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With all the kerfuffle going on about the new WotC OGL 1.1 and the possibility that the old OGL 1.0a will be revoked, rescinded, unauthorized, whatever by WotC, I have been thinking about how to proceed in the future without the OGL 1.0a or anything whatsoever from WotC.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.