Quote from: blackstone on January 10, 2023, 03:04:04 PM

Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 02:48:36 PM

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 02:24:07 PM
Well, I expect anyone's list is as good or better than mine if everyone will agree to stick with it.  TSR sued over Strength and lost so it's probably safe but the point is to step away completely even changing terms like Dungeon Master and Non Player Character just to be on the safe side.

As I noted I went with a hit dice system specifically because the core should still be the original game in form and function, not because I like it.

You don't want to back away too much since that reinforces WotC's claim to certain terms. If everyone changed "Strength" to Might or Physique, etc., then WotC can dig their grubby little fingers in and claim exclusive rights to "Strength." You want to have as many terms as possible slip into the Public Domain through common usage (like what happened with "elevator").

"Dungeon Master" is already a registered trademark so you can't touch it, but "player character, " PC, NPC, etc. are common parlance and should be used frequently and liberally across many different systems. Don't give WotC any more ammunition than they already have.

I bolded this because it's important and correct. Terms like hit points, armor class, strength, dexterity, etc. are common terms used not only in TTRPGs, but in PC/Console RPGs as well. Also the roots of many of those terms are in wargames from even father back.

You can't copyright the word "strength", or say it's part of the IP of D&D.

Even game mechanics and procedures cannot be copyrighted. US courts ruled on this a long time ago.

So stop renaming everything, people. You look scared and foolish.

You volunteering to front the millions needed to face a lawsuit?

No? Then I will do as I want.

The OSR community also didn't do themselves any favors. All the people who so vehemently claimed over the years that "OSR is specifically DnD-adjacent" only built their own casket. Your words can now be used against you if you try to "uncouple" your game from DnD/WotC property.

You don't need to rename everything.  For those games that are very close, it would be extremely useful to rename a few key things.  Let's look at "rangers", as it has changed a lot across the versions while still revolving around an Aragorn knock off morphed into Drizzt:

Ranger, a warrior with healing and/or nature spells, archery, bonuses against giants, dual wielding, wilderness skills, favored enemies, perceptive, and so on. 

If you include all of that stuff in a game, and call it a "ranger", you are asking for some lawfare.  Yeah, it all should be clear if you don't lift text cleanly, and you'd have the argument that Tolkien's estate has first dibs on much of it.  But why risk that?  It's a hopeless mush the way they've done it.  Make a game widget that's about a skilled wilderness warrior.  In the process of trying to do a better job than WotC, you'll probably open up some areas in the concept that are more accurately called something different.  Call them what they are.  Problem solved. 

Kobold Press is working on their own RPG.

https://koboldpress.com/raising-our-flag/

Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 10, 2023, 03:40:42 PM
Kobold Press is working on their own RPG.

https://koboldpress.com/raising-our-flag/

They are working on their own totally not PF " Kobold Press is also moving forward with some clear-eyed work on keeping the 5E rule set available, open, and subscription-free for those who love it:"

Quote from: S'mon on January 10, 2023, 02:58:17 PM

Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2023, 02:18:44 PM
I don't know if this was mentioned upthread - but let's also not forget that the the Judge and the Court itself (whether that's in King County as WotC is demanding such litigation will take place) will know little or nothing about the nuances and differences between "mechanics" and "expression of mechanics" like us gaming nerds.

They can't sue you under OGL 1.1's choice of jurisdiction clause if you never agreed to OGL 1.1!

No such clause in OGL 1.0.

Indeed, I'm incorporated and operate entirely in the state of Indiana and our state AG is both already quite tough on Lefty positions and is setting up for run for Governor in 2026. If WotC comes at me for some trumped-up infringement claim my first call will to the AG's office about WotC's anti-competitive practices. Given the general conservative tendencies of Indiana the scalp of giant woke corporation going after a small Indiana business would definitely be a resume enhancer.

Gary Gygax, from AD&D:

It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order.

Thus: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 09:42:05 PM
I see why you would feel that way but it just seems best to go all the way than half way.

The fluff is something I feel should be setting specific.  I've even got one in mind but I'm trying to avoid pushing too many of my own ideas into this because we'll just end up with The Arcane Confabulation all over again which would suit me just fine but no-one else.

Again the key thing is the framework of terms, not the mechanics which I expect people will season to taste in many ways the core, important part to my mind is just this:

Mettle Stage (or whatever, I'm not fond of that one, I've tried floors, degrees, steps, worth and I'm not fond of any of them.  Mettle is at least somewhat Gygaxian.

Injury Tollerance die per Mettle Stage
Injury Tollerance (the mechanics as written hand out too much Injury Tolerance but I haven't decided how to handle that, probably Size base + Endurance -10 + x to y per mettle, I've long believed players get robbed of their zero level die that everyone else seems to get)

Character Types (generic and function oriented bear in mind that there are three types of generalists and spell casters due to the three types of magic)
Combatant
Specialist
Generalist
Spell Caster

Characteristics (Frankly I like every point to do something, no dead ratings)
Awareness #
Coordination #
Endurance #
Knowledge #
Physique #
Willpower #

Skills (+ mettle because again I hate dead levels, the list may need some fiddling to avoid matching existing ones)
Spells Known
Spirit, Sacred, and Lore (or something that's not Arcane)

Traits (so, rather than specifiying races I'm leaning towards a set of traits to pick from, people want to play all kinds of random stuff these days, Your Cheese Sandwich Avatar (or whatever, is that too computergamey?) gets Delicious and Nourishing but Harms the Lactose Intollerant)

I really think it should be that tight.  I'll have to think a bit about how to make the Characteristic Equivalencies more explicit.

I could see adding some form of learned techniques but I'd probably treat them like another class of spells.  Also, the more objects defined in the core, the harder it will be to keep it free from actionable duplications.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 08, 2023, 08:06:29 PM
My point is that Hasbro is NOT controlled by gaming nerds, nor is it controlled by people who wish to make $money$. When gamers fully accept that the men who control Hasbro are willing to destroy at least most of (if not all of) the TTRPG hobby and industry in order to fully control it, then gamers can make a proper decision on how to move forward.

That's a little dramatic.  The worse that can happen is that we're all forced to be playing RoleMaster, GURPS, Deadlands, Call of Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, World of Darkness, Lion & Dragon, Stars without Number, Shadows of the Demon Lord, Forbidden Lands, Tunnels & Trolls, ad infinitum.  :-)

Quote from: DocJones on January 10, 2023, 06:40:27 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 08, 2023, 08:06:29 PM
My point is that Hasbro is NOT controlled by gaming nerds, nor is it controlled by people who wish to make $money$. When gamers fully accept that the men who control Hasbro are willing to destroy at least most of (if not all of) the TTRPG hobby and industry in order to fully control it, then gamers can make a proper decision on how to move forward.

That's a little dramatic.  The worse that can happen is that we're all forced to be playing RoleMaster, GURPS, Deadlands, Call of Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, World of Darkness, Lion & Dragon, Stars without Number, Shadows of the Demon Lord, Forbidden Lands, Tunnels & Trolls, ad infinitum.  :-)

For those of us who don't play DnD, this is called Game Night.

Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 06:43:44 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 10, 2023, 06:40:27 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 08, 2023, 08:06:29 PM
My point is that Hasbro is NOT controlled by gaming nerds, nor is it controlled by people who wish to make $money$. When gamers fully accept that the men who control Hasbro are willing to destroy at least most of (if not all of) the TTRPG hobby and industry in order to fully control it, then gamers can make a proper decision on how to move forward.

That's a little dramatic.  The worse that can happen is that we're all forced to be playing RoleMaster, GURPS, Deadlands, Call of Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, World of Darkness, Lion & Dragon, Stars without Number, Shadows of the Demon Lord, Forbidden Lands, Tunnels & Trolls, ad infinitum.  :-)

For those of us who don't play DnD, this is called Game Night.

Haha. Truth! I am far from the only one who owns (or has friends that own) more rule and setting books than I can hope to play in my lifetime without ever playing brand name D&D.

I came to this hobby mainly through AD&D 2e, which apparently was a low point for TSR. Whoda thunk it? Us clueless high-school kids were completely ignorant of that, as I suspect 80% of the market today knows nothing of OSR or OGL. 

All of which is to say the hobby has survived worse and most people are gonna play what they play with very little analysis and reflection. The good games will bubble up to the surface despite all the shenanigans in the industry. 

My only concern is that strong/original/unique creators who make good games, like Free League, Raggi, Pundit, Kevin Crawford, Riotminds, North Wind, Venger, and the rest of you scoundrels here pimping your games get a boost from all this mess.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 10, 2023, 03:56:53 PM
Gary Gygax, from AD&D:

It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order.

Thus: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell.

But does that mean I should or shouldn't use those I wonder?

Quote from: David Johansen on January 10, 2023, 07:26:58 PM

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 10, 2023, 03:56:53 PM
Gary Gygax, from AD&D:

It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order.

Thus: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell.

But does that mean I should or shouldn't use those I wonder?

They din't use them, ergo it should be fine, unless you can claim copyright over something you never used and never registered in any of your products.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 03:20:01 PM

Quote from: blackstone on January 10, 2023, 03:04:04 PM

Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 02:48:36 PM

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 02:24:07 PM
Well, I expect anyone's list is as good or better than mine if everyone will agree to stick with it.  TSR sued over Strength and lost so it's probably safe but the point is to step away completely even changing terms like Dungeon Master and Non Player Character just to be on the safe side.

As I noted I went with a hit dice system specifically because the core should still be the original game in form and function, not because I like it.

You don't want to back away too much since that reinforces WotC's claim to certain terms. If everyone changed "Strength" to Might or Physique, etc., then WotC can dig their grubby little fingers in and claim exclusive rights to "Strength." You want to have as many terms as possible slip into the Public Domain through common usage (like what happened with "elevator").

"Dungeon Master" is already a registered trademark so you can't touch it, but "player character, " PC, NPC, etc. are common parlance and should be used frequently and liberally across many different systems. Don't give WotC any more ammunition than they already have.

I bolded this because it's important and correct. Terms like hit points, armor class, strength, dexterity, etc. are common terms used not only in TTRPGs, but in PC/Console RPGs as well. Also the roots of many of those terms are in wargames from even father back.

You can't copyright the word "strength", or say it's part of the IP of D&D.

Even game mechanics and procedures cannot be copyrighted. US courts ruled on this a long time ago.

So stop renaming everything, people. You look scared and foolish.

You volunteering to front the millions needed to face a lawsuit?

No? Then I will do as I want.

That's fine. You can do what you want.

Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 03:26:30 PM
The OSR community also didn't do themselves any favors. All the people who so vehemently claimed over the years that "OSR is specifically DnD-adjacent" only built their own casket. Your words can now be used against you if you try to "uncouple" your game from DnD/WotC property.

Any other meaning is well, meaningless. Actual old school games ranged in complexity of Tunnels & Trolls (very simple) to most the games FGU put out (needing a degree in accounting). It's often instead meant as grim dark or rules light, but again, that's not actually the case of how things were back in the day, as those were the days when munchkins ruled and Deities & Demigods was used as a monster manual.

The whole point of the OSR was to publish material that was more or less compatible with pre-WOTC D&D, including your house rules as a complete game if you so chose.

Quote from: blackstone on January 10, 2023, 08:37:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 03:20:01 PM

Quote from: blackstone on January 10, 2023, 03:04:04 PM

Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 02:48:36 PM

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 02:24:07 PM
Well, I expect anyone's list is as good or better than mine if everyone will agree to stick with it.  TSR sued over Strength and lost so it's probably safe but the point is to step away completely even changing terms like Dungeon Master and Non Player Character just to be on the safe side.

As I noted I went with a hit dice system specifically because the core should still be the original game in form and function, not because I like it.

You don't want to back away too much since that reinforces WotC's claim to certain terms. If everyone changed "Strength" to Might or Physique, etc., then WotC can dig their grubby little fingers in and claim exclusive rights to "Strength." You want to have as many terms as possible slip into the Public Domain through common usage (like what happened with "elevator").

"Dungeon Master" is already a registered trademark so you can't touch it, but "player character, " PC, NPC, etc. are common parlance and should be used frequently and liberally across many different systems. Don't give WotC any more ammunition than they already have.

I bolded this because it's important and correct. Terms like hit points, armor class, strength, dexterity, etc. are common terms used not only in TTRPGs, but in PC/Console RPGs as well. Also the roots of many of those terms are in wargames from even father back.

You can't copyright the word "strength", or say it's part of the IP of D&D.

Even game mechanics and procedures cannot be copyrighted. US courts ruled on this a long time ago.

So stop renaming everything, people. You look scared and foolish.

You volunteering to front the millions needed to face a lawsuit?

No? Then I will do as I want.

That's fine. You can do what you want.

Realistically, it's entirely up to WOTC who and what they want to target someone for.

Look at the lawsuit TSR brought against GDW for Mythus (by EGG). They nit-picked everything even vaguely like D&D

https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_gdw2.txt

       (7) The MYTHUS concept of character vocations in MYTHUS (pages
13 and 70-71) is derived from the character class concept in the AD&D
1st ed. PHB (pages 18-33); the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 16-21); and the
AD&D UA (pages 12-25 and 74-75).

        ( In MYTHUS (page 67), the concept of and the method by which
the game characters' attributes are defined by randomly-generated
numbers, and the players' choices of vocations precede and alter such
attribute generation, are derived from a similar concept and method in
the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 11-12) and the AD&D UA (page 74).

        (9) The Thief game character in MYTHUS (pages 13-14, 16 and 83)
is derived from the Thief game character in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (pages
19, 26-28 and 107); the AD&D UA (pages 12-13 and 22-25); TSR's DRAGON
Magazine, issue #65 (page 9); TSR's DRAGON Magazine, issue #69 (pages
20-23); and the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 17 and 19-20).

        (10) The Priest game character in MYTHUS (pages 85-86 and 407)
and MYTHUS MAGICK (pages 10 and 21) is derived from the Cleric game
character in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (pages 19-20, 40 and 43).

And it goes on and on like that. While ultimately it was settled, but still, it was something that paralyzed GDW for a while and did kill Mythus (which honestly, would have likely died on its own)