Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 04:30:57 PM
As far as fluff goes I believe it should be minimal as possible to make clear which term is being replaced by what.

Kevin Crawford, like everyone else is free to test the boundaries and pay their own legal fees.

I recognize that many terms have entered common usage and if WotC went after them, the video game companies would probably chip in for the lawyers.  Even so, I think a full break is best because it prevents potential overlaps and oversights.

Of course everyone wants their own class names and so forth and that's fine, good even, but that's just one more reason to keep the public domain core generic.  It's not existing to create a new retroclone or a new license or a new game.  Hell I've done those things myself.  It's to lay a common ground that will be useful to everyone who wants to create material that is compatible with the other game and each other without getting their ass sued.

Honestly, I'd argue the opposite; the more distinct your fluff is from WotC's the less likely they are to go after it. There's settled case law that you can duplicate mechanics, but what the court really decided upon in many of those was that what we call "fluff text" was not derivative of the copyright holder's material. Thus you can outright copy the mechanics of a game with the Sheriff, Deputies, Bandits and the Renegade (western fluff) and use it for a game where those same things are called The Emperor, Samurai, Ronin and the Warlord (Samurai fluff) with abandon.

If they'd duplicated it entirely or maybe just changed the Sheriff to the Marshal and Bandits to Outlaws while retaining the Western theme it wouldn't have gone nearly so well for the copycats because that would have sufficiently derivative of the original's copywrite for a western themed card game.

By contrast if the second card game were western themed but used very different mechanics, say it also included dice and poker chips and had only Lawmen and Bandits then it would also sail clear because "Western Themed Card Game" on its own that is too generic a concept to copyright.

Its the combo of similar mechanics + similar concept that's going to get you into hot water.

Basically, my advice is that the closer you want your mechanics to be to D&D, the more you should include distinctly different fluff text (and renaming of terms) in order to avoid it appearing sufficiently derivative.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 02:56:28 PM
ANYTHYNG and EVERYTHING in their SRD except the names of mythological creatures.

At the risk of massive "I Am Not a Lawyer" smackdowns, most of this stuff should be pretty easy to dodge or just outright give WotC the middle finger over.

Rules can't be copyrighted, only specific language used to express them, and even then only to the extent that it's artistic verses functional - so you can't end-run around "you can't copyright rules" by claiming that you can copyright all possible ways you could write those rules.

And like... 75% of the common D&D monsters and races have long, long since fallen into common use. If WotC tried to go after everyone who had "dark elves" or "giant floating eyeball monsters" or "big cubes of man-eating jello", they would have a long list of products and companies to go after, many of which belong to companies that have just as big of pocket books attached to them as WotC. So long as you don't use words like "drow" or "beholder", you should be pretty safe.

Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion becomes Bobert's Bountiful Bungalow.

Hell, TSR set the precedent here with "Halflings".

As far as I understand it, this really only becomes an issue if you want to claim your game actually is or is affiliated with D&D by name. As long as it's just "compatible with popular fantasy games"...

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 08, 2023, 04:53:44 PM

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 04:30:57 PM
As far as fluff goes I believe it should be minimal as possible to make clear which term is being replaced by what.

Kevin Crawford, like everyone else is free to test the boundaries and pay their own legal fees.

I recognize that many terms have entered common usage and if WotC went after them, the video game companies would probably chip in for the lawyers.  Even so, I think a full break is best because it prevents potential overlaps and oversights.

Of course everyone wants their own class names and so forth and that's fine, good even, but that's just one more reason to keep the public domain core generic.  It's not existing to create a new retroclone or a new license or a new game.  Hell I've done those things myself.  It's to lay a common ground that will be useful to everyone who wants to create material that is compatible with the other game and each other without getting their ass sued.

Honestly, I'd argue the opposite; the more distinct your fluff is from WotC's the less likely they are to go after it. There's settled case law that you can duplicate mechanics, but what the court really decided upon in many of those was that what we call "fluff text" was not derivative of the copyright holder's material. Thus you can outright copy the mechanics of a game with the Sheriff, Deputies, Bandits and the Renegade (western fluff) and use it for a game where those same things are called The Emperor, Samurai, Ronin and the Warlord (Samurai fluff) with abandon.

If they'd duplicated it entirely or maybe just changed the Sheriff to the Marshal and Bandits to Outlaws while retaining the Western theme it wouldn't have gone nearly so well for the copycats because that would have sufficiently derivative of the original's copywrite for a western themed card game.

By contrast if the second card game were western themed but used very different mechanics, say it also included dice and poker chips and had only Lawmen and Bandits then it would also sail clear because "Western Themed Card Game" on its own that is too generic a concept to copyright.

Its the combo of similar mechanics + similar concept that's going to get you into hot water.

Basically, my advice is that the closer you want your mechanics to be to D&D, the more you should include distinctly different fluff text (and renaming of terms) in order to avoid it appearing sufficiently derivative.

Both of you are correct, let me explain:

David is talking about his proposed public domain SYSTEM, he already said it should be about 12 pages and that the fluff should be kept to a minimmum/zero.

You are talking about a game using the system (whatever the system might be), therefore you are correct that the fluff is what will differentiate your game from D&D provided you are using the same mechanics.

I honestly think that a public domain system is a net ṕossitive for the hobby, as it will be with CC By SA fluff (bestiary, spells, etc.)

So anyone can take the system, built on top of it with their own or some CC By SA fluff or a combination of both a complete game that would be legal to sell and impossible for anyone to take the author to court.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 08, 2023, 04:59:03 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 02:56:28 PM
ANYTHYNG and EVERYTHING in their SRD except the names of mythological creatures.

At the risk of massive "I Am Not a Lawyer" smackdowns, most of this stuff should be pretty easy to dodge or just outright give WotC the middle finger over.

Rules can't be copyrighted, only specific language used to express them, and even then only to the extent that it's artistic verses functional - so you can't end-run around "you can't copyright rules" by claiming that you can copyright all possible ways you could write those rules.

And like... 75% of the common D&D monsters and races have long, long since fallen into common use. If WotC tried to go after everyone who had "dark elves" or "giant floating eyeball monsters" or "big cubes of man-eating jello", they would have a long list of products and companies to go after, many of which belong to companies that have just as big of pocket books attached to them as WotC. So long as you don't use words like "drow" or "beholder", you should be pretty safe.

Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion becomes Bobert's Bountiful Bungalow.

Hell, TSR set the precedent here with "Halflings".

As far as I understand it, this really only becomes an issue if you want to claim your game actually is or is affiliated with D&D by name. As long as it's just "compatible with popular fantasy games"...

Yes and No:

Take Dragons, those are public domain, the fluff of the chromatic dragons isn't, so you need to work around the fluff which is easier if you're not trying to replicate their shit.

Even more so with stuff with the Beholder, since it was created from scrtch by them you need to makle it functionally different enough that it's not the exact same monster with a different name, for instance change the ammount and placement of appendages, the powers, etc.

In such a way that it is a floating eye monster but NOT their floating eye monster.

Unless you fell like you NEED to claim compatibility with "popular fantasy games" and think the only way to accomplish that is to have the same monsters...

Pro tip: It isn't, take Arrows of Indra AND Lion and Dragon, both ARE compatible with one another and share no monsters or magic, tghey are also compatible with other OSR games that DO have those "popular fantasy games monsters" in them.

So, the safest/easist road is to divest yourself from ALL of the WotC owned IP.

Thanks for that Geeky Bugle.

So on races, I'm pretty sure we can go with

Alfar +1 Knowledge and Dexterity, Night Vision

Dwarrows +2 Constitution, Night Vision

Gnomes -2 Strength +1 Dexterity and Awareness, Night Vision, Size Injury Tolerance 1 - 6

quite safely.  I'd like to balance the races a bit better but am undecided on how to do it.

I haven't talked about attribute generation and I think the 'system' should be at least that functional.  I'm thinking fix one die by race, one die by type, and roll 1-6 for the other characteristics.  You'd have  since there's six chararacteristics you'd have 1 - 6 to place on each attribute for race and type.  I don't know, that might be too much my own thinking and not enough the 'elemental core' of the game.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 05:13:00 PM
Thanks for that Geeky Bugle.

So on races, I'm pretty sure we can go with

Alfar +1 Knowledge and Dexterity, Night Vision

Dwarrows +2 Constitution, Night Vision

Gnomes -2 Strength +1 Dexterity and Awareness, Night Vision, Size Injury Tolerance 1 - 6

quite safely.  I'd like to balance the races a bit better but am undecided on how to do it.

I haven't talked about attribute generation and I think the 'system' should be at least that functional.  I'm thinking fix one die by race, one die by type, and roll 1-6 for the other characteristics.  You'd have  since there's six chararacteristics you'd have 1 - 6 to place on each attribute for race and type.  I don't know, that might be too much my own thinking and not enough the 'elemental core' of the game.

What are those? I mean what's their S&W equivalent?

Alfar are the light elves of Norse myth.  We could do Liosalfar as light elves and dark elves as Svartalfar. 

Dwarrow is old English for Dwarf.

Gnomes are little concrete guys in gardens.

For races I feel that using Elves and Dwarves is safe as long as your fluff is different enough.

For Halflings I am using Mitjan in a game I'm writting in Spanish because "Mediano" sounds like shit.

For example make Elves to look more alien, give them black eyes without a pupil, larger than humans and almond shaped, give them the classic pointy ears and make the fluff more Brother Grimms than Tolkien (except the all being evil part).

You could go with the real folklore about the fae, so you have the sellie (good) and unsellie (evil) courts, ALL of the non human races are Fae, different types of Fae. They live in Underhill but some/many roam the world and at least some of them like to eat people.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 05:23:34 PM
Alfar are the light elves of Norse myth.  We could do Liosalfar as light elves and dark elves as Svartalfar. 

Dwarrow is old English for Dwarf.

Gnomes are little concrete guys in gardens.

Got it, I like it.

Thought those were dwarves but wasn't sure.

ROTFLMAO.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 05:26:35 PM
For races I feel that using Elves and Dwarves is safe as long as your fluff is different enough.

For Halflings I am using Mitjan in a game I'm writting in Spanish because "Mediano" sounds like shit.

For example make Elves to look more alien, give them black eyes without a pupil, larger than humans and almond shaped, give them the classic pointy ears and make the fluff more Brother Grimms than Tolkien (except the all being evil part).

You could go with the real folklore about the fae, so you have the sellie (good) and unsellie (evil) courts, ALL of the non human races are Fae, different types of Fae. They live in Underhill but some/many roam the world and at least some of them like to eat people.

Which is setting specific fluff.

I'm thinking more like

Alfar: lithe and mysterious immortals
Dwarrows: short bearded miners
Gnomes: small pastoral garden decor

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 05:36:50 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 05:26:35 PM
For races I feel that using Elves and Dwarves is safe as long as your fluff is different enough.

For Halflings I am using Mitjan in a game I'm writting in Spanish because "Mediano" sounds like shit.

For example make Elves to look more alien, give them black eyes without a pupil, larger than humans and almond shaped, give them the classic pointy ears and make the fluff more Brother Grimms than Tolkien (except the all being evil part).

You could go with the real folklore about the fae, so you have the sellie (good) and unsellie (evil) courts, ALL of the non human races are Fae, different types of Fae. They live in Underhill but some/many roam the world and at least some of them like to eat people.

Which is setting specific fluff.

I'm thinking more like

Alfar: lithe and mysterious immortals
Dwarrows: short bearded miners
Gnomes: small pastoral garden decor

Right, so to keep it to a minimmum of fluff, got cha.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 05:38:35 PM

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 05:36:50 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 05:26:35 PM
For races I feel that using Elves and Dwarves is safe as long as your fluff is different enough.

For Halflings I am using Mitjan in a game I'm writting in Spanish because "Mediano" sounds like shit.

For example make Elves to look more alien, give them black eyes without a pupil, larger than humans and almond shaped, give them the classic pointy ears and make the fluff more Brother Grimms than Tolkien (except the all being evil part).

You could go with the real folklore about the fae, so you have the sellie (good) and unsellie (evil) courts, ALL of the non human races are Fae, different types of Fae. They live in Underhill but some/many roam the world and at least some of them like to eat people.

Which is setting specific fluff.

I'm thinking more like

Alfar: lithe and mysterious immortals
Dwarrows: short bearded miners
Gnomes: small pastoral garden decor

Right, so to keep it to a minimmum of fluff, got cha.

By the way, are you making a document of all of this? Need help with formatting it?

At the moment it's still very formative.  I wanted to get the idea out there fast because I suspect this is a particularly auspicious moment.  Wait or dither too long and everyone will have done their own relabelling and it all becomes a moot point.

I'm certainly open to help.  I'm not even sure if I'm the guy to do it.  My own preferences and designs are already leaking into the cracks.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 08, 2023, 12:54:54 PM
Hell, I don't know if any of them will go away.

It seems to me that this big 1.1 fiasco are going to start making games that have nothing to do with D&D style rules, which are pretty much all of the OSR group of games.

I know you cannot copyright the game rules.  So, from what I can tell all you need to do is release a game with six "Attribute" scores, Might, Agility, Health, IQ, Spirit, and Attractiveness, and you play the game using a 1D20 to try and roll equal or more than the enemy Armor Category (AC).

Stuff like that is what we can expect?

Boy, am I glad I never got into D&D specifically.  I'm still a Palladium guy, and now rules lite stuff that have damn near nothing to do with Hasbro.

Everything that WotC can get away with.

Each and every sale that isn't the current version of DnD is considered a lost sale to the suits at WotC, so they want scorched Earth. If they can scare publishers into not ending their companies by threatening legal action - they will. How's that for fascist?

The best way that I have seen it put is that this is an orbital bombardment of a planet by WotC in order to takeout the rifle wielding sniper of the OSR. This is WotC DnD becoming a Fascist State if the corporate suits at Hasbro have their way.

Don't be surprised if WotC is willing to put One Bookshelf out of business in order to ensure that DnD has no competition.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 05:46:58 PM
At the moment it's still very formative.  I wanted to get the idea out there fast because I suspect this is a particularly auspicious moment.  Wait or dither too long and everyone will have done their own relabelling and it all becomes a moot point.

I'm certainly open to help.  I'm not even sure if I'm the guy to do it.  My own preferences and designs are already leaking into the cracks.

Right, it's inevitable that our own biases filter on our work, more people can be a deterrent against this since others might keep us on check (unless we coincide too much).

As for the races I was thinking... Can we make them more general? Sopmething not tied to any one genre:

Human
Lithe (Elves or whatever)
Strong (Dwarfs or whatever)
Small (Gnomes, Halflings or whatever)

This removes ALL the fluff and makes it easier to convert to whatever setting your game uses.