In theory, I like the idea of open license development of RPGs. I think copyright law is overly restrictive, particularly in terms of time. So I like RPG developers being able to recombine ideas from different sources and put their own spin on things.
However, I've always had problems with the WotC OGL since it's original release as v1.0a. I bring this up particularly as some posters seem to regard the OGL as a great boon that has boosted gaming. But I think the OSR could easily have happened without the OGL. It enabled stuff like Pathfinder, and retro-clones (though those have some shaky ground), but most of the innovative OSR releases could easily have done without it. There were lots of games similar to D&D published long before the OGL.
Legally, there are two points of the WotC OGL 1.0a that have always bugged me. Here's what I wrote about it back in 2002-2003 shortly after the OGL and SRD came out.
QuoteThe WotC written and approved "Open Gaming License" essentially allows copying and modification of game mechanics, but on the condition of not using any "Product Identity": which may include any artwork and creative ideas. Additionally, you may not indicate compatibility with any trademarked game. Thus, it is legal for a third party to use the D20 SRD rules in another open game -- but only if that open game never mentions "D20", "D&D", or other trademarked games. A separate trademark license with additional restrictions allows use of the Wizards of the Coast "D20" trademark.
In practical terms, the WotC "open gaming license" makes games less open in many ways than working under normal copyright and trademark restrictions. For example, I can in theory make a game which is similar in mechanics to a "closed" game and even claim to be compatible with its supplements, as long as I am careful in use of trademarks. Trademark law allows non-deceptive use such as "compatible with Wizards of the Coast's D&D". This is impossible for an OGL project. Similarly, copyright law allows "fair use" of small subsets of copyrighted works, but the OGL demands that absolutely no non-open content be used.
In terms of effect on the market, the OGL has focused more and more development around just D&D, which has enhanced the network effect the boosts D&D sales.
The OGL v1.0a will still be around - but even if there was a loophole to shut it down, that shouldn't be a disaster to old-school gaming. It would shake up publication temporarily, but it would recover and do better, I think.
Quote from: jhkim on December 27, 2022, 02:16:50 AM
It enabled stuff like Pathfinder, and retro-clones (though those have some shaky ground)
Shaky ground? Maybe regarding marketing and claims of compatibility but the games themselves?
My understanding is one could take the D&D srd, combine with the Pathfinder srd to fill in the bits WotC left out, and slap it all together in until you have a complete game, and then publish, and be legally in the clear. Am I wrong?
I believe Osric was created specifically so one could write AD&D modules but claim compatibility with Osric instead of AD&D, allowing a legal side-step of the compatibility issue. I think the Coastal Wizards didn't like that but there was nothing they could do about it.
Quote from: Ruprecht on December 27, 2022, 09:34:24 AM
Quote from: jhkim on December 27, 2022, 02:16:50 AM
It enabled stuff like Pathfinder, and retro-clones (though those have some shaky ground)
Shaky ground? Maybe regarding marketing and claims of compatibility but the games themselves?
My understanding is one could take the D&D srd, combine with the Pathfinder srd to fill in the bits WotC left out, and slap it all together in until you have a complete game, and then publish, and be legally in the clear. Am I wrong?
No, you are correct. What the OGL allows is the bulk use of terms that otherwise would leave you open to copyright infringement claims. For example, if you use the term "Strength" to describe one of the attributes in your own original RPG, there's nothing that WotC could do to stop you, as you can't copyright words. But, if you include six attributes, named exactly the same as in D&D, you have given WotC grounds to argue that you are copying their IP (it's more complex than that, as there are circumstances where even all six attributes wouldn't be enough, but deep pockets win lawsuits, not righteousness). Then add in d20 rolls, "saving throws", etc. and other terminology common to D&D, and try to explain your case to a seventy year-old judge who's never even heard of RPGs, and you start to see the issue.
Sure, you can create a game that is
functionally the same as D&D, but using completely different terms for all of the processes (and that didn't even save E.G.G. from TSR back in the day). So if you want to use the familiar terminology in the familiar ways in your games, the OGL is by far the safest way to do so. Could you, with constant legal consultation, do something very similar, at the risk of expensive lawsuits that you might win, but that will certainly cost you a bunch to defend? Sure, but why? It's not like most folks are going to get rich in RPGs anyway ("How do you make a small fortune in RPGs? Start with a large fortune..."), so why risk part of your potential profit?
You also need to recognize who is posting this as well. Understand that jhkim has been defending WotC's new "monetization" strategies on other threads, and has pretty much been smacked down for trying to defend the direction/effects on the consumers. So, having little effect on the board's opinions, he's now attacking the old OGL. It's just another avenue to shill the new WotC announcements. Why start this thread now, otherwise? He's heavily underselling the difficulty of making a D&D adjacent product without the OGL because he'd like to claim the new OGL 1.1 is "no big deal." You don't need it. Except it makes retro-clones and compatible products much easier and safer, which is why it was so influential when it was initiated (look at the flood of 3rd party and OSR products after, compared to before). Your first mistake is taking this thread at face value, and not the continuation of the already established argument..l
Quote from: Ruprecht on December 27, 2022, 09:34:24 AM
Quote from: jhkim on December 27, 2022, 02:16:50 AM
It enabled stuff like Pathfinder, and retro-clones (though those have some shaky ground)
Shaky ground? Maybe regarding marketing and claims of compatibility but the games themselves?
My understanding is one could take the D&D srd, combine with the Pathfinder srd to fill in the bits WotC left out, and slap it all together in until you have a complete game, and then publish, and be legally in the clear. Am I wrong?
You could publish pretty much exactly
3rd edition D&D and be in the clear. The problem with retro-clones is that prior editions (1E, 2E, BX) are *not* open content, and they often copy distinctive parts of those games. The OGL doesn't give you permission to copy things that aren't in the SRD, so it doesn't let you copy from Star Frontiers, or Alternity, or other former TSR properties - including 1E, 2E, and BX.
I suspect WotC isn't suing over this simply because they don't think that its worth the PR hit it would cause them.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 27, 2022, 10:06:21 AM
No, you are correct. What the OGL allows is the bulk use of terms that otherwise would leave you open to copyright infringement claims. For example, if you use the term "Strength" to describe one of the attributes in your own original RPG, there's nothing that WotC could do to stop you, as you can't copyright words. But, if you include six attributes, named exactly the same as in D&D, you have given WotC grounds to argue that you are copying their IP (it's more complex than that, as there are circumstances where even all six attributes wouldn't be enough, but deep pockets win lawsuits, not righteousness). Then add in d20 rolls, "saving throws", etc. and other terminology common to D&D, and try to explain your case to a seventy year-old judge who's never even heard of RPGs, and you start to see the issue.
Sure, you can create a game that is functionally the same as D&D, but using completely different terms for all of the processes (and that didn't even save E.G.G. from TSR back in the day). So if you want to use the familiar terminology in the familiar ways in your games, the OGL is by far the safest way to do so. Could you, with constant legal consultation, do something very similar, at the risk of expensive lawsuits that you might win, but that will certainly cost you a bunch to defend? Sure, but why?
If your goal is to be as close as possible to 3E D&D, then yes, the OGL is the safest way. But if you're trying to make a game that has new and interesting features, then it isn't necessary. Dozens of games were published prior to 2000 that used similar terminology like saving throws, character class, armor class, and so forth. Tunnels & Trolls, Palladium Fantasy, Chivalry & Sorcery, Arduin, Adventures in Fantasy, etc. All of these were well within the old school philosophy and used familiar terms, but they didn't have any problems with TSR copyright.
By releasing the OGL, it seems like WotC has convinced people to bow down and accept that they own all the familiar terms in RPGs - when previously, these were effectively public domain as they were re-used by many other games without an OGL.
Especially, using the OGL means abiding by WotC's restrictions that are baked into the license - that you can't use any trademarks or indicate compatibility with any trademarks.
Quote from: jhkim on December 27, 2022, 12:15:08 PM
If your goal is to be as close as possible to 3E D&D, then yes, the OGL is the safest way.
The SRD allows a designer to copy/paste the boring parts and update the things they think need to be changed. Why re-invent the wheel if you like the wheel, or at least don't care enough to dislike the wheel.
Overall, I think the SRD is a great thing, but it has its downsides - including lots of derivative drivel.
I've wrote a long post about related subjects, here are some relevant bits:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/12/condensed-information-in-ocean-of-trash.html
Sturgeon's law - "ninety percent of everything is trash"
Writing a book isn't hard - writing a book with the same quality of The Brothers Karamazov is very hard. It is not necessary, however, to make money as a writer. You can sell trash, and with good marketing and presentation you can sell lots of trash.
And, according to Sturgeon's law, ninety percent of everything is trash. Certainly, at least 90% of all books published in the last year.
This law talks about quality - but I'm currently more concerned with redundancy.
As far as RPGs are concerned, even the best are 90% repetition of old formulas, old editions, or simply old text - often copied and pasted from the SRD.
D&D 5e, for example, far from being the worst offender, repeats the same text (e.g., darkvision) though the book. The same features are repeated verbatim in different races/classes. And most lore is copied from old editions, sometimes adapted to modern sensibilities. There are still some original parts: advantage/disadvantage, proficiency bonus, etc. But many rules (e.g., falling damage) are just copied from old editions without reflection.
The OSR is sometimes worse. Huge swaths of text copied from old editions or directly from the SRD with no reflection at all. I often mention the B/X cleric and the fact that plate armor costs the same as 12 garlic as examples. There are troves of B/X clones out there (I have my own) - do they bring anything to the table, or are just 90% trash/repetition with one or two new ideas?
The SRD
A brief aside: I think the SRD is a great idea and a net positive for the hobby. I dislike pasting text without reflection, but rewriting text and mechanics just because you cannot paste them is a complete waste of time.
The 1.1 SRD sounds like bad news for the hobby and probably means that Kobold Press and others that produce great third-party content for 5e will be hindered in their efforts. Most people will stick to 1.0, which is bad news for 5.5e/6e (remember the 4e GSL?).
I was able to publish 5e stuff only because of the SRD. I will not publish under 1.1 (or GSL, or DM's Guild) at this time, and I'm unsure if I'll write more 5e stuff in the future (or play 5e at all), for various reasons.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 27, 2022, 10:06:21 AM
...
Sure, you can create a game that is functionally the same as D&D, but using completely different terms for all of the processes (and that didn't even save E.G.G. from TSR back in the day). ...
Lawfare is real.
The average person has no conception how back-breaking expensive it is to defend oneself from even the most frivolous lawsuit if the other party is willing to use their deep pockets...
So for the average joe with a day job, using the OGL is worth it just to never have to deal with the possibility of lawfare.
Yes guys like Kenzer got WotC to back down over hackmaster stuff, but he was a lawyer, and was able to flip WotC the bird for the LOLZ...
Everything TSR did vs. Gygax was pure lawfare. Nobody really had the money to defend themselves in court against the TSR bankroll, so they all eventually had to back down. TSR broke GDW's back that way.
WotC has started to play those games a little bit, and make no mistake: very few will be able to stand against them if they decide to go the they sue regularly route.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 27, 2022, 01:49:30 PM
Everything TSR did vs. Gygax was pure lawfare. Nobody really had the money to defend themselves in court against the TSR bankroll, so they all eventually had to back down. TSR broke GDW's back that way.
WotC has started to play those games a little bit, and make no mistake: very few will be able to stand against them if they decide to go the they sue regularly route.
I agree that it was lawfare. However, there were companies that did stand up to TSR - and if just a few companies (like KenzerCo) did stand up to WotC, it could make a big difference in the market.
Making third-party supplements for use with D&D was done long before the OGL - Mayfair, ICE, and others. But now everyone backs down and accepts the OGL 1.0a limitations because it's safer.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 27, 2022, 01:49:30 PM
The average person has no conception how back-breaking expensive it is to defend oneself from even the most frivolous lawsuit if the other party is willing to use their deep pockets...
Lawsuits are STRESSFUL.
There's a lot of waiting, a lot of watching the lawyer burn through your retainer at the cost of $100 for 10 minutes of work, a lot of reading the non-responsive series of claims from the other side that are supposed to disprove yours, but which are false, but which are so convoluted and technical that there are maybe three people on the planet who actually understand them, and it'd take hours to even explain why that is to your own lawyer much less a judge.
Even when you win a pretty simple and mercifully short lawsuit, it is a grueling process ON TOP OF the expense.
The OGL v1.0a is dead as soon as 1.1 comes out. The party is over.
Quote from: jhkim on December 27, 2022, 12:15:08 PM
You could publish pretty much exactly 3rd edition D&D and be in the clear. The problem with retro-clones is that prior editions (1E, 2E, BX) are *not* open content, and they often copy distinctive parts of those games. The OGL doesn't give you permission to copy things that aren't in the SRD, so it doesn't let you copy from Star Frontiers, or Alternity, or other former TSR properties - including 1E, 2E, and BX.
If you take the d20 SRD and omit the newer mechanics, what is left is but a hop and a skip from a specific classic edition.
This is the "hack" that the retro-clones rely on.
Take XP for example
Nobody debate that you can take the d20 SRD and add a XP chart as it doesn't have one. If you don't duplicate the original table exactly then it highly likely you are on solid ground in terms of copyright.
Then going a step further, you can decide to make a separate XP table for each class. Which brings the result closer to one of the classic edition. Highly likely you are in the clear if you don't duplicate any pre-3e chart.
For example, I did this for my Majestic Fantasy RPG. I had players complain about the weirdness of the progression on different XP charts. So we came up with a new set of charts.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Standard%20XP%20Charts.pdf
Do this enough times then the result is a retro-clone. Despite the fact at no point you are copying any text from the original, it functions as a drop-in equivalent system for the original.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 27, 2022, 01:49:30 PM
WotC has started to play those games a little bit, and make no mistake: very few will be able to stand against them if they decide to go the they sue regularly route.
It is a different economy with the Internet and crowdfunding as a part of it. I think deep pockets don't count as much given the circumstances. Or more specifically the hobby as a whole will be able to match the resources Wizards has to bear.
It all rests on how offensive Wizards actions will be in the near future. Right now given the scope of the worst-case scenario, it will pretty much guarantee Wizards will be hit by a lot of angry hornets driven by passion.
Let's see how we can fix this with a NOGL:
Heroic Personas
roll three dice and add them up for
Muscle and get +1 smackya and buboos for every point over ten when fightin'
Grace and get +1 smackya and buboos when shootin'
Grit and get +1 buboos for each point over ten
Wits and get +1 knowhat for each point over ten
Savy and get +1 to shrug off magic for each point over ten
Charm and get +1 to say hello sailor per point over ten
all pluses are integers and implied minuses are applied
Kindaguys pick one
Warboi roll a tenner booboos for each floor, +1 to whack 'em for each floor
Sneakybro roll an eighto booboos for each floor, roll over Savy to doubledown shank booboos
Churchypants rolla die booboos, get a spell each floor, can holy spook spooks
Zappygit roll a freaky pyramid buboos, get two spells each floor if starkers
Going Order roll a bigroundy to find who goes when
Fightin' roll over other guy's grace to whack 'em for a dice booboos
Shootin' roll over other guy's grace to plink 'em for a dice of booboos
Spangly Threads, bounce the hit if they drop the roll under the other guy's grace
dead cow threads -2
fishnet steel threads -4
tin can shorts -6
blocky hidin' wall -2 extra
Take more booboobs than you got and you die
Magic you pick spells before playing, use them and lose them
Zippy Zappy do a freaky pyramid to n targets
Snooze Lose floor targets must beat caster's wit on a big roundy or go to sleep
Crunchy Shorts -4 spangly thread's for the whole fight
Fix You Right Up gives a guy you touch an eightoos booboos back
Quote from: thornad on January 06, 2023, 06:46:01 AM
The OGL v1.0a is dead as soon as 1.1 comes out. The party is over.
In Hasbro and WOTC's eyes? Yes.
A legal argument can be made against that, by someone with the skills. It's not quite as simple as that.
The license cannot be revoked because it never made provisions that it could be revoked. It says it is granted in perpetuity, i.e. until the original copyright expires. Hasbro will not be able to win in court. Not that it matters because all they really need to do is waste their opponent's money until they're forced to concede out-of-court. Pretty much everyone even tangentially involved in the hobby agrees on this, even across political lines. It's absolutely evil behavior to demand the digital book burning of countless books released over the last two decades, but that's to be expected from corpos.
Whether WotC decides to go ahead with their attempts to 'de-authorize' the OGL 1.0a or not, I strongly suspect that everyone relying on it is going to start looking at alternatives very soon now.
wtf you talkin about, i'm selling apples for 35 bucks each, each purchase comes with a free copy of my houserules...now whut booger snot? slap leather or kick ricks ya sidewalk sissy...
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 06, 2023, 01:22:25 PM
The license cannot be revoked because it never made provisions that it could be revoked. It says it is granted in perpetuity, i.e. until the original copyright expires. Hasbro will not be able to win in court. Not that it matters because all they really need to do is waste their opponent's money until they're forced to concede out-of-court. Pretty much everyone even tangentially involved in the hobby agrees on this, even across political lines. It's absolutely evil behavior to demand the digital book burning of countless books released over the last two decades, but that's to be expected from corpos.
I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV, so this is not legal advice.
But I watched an interview with a lawyer who said that precedent is that (a) perpetual licenses can indeed be revoked if that's not specifically spelled out but (b) this is only if the license is gratuitous — that it's a free gift and the licensor isn't getting anything out of it. And WOTC's statements when the SRD was released spelled out exactly what they're getting out of it: 3PPs using the OGL drive business their way.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 06, 2023, 01:40:50 PM
Whether WotC decides to go ahead with their attempts to 'de-authorize' the OGL 1.0a or not, I strongly suspect that everyone relying on it is going to start looking at alternatives very soon now.
I am and I certainly hope others are.
Here is an interesting post on the subject at ITCHIO:
Although the post comes with the caveat, "I'm not a lawyer..." I believe his explanation is quite accurate. There is also a very interesting comment by 'Cone of Negative Energy' that points out the negative aspect of using the OGL... you are contractually agreeing to abide by terms that would otherwise not be covered under various aspects of intellectual property (IP) law.
https://itch.io/t/420581/publishing-with-the-ogl-and-you
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 06, 2023, 01:40:50 PM
Whether WotC decides to go ahead with their attempts to 'de-authorize' the OGL 1.0a or not, I strongly suspect that everyone relying on it is going to start looking at alternatives very soon now.
I know the OGL 1.0 cannot 'legally' be changed by Hasbro/WotC. But that does not mean they cannot try, and in the process cause a lot of agita for those who have relied upon it in the past. I think that for most OSR projects there is no need to use the OGL. Game rules cannot be protected, only the actual words and images (copyright), trademarks and tradenames, and occasionally patents for really unique processes and game items.
If you avoid using the word for word descriptions as allowed under the OGL 1.0 but which may identify the work as covered by the OGL, images, trademarks and tradenames associated with anything from WotC, and possible process 'tech' like the use of the d20 (although I think that is really stretching it) and the 'Character Creation' process which WotC claim as proprietary, I really don't think there is any reason to use the OGL unless you just like the idea of notifying them that you are a target to be bullied and harassed.
I think in the future I am going to remove the OGL, convert 1d20 rolls to 2d10s, make sure not to use the Character Creation process as claimed by WotC as proprietary, and go through with a fine tooth comb and remove any references that may be identical or similar to the OGL 1.*/SRD 3.*.
In fact, perhaps we should join together and try to come up with a bullet proof OSR set of rules that provides the feel of, but is completely removed from the OGL 1.0? I think Microlite may be an ideal place to start that process... remove what little there is of the SRD 3.5, rename it, and give credit to the author of Microlite20 and varieties, but that is it. (As I think about it, giving credit to sources of 'inspiration' is a dangerous bit of courtesy that may come back to bite you -- if you are not violating IP law and you are not including the OGL in your document making such polite comments may just open you up for abuse and harassment.)
Quote from: estar on January 06, 2023, 09:42:00 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on December 27, 2022, 01:49:30 PM
WotC has started to play those games a little bit, and make no mistake: very few will be able to stand against them if they decide to go the they sue regularly route.
It is a different economy with the Internet and crowdfunding as a part of it. I think deep pockets don't count as much given the circumstances. Or more specifically the hobby as a whole will be able to match the resources Wizards has to bear.
It all rests on how offensive Wizards actions will be in the near future. Right now given the scope of the worst-case scenario, it will pretty much guarantee Wizards will be hit by a lot of angry hornets driven by passion.
The hobby as a whole is not rising up against Wizards over the OGL, that's just silly.
It is highly likely that the 1.1 OGL is for an opt-in walled-garden like tenkar has alluded to:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlvxNIWXgAAXuMp?format=png&name=900x900)
This version of the 1.1 OGL will only be a failure for WotC if the big 3pp plyers fail to sign on to 1.1. And WotC will be doing custom deals for a lot of them.
If the big 3pp players say they are bouncing - then we can say they flubbed the 1.1 OGL.
If they do sign on - then it is a WotC win.
(In the short term)Nobody knows anything yet.
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 06, 2023, 02:23:11 PM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 06, 2023, 01:40:50 PM
Whether WotC decides to go ahead with their attempts to 'de-authorize' the OGL 1.0a or not, I strongly suspect that everyone relying on it is going to start looking at alternatives very soon now.
I know the OGL 1.0 cannot 'legally' be changed by Hasbro/WotC. But that does not mean they cannot try, and in the process cause a lot of agita for those who have relied upon it in the past. I think that for most OSR projects there is no need to use the OGL. Game rules cannot be protected, only the actual words and images (copyright), trademarks and tradenames, and occasionally patents for really unique processes and game items.
If you avoid using the word for word descriptions as allowed under the OGL 1.0 but which may identify the work as covered by the OGL, images, trademarks and tradenames associated with anything from WotC, and possible process 'tech' like the use of the d20 (although I think that is really stretching it) and the 'Character Creation' process which WotC claim as proprietary, I really don't think there is any reason to use the OGL unless you just like the idea of notifying them that you are a target to be bullied and harassed.
I think in the future I am going to remove the OGL, convert 1d20 rolls to 2d10s, make sure not to use the Character Creation process as claimed by WotC as proprietary, and go through with a fine tooth comb and remove any references that may be identical or similar to the OGL 1.*/SRD 3.*.
In fact, perhaps we should join together and try to come up with a bullet proof OSR set of rules that provides the feel of, but is completely removed from the OGL 1.0? I think Microlite may be an ideal place to start that process... remove what little there is of the SRD 3.5, rename it, and give credit to the author of Microlite20 and varieties, but that is it. (As I think about it, giving credit to sources of 'inspiration' is a dangerous bit of courtesy that may come back to bite you -- if you are not violating IP law and you are not including the OGL in your document making such polite comments may just open you up for abuse and harassment.)
Yes, but Microlite IS derived from the SRD and IIRC it does include the OGL.
Furthermore neither TSR nor WotC invented the polyhedral dice or their use in games:
https://bombardgames.com/the-history-of-polyhedral-dice-in-board-games/ (https://bombardgames.com/the-history-of-polyhedral-dice-in-board-games/)
The math can't be protected either, so as long as you don't copy THEIR expression of the rules you're golden.
IMHO we need a CC By or maybe CC By SA SRD, WITHOUT ANY of WotC's IP. Which means all the mythological creatures are okay as long as we write unique descriptions.
You'll find that you can't use their creations: Beholders, etc, but that's fine, if a GM WANTS to he can buy or find a free source to houserule them in his game.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 05:43:41 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 06, 2023, 02:23:11 PM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 06, 2023, 01:40:50 PM
Whether WotC decides to go ahead with their attempts to 'de-authorize' the OGL 1.0a or not, I strongly suspect that everyone relying on it is going to start looking at alternatives very soon now.
I know the OGL 1.0 cannot 'legally' be changed by Hasbro/WotC. But that does not mean they cannot try, and in the process cause a lot of agita for those who have relied upon it in the past. I think that for most OSR projects there is no need to use the OGL. Game rules cannot be protected, only the actual words and images (copyright), trademarks and tradenames, and occasionally patents for really unique processes and game items.
If you avoid using the word for word descriptions as allowed under the OGL 1.0 but which may identify the work as covered by the OGL, images, trademarks and tradenames associated with anything from WotC, and possible process 'tech' like the use of the d20 (although I think that is really stretching it) and the 'Character Creation' process which WotC claim as proprietary, I really don't think there is any reason to use the OGL unless you just like the idea of notifying them that you are a target to be bullied and harassed.
I think in the future I am going to remove the OGL, convert 1d20 rolls to 2d10s, make sure not to use the Character Creation process as claimed by WotC as proprietary, and go through with a fine tooth comb and remove any references that may be identical or similar to the OGL 1.*/SRD 3.*.
In fact, perhaps we should join together and try to come up with a bullet proof OSR set of rules that provides the feel of, but is completely removed from the OGL 1.0? I think Microlite may be an ideal place to start that process... remove what little there is of the SRD 3.5, rename it, and give credit to the author of Microlite20 and varieties, but that is it. (As I think about it, giving credit to sources of 'inspiration' is a dangerous bit of courtesy that may come back to bite you -- if you are not violating IP law and you are not including the OGL in your document making such polite comments may just open you up for abuse and harassment.)
Yes, but Microlite IS derived from the SRD and IIRC it does include the OGL.
Furthermore neither TSR nor WotC invented the polyhedral dice or their use in games:
https://bombardgames.com/the-history-of-polyhedral-dice-in-board-games/ (https://bombardgames.com/the-history-of-polyhedral-dice-in-board-games/)
The math can't be protected either, so as long as you don't copy THEIR expression of the rules you're golden.
IMHO we need a CC By or maybe CC By SA SRD, WITHOUT ANY of WotC's IP. Which means all the mythological creatures are okay as long as we write unique descriptions.
You'll find that you can't use their creations: Beholders, etc, but that's fine, if a GM WANTS to he can buy or find a free source to houserule them in his game.
You'll also need to rewrite all the spells' fluff text from scratch (and not using quite the same names unless the effect is self-evident; i.e. fireball is fine, you might wanna change "magic missile" to "force darts" or something) , along with the fluff for all the classes (along with slightly different tables or switching to a formula for level-based elements) and races (and probably without the halfling) and feats if you're wanting to duplicate 3e/5e. Renaming some of the core attributes/terms (ex. Palladium uses Armor Rating instead of Armor Class) isn't a bad idea either.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 06:40:59 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 05:43:41 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 06, 2023, 02:23:11 PM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 06, 2023, 01:40:50 PM
Whether WotC decides to go ahead with their attempts to 'de-authorize' the OGL 1.0a or not, I strongly suspect that everyone relying on it is going to start looking at alternatives very soon now.
I know the OGL 1.0 cannot 'legally' be changed by Hasbro/WotC. But that does not mean they cannot try, and in the process cause a lot of agita for those who have relied upon it in the past. I think that for most OSR projects there is no need to use the OGL. Game rules cannot be protected, only the actual words and images (copyright), trademarks and tradenames, and occasionally patents for really unique processes and game items.
If you avoid using the word for word descriptions as allowed under the OGL 1.0 but which may identify the work as covered by the OGL, images, trademarks and tradenames associated with anything from WotC, and possible process 'tech' like the use of the d20 (although I think that is really stretching it) and the 'Character Creation' process which WotC claim as proprietary, I really don't think there is any reason to use the OGL unless you just like the idea of notifying them that you are a target to be bullied and harassed.
I think in the future I am going to remove the OGL, convert 1d20 rolls to 2d10s, make sure not to use the Character Creation process as claimed by WotC as proprietary, and go through with a fine tooth comb and remove any references that may be identical or similar to the OGL 1.*/SRD 3.*.
In fact, perhaps we should join together and try to come up with a bullet proof OSR set of rules that provides the feel of, but is completely removed from the OGL 1.0? I think Microlite may be an ideal place to start that process... remove what little there is of the SRD 3.5, rename it, and give credit to the author of Microlite20 and varieties, but that is it. (As I think about it, giving credit to sources of 'inspiration' is a dangerous bit of courtesy that may come back to bite you -- if you are not violating IP law and you are not including the OGL in your document making such polite comments may just open you up for abuse and harassment.)
Yes, but Microlite IS derived from the SRD and IIRC it does include the OGL.
Furthermore neither TSR nor WotC invented the polyhedral dice or their use in games:
https://bombardgames.com/the-history-of-polyhedral-dice-in-board-games/ (https://bombardgames.com/the-history-of-polyhedral-dice-in-board-games/)
The math can't be protected either, so as long as you don't copy THEIR expression of the rules you're golden.
IMHO we need a CC By or maybe CC By SA SRD, WITHOUT ANY of WotC's IP. Which means all the mythological creatures are okay as long as we write unique descriptions.
You'll find that you can't use their creations: Beholders, etc, but that's fine, if a GM WANTS to he can buy or find a free source to houserule them in his game.
You'll also need to rewrite all the spells' fluff text from scratch (and not using quite the same names unless the effect is self-evident; i.e. fireball is fine, you might wanna change "magic missile" to "force darts" or something) , along with the fluff for all the classes (along with slightly different tables or switching to a formula for level-based elements) and races (and probably without the halfling) and feats if you're wanting to duplicate 3e/5e. Renaming some of the core attributes/terms (ex. Palladium uses Armor Rating instead of Armor Class) isn't a bad idea either.
Which makes it a VERY big task, something one person might not be able to do alone in a short period of time. But I'm willing to cooperate/contribute to such an effort.
IIRC Dark Dungeons was put on the public domain by it's author.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 05:43:41 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 06, 2023, 02:23:11 PM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 06, 2023, 01:40:50 PM
Whether WotC decides to go ahead with their attempts to 'de-authorize' the OGL 1.0a or not, I strongly suspect that everyone relying on it is going to start looking at alternatives very soon now.
I know the OGL 1.0 cannot 'legally' be changed by Hasbro/WotC. But that does not mean they cannot try, and in the process cause a lot of agita for those who have relied upon it in the past. I think that for most OSR projects there is no need to use the OGL. Game rules cannot be protected, only the actual words and images (copyright), trademarks and tradenames, and occasionally patents for really unique processes and game items.
If you avoid using the word for word descriptions as allowed under the OGL 1.0 but which may identify the work as covered by the OGL, images, trademarks and tradenames associated with anything from WotC, and possible process 'tech' like the use of the d20 (although I think that is really stretching it) and the 'Character Creation' process which WotC claim as proprietary, I really don't think there is any reason to use the OGL unless you just like the idea of notifying them that you are a target to be bullied and harassed.
I think in the future I am going to remove the OGL, convert 1d20 rolls to 2d10s, make sure not to use the Character Creation process as claimed by WotC as proprietary, and go through with a fine tooth comb and remove any references that may be identical or similar to the OGL 1.*/SRD 3.*.
In fact, perhaps we should join together and try to come up with a bullet proof OSR set of rules that provides the feel of, but is completely removed from the OGL 1.0? I think Microlite may be an ideal place to start that process... remove what little there is of the SRD 3.5, rename it, and give credit to the author of Microlite20 and varieties, but that is it. (As I think about it, giving credit to sources of 'inspiration' is a dangerous bit of courtesy that may come back to bite you -- if you are not violating IP law and you are not including the OGL in your document making such polite comments may just open you up for abuse and harassment.)
Yes, but Microlite IS derived from the SRD and IIRC it does include the OGL.
Furthermore neither TSR nor WotC invented the polyhedral dice or their use in games:
https://bombardgames.com/the-history-of-polyhedral-dice-in-board-games/ (https://bombardgames.com/the-history-of-polyhedral-dice-in-board-games/)
The math can't be protected either, so as long as you don't copy THEIR expression of the rules you're golden.
IMHO we need a CC By or maybe CC By SA SRD, WITHOUT ANY of WotC's IP. Which means all the mythological creatures are okay as long as we write unique descriptions.
You'll find that you can't use their creations: Beholders, etc, but that's fine, if a GM WANTS to he can buy or find a free source to houserule them in his game.
Those were exactly my thoughts. How to create a real open source system, like Microlite20, but without the OGL. I agree that the CC is the way to go.
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 06, 2023, 02:19:20 PM
Here is an interesting post on the subject at ITCHIO:
Although the post comes with the caveat, "I'm not a lawyer..." I believe his explanation is quite accurate. There is also a very interesting comment by 'Cone of Negative Energy' that points out the negative aspect of using the OGL... you are contractually agreeing to abide by terms that would otherwise not be covered under various aspects of intellectual property (IP) law.
https://itch.io/t/420581/publishing-with-the-ogl-and-you
I also am not a lawyer, but I do not believe that the linked summary is accurate. It claims,
QuoteHowever, when you make stuff for use with D&D, you have to follow the OGL or the Open Game License. This is a document that comes with a lot of D&D products these days that specifies exactly what is "Open Content" and what you're allowed to do with it.
However, prior to the OGL, there were companies that published supplements for use with D&D - like modules by Mayfair and others without a prior agreement. This is in keeping with general trademark law, that one can make devices or add-ons that work with another company's as long as the trademark is clear that it is third party. This has been tested by makers of games compatible with another company's gaming console, for example.
It's also true that several companies that published games substantially similar to D&D, like "The Complete Warlock". The full extent of how copyright applies to game mechanics isn't tested, but the OGL isn't necessary for such works.
imagine a world where wotc logic on the ogl is valid and applies to software...
Quote from: Slipshot762 on January 07, 2023, 07:30:16 AM
imagine a world where wotc logic on the ogl is valid and applies to software...
It's why the Electronic Frontier Fundation MIGHT be interestedon helping fight them if needed.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 06:45:25 PM
Which makes it a VERY big task, something one person might not be able to do alone in a short period of time. But I'm willing to cooperate/contribute to such an effort.
IIRC Dark Dungeons was put on the public domain by it's author.
I was thinking the same thing. I cannot do this alone (with thoughts of Frodo...). Worse yet I was thinking about something that might really be a proprietary protected intellectual property: the Hit Dice Formula. I can do without the Character Creation system; I didn't like their system anyway and never used it. I can do without the d20; 2d10s not only are reasonable replacements but create a statistical curve which some may like. But the Hit Dice Formula is something I don't even know where to begin replacing.
Quote from: jhkim on January 07, 2023, 01:11:32 AM
However, prior to the OGL, there were companies that published supplements for use with D&D - like modules by Mayfair and others without a prior agreement. This is in keeping with general trademark law, that one can make devices or add-ons that work with another company's as long as the trademark is clear that it is third party. This has been tested by makers of games compatible with another company's gaming console, for example.
It's also true that several companies that published games substantially similar to D&D, like "The Complete Warlock". The full extent of how copyright applies to game mechanics isn't tested, but the OGL isn't necessary for such works.
Did any of those cases go to court? Or did TSR's big pockets just force them to back down and change their ways?
With all the kerfuffle going on about the new WotC OGL 1.1 and the possibility that the old OGL 1.0a will be revoked, rescinded, unauthorized, whatever by WotC, I have been thinking about how to proceed in the future without the OGL 1.0a or anything whatsoever from WotC.
I do not make game modules, adventure settings, or anything else intended to be used with any WotC products. My games are all free standing and already 'mostly' non-derivative of anything associated with the OGL 1.*, the SRDs, or anything from WotC... except for the monsters. In all my role playing games (RPGs) I use the Hit Dice Formula from the SRD 3.5. (cont.)
https://www.bozbat.com/2023/01/07/the-hit-dice-formula/
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 11:41:42 AM
I was thinking the same thing. I cannot do this alone (with thoughts of Frodo...). Worse yet I was thinking about something that might really be a proprietary protected intellectual property: the Hit Dice Formula. I can do without the Character Creation system; I didn't like their system anyway and never used it. I can do without the d20; 2d10s not only are reasonable replacements but create a statistical curve which some may like. But the Hit Dice Formula is something I don't even know where to begin replacing.
In addition to that, which I agree are frequently changed anyway, the OGL allows you to copy/paste a ton of spells and creatures without rewriting them all. If someone did that and put them out as Public Domain they'd be applauded and everyone could ignore the OGL and without the OGL could claim compatibility with D&D (which the OGL forbids). Perhaps Paizo could remove the OGL from their creature books and spell books and become worthwhile after all.
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 11:44:19 AM
With all the kerfuffle going on about the new WotC OGL 1.1 and the possibility that the old OGL 1.0a will be revoked, rescinded, unauthorized, whatever by WotC, I have been thinking about how to proceed in the future without the OGL 1.0a or anything whatsoever from WotC.
I do not make game modules, adventure settings, or anything else intended to be used with any WotC products. My games are all free standing and already 'mostly' non-derivative of anything associated with the OGL 1.*, the SRDs, or anything from WotC... except for the monsters. In all my role playing games (RPGs) I use the Hit Dice Formula from the SRD 3.5. (cont.)
https://www.bozbat.com/2023/01/07/the-hit-dice-formula/
Nope, the formula can't be protected, it's math, what can be protected is the expression, meaning the words used to describe how it works.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 07, 2023, 12:32:36 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 11:44:19 AM
With all the kerfuffle going on about the new WotC OGL 1.1 and the possibility that the old OGL 1.0a will be revoked, rescinded, unauthorized, whatever by WotC, I have been thinking about how to proceed in the future without the OGL 1.0a or anything whatsoever from WotC.
I do not make game modules, adventure settings, or anything else intended to be used with any WotC products. My games are all free standing and already 'mostly' non-derivative of anything associated with the OGL 1.*, the SRDs, or anything from WotC... except for the monsters. In all my role playing games (RPGs) I use the Hit Dice Formula from the SRD 3.5. (cont.)
https://www.bozbat.com/2023/01/07/the-hit-dice-formula/
Nope, the formula can't be protected, it's math, what can be protected is the expression, meaning the words used to describe how it works.
I am not as confident as you are. Just because something is math does not mean it cannot be a 'unique process' that leads to protected intellectual property status. On the other hand, it may be so old and so widely spread that it is no longer possible of being protected. That is it has become part of the public domain. That said, unless I see some very solid evidence of that, I don't want to be the person who gets to go to court to prove it.
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 02:27:51 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 07, 2023, 12:32:36 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 11:44:19 AM
With all the kerfuffle going on about the new WotC OGL 1.1 and the possibility that the old OGL 1.0a will be revoked, rescinded, unauthorized, whatever by WotC, I have been thinking about how to proceed in the future without the OGL 1.0a or anything whatsoever from WotC.
I do not make game modules, adventure settings, or anything else intended to be used with any WotC products. My games are all free standing and already 'mostly' non-derivative of anything associated with the OGL 1.*, the SRDs, or anything from WotC... except for the monsters. In all my role playing games (RPGs) I use the Hit Dice Formula from the SRD 3.5. (cont.)
https://www.bozbat.com/2023/01/07/the-hit-dice-formula/
Nope, the formula can't be protected, it's math, what can be protected is the expression, meaning the words used to describe how it works.
I am not as confident as you are. Just because something is math does not mean it cannot be a 'unique process' that leads to protected intellectual property status. On the other hand, it may be so old and so widely spread that it is no longer possible of being protected. That is it has become part of the public domain. That said, unless I see some very solid evidence of that, I don't want to be the person who gets to go to court to prove it.
Well, as an example of how they really can't protect the math process; if they could Palladium would have sued the hell out of WotC as they had resolution of "roll 1d20+modifier vs. Armor Rating" as their core combat mechanic all the way back in Mechanoid Invasion c. 1981. WotC didn't even EXIST until a decade later and didn't devise the "d20 System" until nearly two decades after Kevin had used the process (which was distinct from the THAC0/hit matrix process that TSR used).
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 04:13:31 PM
I am not as confident as you are. Just because something is math does not mean it cannot be a 'unique process' that leads to protected intellectual property status. On the other hand, it may be so old and so widely spread that it is no longer possible of being protected. That is it has become part of the public domain. That said, unless I see some very solid evidence of that, I don't want to be the person who gets to go to court to prove it.
Well, as an example of how they really can't protect the math process; if they could Palladium would have sued the hell out of WotC as they had resolution of "roll 1d20+modifier vs. Armor Rating" as their core combat mechanic all the way back in Mechanoid Invasion c. 1981. WotC didn't even EXIST until a decade later and didn't devise the "d20 System" until nearly two decades after Kevin had used the process (which was distinct from the THAC0/hit matrix process that TSR used).
[/quote]
I was actually referring to the Hit Die Formula, not the d20 roll process. I think the d20 roll process is the weakest of arguments.
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 04:19:36 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 04:13:31 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 04:19:36 PM
I am not as confident as you are. Just because something is math does not mean it cannot be a 'unique process' that leads to protected intellectual property status. On the other hand, it may be so old and so widely spread that it is no longer possible of being protected. That is it has become part of the public domain. That said, unless I see some very solid evidence of that, I don't want to be the person who gets to go to court to prove it.
Well, as an example of how they really can't protect the math process; if they could Palladium would have sued the hell out of WotC as they had resolution of "roll 1d20+modifier vs. Armor Rating" as their core combat mechanic all the way back in Mechanoid Invasion c. 1981. WotC didn't even EXIST until a decade later and didn't devise the "d20 System" until nearly two decades after Kevin had used the process (which was distinct from the THAC0/hit matrix process that TSR used).
I was actually referring to the Hit Die Formula, not the d20 roll process. I think the d20 roll process is the weakest of arguments.
Hit Die formula is what? You get 1dX per level hit points? That's also old as dirt. Its standardized with Palladium Fantasy at 1d6 per level, but later books had different amounts for different things.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 04:46:31 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 04:19:36 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 04:13:31 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 04:19:36 PM
I am not as confident as you are. Just because something is math does not mean it cannot be a 'unique process' that leads to protected intellectual property status. On the other hand, it may be so old and so widely spread that it is no longer possible of being protected. That is it has become part of the public domain. That said, unless I see some very solid evidence of that, I don't want to be the person who gets to go to court to prove it.
Well, as an example of how they really can't protect the math process; if they could Palladium would have sued the hell out of WotC as they had resolution of "roll 1d20+modifier vs. Armor Rating" as their core combat mechanic all the way back in Mechanoid Invasion c. 1981. WotC didn't even EXIST until a decade later and didn't devise the "d20 System" until nearly two decades after Kevin had used the process (which was distinct from the THAC0/hit matrix process that TSR used).
I was actually referring to the Hit Die Formula, not the d20 roll process. I think the d20 roll process is the weakest of arguments.
Hit Die formula is what? You get 1dX per level hit points? That's also old as dirt. Its standardized with Palladium Fantasy at 1d6 per level, but later books had different amounts for different things.
I am asking a question. Of everything in D&D the Hit Dice Formula seems the most 'proprietary'; at least to me. It is old, and it has been reproduced elsewhere... which suggests it may be part of the public domain. I would be very happy to have that confirmed.
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 05:03:13 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 04:46:31 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 04:19:36 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 04:13:31 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 04:19:36 PM
I am not as confident as you are. Just because something is math does not mean it cannot be a 'unique process' that leads to protected intellectual property status. On the other hand, it may be so old and so widely spread that it is no longer possible of being protected. That is it has become part of the public domain. That said, unless I see some very solid evidence of that, I don't want to be the person who gets to go to court to prove it.
Well, as an example of how they really can't protect the math process; if they could Palladium would have sued the hell out of WotC as they had resolution of "roll 1d20+modifier vs. Armor Rating" as their core combat mechanic all the way back in Mechanoid Invasion c. 1981. WotC didn't even EXIST until a decade later and didn't devise the "d20 System" until nearly two decades after Kevin had used the process (which was distinct from the THAC0/hit matrix process that TSR used).
I was actually referring to the Hit Die Formula, not the d20 roll process. I think the d20 roll process is the weakest of arguments.
Hit Die formula is what? You get 1dX per level hit points? That's also old as dirt. Its standardized with Palladium Fantasy at 1d6 per level, but later books had different amounts for different things.
I am asking a question. Of everything in D&D the Hit Dice Formula seems the most 'proprietary'; at least to me. It is old, and it has been reproduced elsewhere... which suggests it may be part of the public domain. I would be very happy to have that confirmed.
The Hit Die is AT LEAST as old as TSR if not older since we KNOW Gary Gygax & Dave Arneson were playing wargames and took lots of their mechanics from those games.
But that's not important, because processes can't be copyrighted only patented anfd the patent lasts 20 years. AFAIK the patent for tapping a card of MtG IIRC has already expired.
I think we all have to broaden our minds here a bit and consider non-D&D video games that use classes, leveling up, hit points and other terms that might have originated with D&D (likely not) but that have become common usage. It is probably too late for WotC to claim that sort of thing as you are expected to defend your copyrights and such.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 11:40:28 AM
I think we all have to broaden our minds here a bit and consider non-D&D video games that use classes, leveling up, hit points and other terms that might have originated with D&D (likely not) but that have become common usage. It is probably too late for WotC to claim that sort of thing as you are expected to defend your copyrights and such.
The term class is probably safe to use, not so sure about the leveling tables for the classes, since those are in the SRD and they can claim it was being used under the OGL and they have changed the terms.
You might be safe using just the math to explain the leveling up and describing everything else that's not math based on your own words.
IMHO feats have to go, replace them with something else, same with skills/proficiencies, you need to replace those with something else.
Well I think this issue about what you 'can' and 'cannot' do regarding legal issues is somewhat pointless. We all may be legally correct, but what good will that do if WotC decides to come after you? I won't be able to afford to fight them. I will fold like a cheep lawn chair if I get a cease and desist letter or worse, a lawsuit.
So much depends upon what they want to do. I don't think anyone but them really knows. We will find out soon enough.
I don't plan on ever using the OGL again, and I regret using it in the past. If it turns out that WotC is NOT attempting to retroactively revoke the OGL, but only prevent it from being used in the future, I think they have been successful. I don't plan on ever relying upon it again regardless of what WotC says or doesn't say.
If they are going to try to retroactively revoke the OGL that so many of us have relied upon, I will probably pull everything I have produced, and rework it all so that it no longer needs to OGL to work. Using the fair use doctrine, the issue of non-copyrightable content, and public domain should be more than enough to allow us to produce games that are compatible with past D&D products. Or I can just abandon anything from them and use wholly different material and mechanics.
Fuck them. I don't need anything from WotC.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 11:40:28 AM
I think we all have to broaden our minds here a bit and consider non-D&D video games that use classes, leveling up, hit points and other terms that might have originated with D&D (likely not) but that have become common usage. It is probably too late for WotC to claim that sort of thing as you are expected to defend your copyrights and such.
This is one of the main reasons I felt safe keeping "Fighter" as a class name in my system... given the breadth of the concept the class covers (everything from an common street brawler to outlaw cutthroat to barbarian berserker to temple guard to military officer to noble knight) there were just very few other terms I could think of that actually covered everything the class needed to.*
The main things I'd be most worried about are some of the very specific expressions of D&Dness in certain monsters. My system/setting uses terrain-based dragons (arctic, aquatic, desert, forest, marsh, volcanic, etc.) rather than chromatic/metallic because the latter are very tied to D&D. They are also described in lore as one of many types of primal spirits (called Eldritch in setting), exiled to the mortal world for their past actions (in the vein of medieval faeries as not good enough for Heaven nor wicked enough for Hell).
Similarly, I started from scratch when it came to demons; opting for a mix from various Middle Eastern myths/legends; Ifrit, Jinn, Shedim, Kul'ul, Gallu, Dybbuk, Ghul, etc.; and classic demon lords such as Moloch, Lilith, Pazuzu and Tiamat (not a 5-headed dragon but a vast tentacled sea-serpent... like an unholy cross between a giant squid, eel and shark). Throw in very different rules for how they manifest (if not summoned temporarily by a spell they only manifest in the mortal world through possessed hosts; humanoid or beast) and they are quite distinct from anything WotC might claim as product identity.
Likewise, no halflings (yeah, I know, Tolkein did it first, but his stuff is still under copyright too. If you want a halfling, pick a human from the extreme low end of the height/weight range and that they're one of the pygmy peoples and you're good), very different elves and dwarves (there are options so they can function closer to the broader fantasy stereotypes, but the default is nothing like WotC's versions) and a focus on other species entirely as central to the setting lore.
The idea is that, while mechanics aren't copyrightable, there's a lot more implied lore that WotC could make an argument is theirs than a lot of people think about and, if all you're assembling is just an off-brand D&D they may hit you with a C&D over similarity of expression (i.e. your setting uses our version of dragons or alignment-based planes) rather than similarity of mechanics.
The more distinct from WotC's lore that your own lore attached to your mechanics is in a non-OGL product, the harder it will be for WotC to claim infringement.
Classes are widely used outside of WotC products... they'd basically have to sue both EA and Activision and a host of other huge fish to try and claim that. The same with leveling... just make sure your level up structure is different than theirs (mine uses 15 levels and grants differently than anything WotC has done).
Feats as a specific term? Yeah, change that term, but the concept of "discrete benefit selected from a list of options on level-up" is not something copyrightable. I have Boons (non-combat) and Talents (combat) gained on alternating levels with availability based on your choice of Background (boons) and Class (talents). This makes them mechanically distinct from WotC's feats in addition to just being called something different.
Even my classes are different from WotC's concept in that what WotC calls a class would be the combination of a Background (all the non-combat options including skill selection), a Class (what 4E D&D would call a "power source") and a Path (the specific combat role you fill... ex. The D&D fighter, ranger and rogue would all fall under the "fighter" class of my system, but the selection of defender, striker or brigand path would determine the specifics of how they fight... and the background of military, barbarian or outlaw would decide their skills and other non-combat abilities).
Now, the final result at the table can be something very similar to one of the D&D classes. If you picked a Barbarian (background) Fighter (class) Striker (path) with the swift style (class option) and wary focus (another class option) you'd end up with a PC that feels very much like a D&D Ranger. But the method and expressions to reach it are very different from how it is done in any version of D&D and therefore something quite hard to argue is infringing on their IP.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 12:38:49 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 11:40:28 AM
I think we all have to broaden our minds here a bit and consider non-D&D video games that use classes, leveling up, hit points and other terms that might have originated with D&D (likely not) but that have become common usage. It is probably too late for WotC to claim that sort of thing as you are expected to defend your copyrights and such.
The term class is probably safe to use, not so sure about the leveling tables for the classes, since those are in the SRD and they can claim it was being used under the OGL and they have changed the terms.
You might be safe using just the math to explain the leveling up and describing everything else that's not math based on your own words.
IMHO feats have to go, replace them with something else, same with skills/proficiencies, you need to replace those with something else.
Feats are debatable, but skills are not. Skills exist in tons of TTRPGs. Tons. I mentioned Warhammer to you in the other thread. Warhammer uses skills, and so does Runequest. And as for ability scores, look at Runequest (an old non-OGL game). Runequest has Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Constitution, and Charisma (using 3d6). Worlds Without Number (a non-OGL game) has all six ability scores.
The point is that people need to assume that Hasbro will now sue you, no matter what you do, what language you use, or what game mechanics your game uses. They have now devolved into full evil mode. The mask is gone. If they want to use weaponized lawfare to bankrupt you, they will. If they want to deplatform you, they'll do that too. They know you can't copyright game mechanics for TTRPGs, and
they do not care.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 08, 2023, 07:50:18 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 12:38:49 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 11:40:28 AM
I think we all have to broaden our minds here a bit and consider non-D&D video games that use classes, leveling up, hit points and other terms that might have originated with D&D (likely not) but that have become common usage. It is probably too late for WotC to claim that sort of thing as you are expected to defend your copyrights and such.
The term class is probably safe to use, not so sure about the leveling tables for the classes, since those are in the SRD and they can claim it was being used under the OGL and they have changed the terms.
You might be safe using just the math to explain the leveling up and describing everything else that's not math based on your own words.
IMHO feats have to go, replace them with something else, same with skills/proficiencies, you need to replace those with something else.
Feats are debatable, but skills are not. Skills exist in tons of TTRPGs. Tons. I mentioned Warhammer to you in the other thread. Warhammer uses skills, and so does Runequest. And as for ability scores, look at Runequest (an old non-OGL game). Runequest has Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Constitution, and Charisma (using 3d6). Worlds Without Number (a non-OGL game) has all six ability scores.
The point is that people need to assume that Hasbro will now sue you, no matter what you do, what language you use, or what game mechanics your game uses. They have now devolved into full evil mode. The mask is gone. If they want to use weaponized lawfare to bankrupt you, they will. If they want to deplatform you, they'll do that too. They know you can't copyright game mechanics for TTRPGs, and they do not care.
Objection!
They have not "devolved into full evil mode" they ALWAYS were!
As for the rest I guess we'll have to wait and see what they do, because they would need to go after EVERYONE or their case is lost, in the meantime I'll be developing a CC By SA setting agnostic system/engine.
They already sued on the use of Strenght and lost, I doubt they'll try the same shit, but hey, greed makes people dumb.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 07:57:05 PM
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 08, 2023, 07:50:18 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 12:38:49 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 11:40:28 AM
I think we all have to broaden our minds here a bit and consider non-D&D video games that use classes, leveling up, hit points and other terms that might have originated with D&D (likely not) but that have become common usage. It is probably too late for WotC to claim that sort of thing as you are expected to defend your copyrights and such.
The term class is probably safe to use, not so sure about the leveling tables for the classes, since those are in the SRD and they can claim it was being used under the OGL and they have changed the terms.
You might be safe using just the math to explain the leveling up and describing everything else that's not math based on your own words.
IMHO feats have to go, replace them with something else, same with skills/proficiencies, you need to replace those with something else.
Feats are debatable, but skills are not. Skills exist in tons of TTRPGs. Tons. I mentioned Warhammer to you in the other thread. Warhammer uses skills, and so does Runequest. And as for ability scores, look at Runequest (an old non-OGL game). Runequest has Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Constitution, and Charisma (using 3d6). Worlds Without Number (a non-OGL game) has all six ability scores.
The point is that people need to assume that Hasbro will now sue you, no matter what you do, what language you use, or what game mechanics your game uses. They have now devolved into full evil mode. The mask is gone. If they want to use weaponized lawfare to bankrupt you, they will. If they want to deplatform you, they'll do that too. They know you can't copyright game mechanics for TTRPGs, and they do not care.
Objection!
They have not "devolved into full evil mode" they ALWAYS were!
As for the rest I guess we'll have to wait and see what they do, because they would need to go after EVERYONE or their case is lost, in the meantime I'll be developing a CC By SA setting agnostic system/engine.
They already sued on the use of Strenght and lost, I doubt they'll try the same shit, but hey, greed makes people dumb.
(https://www.nerdfitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/dr-evil-laugh.gif)