4E OGL Material?

[AZRogue]

Another question that has been mentioned several times but not yet explored (and something different than this eternal "was the OGL good/bad for WotC/Gaming?"):

How difficult would it be for someone to release material for 4E using the current OGL?


4E is going to be different, we know that, but will it be too different? The game will have levels, hit points, races, classes, feats, and skills. The different factors, like Encounter powers, at-will powers, and daily powers, could be duplicated closely without infringing, couldn't they? I think that certain types of material, namely settings and optional rule books that will, by definition, contain their own alternate rules, will be easy to produce, really.

I imagine that WotC would prefer than any company making material for 4E use the new GSL (that we haven't seen yet) instead of coming in through the backdoor by way of the OGL. How would they accomplish this, though?

Would it be better and/or easier for WotC at this point to release under the OGL and just limit certain aspects of their IP? I'm not encouraging anyone to go around the GSL by using the OGL, I'm just curious if it's possible and how that impacts what can, and should, be done now.

I'm curious what some of you guys think. A lot of you obviously have a lot more knowledge on the subject than I do. I'm interested in your opinions on whether this would be possible and, if so, what it would mean for WotC. Ideally, at this point, I'd kind of like 4E to just be released under the OGL to help mend some of the broken fences. I'm not fond of the fracturing player base.



EDIT: I apologize. I meant to post this in the OGL forums where the 4E/OGL discussions have been going on. Could a mod please move this for me? I made a mistake with my tabbed browsing.

[epochrpg]

I have toyed with the idea of founding a company called Four Elves games. All products will be published under the heading: 4E. I was considering releasiing a poduct called 4E: 40 Rings and other treasures. Inside, you would see things like:

Ring of Fire Protection
At level 1-10, this item grants the wearer a +3 Reflex or Fortitude verses Fire Effects. Once per day, as an immediate action, it grants Fire Resistance 5 for a round.
At level 11-20, this item grants the wearer Fire Resistance 5. Once per day, as an immediate action, it grants Fire Resistance 10 for a round.
At level 21-30, this item grants the wearer Fire Resistance 10. Once per day, as an immediate action, it grants fire Resistance 20 for an entire round.

Later having a book w/ classes like the "Berserker" class, which can fly into a "Fury" when bloodied to "Half Maximum Hit Points" (don't think we can say bloodied as a mechanical term, but cannot stop us from using it as a verb). Instead of having to list hit dice, etc, just say, He receives hit points as a fighter, with 3 more Hit points than a fighter at 1st level, and an additional 1 hit point per level. When furying, the berserker gets +2 Fortitude and +2 Will, +10 Temporary hit points, and +2 to hit and damage for the rest of the encounter.

Berserkers choose three of the following class abilities at first level, and an additional 1 each level. (then list a bunch a dailies, at wills, etc, w/ prereqs like being a certain level, or having a previous power in the "tree" etc).

[kenmarable]

Can you? It really depends on how good your lawyer is.

It would be awful tricky. A lot of it probably could be reverse engineered like OSRIC, but unlike OSRIC, I'm sure WotC would absolutely not look the other way.

I mulled it over, but with how much the game is changing, I certainly wouldn't want to risk it since your intent would be quite obvious, and WotC would certainly care about not letting it happen if they could. So my #1 advice is - don't do it. But if you don't follow that, my #2 advice is adhere to their Cease and Desist letters once they arrive. Whether or not you had a good run of it, the party's over. Ignoring that, my #3 advice is to make sure you are incorporated beforehand so that you can keep your house and car.

[arscott]

Game rules are not restricted by copyright. However, specific expressions of game rules are. And copyright protects not only the original material, but also derivative works.

So if you were to do something that uses 4e terminology, then WotC could sue you for copyright infringement, claiming that your book is a derived from their copyrighted expression of the D&D rules.

On the other hand, you could do what epochrpg does above and create 4e rules using the 3rd-edition terminology. Which would probably be pretty difficult--the examples above are among the easiest.

He still might get sued for advertising his stuff as "4e" though. He might be treading upon WotC trademark. And the whole "Four Elves" thing just screams bad faith.

[AZRogue]

So it does seem possible, then? At least for some products?

The reason I ask is because, if it is possible, it might be to their advantage to just release under the OGL. I'm probably wrong, as I'm not a lawyer and no one side has any real data to support whether the OGL has been a good or bad thing, but it seems like a real option now.

I know that, for me personally, I would consider releasing 4E under the OGL (or a modified addition, like a new d20 license?) a coup for them. It would certainly look good, from a PR perspective.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by arscott

And copyright protects not only the original material, but also derivative works.

What do you mean by derivative works exactly? And are there any examples of this?

[malraux]

Originally Posted by kenmarable

Can you? It really depends on how good your lawyer is.

I suspect that its actually how much money are you willing to spend on your lawyer.

[arscott]

All of the following are derivative works of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, by J.K. Rowling:

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (The American localization)
Harry Potter y la piedra filosofal (The Spanish language translation)
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (The Warner Bros. Movie adaptation)
Harry Potter ant the Chamber of Secrets (a sequel)
This piece of fanart
This Lego set
This Harry/Draco slashfic

So a pretty broad category. Technically, you need the copyright holder's permission to do any of those things, or you can get sued.

But note that neither of the following are Derivative works:
This webcomic parody (parody is protected by Fair Use doctrine, and thus not subject to Copyright)
The Legend of Rah and the Muggles (A book that shares a number of coincidental similarities, Including a character named Larry Potter.)

The author of the Rah book (written well before the first Harry Potter book) tried to sue J.K. Rowling, but lost. Words and character names aren't copyrightable (though they may be trademarked), nor are general ideas (only the specific executions of those ideas, including text, characterization, and story structure)

[xechnao]

Your examples share the characteristics AND the name of the original characteristics AND name.
So a work that shares only characteristics and no name is considered not derivate?

[El Mahdi]

Has the OGL been good for Gaming? Unequivocally yes!

Has the OGL been good for the Gaming Industry? Not only has it been good, but it was essential. I believe it saved the Industry from collapsing on itself.

Has the OGL been good for WoTC? Initially, Yes. Now, No. Without a rules system change, the D20 well is dry for WoTC. There is nothing else they can do with it that a 3rd party publisher can't do better. This is probably one of the reasons for a new edition.

Would it be difficult to release material for 4E using the current OGL? Yes and No.

No - without following the GSL, you will not be able to release material directly for 4E.

Yes - it would be easy to introduce concepts that are similar to 4E for 3.5E. The concept of "encounters", "at will", and "daily" are not exclusive to 4E or any system. You could easily make Feats and Spells that mimic these functions in 4E. Also, you could make changes to classes and races that are similar. Other things, like the new Death and Dying, Second Wind and Bloodied are easily used, you may just need to use different language although the overall effect would be the same. The things that would be exclusively 4E would be the exact new classes, races and their underlying structures. Also, the underlying "math" of the new edition would be out of bounds. You would not be able to apply this underlying math to 3.5E. Not only would this probably violate the GSL, but would essentially make it 4E, in which case you may as well use the new edition.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

Also, the underlying "math" of the new edition would be out of bounds. You would not be able to apply this underlying math to 3.5E. Not only would this probably violate the GSL,

What are you talking about? Sorry don't understand this. Care to give an example?

[El Mahdi]

It's been stated that the Underlying math of the game has been revamped throughout all levels, classes and monsters to maintain the "sweet spot" of 3.5E (something like levels 5-10 or such). It's also been said that this underlying mechanic should be fairly transparent once we get to see the whole system in it's entirety (not just teasers). I'm sure mimicking this underlying mechanic would not be allowed.

[JohnRTroy]

The reason I ask is because, if it is possible, it might be to their advantage to just release under the OGL. I'm probably wrong, as I'm not a lawyer and no one side has any real data to support whether the OGL has been a good or bad thing, but it seems like a real option now.

From a company's or individual's perspective, that type of attitude can almost seem defeatist or akin to a threat or extortion. It's like "well, you can't prevent us from taking your game rules and using them for free, so you might as well release it the way we want you to". Some people like to argue about getting rid of DRM by saying "you can't stop piracy, might as well embrace it", or that "you shouldn't charge money for this content because your competition gives it away and you'll lose market share".

Of course, with that attitude, maybe the Federal Government should stop trying to protect money from counterfitting, since "you can't stop the counterfeiters, might as well not spend so much time and effort protecting it", or hell, for health reasons, "why wipe you rear end, it will just get dirty again".

To me, reverse engineering D&D is not worth it. Why bother?

• Assuming there is a GSL, and the conditions are not unreasonable, why not follow those rules, instead of forcing the OGL to be used?
• If it's not licensed at all, why bother? You would be better off just creating your own game and benefiting from total IP ownership and all the protections.
• Or else, support their older game which via the OGL can't be revoked--that way, you prove a point that you won't use a more restrictive license, and have the moral high ground in that case.

And doing something like that would still fracture the playerbase. You wouldn't be helping to "unite people", if that was the point. If somebody tried to reverse-engineer 4e, fans of Wizards of the Coast and 4e, would probably react very hostile towards the "unofficial erstaz knockoff".

And that's not assuming that WoTC has something up their sleeve and one or more rules have a patent applied or pending, or have applied for trademarks to key game terms. If that was granted, then you'd end up having to fight other legal protections. I personally suspect something like that will happen.

[El Mahdi]

Except that ideas can't be copyrighted. Peter Adkison believed that D&D belonged to the players, not the suits. The idea behind the OGL was (hopefully) no matter what happened to the industry, or no matter what the industry tried to do with the game, the game would remain the collective intellctual creation of the people who play it. D&D is an always evolving creation, constantly shaped by those who play it. Applying ideas that make the game better to the OGL rules, whether from 4E or any game system, is not only acceptable but (originally) encouraged. Hopefully, this will allow D&D to survive as long as their are people who want to play it, despite what happens to WoTC or any possible successors.

[reanjr]

Originally Posted by JohnRTroy

Some people like to argue about getting rid of DRM by saying "you can't stop piracy, might as well embrace it", or that "you shouldn't charge money for this content because your competition gives it away and you'll lose market share".

Interesting analogy as many record companies and artists are finding out that not listening to what their customers want isn't helping their bottom line very much.

[catsclaw]

Originally Posted by arscott

All of the following are derivative works of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone ... neither of the following are Derivative works

Of course, right now it's anyone guess whether the Harry Potter Lexicon is an infringement or not. Court date rescheduled for April 14. I suspect after that case gets ruled on (assuming it's not settled first) the legality of publishing an OGL 4e supplement will be slightly clearer. Although still rather murky.

If the Harry Potter Lexicon is legal, it would seem to imply that a Rules Cyclopedia type product for 4e would also be legal, provided you rewrote the text of the abilities in your own words. You'd probably be on even better footing if you included discussions about the rules, how they're balanced, a look at how the rules have evolved through different games, and other scholarly information.

Another interesting distinction between the Harry Potter case and 4e is that you can copyright fictional facts. You can't copyright game rules. So your theoretical Rules Cyclopedia would be on even stronger ground, to start.

NOTE: I am not suggesting attempting any of the above is a good idea. Copyright law in general is an utter mess. The court could rule against the Lexicon publishers. Legal or not, WotC would certainly try to sue you out of existence. If there's a GSL, you are strongly advised to stay within its bounds. That's actually part of the genius of the OGL--creating a "safe harbor" where both WotC and 3rd party publishers can agree on what the bounds of copyright are, and nobody has to drag anyone else into court to find out what that is.

[JohnRTroy]

Interesting analogy as many record companies and artists are finding out that not listening to what their customers want isn't helping their bottom line very much.

Well, that remains to be seen. People don't like intrusive DRM, but have no problem with iPod's version of it. I think people just don't value the concept of paying for music as much anymore. There's talk of more musicians speaking out against it if profits continue to go down.

Legal or not, WotC would certainly try to sue you out of existence. If there's a GSL, you are strongly advised to stay within its bounds. That's actually part of the genius of the OGL--creating a "safe harbor" where both WotC and 3rd party publishers can agree on what the bounds of copyright are, and nobody has to drag anyone else into court to find out what that is.

That's why I encourage people to either work within the rules or use the OGL with the 3e base, which can't really legally be revoked. Pick one method or the other. It's the people who want to have "the butter and the price of the butter" where I find the grey area.

I also hope the proposed GSL can do some of that as well--maybe not on the same level of the OGL, but with enough so most fans will find it reasonable.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

It's been stated that the Underlying math of the game has been revamped throughout all levels, classes and monsters to maintain the "sweet spot" of 3.5E (something like levels 5-10 or such). It's also been said that this underlying mechanic should be fairly transparent once we get to see the whole system in it's entirety (not just teasers). I'm sure mimicking this underlying mechanic would not be allowed.

Maths and mechanics can't be copyrighted.

[reanjr]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

It's been stated that the Underlying math of the game has been revamped throughout all levels, classes and monsters to maintain the "sweet spot" of 3.5E (something like levels 5-10 or such). It's also been said that this underlying mechanic should be fairly transparent once we get to see the whole system in it's entirety (not just teasers). I'm sure mimicking this underlying mechanic would not be allowed.

Intellectual Property protections:
- Copyright is for specific expressions of an idea (more than a few words).
- Trademark is for names and symbols.
- Patent is for process or idea.

The only one of these that applies to the underlying system of 4e is patent. To my knowledge WotC has not filed for patents on their gaming mechanics. And even if they did, it would likely crumble under the clause of prior art or obviousness. If WotC attempted to patent the complete system as a whole, it would easy to change a few things around to create a new system (possibly one that tooke elements from the SRD) that would not fall under the aegis of the patent. If WotC tried to patent individual subsystems, it would not be difficult to find prior systems that would invalidate the patent.

The OGL never needed to exist to create 3x compatible products. The reason for it was that it allowed straight copy and pasting of standard mechanics for ease of development and consistency. When 4e comes out, it is quite within a developer's rights to copy the mechanics of the system, re-express them in their own words (preferably learning the rules of 4e via an intermediary so that the implementation is "clean room"), and release it under the OGL so that 3rd party developers can write compatible products from a single standard. Of course, if WotC chose to make this person's life difficult it would likely be a drawn out legal battle buried in minutia.

[JohnRTroy]

Actually, I suspect if you wanted to reference 4e rules with a little legal trouble as possible, you'd stick to adventures or supplements that only contain things like stat blocks. This was done in the past and I think that might be safest.

I'm sure WoTC's legal department would react with more strength if you tried to actually create a reverse-engineered SRD.

The former is a product that really wouldn't affect the core marketability of the rules, the latter is a threat to the core product of WoTC, and could be seen as a deliberate challenge to WoTC, especially if a legal license exists.