https://www.chaosium.com/brp-system-reference-document/?mc_cid=c4d00225e7&mc_eid=adcea3c29b

From what I am seeing in the SRD the following would be prohibited content

• A magic system where points are spent from a pool based on a characteristic and/or regained over time and/or the chance of casting the spell is based on skill or a characteristic.
• A magic system where points are permanently spent to gain spells based on an available pool of spells from a source.
• A system which measures standing in an organisation/society/culture/country by accruing points based on actions and/or maybe used to gain something
• Systems which measure personality traits which change based on actions and/or are tested to restrict or encourage behaviour.
• A system were fails can be re-rolled
• Any augment of abilities based on another ability be they rolled and/or as a fraction of the other ability
• Anything that symbolizes a power or group of powers obtained from a source.
• Anything that represents a person's state of mind such as sanity/despair/guilt which involves making a die roll to avoid  the loss of points from a pool and/or an effect occurs if a certain number of points are lost or gained.

https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?41873-What-is-everyone-s-thoughts-on-Chaoisum-s-OGL-they-released

Yes it's terribad.

Quote from: S'mon;1125949https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?41873-What-is-everyone-s-thoughts-on-Chaoisum-s-OGL-they-released

Yes it's terribad.

Thanks.  I should have scrolled further down the page when I was lloking to see  if anyone had already posted something.  Can a mod  delete his thread?

What gets me is they claimed to have an OpenGL when its anything but, thought no one would notice, tried to hide one of their own lawyers credentials and when called out on their lying con job told people to get the fuck away.

They deserve everything they get for trying to lie to their fans.

There's a name for this, crippleware.

Also, just use the SRD from Mongoose's Legend and/or GORE instead. Fuck Gayosium.

It reads like "how NOT to do an SRD/OGL."

Then again I also think the WotC-created OGL is also slightly crippleware, particularly in regards to section 7, and made necessary changes to terminology and expressions specifically so I'd not need the OGL for my own system.

As a result though I can actually mention the name of my competition, particularly in terms of compare/contrast advertising, and that I intend it as a specific spiritual successor by name rather than using euphemisms like "X edition of the worlds most popular RPG" to suggest a linkage.

And, frankly, having to go back to the original myths and legends instead of just copy-pasting the the D&D lore that made it into WotC's SRDs was also a plus for creating a better campaign setting.

OGL's have their place, but I'm of the opinion they're best avoided if you can at all help it.

Quote from: Chris24601;1126865...
OGL's have their place, but I'm of the opinion they're best avoided if you can at all help it.

Strong disagree. Many people think they are brilliant game designers when in fact they are not. If they were honest with themselves, what they really wanted to do was make a cool setting, campaign, etc. No reason to reinvent the wheel if an Open Content game works for you.

It's not hard to avoid violating section 7. Especially if you're focused on creating an original setting and just want to use the mechanics. I believe there are a few lists out there you can search on unavailable D&D IP (like Mindflayer, Beholder, Mordenkainen's Happy Hospice...). They have to designate the IP for section 7, so a little cognizant reading is in order. It will be clearly laid out for you.

Instead of realizing that they screwed uo and were caught red handed trying to con gamers into thinking they had an actual OGL they refuse to admit any mistake and doubling down. Nothing says "use or non-ogl trust" anymore than someone from the company complaining about having to answer questions about an badly worded non-ogl.

Quote from: trechriron;1126866Strong disagree. Many people think they are brilliant game designers when in fact they are not. If they were honest with themselves, what they really wanted to do was make a cool setting, campaign, etc. No reason to reinvent the wheel if an Open Content game works for you.

Not only that but a SRD licensed under the OGL provide clarity as to what the publisher doesn't have an issue with people copying.

People choosing the forgoing that should hire an IP attorney to advise them on what is and what isn't allowed. If they don't there is a term to that

Idiot.

Personally the ability cite compatibility is not worth the uncertainty especially when I do what I do within the time I have for a hobby. The primary reason I publish is to share the material I made for settings and adventures, being able to take advantage of WoTCs generosity just makes them more accessible.

Finally there are two decades of practice behind making open content under the OGL. Wizards and other companies releasing open content have relatively generous. Pretty much the only thing that related to IP that caused an issue is when a publisher directly copied content not found in the SRD but in the publisher books. Mostly from older material. For example the publisher who made 3.X version of Monsters Manual II. That issue can be fixed by putting away the published rulebook and only using the open content as your reference.

When author says "I am a proud non-user of the OGL" my reaction is Great! You have your own little world have fun doing all the work. Then I get back sharing what I want to share.

For the record, I intend to have a free SRD; it just won't be using WotC's OGL (my main objection is to sections of the WotC version, not to open content in general).

I figure since you can't copyright mechanics that the focus of my associated license should just be about what degree of trade dress can be used in addition to the mechanics; just a compatibility notice (the default level) or being able to use actual trade dress (logos, formatting, etc.) for promotion in exchange for keeping the content family-friendly (a term for which there will be a lawyer involved in making clear, but the gist of which comes down to "can be given to my 13yo niece without her parents objecting").

Quote from: trechriron;1126866Strong disagree. Many people think they are brilliant game designers when in fact they are not. If they were honest with themselves, what they really wanted to do was make a cool setting, campaign, etc. No reason to reinvent the wheel if an Open Content game works for you.

Frankly, the only reason I have a setting is to help sell my mechanics. I may not be brilliant, but I'm a workman who knows the value of feedback so have been playtesting and refining my system over the course of several years. The most annoying part of the process for me is that I'm nearly out of mechanics to complete/refine and only the setting stuff that I really hate writing is left. The setting is coherent and some of the testers really like it, but it's my least favorite part of the project.

Turns out, while I love fantasy, I hate D&D's expression of it through their mechanics (particularly 5e, 3e/PF and, to a lesser extent many OSR assumptions). 5e in particular has become almost completely self-referential with things included simply because "that's how it's always been in D&D."

I think the niches of interesting tactical combat, being able to express your concept from level 1 and martial/caster parity (including interesting mechanical options for the fighter types and the ability to play a game with no magic healing without houseruling or dramatically altering the pace) has been largely abandoned in the effort to throw all things 4E down the memory hole and neither the 3e nor 5e SRD is a particularly good mechanical foundation to build from if your goal is to emulate heroic high-fantasy as it appears in non-D&D derived media). It may not be a big enough market for WotC, but it's probably big enough for me to break even filling it; particularly with a low enough price point to encourage impulse buying.

I think avoiding it also prevents a lot of laziness in design. If I'd gone with the OGL I'd have just used a bunch of terms without even thinking about them and dragged baggage from D&D that is downright inimical to my design; like all the baggage of hit points (and their association with meat points being so strong I had to drop the term even though that's one of the safest terms for non-OGL use) or all the baggage of the class names (which was, in turn, one of the bigger stumbling blocks 4E faced... using traditional class names for more narrowly focused classes and people putting more stock in the traditional name than the mechanics they wanted which could be easily found in a class with a different name).

WotC's OGL/SRD combo is frankly a crutch that discourages design innovation. In the days of 3e it drove many designers to try and pound genres into square hole that was the d20 System instead of designing systems that encouraged their genre conventions.

Can anyone really say d20 Star Wars was better at expressing the feel of the films than WEG/d6 Star Wars? That Spycraft was a better game for being built around d20-based class/level mechanics? Has there ever been a truly functional mecha-based system on par with Mekton Zeta that used the d20 System?

The industry was healthier when everyone had to build their own game engine and not just derive most of their content from WotC's SRDs (i.e. default elves, dwarves, halflings, goblins, orcs, basic undead, color-coded dragons, clerical healing because "meat points") because even without a license, common things that worked were reverse engineered and new things were tried and if those were wildly successful they'd be reverse engineered for still newer games.

The 3e/5e SRD/OGL has left much of the industry mired at the lowest common denominator of game design.

At least that's my opinion of it.

You can use the OGL without using the SRD - or any WoTC IP.

Quote from: Chris24601;1126946For the record, I intend to have a free SRD...

At least that's my opinion of it.

I also do not like much of what the d20 ruleset has to offer. It has some gems I adore (like schools of magic for some reason just tickle me), but otherwise I don't enjoy it.

So, for the record, I applaud your effort and I look forward to seeing your work!

Carry on and Huzzah!

Quote from: Chris24601;1126946I think avoiding it also prevents a lot of laziness in design. If I'd gone with the OGL I'd have just used a bunch of terms without even thinking about them and dragged baggage from D&D that is downright inimical to my design; like all the baggage of hit points (and their association with meat points being so strong I had to drop the term even though that's one of the safest terms for non-OGL use) or all the baggage of the class names (which was, in turn, one of the bigger stumbling blocks 4E faced... using traditional class names for more narrowly focused classes and people putting more stock in the traditional name than the mechanics they wanted which could be easily found in a class with a different name).

The D20 SRD is a work licensed under the OGL. There are other work licensed under the OGL that have no connection to the D20 SRD thus no need to cite.

As for section 7, it what allows works using the OGL to use IP licensed under another agreement like the Judges Guild IP I licensed. If you don't like then just declare everything open content like I did with Blackmarsh or what Mongoose did with the Legends RPG or what Evil Hat did with the Fate RPG

As for the part about citing compatibility are examples like Swords & Wizardry that include an explicit license allowing you to cite compatibility with a minimal requirement. Or you could just say you have a license to cite compatibility by virtue of using the open content the author provides.

Why I am pushing back on this? Because people making up their own license causes confusion. They are often done badly like the BRP-OGL or create further issues like the Community Content license from Onebookshelf. I recommend either use the OGL or one of the creative commons both are used and well understood in their implications.

Quote from: estar;1126970The D20 SRD is a work licensed under the OGL. There are other work licensed under the OGL that have no connection to the D20 SRD thus no need to cite.

As for section 7, it what allows works using the OGL to use IP licensed under another agreement like the Judges Guild IP I licensed. If you don't like then just declare everything open content like I did with Blackmarsh or what Mongoose did with the Legends RPG or what Evil Hat did with the Fate RPG

As for the part about citing compatibility are examples like Swords & Wizardry that include an explicit license allowing you to cite compatibility with a minimal requirement. Or you could just say you have a license to cite compatibility by virtue of using the open content the author provides.

Why I am pushing back on this? Because people making up their own license causes confusion. They are often done badly like the BRP-OGL or create further issues like the Community Content license from Onebookshelf. I recommend either use the OGL or one of the creative commons both are used and well understood in their implications.

And to add to this further, many people feel comfortable using material licensed with the OGL without consulting a lawyer, where they would definitely be a fool to use some random person's individually created open license without consulting a lawyer. Also, if you create your own license, you would be well advised to consult a lawyer to make sure your license does what you think it does.

There are reasons why people encourage the use of one of the popular open licenses.

Heck, the open source project I work on was re-licensed at the request of the employer I worked for when I started working in the project because it was licensed under a not so well used license and my employer's lawyers were uncomfortable with that license while they were extremely comfortable with GPL and LGPL. Without that license change, the project would have languished instead of being taken up by a number of significant technology companies.

Quote from: estar;1126970Why I am pushing back on this? Because people making up their own license causes confusion. They are often done badly like the BRP-OGL or create further issues like the Community Content license from Onebookshelf. I recommend either use the OGL or one of the creative commons both are used and well understood in their implications.

I highly agree with estar. I'm mixed on the OGL (but it clearly works), but the Creative Commons licenses are well done and the various options offer some good flexibility for creators.