Quote from: grubmanThere is a new edition of Runequest currently in print from Mongoose...

Unfortunately, I'm not very impressed with how Mongoose has been handling Runequest.  

Quote from: Casey777... AFAIK Deluxe BRP is still on some sort of track but Chaosium hasn't really said anything about it yet.

I really hope that this actually materializes.  Why can't Chaosium be less self-destructive?

Quote from: Casey777With the release of the MRQ SRDs something like GORE was bound to happen and it's not *quite* just a restating of Runequest or say Call of Cthulhu .

Ehhh, I guess you're right.  It's dang similar, though, isn't it?

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!It's worth noting that GORE is so similar to BRP as to, umn, essentially be BRP.

Holy crap.  This is essentially Call of Cthulhu with the Sanity mechanics filed off.  The artwork is all direct reference to the Cthulhu mythos, so the effect does not appear to be accidental.  With CoC still in print with identical mechanics, I cry foul.

By the way, what's with all the monsters wearing loin cloths?

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaBy the way, what's with all the monsters wearing loin cloths?

!i!

It's warm and balmy in Monsterland.  Pray it doesn't get breezy!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHoly crap.  This is essentially Call of Cthulhu with the Sanity mechanics filed off.  The artwork is all direct reference to the Cthulhu mythos, so the effect does not appear to be accidental.  With CoC still in print with identical mechanics, I cry foul.

By the way, what's with all the monsters wearing loin cloths?

!i!

Hello, I hope you don't mind if I chime in here. I'd just like to clarify a couple of things.

First let me thank you for taking a look at GORE! GORE is not in any way supposed to compete with or take business away from companies using a similar system. I can sympathize with your sentiment, but I just want to make GORE's purpose understood. The purpose of GORE is to provide a solid, familiar-feeling system for publishers to use in creating adventures, campaign worlds, etc.

I'm not trying to argue a certain position in this statement; this is just a general statement of fact of my intentions. From a philosophical point of view, if you feel one company should have exclusive rights to some game algorithms, I won't argue with you, but I personally see it as a benefit to free systems up for 3rd party publishers to create material.

In this regard, GORE follows in the same footsteps as OSRIC, and I believe these are natural (and maybe inevitable) evolutions out of the OGL. I can envision a time in the not-so-distant future when "systems" are not thought of as being "owned" by particular companies. This is a departure from earlier games, in which for instance, WoD was WoD not just because of its premise but also its system. The same goes for many games.

At any rate, that's enough of my rambling, but thanks again for looking at GORE!


Best,
Dan

Quote from: Goblinoid GamesGORE is not in any way supposed to compete with or take business away from companies using a similar system.

If you say so.  However, in very real effect, what you've released to the Internet for free is Call of Cthulhu without the Sanity mechanics.

QuoteFrom a philosophical point of view, if you feel one company should have exclusive rights to some game algorithms, I won't argue with you, but I personally see it as a benefit to free systems up for 3rd party publishers to create material.

From a philosophical point of view, this situation underscores the wonkiness of the agreement under which Mongoose gained the rights to a system of game mechanics that is functionally identical to those in use by a company that has not licensed them out.

QuoteI can envision a time in the not-so-distant future when “systems” are not thought of as being “owned” by particular companies.

I can envisage a time when a company with sufficient coin in the bank will be able and willing to take its counter-position to court and successfully argue plagiarism.

An OGL is one thing if it's a system that you developed yourself and knowingly and willingly distribute to the public.  It's another matter when the mechanics you've developed are distributed without your permission, and yet another matter still when it allows another party to create a game that functionally replicates your own product.

Let me reiterate that I am baffled by how Chaosium's BRP has, for all practical purposes, been released as an OGL by a company other than Chaosium.  Beyond pointing a finger at Mongoose and saying "They did it," can anyone explain to me how and why this came about?

!i!

In fact a game company can claim exclusive rights to game algorithms, but it'd have to patent them...something Chaosium never did. If you search the US patent office databases, you'll find some interesting game patents, so it can be done. But without that, "plagiarism" would have to be claimed on the basis of copyright, and copyright only protects expression of ideas, not ideas themselves.

Copyright law does have a concept of "derivative works" but I don't think it's very settled except in very clear cases. E.g., the name and likeness of a character from a previous work might show that another work is a derivative, but structural similarity isn't necessarily sufficient.

Essentially, as long as GORE wasn't a literal cut and paste job of the CoC manual there's nothing that could really be said against it.

Its nothing new either, look at the Role-aids supplements, the Osric rules, and indeed the new version of Runequest itself.

RPGPundit

You can't copyright system mechanics.

CoC is much more than just it's rules, it's also the advice, monsters, spells and so on.

I mean, CoC is my favourite game but I don't have an issue with Gore, it's Osric done for BRP and as such is entirely legal.  Is it ethical?  I think so, I don't see it damaging Chaosium's sales and to be honest I don't see the release of an OGL of CoC really hitting CoC as a game any.

Besides, I would imagine these guys are doing it for the love, one might feel they shouldn't I guess but I don't think it will do Chaosium any harm, certainly far less harm than Chaosium has done to itself over the years.

but if you can't copyright system mechanics, then what is it that WotC did years ago, with MtG?  didn't they copyright the "tap card" mechanic, and then went after anyone who had the same in their games?  or is that just semantics?

:confused:

Quote from: beeberbut if you can't copyright system mechanics, then what is it that WotC did years ago, with MtG?  didn't they copyright the "tap card" mechanic, and then went after anyone who had the same in their games?  or is that just semantics?

:confused:

No idea I'm afraid, I know you can't copyright game engines but I wouldn't be surprised to learn there are loopholes and that somehow fell within them.

Quote from: Elliot WilenCopyright law does have a concept of "derivative works" but I don't think it's very settled except in very clear cases. E.g., the name and likeness of a character from a previous work might show that another work is a derivative, but structural similarity isn't necessarily sufficient.

I don't think that it's been made clear with a test case in games, especially rpgs.  It would require two companies willing to go the distance with a lawsuit.

I remember WOTC tried to patent basic card game mechanics (you can't merely copyright a mechanic) which scared companies off of the concept but I'm not sure how things ended up with that.

In theory you can patent certain game elements (ie. the Pop-a-matic Bubble).  In terms of RPGs (or card games) those might not really hold up to scrutiny.

But who knows, all US intellectual property law is UTTERLY fucked up these days thanks to the influence of Disney and other megacorps.

RPGPundit

Quote from: beeberbut if you can't copyright system mechanics, then what is it that WotC did years ago, with MtG?  didn't they copyright the "tap card" mechanic, and then went after anyone who had the same in their games?  or is that just semantics?

It's basically a legal form of a Mexican Standoff, and it's a particularly pernicious element of civil law.  Often, the party with more money in the bank can threaten legal action and potentially drag out deliberation to the point of threatening to bankrupt the other party.  WotC, with a huge bankroll in hand, says, "This here rule is ours.  If you have a problem with that, have your lawyers talk to ours."  Precious few companies (read: "none") had the money to even try, so they sensibly went for a work-around instead.

For the most part, the parties at play in RPGs aren't swimming in the kind of money it would take to test a case like one company releasing an OGL of another company's mechanics (and, no, certainly not Chaosium).  The situation still seems darned hinkey to me, and if it can't be settled definitively, I'd at least still like an explanation of how it came to be.

!i!

As examples of the fact that the idea of patenting a game mechanic (method or algorithm) is at least viewed as plausible by the US Patent Office, here are two of Wizards' patents (which actually are very similar):
http://tinyurl.com/2h2un6
http://tinyurl.com/2djjah

As for how the situation came to be:

Copyright is an excellent, cheap form of protection. Basically, if you write, draw, sculpt, compose (etc.) anything, then under modern international law (excluding a few countries), you have exclusive right to copy & distribute it. No need to file anything or pay any fees.

The thing to understand, though, is that copyright protects expression, not conception or idea. So while it's illegal to copy the words used in a game's rulebook, copyright does nothing to prevent you from reproducing the algorithms which define how the game is played.

Patent protects ideas (more or less, I'm not a lawyer), but Chaosium doesn't have any patents in BRP. So Mongoose is on the legal up & up unless they somehow did copy some of the original BRP/RQ language. Just as nobody ever had to pay TSR royalties for using character progression by level in Palladium, or Chaosium for using armor absorbs in GURPS.

Now, Mongoose's RQ is pretty clearly a derivative of the original Chaosium RQ in other ways, like the place names and the races and how they are described, etc. This would be covered by copyright law. And the name Runequest, plus maybe other distinctive elements of the game that help identify it to consumers, is covered by trademark. But pretty clearly, Greg Stafford retained all those rights when he left Chaosium, and was able to license those IPs to Mongoose.