is essentially useless. If you use any of it you *have to *slap that logo on your book, "prominently", regardless of how little you actually use. And let's be frank, between the paucity of content in the SRD and the plethora of restrictions in the prohibited content list, there's so little anyone can or would use. Probably the only aspect that is actually distinctly useful is getting the classic resistance table actually under some sort of license (though as a purely mechanical aspect it's probably not copyright eligible in the first place). But again, if you use one thing then you can't use anything similar to the stuff on the prohibited content list and have to put their logo on both the front and back of the book.
> 
> And it's not like there aren't already truly open licensed d100 games out there. Both Mongoose editions of _RuneQuest _(the second under its post-license name of _Legend_) and_ OpenQuest_ (which used the first Mongoose edition's SRD to cover its legal basis) are already out there under the full, true OGL. Those give, without burdensome restrictions and glaring omissions, more than sufficient material to make a d100 game that is truly open.
> 
> So the real question is "why bother?" Between a useless SRD and the least open open license I've ever seen, what do they hope to accomplish? It's truly too little (content), and too late (there's already suitable functionally equivalent alternatives).





I am not sure, but I heard that a licence is still a licence and that eventually Mongoose may lose that licence and thus making its SRD null and void at that point. 

Or is this a _very _awkward way of making folks do a top to bottom reskin of magic mechanics they want to use and ensure the 3pp doesn't appropriate CoC and Golathra (which are covered under a community content program anyway.)


----------



## TrippyHippy (Mar 27, 2020)

"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."

Yet reading the current versions of Call of Cthulhu and RuneQuest, we can see that their respective systems are now much more convoluted and complicated than the original ruleset. Hmmmmm....


----------



## foolcat (Mar 27, 2020)

Straight from the horse‘s mouth, Chaosium doesn’t want re-skins or retro versions of their games published by third parties under their own BRP OGL. So no BRP-based *Holler of Hastur 5.5*, ever. Which is understandable, because it lies in the very nature of an OGL that it’s up for grabs by anyone, no questions asked.

Regarding the game mechanics that also fall under the Prohibited Content clause, it’s exactly about that: mechanics. For example, Mythras has rules for passions and skill augmentations (mainly through said passions) as well, but they work differently than their namesakes in RuneQuest: Glorantha. So for all intends and purposes, you‘re allowed to graft rules for passions and skill augmentations that are “substantially similar“ to those of Mythras onto your BRP OGL-based product, but not those that are a copy in all but words of the ones found in RQ:G. Or just invent your own and have fun balancing them.

The SRD being so slim isn’t necessarily a bad thing, either. Anything that’s in the BGB and doesn’t fall under the PC clause may be used as inspiration as is seen fit. You want hit locations with their own HP, strike ranks instead of DEX ranks, skill groups which are modified by attribute bonuses, or default skill values determined by reigning attributes instead of a flat number? Go right ahead. You may even lift the Bonus and Penalty Dice rule staight out of CoC7 and call it, let’s see, Advantage/Disadvantage (where have I seen this before?).


----------



## Dreamscape (Mar 28, 2020)

The only reason to use this is if you want to display the BRP logo.



Von Ether said:


> I am not sure, but I heard that a licence is still a licence and that eventually Mongoose may lose that licence and thus making its SRD null and void at that point.



Some people may like to spread rumours about that but the WotC OGL is not ambiguous. Once something is published as open content, it stays open content in perpetuity.


----------



## Michael Dean (Mar 28, 2020)

Dreamscape said:


> The only reason to use this is if you want to display the BRP logo.
> 
> Some people may like to spread rumours about that but the WotC OGL is not ambiguous. Once something is published as open content, it stays open content in perpetuity.




I don't think he was talking about WOTC's OGL.


----------



## Michael O'Brien (Mar 28, 2020)

Dreamscape said:


> It would be good if it was based on the Big Gold Book. As it is it's less than 20 pages of a very bare-bones percentile system and 2 pages of a whole lot of restrictive clauses. Better off writing your own.



The Basic Roleplaying SRD is a basic framework, and the BRP OGL explicitly allows derivative works. For example, you can add such things as hit locations, add your own magic system, psychic powers, rock god songs, archetypes, funky mechanics, psychonautical exploration mechanics, alchemy rules, spell systems based on the Sefirot or talking to angels through crystals - whatever, go for it.  



foolcat said:


> The SRD being so slim isn’t necessarily a bad thing, either. Anything that’s in the BGB and doesn’t fall under the PC clause may be used as inspiration as is seen fit. You want hit locations with their own HP, strike ranks instead of DEX ranks, skill groups which are modified by attribute bonuses, or default skill values determined by reigning attributes instead of a flat number? Go right ahead.



Correct, you are welcome to add literally anything to it as long as you avoid Prohibited Content (and avoid infringing others' copyright).



foolcat said:


> Straight from the horse‘s mouth, Chaosium doesn’t want re-skins or retro versions of their games published by third parties under their own BRP OGL. So no BRP-based *Holler of Hastur 5.5*, ever. Which is understandable, because it lies in the very nature of an OGL that it’s up for grabs by anyone, no questions asked.



Yes, the SRD was not released to help facilitate creating retroclones of existing Chaosium games, it's for people to publish their own original creations, settings, games, and unique ideas using the BRP system.


----------



## Dreamscape (Mar 28, 2020)

Michael Dean said:


> I don't think he was talking about WOTC's OGL.



Different SRDs, but still all using WoTC's OGL version 1.0a.


----------



## yojimbouk (Mar 28, 2020)

Von Ether said:


> I am not sure, but I heard that a licence is still a licence and that eventually Mongoose may lose that licence and thus making its SRD null and void at that point.
> 
> Or is this a _very _awkward way of making folks do a top to bottom reskin of magic mechanics they want to use and ensure the 3pp doesn't appropriate CoC and Golathra (which are covered under a community content program anyway.)



As far as I can interpret from what Chaosium have said, their beef with the Mongoose RQ SRD was that it included items (such as Gloranthan IP) which were licensed to them for a specified period, and, thus, Mongoose were not in a position to perpetually sub license them under the WotC OGL. This could possibly include all names derived from the original Chaosium RuneQuest, such as attributes and spell names.

However, the situation is somewhat muddied. First, Mongoose devised a new game based upon the previous systems so they have some ownershis of the MRQ system. Second, Chaosium appeared to have approved some games derived from the MRQ SRD (in so far as not raising objections when approached by the publisher), such as OpenQuest.

It seems that really what Chaosium are trying to stop is someone producing Call of Cthulhu or Pendragon clones. However, with Community Created Content programs, I don’t see this being as much of a problem.


----------



## Sunsword (Mar 28, 2020)

If you want to publish a BRP-inspired game with an OGL, purchase Delta Green's new edition and use it.


----------



## Sunsword (Mar 28, 2020)

yojimbouk said:


> As far as I can interpret from what Chaosium have said, their beef with the Mongoose RQ SRD was that it included items (such as Gloranthan IP) which were licensed to them for a specified period, and, thus, Mongoose were not in a position to perpetually sub license them under the WotC OGL. This could possibly include all names derived from the original Chaosium RuneQuest, such as attributes and spell names.
> 
> However, the situation is somewhat muddied. First, Mongoose devised a new game based upon the previous systems so they have some ownershis of the MRQ system. Second, Chaosium appeared to have approved some games derived from the MRQ SRD (in so far as not raising objections when approached by the publisher), such as OpenQuest.




OpenQuest 3 will be released outside of the OGL its been using from what I understan.

The other thing to mention is that you can't trademark game systems.

If I want a horror game with a d100 and I choose to use "Mental Health" instead of "Sanity" and I avoid the Mythos elements that they have rights too, can they do anything about that?

I think what bothers me is that I understand their concerns but I'd rather them focus on pushing product out the door. I know they have to  protect their IP or risk losing it, but this the same company that published Elric/Stormbringer while Moorcock was pissed they were using it and I believe Matthew Sprange of Mongoose was the one to solve things between Moorcock and Chaosium. They need to be careful that they don't end up being viewed the way 90s era TSR and Palladium are.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Mar 28, 2020)

I can see where they are coming from. They just don't want Call of Cosmic Horror game to their Call of Cthulhu game that could be seen as similar to how Pathfinder is to D&D.


----------



## M.T. Black (Mar 28, 2020)

I think this is a great initiative by Chaosium. At the moment, I can go to DTRPG and pick up a game labeled 5e and know broadly how it works. The same with games labeled for the OSR. Having games labeled for the BRP has the same advantage. 

Someone above complained about having to put a logo on the cover, but I think it is a selling point. I am far more likely to buy something labeled "BRP" than something marketed as "percentile-based RPG." There is a market here - not everyone wants to design their own rules system from scratch, but nor do they want to necessarily use a D&D-based system.

There is always a fair bit of naysaying around things like this, whether it be a new license or a new platform. I've seen plenty of that commentary while publishing under the DMs Guild and also (separately) using the 5e SRD. However, there are people out there who see the potential of this and will do very well out of it. I will be looking at products that bear the BRP logo with great interest.


----------



## Dreamscape (Mar 29, 2020)

M.T. Black said:


> Someone above complained about having to put a logo on the cover, but I think it is a selling point.



That's literally the only reason for using this.


----------



## M.T. Black (Mar 29, 2020)

Von Ether said:


> Someone is going to have their work cut out for them since all of the BRP magic systems are prohibited...



On the other hand, there is an opportunity here for someone to create a "Sorcery for BRP" supplement, kinda like Kobold Press did with "Deep Magic" for 5e. I suspect even a short supplement on the Under $5 ribbon would get some attention if released soon.


----------



## Dreamscape (Mar 29, 2020)

You could create almost anything with this and put the logo on it, as long as you avoid the prohibited list and are cast-iron confident that you can read Chaosium's mind as to what "substantially similar" means.

Interesting that they don't define "BRP" or "Basic Roleplaying" as prohibited content.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 29, 2020)

Dreamscape said:


> You could create almost anything with this and put the logo on it, as long as you avoid the prohibited list and are cast-iron confident that you can read Chaosium's mind as to what "substantially similar" means.
> 
> Interesting that they don't define "BRP" or "Basic Roleplaying" as prohibited content.



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).


----------



## Michael O'Brien (Mar 29, 2020)

imagineGod said:


> This is the best quote so far:
> 
> 
> 
> > This uses an opening gaming license, but not THE Open Gaming License (the commonly used one published by WotC nearly 20 years ago).




We concluded we couldn't necessarily rely on the legal validity of the WotC OGL being upheld by a court for anything other than in conjunction with WotC's IP. That's a key reason why we created our own license for our system.


----------



## Michael O'Brien (Mar 30, 2020)

The BRP Website is our new online resource dedicated to Basic Roleplaying. It includes an online version of the BRP System Reference Document, along with other useful information and resources for playing and creating games with the Basic Roleplaying system.
https://brp.chaosium.com


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Mar 30, 2020)

Could anybody dare to create a new system mixing Chaosium system with d20? For example adding body mass/size as mew sub-abilitie score.

Could I to publish a different system for madness/sanity based in the mental health by Unknown Armies?

* What is the ability score in Chaoisium system for checks to search clues/perception?


----------



## M.T. Black (Mar 30, 2020)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> Could I to publish a different system for madness/sanity based in the mental health by Unknown Armies?



So long as it's not substantially similar to the CoC sanity rules, then you can create your own sanity/madness/shock/stress rules.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Mar 30, 2020)

M.T. Black said:


> So long as it's not substantially similar to the CoC sanity rules, then you can create your own sanity/madness/shock/stress rules.




Time ago I created this house rule. 









						D&D 5E - House rule: Madness system as Unknown Armies.
					

Some horror genres RPGs use systems to record the psychological damage by mental stress, for example the pool of sanity points from "Call of Chulth" but my opinion is the system for madness from "Unknown Armies" is closer to reality.   My idea is madness has got five pillars: violence, reality...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 30, 2020)

foolcat said:


> Straight from the horse‘s mouth, Chaosium doesn’t want re-skins or retro versions of their games published by third parties under their own BRP OGL.



So essentially they don't understand anything and got it entirely backwards?

Okay.


----------



## Michael O'Brien (Mar 30, 2020)

FYI, over on our forums at BRP Central we've established a thread to answer questions related to the recently-released Basic Roleplaying System Reference Document and OGL. Questions will be responded to by Chaosium staff:
BRP System Reference Document/OGL Questions Thread


----------



## Morrus (Mar 30, 2020)

CapnZapp said:


> So essentially they don't understand anything and got it entirely backwards?
> 
> Okay.



You're being a jerk again, @CapnZapp. It's tiring having to monitor you all the time. 

(Edit -- and wow! 16 warning points? That's twice the record I've ever seen. How did you manage to mount that many up? We'll be dicussing this in the mod forum).


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Mar 31, 2020)

Michael O'Brien said:


> Very happy to continue assisting EN World readers here




I was just hoping for an update to the BRP book so that is matches any changes made in newer versions of CoC or other games that have modified the BRP rules. By any chance, have I just missed seeing an errata pdf or something that takes care of this?


----------



## Michael O'Brien (Mar 31, 2020)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> I was just hoping for an update to the BRP book so that is matches any changes made in newer versions of CoC or other games that have modified the BRP rules. By any chance, have I just missed seeing an errata pdf or something that takes care of this?



Most Chaosium RPGs use a variation of the Basic RolePlaying System, which started with RuneQuest. Call of Cthulhu, StormBringer, SuperWorld, and others followed. BRP is a stand-alone product that sits the core of all these games, but we have not modified the base BRP rules as featured in the 'Big Gold Book'.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2020)

foolcat said:


> *Holler of Hastur 5.5*




Now I can’t help but think of Tucker & Dale vs. Evil.


----------



## imagineGod (Mar 31, 2020)

Bloody Hell! Nobody is forcing anyone to use the BRP from Chaosium. 
It is just there for folks who want it, okay. Peace!


----------



## Dreamscape (Mar 31, 2020)

No need to call something OGL when it isn't.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Mar 31, 2020)

imagineGod said:


> Bloody Hell! Nobody is forcing anyone to use the BRP from Chaosium.
> It is just there for folks who want it, okay. Peace!



It’s looking to be increasingly irrelevant, to be honest. Chaosium can’t really control other BRP spinoffs already in use by other companies, and putting out a document like this at this time seems a bit desperate. I’m not really sure who will use it or, indeed, who its aimed at.


----------



## M.T. Black (Mar 31, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> It’s looking to be increasingly irrelevant, to be honest. Chaosium can’t really control other BRP spinoffs already in use by other companies, and putting out a document like this at this time seems a bit desperate. I’m not really sure who will use it or, indeed, who its aimed at.



I'm old enough to remember people making the exact same argument about the SRD that WOTC released back in 2000. People complained that it was a "license to breath" and that WOTC couldn't stop people from using the protected terms.

As we all know, the D&D SRD became a successful and important plank of the industry. There was no real cost to companies complying with it, and by doing so it gave consumers an easy baseline for system compatibility. When people see Odyssey of the Dragonlords 5e, Midgard 5e, Primeval Thule 5e, and Adventures in Middle-Earth 5e, for example, they know exactly what they are getting. I personally buy a lot of 5e compatible stuff because I know there will be a low learning curve on it, and I can re-use the stuff I like in my #dnd campaign.

You mention the BRP spinoffs already out there. Which ones are those, exactly? It would be good if there was some way to easily identify them all. I dunno - perhaps they could put a logo on the cover or something...


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Mar 31, 2020)

My opinion is lot of players would rather to use the same rules. 

* Who would use this system? Lots of franchises of dark urban fantasy, of course.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Mar 31, 2020)

M.T. Black said:


> I'm old enough to remember people making the exact same argument about the SRD that WOTC released back in 2000. People complained that it was a "license to breath" and that WOTC couldn't stop people from using the protected terms.
> 
> As we all know, the D&D SRD became a successful and important plank of the industry. There was no real cost to companies complying with it, and by doing so it gave consumers an easy baseline for system compatibility. When people see Odyssey of the Dragonlords 5e, Midgard 5e, Primeval Thule 5e, and Adventures in Middle-Earth 5e, for example, they know exactly what they are getting. I personally buy a lot of 5e compatible stuff because I know there will be a low learning curve on it, and I can re-use the stuff I like in my #dnd campaign.
> 
> You mention the BRP spinoffs already out there. Which ones are those, exactly? It would be good if there was some way to easily identify them all. I dunno - perhaps they could put a logo on the cover or something...



Delta Green, Mythras, Renaissance, OpenQuest, Legend...to name a few. All have their own markets, and none require the BRP logo. Much of the Mythras line is adopted from products that were originally billed as ‘BRP’ games, but switched because the Mythras brand gives them more support. There is a major new adaptation of Jack Vance’s Lyonesse coming out soon this year....it uses the Mythras rules, but people will buy it because they know it’s basically an adaptation on BRP.

The BRP licence has come too late for 3rd parties to really notice, and the situation is entirely unlike anything to do with the D&D SRD.

Incidentally, I’m old enough to remember AD&D from way before D20/OGL.....


----------



## Dreamscape (Apr 1, 2020)

M.T. Black said:


> I'm old enough to remember people making the exact same argument about the SRD that WOTC released back in 2000.



 You can't compare the WotC OGL v1.0a with the BRP licence which introduces clauses and discretionary powers to shut down product. The OGL has a crystal-clear paragraph listing precisely which elements are IP, with no ambiguity.

As for the 3.5E SRD - hundreds upon hundreds of pages of content from the D&D core books, supplements, modern, etc., including many unique and original items which are copyrighted and/or trademarked by WotC. Even the OGL v5.1 has 400 pages of content. The BRP version has 19 pages of generic rules. Like TrippyHippy, I'm old enough to remember when BRP was in its first 16-page edition. Perhaps this is intended to be an expanded SRD for that little booklet from 1980?

There's no point having a system reference document if the user has to make up 90% of the system. An SRD is supposed to be a common point of reference, not just a vague idea to hang a logo on.

There have been many logo licence/ OGL combinations in the past, to my knowledge there have never been any all-in-one examples because the risk of allowing 3PPs to publish under your logo without oversight are simply too great. Nevertheless, the BRP document could have been a logo licence and included an SRD based on the full BRP 4E rules. It wouldn't be an OGL (but then neither is this), and Chaosium would have to approve any manuscripts before publication. More work than an OGL, but if you want to tie your trademark to the licence that's the only way to protect it. Less work than this licence, because as can be seen on the BRP Central forums potential developers are already asking a barrage of questions for clarification. Alternatively, forget about the BRP logo and just produce the BRP 4E SRD. Some people might use it as-is, but everyone will know it's "BRP". Chaosium could set up a BRP version of the Jonstown Compendium and Miscatonic Repository to encourage community content creation, keep control, and take a cut of the profits. At the end of the day, if you fear the freedom of the OGL, you don't have to make your work available through that route.

Note: I have just noticed this is a full logo rather than the more commonly seen "compatibility" logo. That strikes me as very risky from Chaosium's viewpoint. It makes anything published under it look like an official Chaosium product.

As others have said, the most confusing thing about this isn't the licence itself, obscure though it is - but why it was seen as the best way of re-awakening the BRP brand out of all the many options available. 

Of course, at this point it's clear Chaosium isn't interested in reasoned discussion of their deeply flawed document ("If you don't like it, go pound sand" ??), so the above is just whistling in the wind.


----------



## JonL (Apr 2, 2020)

Michael O'Brien said:


> We concluded we couldn't necessarily rely on the legal validity of the WotC OGL being upheld by a court for anything other than in conjunction with WotC's IP. That's a key reason why we created our own license for our system.



This is absurd on the face of plain reading of the OGL, and decades of heterogeneous use in the industry (to say nothing of precedents in software going back to the 80's that giants like IBM honor). 

Section 5 explicitly speaks to original content, and NOT A SINGLE WORD of the OGL restricts its application to fruits of WizCo's tree.

To assert that y'all have some deeper insight into it's meaning and implications than the entire rest of the industry makes Chaosium look arrogant and ignorant. 

I respect and understand some of the choices that went into this license, even if I disagree or dislike them. Don't peddle this dumpster fire of an idea though, MOB. You're better than that.


----------



## Michael O'Brien (Apr 2, 2020)

JonL said:


> This is absurd on the face of plain reading of the OGL, and decades of heterogeneous use in the industry (to say nothing of precedents in software going back to the 80's that giants like IBM honor).




Our legal advice (including review of relevant case law) is that the WotC OGL may not necessarily be upheld by a court for anything other than in conjunction with WotC's IP. Which is why we decided against using it. No doubt you could get a lawyer with a countervailing legal opinion, and that's fine.


----------



## Lucas Yew (Apr 3, 2020)

Prohibiting public domain stuff alone make me feel veeery sceptical about this...


----------



## M.T. Black (Apr 4, 2020)

Those who are interested in the OGL may enjoy the following. It's an interview between Peter Adkison and Ryan Dancey that was posted up on the Gen Con channel just a few weeks ago:


Toward the end of the interview, they spend some time discussing the why and how of the original OGL license. Tellingly, Ryan says he encountered "off the scale" hostility to the idea of the OGL.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 4, 2020)

M.T. Black said:


> Those who are interested in the OGL may enjoy the following. It's an interview between Peter Adkison and Ryan Dancey that was posted up on the Gen Con channel just a few weeks ago:
> 
> 
> Toward the end of the interview, they spend some time discussing the why and how of the original OGL license. Tellingly, Ryan says he encountered "off the scale" hostility to the idea of the OGL.



As I pointed out before, the D20 OGL really has very little in common with this BRP document. Different market, different time, different goals.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 4, 2020)

M.T. Black said:


> Those who are interested in the OGL may enjoy the following. It's an interview between Peter Adkison and Ryan Dancey that was posted up on the Gen Con channel just a few weeks ago:




I did an excellent hour-long interview with Ryan Dancey about the OGL and other things a few years back.


----------



## Michael O'Brien (Apr 5, 2020)

Morrus said:


> 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."
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 6, 2020)

M.T. Black said:


> 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 (Apr 6, 2020)

Dreamscape said:


> 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 (Apr 6, 2020)

Dreamscape said:


> 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 (Apr 6, 2020)

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 (Apr 6, 2020)

Lucas Yew said:


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



It predates Hasbro’s ownership of WotC.


----------



## Sunsword (Apr 7, 2020)

M.T. Black said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2020)

Sunsword said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2020)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2020)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> 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.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 8, 2020)

Dreamscape said:


> That resulted in the Cepheus Engine, which now has a large user base.




Well that's not true, is it?


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 8, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Well that's not true, is it?



Not really, no. Cepheus has had some support certainly, but really the sales are essentially PDF driven and account for a fraction of the sales that Traveller makes overall.

The 2nd edition of Mongoose Traveller seems to be more focussed on concentrating on its own core setting than the 1st edition was, which has seen an increase in product for that setting. While I was not in any way privy to contractual decisions made by either party, the outcome seems to suggest that the new license prioritized protecting and supporting Marc Miller’s IP more than giving opportunities to 3rd party publishers.


----------



## Dreamscape (Apr 8, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Well that's not true, is it?



I didn't say it was larger than MGT2, nor am I privy to sales figures for either Mongoose or 3rd party Cepheus Engine publishers. This discussion is in the context of the OGL, and by "large number of users" I am referring to the fact that most former 3rd party MGT1 publishers have converted their MGT1 back catalogue to CE, and have been putting out new product at a respectable rate for the last 2 years or so.


----------



## Michael O'Brien (Apr 8, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> The problem as I see it is the attempt to create an ‘open licence’ for the rules when a) it isn’t open



The BRP OGL is open to all who want to use it to publish their own settings, games, and unique ideas using the BRP system. Chaosium has walled off certain rules and certain settings, but if you have something you want to publish that Chaosium isn't already doing, you can. Without paying royalties, without Chaosium having residual rights. And you get to call it BRP. If that doesn't mean much to you, no worries don't use it.

So why is the BRP OGL different from the WotC OGL? Largely because Chaosium's business model is different to WotC's. Chaosium's settings are what are valuable to the company - the cosmology, entities, storylines, etc. of RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, etc. Some rules tie directly into these settings - e.g. the Runes of RuneQuest, or the Sanity mechanic of Call of Cthulhu. Chaosium has removed those mechanics that 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.



TrippyHippy said:


> and b) the system is already openly used under a multitude of other names.



If you want to make a game off Chaosium's BRP engine and call it that, now you can. In your own use of the SRD, you are welcome to add anything you want to it – as long as you avoid Prohibited Content (and don't violate others' copyright, obviously). You get to call it BRP and use the logo. If this is not a consideration for you, by all means go ahead and use something else.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 8, 2020)

Michael O'Brien said:


> The BRP OGL is open to all who want to use it to publish their own settings, games, and unique ideas using the BRP system. Chaosium has walled off certain rules and certain settings, but if you have something you want to publish that Chaosium isn't already doing, you can. Without paying royalties, without Chaosium having residual rights. And you get to call it BRP. If that doesn't mean much to you, no worries don't use it.
> 
> So why is the BRP OGL different from the WotC OGL? Largely because Chaosium's business model is different to WotC's. Chaosium's settings are what are valuable to the company - the cosmology, entities, storylines, etc. of RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, etc. Some rules tie directly into these settings - e.g. the Runes of RuneQuest, or the Sanity mechanic of Call of Cthulhu. Chaosium has removed those mechanics that 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.
> 
> If you want to make a game off Chaosium's BRP engine and call it that, now you can. In your own use of the SRD, you are welcome to add anything you want to it – as long as you avoid Prohibited Content (and don't violate others' copyright, obviously). You get to call it BRP and use the logo. If this is not a consideration for you, by all means go ahead and use something else.



Get back to me when anybody actually signs up to use this licence.


----------



## Dreamscape (Apr 8, 2020)

19 pages of SRD is what you're left with after you strip out all the CoC setting-specific material from the 400-page Big Gold BRP Book? Hmm .... ;-)


----------



## dragoner (Apr 8, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Well that's not true, is it?




It is true, as one 3PP put it, to use the TAS program would be business suicide, precisely because the license has the 3PP's surrender their IP. As for players, Classic still has the most, with the old mongoose being split between Cepheus, and mong 1e or 2e.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 9, 2020)

dragoner said:


> It is true, as one 3PP put it, to use the TAS program would be business suicide, precisely because the license has the 3PP's surrender their IP. As for players, Classic still has the most, with the old mongoose being split between Cepheus, and mong 1e or 2e.



Based on what data?

Firstly, there still are some third parties that actually use the TAS program. Whether its been business suicide for them I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem likely. It just seems that the TAS works for them, while Mongoose themselves don’t seem flustered either way. Matt Sprange suggested they would look again at the TAS license when people complained about it, but nothing has happened since. Either he couldn’t, due to contractual arrangements, or it wasn’t a priority because it clearly hasn’t affected sales. 

Secondly, there isn’t a reliable count on 'number of players’, as far as I am aware, beyond activity on the internet. This is a wholly unreliable measure. Most Mongoose Traveller fans I know from personal gaming, for example, don’t actually use internet forums at all, while I personally don’t post on 'Citizens of the Imperium’, even though I still am a paying member (must look into that), because I find the site hostile to Mongoose in general.

In terms of unit sales via retail, the entire Cepheus group represents a fraction of the sales made by Mongoose Traveller, and this mostly comprises of drivethru PDF sales. Mongoose Traveller maintains retail presence, are an officially licensed with Fantasy Grounds too, and also has had a series of very successful Kickstarter campaigns for specific supplements (particularly box sets). Classic Traveller remains available through various means, including some drivethru books also, but has no retail presence beyond eBay these days.


----------



## dragoner (Apr 9, 2020)

A little defensive there, Tommy?

Classic is free on DTRPG, and Marc Miller still sells it on his own website: FFE- Far Future Enterprises: RPGs Role-Playing Games from GDW, IGI, and FFE It is still the big dog of Traveller, I doubt any other edition has touched even a tenth of a percent of its sales.

Maybe you should get back to Chaosium's OGL.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 9, 2020)

dragoner said:


> A little defensive there, Tommy?
> 
> Classic is free on DTRPG, and Marc Miller still sells it on his own website: FFE- Far Future Enterprises: RPGs Role-Playing Games from GDW, IGI, and FFE It is still the big dog of Traveller, I doubt any other edition has touched even a tenth of a percent of its sales.
> 
> Maybe you should get back to Chaosium's OGL.



And maybe you need to read my post again. You could start by getting my username right! 

I actually stated in my post that "Classic Traveller remains available through various means” and indeed I own Classic Traveller (in its entirety). However, it doesn’t maintain any _retail presence _ie it isn’t selling in shops or things like Amazon now. Younger gamers aren’t even aware of Classic Traveller, so it is simply incorrect to assume that it is the most popular version of the game currently. It is also incorrect to assume that Cepheus is making even the slightest impact on Mongoose Traveller’s sales or overall popularity.

And no, I’m not getting defensive. If anything, you were in your response to Morrus’ point. I’m just sticking with facts.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 11, 2020)

imagineGod said:


> The BRP is next only to the d20 in popularity I believe.



Not in terms of present market share... (based upon ICV2 data)
Not in terms of player count in online games.
And top 5 is more than 90% of the market.
D&D is king
Pathfinder is the queen. (It's D&D in drag...)
FFG SW and Modiphius Star Trek are top 5.
Fate is a top 10 plays; Fate Core is consistently top 10 seller.

BRP is one of the oldest engines... and the Mongoose RuneQuest version is already open ;licensed. So this is purely a brand image move. the "OGL 00" mark is quite present in the marketplace, and has been for well over a decade (GORE was, IIRC 2006), but few actually adopted it.

But it's not been top 5 in a long time. Even in terms of open license SRDs, the Mongoose RQ SRD didn't get much adoption. Nor did the earlier GORE SRD.

The BRP engine has been driven by three major game lines: RQ, CoC, and Stormbringer/Hawkmoon/Elric!... With Pendragon passing through several hands...

The only real reasons to use this license that I can see are:

you hope to convert CoC or BRP Generic players
you want to support Chaosium's overall market share by letting Chaosium claim your sales numbers as part of their engine's total.
It doesn't allow materials for use with their existing games.
It specifically excludes the best mechanics, which can already be wedged into the MRQ SRD under the Wizards OGL 1.0a, at least if you live in the US (because choice of law then doesn't apply, and Chaosium being US - the mechanics are not protectable in the US, unlike France and Germany.)


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 11, 2020)

imagineGod said:


> The BRP is next only to the d20 in popularity I believe.



Not in terms of present market share... (based upon ICV2 data)
Not in terms of player count in online games.
And top 5 is more than 90% of the market.
D&D is king
Pathfinder is the queen. (It's D&D in drag...)
FFG SW and Modiphius Star Trek are top 5.
Fate is a top 10 plays; Fate Core is consistently top 10 seller.

BRP is one of the oldest engines... and the Mongoose RuneQuest version is already open ;licensed. So this is purely a brand image move. the "OGL 00" mark is quite present in the marketplace, and has been for well over a decade (GORE was, IIRC 2006), but few actually adopted it.

But it's not been top 5 in a long time. Even in terms of open license SRDs, the Mongoose RQ SRD didn't get much adoption. Nor did the earlier GORE SRD.

The BRP engine has been driven by three major game lines: RQ, CoC, and Stormbringer/Hawkmoon/Elric!... With Pendragon passing through several hands...

The only real reasons to use this license that I can see are:

you hope to convert CoC or BRP Generic players
you want to support Chaosium's overall market share by letting Chaosium claim your sales numbers as part of their engine's total.
It doesn't allow materials for use with their existing games.
It specifically excludes the best mechanics, which can already be wedged into the MRQ SRD under the Wizards OGL 1.0a, at least if you live in the US (because choice of law then doesn't apply, and Chaosium being US - the mechanics are not protectable in the US, unlike France and Germany.)


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 11, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> Not in terms of present market share... (based upon ICV2 data)
> Not in terms of player count in online games.
> And top 5 is more than 90% of the market.
> D&D is king
> ...



Pretty good summation, although Modiphius’ Star Trek isn’t Top 5. In recent times, Shadowrun, Alien, Vampire: The Masquerade and Legends of the 5 Rings have been making out the top 5 retail games. I think it mainly has to do with distribution channels. My understanding is that Call of Cthulhu is by far the best selling Chaosium game, and their biggest market, apparently is in Japan.  Neither BRP or Legend (which is mostly dormant) really has any impact on the top sales, although games like RuneQuest and Pendragon are considered historically significant, landmark roleplaying games and so there will always be some sort of market for them. Moreover, you don’t need to have a Top 5 game in order for a RPG to be worthwhile and profitable. A game can still be a ‘hit’ within its own market and fanbase, without challenging the sales of D&D.

Where Traveller fits in to all of this is not well understood, because data is not publicly available. Classic Traveller, back in the 1970s and 1980s sold hundreds of thousands of units and was a major hit. I think they lost their mass market share when West End Games released the D6 Star Wars game in 1987 and became a bit less fashionable as a style of sci-fi when Cyberpunk and Shadowrun were also released in the late 80s. They still maintained a long time loyalty from fans through T4/T5/T20, GURPS and Classic Traveller reprints before reaching an agreement in the late 2000s to publish with Mongoose under licence. Mongoose had about 10 years of this licence with MGT1, which was pretty much OGL and had a number of third party publishers. They renegotiated a license for MGT2, released a few years ago, which had a more restrictive licence in terms of IP ownership, so some 3rd party companies decided to go it alone with the Cepheus engine, which is a MGT1 clone and is about 95% compatible with the current edition of Mongoose Traveller.

I think the difference between the BRP license suggested here and the MGT1/MGT2 and Legend licences pertaining to third parties, is that Mongoose doesn’t really seem to care. I think Marc Miller cares about the Traveller IP and probably sought to tighten the licence arrangements for MGT2. Chaosium do seem to care enough about BRP that it seems important that they stick a flag into the sand about what third parties can publish or not. Personally, I just don’t see the point of the BRP licence though - it’s not really ‘open’ and third parties already make their own games regardless now.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 11, 2020)

Morrus said:


> It predates Hasbro’s ownership of WotC.



And the ownership at pre-HasBro WotC had some of their worst fears vindicated when Monte Cook did _Arcana Unearthed_.... an ex-employee creating a close variant with a significant visibility due to his time at WotC. And HasBro's notoriously "sue everyone and settle for 'shut it down or pay through the nose'" policies prior... it is quite apparent that their own lawyers said, "Not worth our time thanks to the small share and the open license…" 

And then a second time, with Pathfinder...

Chaosium isn't the only major company to have severe doubts about the OGL... 
SJG has, at times, expressed doubts, but eventually used it for the Munchkin RPG.
ADB went and separately negotiated with WotC for their d20 and d20M licenses... which cost them lawyer time to wind up using the OGL anyway.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 11, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> Not really, no. Cepheus has had some support certainly, but really the sales are essentially PDF driven and account for a fraction of the sales that Traveller makes overall.
> 
> The 2nd edition of Mongoose Traveller seems to be more focussed on concentrating on its own core setting than the 1st edition was, which has seen an increase in product for that setting. While I was not in any way privy to contractual decisions made by either party, the outcome seems to suggest that the new license prioritized protecting and supporting Marc Miller’s IP more than giving opportunities to 3rd party publishers.



One of the tasks Marc asked some inner circle folk was to watch the playtest for "this contradicts the OTU" elements in the MGT 2E playtest. About 1 page worth of stuff got sent to Marc by myself and my co-admin of COTI, Cryton, and after us being told by Matthew that he wasn't going to change back to the canon formulae; he did change back, apparently after a call from Marc. Robject, as well, was watching, and Don was more directly involved. 

My slightly more inside view is that the OTU focus change has less to do with Marc and a lot more to do with the low adoption of the TAS license (which is modeled after the DM's Guild license). The best known Traveller 3PP's took their settings to CE because they were unwilling to give up their ownership.

Further, Marc has said that CE is Traveller enough to be supported on the official Traveller boards; I suggested, and got an explicit yes, for COTI to support CE. CE is mechanically closer to CT than is MGT 1 or MGT 2. The "OTU-ness" of MGT is unchanged - 3I trade dress material is _setting _canon; non-dressed has no canon OTU impacts, and rules in either have no canonicity outside the mongoose edition. 

I don't know if Marc has marked CE as part of the Traveller rules-system on DTRPG.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 11, 2020)

Basically another good post, although Cepheus doesn’t seem to be any closer to Classic Traveller than Mongoose’s Traveller System Reference Document was. It’s a clone of the Mongoose Traveller 1e rules, which were, in turn based on the Classic Traveller rules (but still distinct). Mongoose Traveller 2e has some new ideas, like the Prisoner career and boon/bane dice, but really the whole lot is more or less compatible with each other and distinctions are so slight most people would hardly notice or care.

Personally, I just don’t see enough 3PP stuff for Cepheus that does enough to win me over, I have to say though. This is unlike the BRP spinoffs like Delta Green, Mythras or M-Space (which is like a BRP version of Traveller) which I find quite interesting.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 11, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> ... although Cepheus doesn’t seem to be any closer to Classic Traveller than Mongoose’s Traveller System Reference Document was.



That tells me that either  you _really don't know CT_ all that well, or _don't have an eye for detail_. The changes to character gen are quite substantial... 
CT: 4 tables per career, no subcareers, no enlisted ranks, separate commission and promotion standards, separate reenlistment, no special duty/event rolls, aging effect rolled separately for each attribute.
MGT: 6 tables per career, 3 subcareers per career, commission and promotion use same chances, reenlistment handled by the advancement roll, special event roll. Aging rolled for by the term with 1 roll saying how many points are lost from choice of attributes.
CE: 4 tables per career, no subcareers, no enlisted ranks, separate commission and promotion rolls, separate reenlistment roll, no special duty/event rolls rolls, one roll per term aging...

The changes to the rules of play? still MGT1 for the most part, but a few changes back towards CT.  

Character generation is a huge part of the game, tho', and the fact that it's mechanically much more aligned to CT CGen than to MGT CGen, and push the rest a good bit, too. 
If I ever decide to commercialize my Ellestrial Concordat setting, it'll move to CE, and a different (more MegaT-like) damage system.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 11, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> That tells me that either  you _really don't know CT_ all that well, or _don't have an eye for detail_. The changes to character gen are quite substantial...
> CT: 4 tables per career, no subcareers, no enlisted ranks, separate commission and promotion standards, separate reenlistment, no special duty/event rolls, aging effect rolled separately for each attribute.
> MGT: 6 tables per career, 3 subcareers per career, commission and promotion use same chances, reenlistment handled by the advancement roll, special event roll. Aging rolled for by the term with 1 roll saying how many points are lost from choice of attributes.
> CE: 4 tables per career, no subcareers, no enlisted ranks, separate commission and promotion rolls, separate reenlistment roll, no special duty/event rolls rolls, one roll per term aging...
> ...



All that tells me that you have an axe to grind....

Cepheus Engine is based on the Mongoose Traveller 1e document as a point of fact. That they have chosen to adjust the character generation, so that they have about 24 different careers rather than about 36 or so sub careers, is fine. To me, this is just a difference of organisation rather than anything romantic about being more ‘classic’. Characters still have background and zero level skills like in MGT, not Classic, and the way skills and all the other various other systems and subsystems work are like in MGT.

If I wanted to play Classic Traveller, I’d play Classic Traveller, not Cepheus.


----------



## dragoner (Apr 11, 2020)

Why such shrill attacks on Marc W Miller and Cepheus Engine? He is right, you don't know classic very well. Without classic and Marc Miller's IP, nu-mong would just be another mediocre space fantasy rules set, with long drawn out whiffy combats, and bean-counterish spreadsheet subsystems that front load a lot of heavy heavy crunch on the GM.

Going back to d100 games stuff, I heard Chris Spivey has been working on a sci-fi rules set for chaosium, that I am interested in, though personally I am fine with M-Space, and that isn't just because Clarence Redd is great person, I have helped with proof-reading and such; the books are nice:






I ran a game for years, using various stuff, from the Design Mechanism, including Mythic Constantinople and Monster Island. So it's a great Space Opera rules set, with a lot of adventures, well written (A Gift From Shamash by TDM should be owned by any sci-fi GM) with a huge amount of crossover potential. Which if someone wants to use this OGL from chaosium, that is great, except it isn't hugely necessary.


----------



## middenface (Apr 11, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> I don't know if Marc has marked CE as part of the Traveller rules-system on DTRPG.



That was done at the request of one (or more) publishers to DTRPG.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 11, 2020)

dragoner said:


> Why such shrill attacks on Marc W Miller and Cepheus Engine? He is right, you don't know classic very well. Without classic and Marc Miller's IP, nu-mong would just be another mediocre space fantasy rules set, with long drawn out whiffy combats, and bean-counterish spreadsheet subsystems that front load a lot of heavy heavy crunch on the GM.



Well, no. What it is, that I mentioned before, is identifying the undercurrent of misguided hatred towards Mongoose Publishing that exists. When people feel the need to refer to them as ’nu-mong’ it is both sad and childish, and shrill too, if you prefer. I don’t think you know that game very well, nor the legacy of Classic Traveller. Moreover, without Mongoose Publishing to promote Traveller as a game to current audiences, all we would be seeing now is Marc Miller’s most recent Traveller 5 - which is a whole other kettle of fish. Cepheus wouldn’t exist without Mongoose Traveller. 

To see what gamers, with good online reputations and with no prior experience of Traveller have to think of Mongoose’s version of Traveller, then watch these: 


Now these positive reviews that exist, are neutral and recent. Please show me the same level of prominence that currently exists online for any other version of Traveller? 



> Going back to d100 games stuff, I heard Chris Spivey has been working on a sci-fi rules set for chaosium, that I am interested in, though personally I am fine with M-Space, and that isn't just because Clarence Redd is great person, I have helped with proof-reading and such; the books are nice:
> 
> View attachment 120936
> 
> I ran a game for years, using various stuff, from the Design Mechanism, including Mythic Constantinople and Monster Island. So it's a great Space Opera rules set, with a lot of adventures, well written (A Gift From Shamash by TDM should be owned by any sci-fi GM) with a huge amount of crossover potential. Which if someone wants to use this OGL from chaosium, that is great, except it isn't hugely necessary.



Chris Spivey is no longer working on a SciFi game for Chaosium. It was announced earlier this year. And I think I also mentioned M-Space up the page also.


----------



## yojimbouk (Apr 12, 2020)

Who is this BRP-OGL intended for? It’s not really intended for producers of original settings because they surrender control of their own IP. It’s not really intended for producers of adventures because the SRD is so bare-bones that it requires authors to reinvent the wheel by writing a lot of rules to supplement their product. It may serve producers who want to write small rules packets. But they are a subset of content producers.

I see a group on the BRP Central website trying to reinvent the wheel by producing an “OpenBRP Fantasy” ruleset. Essentially, they are having to reinvent Magic World because of the limited SRD. Unless these projects get formally adopted into the SRD, I can’t see they will gain much traction.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 12, 2020)

yojimbouk said:


> Who is this BRP-OGL intended for? It’s not really intended for producers of original settings because they surrender control of their own IP.



Eh?


----------



## Morrus (Apr 12, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> Chris Spivey is no longer working on a SciFi game for Chaosium. It was announced earlier this year.




He’s still working on the game; just it will be published by Darker Hue instead of Chaosium.


----------



## yojimbouk (Apr 12, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Eh?



See this discussion on problems with the BRP-OGL: .
In particular, the discussion of clause 10. Once you publish under BRP-OGL you’re locked in forever.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 12, 2020)

Morrus said:


> He’s still working on the game; just it will be published by Darker Hue instead of Chaosium.



Darker Hue _is_ Chris Spivey, isn’t it? Anyway, my understanding according to the announcement, that he is wrapped up as part of the team writing Modiphius’ Dune for the time being.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 12, 2020)

yojimbouk said:


> In particular, the discussion of clause 10. Once you publish under BRP-OGL you’re locked in forever.



I don’t know what you mean by that. This is what s10 says:

“10. 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.”


----------



## Morrus (Apr 12, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> Darker Hue _is_ Chris Spivey, isn’t it? Anyway, my understanding according to the announcement, that he is wrapped up as part of the team writing Modiphius’ Dune for the time being.



Yup.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 12, 2020)

Morrus said:


> I don’t know what you mean by that. This is what s10 says:
> 
> “10. 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.”



Why do they need to capitalize You and Use?


----------



## Morrus (Apr 12, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> Why do they need to capitalize You and Use?



Generally, that type of formatting means those are specifically defined terms.


----------



## yojimbouk (Apr 12, 2020)

Morrus said:


> I don’t know what you mean by that. This is what s10 says:
> 
> “10. 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.”



Unfortunately, the tweet shown was just the first rather than the whole discussion. here are the relevant sections:


			
				“Justin Alexander” said:
			
		

> 4. The language in Clause 10 that grandfathers in existing products is so poorly written that it actually makes the license worse: If you publish material under the BRP OGL, you are required to ONLY publish it under the license in the future.
> 
> Ignore for the moment that "thirty percent" and "content" are completely undefined (word count? pages with revised content? what if I just swap out all the pictures? what if I just change the title - is that a new work or a revised work?).
> 
> ...


----------



## Dreamscape (Apr 12, 2020)

Morrus said:


> I don’t know what you mean by that. This is what s10 says:
> 
> “[...] 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.”



There is ambiguity in the language using "works" rather than Open Game Content. This could be argued to infect any new editions of works in their entirety (as per the Twitter posts linked above). The poor language of this clause, and many other examples of ambiguities, have been brought to the attention of the authors but they appear unwilling to revise the document or to add clarifications to the official FAQ. This further erodes the point of a real OGL, which is to remove the need for 3PPs to seek clarification or approvals from the licence owner.

Judging by comments made by the authors it appears the licence is aimed at the same sort of writers who produced the old "Monographs", i.e. fans creating their own stand-alone games, but not interested in maintaining control of their works and unlikely to build a product line thereon, and who want their work to be recognised as "officially" BRP.


----------



## yojimbouk (Apr 12, 2020)

Dreamscape said:


> Judging by comments made by the authors it appears the licence is aimed at the same sort of writers who produced the old "Monographs", i.e. fans creating their own stand-alone games, but not interested in maintaining control of their works and unlikely to build a product line thereon, and who want their work to be recognised as "officially" BRP.



In which case, why not produce a Community Content Program which delivers that but also has the benefit of raising revenue for Chaosium? This license make no sense.


----------



## Dreamscape (Apr 12, 2020)

yojimbouk said:


> In which case, why not produce a Community Content Program which delivers that but also has the benefit of raising revenue for Chaosium?



That question has been asked.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 12, 2020)

Why can’t they just bring back Stormbringer.....?


----------



## yojimbouk (Apr 12, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> Why can’t they just bring back Stormbringer.....?



I'm sure that Michael Moorcock would LOVE to give Chaosium another license to use his work


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 12, 2020)

yojimbouk said:


> I'm sure that Michael Moorcock would LOVE to give Chaosium another license to use his work



Why wouldn’t he? I mean they may even remember to pay him next time.


----------



## Dreamscape (Apr 13, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> Why wouldn’t he? I mean they may even remember to pay him next time.



Memories are short among fans. Every now and then there is another thread on BRP Central asking why there isn't a new Chaosium edition: Will there be a new Stormbringer or Elric! edition ?


----------



## M.T. Black (Apr 13, 2020)

yojimbouk said:


> In which case, why not produce a Community Content Program which delivers that but also has the benefit of raising revenue for Chaosium? This license make no sense.



Chaosium has created two CCPs - the Miskatonic Repository (for Call of Cthulhu) and the Jonstown Compendium (for Glorantha).


----------



## Dreamscape (Apr 13, 2020)

M.T. Black said:


> Chaosium has created two CCPs - the Miskatonic Repository (for Call of Cthulhu) and the Jonstown Compendium (for Glorantha).



Which makes the decision not to go that route with BRP even more odd.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 17, 2020)

middenface said:


> That was done at the request of one (or more) publishers to DTRPG.



Good. I know Marc is fine with that.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 17, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> All that tells me that you have an axe to grind....
> [...]
> 
> If I wanted to play Classic Traveller, I’d play Classic Traveller, not Cepheus.



No axe other than the pursuit of accuracy.

Stated goal of Jason Kemp was to reincorporate much of CT's CGen, so as to move the feel more toward that of CT.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 17, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> No axe other than the pursuit of accuracy.
> 
> Stated goal of Jason Kemp was to reincorporate much of CT's CGen, so as to move the feel more toward that of CT.



Tell Jason from me, if I want to play Classic Traveller, I’ll play Classic Traveller. If I want a cheap knock off, which can’t be bothered to pay royalties, I’ll let him know.


----------



## dragoner (Apr 17, 2020)

Maybe numong can pay reparations for forcing Marc to pull the licenses on GURPS Interstellar Wars, Classic Traveller TNE2 1248, and Hero Games; all gamers lost those settings and rules sets because of mongoose. With the GURPS Interstellar Wars (Earth vs the Imperium), being considered one of the best written for Traveller ever; which in replacement we get numong's goofy tone like a 50 year old teenager:


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 17, 2020)

dragoner said:


> Maybe numong can pay reparations for forcing Marc to pull the licenses on GURPS Interstellar Wars, Classic Traveller TNE2 1248, and Hero Games; all gamers lost those settings and rules sets because of mongoose. With the GURPS Interstellar Wars (Earth vs the Imperium), being considered one of the best written for Traveller ever; which in replacement we get numong's goofy tone like a 50 year old teenager:



You do understand that Marc Miller chooses who he gives his license to, no? You do realize that it is merely an opinion what constitutes ‘best written for Traveller ever', yes? This is the most idiotic criticism on this thread to date.


----------



## Independence Games (Apr 19, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> Tell Jason from me, if I want to play Classic Traveller, I’ll play Classic Traveller. If I want a cheap knock off, which can’t be bothered to pay royalties, I’ll let him know.




I'll be glad to tell him.  It won't bother him.  He's a pretty mellow guy who understands that everyone has different tastes.



			
				TrippyHippy said:
			
		

> You do understand that Marc Miller chooses who he gives his license to, no? You do realize that it is merely an opinion what constitutes ‘best written for Traveller ever', yes? This is the most idiotic criticism on this thread to date.




You do understand that Marc chooses who he gives his license to, no?

You do realize that Marc (and Mongoose) made the rules open source and, thus, there is not a need to pay royalties, right?  And that when 2e came around and royalties were requested from Mongoose that no one objected to that part of it?


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 19, 2020)

Independence Games said:


> I'll be glad to tell him.  It won't bother him.  He's a pretty mellow guy who understands that everyone has different tastes.



Not an issue of taste. 



> You do understand that Marc chooses who he gives his license to, no?
> 
> You do realize that Marc (and Mongoose) made the rules open source and, thus, there is not a need to pay royalties, right?  And that when 2e came around and royalties were requested from Mongoose that no one objected to that part of it?



People have indicated their objection already on this thread. The details of each contract signed for each respective license were signed off by Marc, not just Mongoose, and if people have issues with the nature of changes between each edition's license, they should remember that.


----------



## Independence Games (Apr 20, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> Not an issue of taste.




So you're just angry and running him down because he used something that was given to him by Marc and Mongoose to create a game?   I'll be sure to explain that to him too.  As I say, he's a class act and it likely won't bother him but I'll be happy to tell him.  We tend to get a good laugh out of things like that.



> People have indicated their objection already on this thread. The details of each contract signed for each respective license were signed off by Marc, not just Mongoose, and if people have issues with the nature of changes between each edition's license, they should remember that.




Yes, quite so.

Perhaps you should remember that both Marc and Mongoose signed off on not only making the Mongoose 1e rules OGL but also were consulted by Jason concerning the Cepheus Engine. You're really quite wrong and more than a little uninformed when you start making implications that CE is somehow less legitimate because they are not required to pay royalties to either Marc or Mongoose.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 20, 2020)

Independence Games said:


> So you're just angry and running him down because he used something that was given to him by Marc and Mongoose to create a game?   I'll be sure to explain that to him too.  As I say, he's a class act and it likely won't bother him but I'll be happy to tell him.  We tend to get a good laugh out of things like that.



I’m not angry. I am pointing out to people on this thread that their views about Mongoose Traveller are misguided.  If they are going to use the Cepheus Engine as a stick to beat Mongoose Traveller with, then it is perfectly reasonable to point out that the Cepheus Engine wouldn’t exist without Mongoose Traveller and that all it is, is a clone of other people’s work. If that amounts to a class act on your terms, and you can have a laugh about it, all power to you. Doesn’t change the fact.



> Yes, quite so.
> 
> Perhaps you should remember that both Marc and Mongoose signed off on not only making the Mongoose 1e rules OGL but also were consulted by Jason concerning the Cepheus Engine. You're really quite wrong and more than a little uninformed when you start making implications that CE is somehow less legitimate because they are not required to pay royalties to either Marc or Mongoose.



Cepheus is not legitimately “Traveller", and they cannot use that moniker because they haven’t paid royalties. The Mongoose 1e rules were open license, and people can do what they want with them - including Cepheus. The 2nd Edition rules were produced under a different license and different licensing arrangements, and there is no cause for people to complain about them. I have no problem either way, but I haven’t seen anything in the products you produce that inspires me to buy them rather than the official Traveller material produced by Mongoose. And that is that.


----------



## Independence Games (Apr 20, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> I’m not angry. I am pointing out to people on this thread that their views about Mongoose Traveller are misguided.  If they are going to use the Cepheus Engine as a stick to beat Mongoose Traveller with, then it is perfectly reasonable to point out that the Cepheus Engine wouldn’t exist without Mongoose Traveller and that all it is amounts to a clone of other people’s work. If that amounts to a class act on your terms, and you can have a laugh about it, all power to you. Doesn’t change the fact.




You are angry.  Why would anyone carry this grudge across multiple forums were it otherwise?  One might think Jason shot your dog for all the vitriol you spew.

I don't think anyone who knows the history of these products would claim that CE isn't using the open rules provided by Marc and Matt. Indeed, I just stated it again myself. You're the one who, again here, is implying that doing so is somehow underhanded.

Are you under some impression that using open source rules, made open by the creator of the game, is somehow underhanded?



> The 2nd Edition rules were produced under a different license and different licensing arrangements, and there is no cause for people to complain about them.




Again, you seem rather ignorant of what transpired.



> I have no problem either way, but I haven’t seen anything in the products you produce that inspires me to buy them rather than the official Traveller material produced by Mongoose. And that is that.




Thank goodness you don't have a problem. One would think that approval of CE by Marc Miller and by Mongoose would be enough but this, oh, this approval will change everything. LOL.

That's fine.  My products aren't for everyone.  None are.  However, we're doing quite well without you.  Enjoy your evening.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 20, 2020)

Independence Games said:


> You are angry.  Why would anyone carry this grudge across multiple forums were it otherwise?  One might think Jason shot your dog for all the vitriol you spew.
> 
> I don't think anyone who knows the history of these products would claim that CE isn't using the open rules provided by Marc and Matt. Indeed, I just stated it again myself. You're the one who, again here, is implying that doing so is somehow underhanded.
> 
> Are you under some impression that using open source rules, made open by the creator of the game, is somehow underhanded?



Are you psychic?!  

This discussion has occurred, as far as I am aware, on this forum only at the moment. It may have been discussed on other forums previously, but again, as far as I am aware I haven’t discussed it personally for....years? It was a topic on rpgpub a couple of years ago which is the last time I recall discussing it, and I don’t really post on CotI these days. What other forums are you discussing it on? It hasn’t 'carried over' from other forums as much as other people on this thread brought it up and I responded. If you have come over from another forum, then are we to assume that you are angry? You are certainly coming across that way.

What people, on this thread, have been claiming is that Mongoose have done some underhand dealings to prevent others from making Traveller products and that, somehow what they are producing is not really Traveller.

Mongoose Traveller is, officially, Traveller and Cepheus isn’t, even though it is a clone. Nothing to question about being ‘underhand’ - it is just the reality of the situation.



> Again, you seem rather ignorant of what transpired



And you seem to say that a lot without countering against or identifying what I have said that isn’t factually true.



> Thank goodness you don't have a problem. One would think that approval of CE by Marc Miller and by Mongoose would be enough but this, oh, this approval will change everything. LOL.



As stated before, I don’t have any problem with it. Good luck with your business.


----------



## Independence Games (Apr 20, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> Are you psychic?!
> 
> This discussion has occurred, as far as I am aware, on this forum only at the moment. It may have been discussed on other forums previously, but again, as far as I am aware I haven’t discussed it personally for....years? It was a topic on rpgpub a couple of years ago which is the last time I recall discussing it, and I don’t really post on CotI these days.




Then perhaps I'm mistaking you for someone else.  The arguments and style seem all too familiar.  If so, you have my apologies for that.  

However, you have been implying rather heavily in this thread that my friend, Jason, and others who use the open source rules are doing something underhanded.  They are not.  That is what I've found offensive about your posts and what has made me angry.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 20, 2020)

Independence Games said:


> Then perhaps I'm mistaking you for someone else.  The arguments and style seem all too familiar.  If so, you have my apologies for that.
> 
> However, you have been implying rather heavily in this thread that my friend, Jason, and others who use the open source rules are doing something underhanded.  They are not.  That is what I've found offensive about your posts and what has made me angry.



So you are angry, then?

It may be worth putting the context of my comments with those others who have been commentating here about Mongoose Traveller, and the licensing arrangement thereof. I didn’t say, for the record, that people using open source rules are doing anything underhand. By the same token, neither are Mongoose.


----------



## Independence Games (Apr 20, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> I didn’t say, for the record, that people using open source rules are doing anything underhand. By the same token, neither are Mongoose.




I would agree that those using the open source rules are doing nothing wrong.  I would also agree that Mongoose is doing nothing wrong by producing their books as licensed to do so.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 20, 2020)

Independence Games said:


> I would agree that those using the open source rules are doing nothing wrong.  I would also agree that Mongoose is doing nothing wrong by producing their books as licensed to do so.



Good. We are in agreement. We can move on.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 20, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> You do understand that Marc Miller chooses who he gives his license to, no?



The exclusivity clause in the Mongoose 1E deal was apparently a surprise to Marc. Especialy with how Mongoose dealt with it.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 20, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> The exclusivity clause in the Mongoose 1E deal was apparently a surprise to Marc. Especialy with how Mongoose dealt with it.



Well he signed it and then, guess what, he signed another contract 8 years later. Who’d have thought that a business paying for a licence on a IP would want to have an exclusivity clause? How dastardly! 

And you know, seeing as you can still access and buy every single version of Traveller, including GURPS Traveller, methinks you protest too much.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 20, 2020)

dragoner said:


> Maybe numong can pay reparations for forcing Marc to pull the licenses on GURPS Interstellar Wars, Classic Traveller TNE2 1248, and Hero Games; all gamers lost those settings and rules sets because of mongoose. With the GURPS Interstellar Wars (Earth vs the Imperium), being considered one of the best written for Traveller ever; which in replacement we get numong's goofy tone like a 50 year old teenager:



while they're "dead lines" Marc has made 1248 available on CD, and HT as well. That said, SJG opted not to renew, according to a couple posts from SJG staffers. (Phil and Kromm) 

@TrippyHippy The later one had a lot more vetting by Marc's counsel, and a number of clauses deleted, and a few more inserted by Marc. (Source: email with GP Lee, Marc's counsel.) 
It wasn't just a straight renewal. And it apparently deleted the exclusivity clause, as evidenced by Marc licensing GP Lee, and permitting continued sale of GT after the technical end of the SJG license.


----------



## dragoner (Apr 20, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> while they're "dead lines" Marc has made 1248 available on CD ...




I have it, for a while now; own most of mgt too, and was playing up until recently, also just finished a T5 game. Mostly what I would be interested is ISW stuff, maybe rp the Imperium wargame.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 20, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> The later one had a lot more vetting by Marc's counsel, and a number of clauses deleted, and a few more inserted by Marc. (Source: email with GP Lee, Marc's counsel.)
> It wasn't just a straight renewal. And it apparently deleted the exclusivity clause, as evidenced by Marc licensing GP Lee, and permitting continued sale of GT after the technical end of the SJG license.



Greg Lee’s work was Cirque for T5 wasn’t it? Well, T5 was always exempt, because it was Marc Miller’s personal work. SJGames were given dispensation after MGT1’s licence to make Interstellar Wars as their last publication for Traveller, and the entire line has been available in PDF form for a while.

No negotiation for a license ever amounts to a 'straight renewal'. Both parties had things they wanted from the deal. Presumably, both parties got what they wanted from it. From what I can see, Mongoose Traveller 2 has been a well received success, that continues to produce great products and has attracted new audiences.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 22, 2020)

TrippyHippy said:


> Greg Lee’s work was Cirque for T5 wasn’t it? Well, T5 was always exempt, because it was Marc Miller’s personal work. SJGames were given dispensation after MGT1’s licence to make Interstellar Wars as their last publication for Traveller, and the entire line has been available in PDF form for a while.
> 
> No negotiation for a license ever amounts to a 'straight renewal'. Both parties had things they wanted from the deal. Presumably, both parties got what they wanted from it. From what I can see, Mongoose Traveller 2 has been a well received success, that continues to produce great products and has attracted new audiences.



Actually, the original license required Marc to publish all T5 materials through Mongoose, and for MGT1 to be derived from T5... but that fell apart because Marc's writing pace was too slow. He still couldn't license 
 Greg until the renewal. (Again, according to Greg.)


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 22, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> Actually, the original license required Marc to publish all T5 materials through Mongoose, and for MGT1 to be derived from T5... but that fell apart because Marc's writing pace was too slow. He still couldn't license
> Greg until the renewal. (Again, according to Greg.)



I do know that the promotional discussion at the time was that Marc’s T5 was set to be the ‘advanced’ version of the Traveller game being published by Mongoose. However, MGT1 was written by Gareth Hanrahan, and was open play-tested throughout the design process. From the very word go, the rule design of the new game was explicitly based on Classic Traveller as default. Marc Miller’s T5, of which there were some promotional elements floating around on the net also, was very much an extension on his work on T4. I don’t think, for example, there was any suggestion of MGT1 at any stage using a roll under mechanic which was used in T4/T5. 

All of this is much of a muchness. Back in 2008, when MGT1 came out, nobody knew if it was going to be a success or not and the game design itself was very much a formative process. In 2016, after eight years of development, both Marc and Matt knew what they both wanted, respectively, out of a prospective new licence moving forward.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 22, 2020)

dragoner said:


> I have it, for a while now; own most of mgt too, and was playing up until recently, also just finished a T5 game. Mostly what I would be interested is ISW stuff, maybe rp the Imperium wargame.



The wargame is on CT disk. It's also available from Drive Trhu via their Wargames Vault interface.
The GTIW core is on GT 1.


----------



## eyeheartawk (May 2, 2020)

Chaosium: BRP is dead. We don't support it anymore. Maybe we should open it up for official fan content and if that generates interest we can sell BRP product again and it costs us nothing! Win-win!

Also Chaosium: Yo, dawg here's a 19 page SRD that's so restrictive and bare bones that there's no reason to use this over like, three other alternatives. Also, we don't know what "open" means.


----------

