As I correctly stated when WotC jumped the shark on their license, no one NEEDS a license due to US law on IP and game mechanics.  The ORC lic is also uneeded.   

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 11:59:37 AM
As I correctly stated when WotC jumped the shark on their license, no one NEEDS a license due to US law on IP and game mechanics.  The ORC lic is also uneeded.

Scooter, I don't know if you're aware of the history of TSR. From the early 1980s to when they were acquired in 1997, TSR made it a practice to issue cease-and-desist and lawsuits to successfully deter third parties from making D&D material. They reached an agreement with Mayfair Games who made some compatible modules, but then sued them for breach of contract in a later work.

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/04/bols-prime-the-many-lawsuits-of-tsr.html

Back when they were just a tiny startup company, Wizards of the Coast themselves were sued by Palladium Games for trying to make a compatible RPG book ("The Primal Order"). The ideal would have been a successful fighting back against TSR's claims -- but the OGL and now the ORC can be a major reassurance to commercial publishers.

Quote from: jhkim on July 18, 2023, 01:07:25 PM

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 11:59:37 AM
As I correctly stated when WotC jumped the shark on their license, no one NEEDS a license due to US law on IP and game mechanics.  The ORC lic is also uneeded.

but the OGL and now the ORC can be a major reassurance to commercial publishers.

In addition RPGs are more than just mechanics with flavor text and other creative choices that are protected by copyright forming a major part of the system's appeal. A SRD with open content the publisher is willing to share allows fans to do more than they can do under the  "mechanics can't be copyrighted" doctrine.

For a trivial example wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright. Sure it is not hard to come up with your own. But when you add up all the content in a system that is protectable "a mechanics only" clone starts becoming less and less like the original.

Quote from: jhkim on July 18, 2023, 01:07:25 PM
Scooter, I don't know if you're aware of the history of TSR.

I've been playing since the little books and knew Gary for many years.  So, YES I am WELL acquainted with TSR

Quote from: estar on July 18, 2023, 01:26:14 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 18, 2023, 01:07:25 PM

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 11:59:37 AM
As I correctly stated when WotC jumped the shark on their license, no one NEEDS a license due to US law on IP and game mechanics.  The ORC lic is also uneeded.

but the OGL and now the ORC can be a major reassurance to commercial publishers.

In addition RPGs are more than just mechanics with flavor text and other creative choices that are protected by copyright forming a major part of the system's appeal. A SRD with open content the publisher is willing to share allows fans to do more than they can do under the  "mechanics can't be copyrighted" doctrine.

For a trivial example wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright. Sure it is not hard to come up with your own. But when you add up all the content in a system that is protectable "a mechanics only" clone starts becoming less and less like the original.

Lets not forget the systems that aren't D&D and were put under the OGL to open them to the masses:

OpenD6, Open Core/Anime, Action!, Cepheus Engine...

What guarantee is there that WotKKK won't go back on their word and rescind the OGL? How would that affect those systems/games? What about the games based on them?

Quote from: estar on July 18, 2023, 01:26:14 PM
In addition RPGs are more than just mechanics with flavor text and other creative choices that are protected by copyright forming a major part of the system's appeal. A SRD with open content the publisher is willing to share allows fans to do more than they can do under the  "mechanics can't be copyrighted" doctrine.

For a trivial example wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright. Sure it is not hard to come up with your own. But when you add up all the content in a system that is protectable "a mechanics only" clone starts becoming less and less like the original.

"wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright..." Couldn't make heads nor tails of that.

ONLY if one wished to use others IP like game setting, proper noun characters or proper noun things does one need a license.  Otherwise no.  I'll give you C&C rule books as an example.  They could (and will in the future) publish those same rules with NO license from WotC.  A MUCH better option is to have a competent IP lawyer to consult with when you want to publish stuff. 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 01:54:26 PM


Lets not forget the systems that aren't D&D and were put under the OGL to open them to the masses:

OpenD6, Open Core/Anime, Action!, Cepheus Engine...

Completely unnecessary in the case of Cepheus unless they wanted to use something like the IISS from Marc's IP.  Not familiar enough to the others you mentioned.

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:55:04 PM

Quote from: estar on July 18, 2023, 01:26:14 PM
In addition RPGs are more than just mechanics with flavor text and other creative choices that are protected by copyright forming a major part of the system's appeal. A SRD with open content the publisher is willing to share allows fans to do more than they can do under the  "mechanics can't be copyrighted" doctrine.

For a trivial example wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright. Sure it is not hard to come up with your own. But when you add up all the content in a system that is protectable "a mechanics only" clone starts becoming less and less like the original.

"wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright..." Couldn't make heads nor tails of that.

ONLY if one wished to use others IP like game setting, proper noun characters or proper noun things does one need a license.  Otherwise no.  I'll give you C&C rule books as an example.  They could (and will in the future) publish those same rules with NO license from WotC.  A MUCH better option is to have a competent IP lawyer to consult with when you want to publish stuff.

Meaning ONLY those who can afford such counsel can publish games... Yeah, I can see how that's a "MUCH BETTER OPTION" /Sarcasm

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:58:08 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 01:54:26 PM


Lets not forget the systems that aren't D&D and were put under the OGL to open them to the masses:

OpenD6, Open Core/Anime, Action!, Cepheus Engine...

Completely unnecessary in the case of Cepheus unless they wanted to use something like the IISS from Marc's IP.  Not familiar enough to the others you mentioned.

And the games based on Cepheus? You're clearly on the "Publish whatever and get sued while I laugh at you" camp.

A license gives certainty about what YOU can use of MY stuff and not get sued by me or my descendants.

Something obvious to everyone except you and your fellow travellers.

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:48:23 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 18, 2023, 01:07:25 PM
Scooter, I don't know if you're aware of the history of TSR.

I've been playing since the little books and knew Gary for many years.  So, YES I am WELL acquainted with TSR

Cool. No offense intended.

The point being, given the history of lawsuits, I think commercial publishers are rightly wary of publishing compatible works with no license. It might be technically legal, but it isn't worth the risk.

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:55:04 PM
"wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright..." Couldn't make heads nor tails of that.

I mean that the content of a wandering monster table is a creative choice thus protectable by copyright.

What isn't protectable is the design of a wandering monster in that you roll some dice and look up an entry.

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:55:04 PM
ONLY if one wished to use others IP like game setting, proper noun characters or proper noun things does one need a license.  Otherwise no.  I'll give you C&C rule books as an example.  They could (and will in the future) publish those same rules with NO license from WotC.

I considered that with my Majestic Fantasy RPG as well. However, with the 5e SRD being licensed under CC-BY I don't see the need.

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:55:04 PM
A MUCH better option is to have a competent IP lawyer to consult with when you want to publish stuff.

The best option is to have an open content license stating what the author is willing to share and the conditions. People are not going to hire an IP attorney for a project that they write in their hobby time.

All these problems result from people trying to use content from other people who don't explicitly share their content. It is not a problem with my stuff because I declare the material I authored as 100% open content under a variety of licenses. A guy in Hungary doesn't have to hunt me down to ask me permission to make a translation of Blackmarsh.

https://khv.lfg.hu/files/2013/12/feketelap.pdf

Or other languages and other RPG systems.
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2022/06/perilleuses-contrees-fangenoire.html

Thus the solution I advocate is to share your stuff, and give back to the hobby without conditions other than a credit by using an open license. But if the author is not comfortable with that for whatever reason then that is OK too. But expect things to get nuanced and complicated if only part of the work is shared with narrow conditions.

Quote from: estar on July 18, 2023, 02:52:37 PM

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:55:04 PM
"wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright..." Couldn't make heads nor tails of that.

I mean that the content of a wandering monster table is a creative choice thus protectable by copyright.

What isn't protectable is the design of a wandering monster in that you roll some dice and look up an entry.

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:55:04 PM
ONLY if one wished to use others IP like game setting, proper noun characters or proper noun things does one need a license.  Otherwise no.  I'll give you C&C rule books as an example.  They could (and will in the future) publish those same rules with NO license from WotC.

I considered that with my Majestic Fantasy RPG as well. However, with the 5e SRD being licensed under CC-BY I don't see the need.

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:55:04 PM
A MUCH better option is to have a competent IP lawyer to consult with when you want to publish stuff.

The best option is to have an open content license stating what the author is willing to share and the conditions. People are not going to hire an IP attorney for a project that they write in their hobby time.

All these problems result from people trying to use content from other people who don't explicitly share their content. It is not a problem with my stuff because I declare the material I authored as 100% open content under a variety of licenses. A guy in Hungary doesn't have to hunt me down to ask me permission to make a translation of Blackmarsh.

https://khv.lfg.hu/files/2013/12/feketelap.pdf

Or other languages and other RPG systems.
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2022/06/perilleuses-contrees-fangenoire.html

Thus the solution I advocate is to share your stuff, and give back to the hobby without conditions other than a credit by using an open license. But if the author is not comfortable with that for whatever reason then that is OK too. But expect things to get nuanced and complicated if only part of the work is shared with narrow conditions.

Here's the issue with the CC BY: What if I don't want ALL of my setting to be open content? I am of the opinion that you can but the license isn't clear about it, while the ORC license allows for a distinction between closed and open content, giving others the oportunity to use whatever someone declares as open without risks and still allowing for the creator to close whatever he wishes to (except the mechanics that can't be closed).

The more permisive license is to put stuff in the public domain, and I'm not sure about mixing that with new stuff without opening the new stuff too.

When I finish my game I'm going to use the ORC License, maybe for everything, maybe for parts and maybe only on an SRD, it all depends on how much effort I want to put into opening stuff.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 02:16:13 PM


Meaning ONLY those who can afford such counsel can publish games... Yeah, I can see how that's a "MUCH BETTER OPTION" /Sarcasm

The cost is trivial

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 03:10:33 PM
I mean that the content of a wandering monster table is a creative choice thus protectable by copyright.

No it is NOT. There is specific case law on this.  From a precedent setting case in Texas earlier in this current century

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 03:10:33 PM
Here's the issue with the CC BY: What if I don't want ALL of my setting to be open content?


I am of the opinion that you can but the license isn't clear about it

My recommendation with CC-BY is that the simplest solution is to release your book without a license and release what you are willing to share under CC-BY as a separate document. The additional burden is having to do the layout of a second document. But the result is crystal clear on what you are comfortable with sharing. And with the benefit that having a second document that only has the content you are willing to share is more user-friendly.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 03:10:33 PM
I am of the opinion that you can but the license isn't clear about it, while the ORC license allows for a distinction between closed and open content, giving others the oportunity to use whatever someone declares as open without risks and still allowing for the creator to close whatever he wishes to (except the mechanics that can't be closed).

ORC does have an advantage in that it requires licensors to distinguish between different types of content.

However, choosing ORC means requiring all those who use your content (even if it is just a part of the setting) to open any game mechanics they write. Licensees and Licensors of ORC content don't have the option of keeping any game mechanics they have Reserved Material (closed content). There is one exception and that is for third-party game mechanics you license from someone else.

That if that works for you then ORC is a good way to go.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 03:10:33 PM
The more permisive license is to put stuff in the public domain, and I'm not sure about mixing that with new stuff without opening the new stuff too.

The problem with putting things into the public domain is that it is a grey area or even prohibited in many countries. If you do include an explicit declaration in your work like CC0 from Creative COmmons.

As for remixing, the public domain doesn't make the derivative work public domain. For example, the bookWicked isn't public domain because it is based on the public domain book Wizard of OZ. Instead, the author of Wicked is protected by copyright just as if he wrote a completely new book about life from the point of view of an evil witch.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 03:10:33 PM
When I finish my game I'm going to use the ORC License, maybe for everything, maybe for parts and maybe only on an SRD, it all depends on how much effort I want to put into opening stuff.

Sounds good. For my part, my intent is to make my work open content under multiple licenses including ORC.