RPG Legalities: OGF/4eGSL/d20STLDiscussions about the Open Gaming Movement, the Open Gaming License, along with WotC's GSL. This is the new home of the OGF-L and d20-L listserver discussions.
Hello! I'm new here, I hope this is in the right section.
I have a semi-basic question. I understand the usage of the OGL and wizards d20 license... which as far as I understand they aren't giving out anymore. Anyway... I have been creating a new system with similarities to D&D 3.5 but no real connections. All new classes, leveling, names of statistics, etc. The only thing I am worried about, is "d20."
Essentially, does wizards own the usage of "d20" or can anyone use that in any system they want? The actual reference to the core mechanic of rolling a 20-sided dice and comparing it to a result. In other words, if im making a new system that uses a 20 sided dice am I screwed? ...lol
IANAL, but it sounds like you are asking about the "d20 System" trademark. Trademarks are all about identifying products and services. So you probably shouldn't use "d20" in the name or as a "badge" on your product, and you can't use "d20 System" at all.
I would say you should be careful using "d20" when advertising your product so that no one thinks you're identifying or "badging" your product with "d20."
You can use "d20" within the text as much as you like to mean an actual d20.
d20 is a single word in the common lexicon, and hence itself hard to claim rights to. However, as stated above, you do not want to create a trademark that could be confused with d20 System. So even though "d20 Game" or "D20 System" are technically not the d20 System trademark, you would want to avoid that. Also the OGL forbids claiming compatibility without permission, so you can hint around and say things indirectly, but you definitely don't want it to look like you are directly stating compatibility with d20 System games.
If you don't use the OGL or another similar license, you can generally claim compatibility with anything as long as it's true. The stuff about trademarks above still applies, though.
Thanks for the advice on trademarks! I wasn't sure about that either, I know not to reference it as d20 system material but I didnt know about specifics.
The only thing that is the same in my system is the core mechanic, using a 20-sided dice and comparing it to an amount of some kind. But the system itself is not the d20 System or even remotely compatible with D&D 3.5 or 4E.
I was planning on making it a stand alone product and not using a lisence, but hoping that i could make my own lisence for it eventually (open game content). I was just concerned that WoTC owned the 20 sided dice mechanic.
So basically its a new system using the 20 sided dice, but I wanted to continue calling it a "d20" in the rules, not to be confused with the d20 System. I was going to capitalize all the D's when referring to dice, however.
Yeah, a d20 is still a d20. Incidentally, the core system of Talislanta was semi-formally called the D20 System at one time, but was changed to the Omni System when Wizards registered d20 System as a trademark.
Sweet! That makes me feel a lot better, I have already written a lot of material and was hoping that wouldn't be a road block.
While I'm on the subject, does anyone own the term "Game Master (or GM)" or generic monster names like goblin, Kobold, Troll, etc. I am assuming these are similarly uncopyrightable (I don't think either of those were words...).
"Game Master" and "GM" are, in all likelihood, safe to use in your rules text.
Monster names pulled from folklore and myth are, in all likelihood, safe.
On the topic of monsters, though, my advice (FWIW here on the Internet) is to be careful that your kobold, for example, is drawn more from public domain sources and less from the D&D kobold. (If it's a puny dog-like or reptilian humanoid, there's a risk of its being identified more with AD&D or D&D and thus a potential copyright infringement, though it's true that several other RPGs and CRPGs use kobolds in this way without any apparent trouble.) This bit is more of a copyright issue than it is a trademark issue, because it doesn't relate to naming or "badging" products (or services), but rather to the "story" behind the names.
It sounds like you may be mixing up copyrights and trademarks. It's generally not possible to copyright single words or short "naming" phrases -- they are, on the whole, uncopyrightable (yep, it's a word). Copyright protection is available only for "complete works of authorship." (Of course, you don't have to copy a whole work to infringe upon someone's copyright.)
Conversely, any word or short "naming" phrase (in addition to, for example, colors, abstract sequences of letters and/or numbers, and bits of music) can be claimed as a trademark -- though the very weakest trademarks (ones which the courts will typically decline to protect and the US PTO may even decline to register) are words that actually name the product or service the words are being used to identify. Thus, "Apple" brand computers (strong) versus "Apple" brand apples (weak).
There's no issue. The d20 System Trademark License (not that it exists any longer) referred to the usage of "d20 System" (the game system's name) and the d20 system logo (the red, white and black square). There's no issue with the term "d20".
Regarding your other questions - what is it you plan to do, exactly? If it's a new system which happens to use a d20, you are in no danger; those terms mentioned are not trademarked. If you're using the 4E GSL, you have a little complication with the license's restrictions on redefining terms, but I'm getting the impression what you're planning has nothing to do with 4E?
__________________
Last edited by Morrus; 5th October 2009 at 01:46 PM..
Dog-like kobolds should be safe. You can't copyright a concept (dog-like humanoids) and the kobold currently used by Wizards is reptilian. Further, Record of Lodoss War has dog-like kobolds, as do the Wizardry computer games. Many miniature products also portray them in this fashion.
One useful strategy is to see what miniature manufacturers bother to rename versus what they don't. For instance, goblin, ogre, and succubus appear to be safely in the public domain, but then there's the eye creature, phase cat, and so forth.
You are correct (Marius Delphus), I didn't really understand the different in Copyrights and Trademarks until you specified. I got really confused when I read the US Copyright office website, so I really appreciate you clearing things up.
With that being said, I don't think I really have any copyright issues.
Morrus, to answer your question, my plan is to make an entirely new play system that uses similar mechanics to the D&D 3.5. I actually have been working on it for quite a while, that is why I wanted to ask these questions before I released anything. I was really happy when I found these forums as I had a lot of questions and I couldn't really find any answers.
Back on the topic of monsters, to make sure I understand this correctly, essentially the name isn't the issue it is more the method and story that wizards uses to portray their monsters. Such as their version of the Troll and Orcs.
I was going to look at other Tabletop RPG products (books, minatures, etc) and see what is and isn't used (like was already suggested). Unfortunately, I have made my Kobolds reptillian, but they are very different from wizards.
Unfortunately, I have made my Kobolds reptillian, but they are very different from wizards.
Then it's probably not a big deal. While I might personally like to see a more "folkloric" approach*, "kobolds" (however they look and whatever they're about**) do, as I said, fill the "puny humanoid" niche in several other RPGs and CRPGs without any apparent issue.
* Reading back, I notice my comment might have been somewhat colored by this bias on my part... mea culpa.
** It seems to me that OD&D and 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D kobolds were dog-like (complete with "yipping" language), and that the reptilian thing was a change for 3rd Edition, but I could certainly be misremembering this. Also, IIRC, Record of Lodoss War is based on an OD&D campaign.
Kobolds became repitlian due to an art direction problem somewhere in the AD&D 2e lifecycle, and Gary and the rest sort of shrugged and said, "Sure, why not?" Originally, kobolds were dog-like goblinoids.
Obviously, Wizardry and Lodoss War got their kobolds from D&D. What is less important than that origin is the fact that those publishers have not been sued.
Kobolds became repitlian due to an art direction problem somewhere in the AD&D 2e lifecycle, and Gary and the rest sort of shrugged and said, "Sure, why not?" Originally, kobolds were dog-like goblinoids.
Obviously, Wizardry and Lodoss War got their kobolds from D&D. What is less important than that origin is the fact that those publishers have not been sued.
I think I am totally fine then, my Kobolds are repitilian and have a completely different backstory than regular D&D. They live longer, more intelligent, more independant. Although there are different sub-species of them (some are more stupid).
Anyway, another question I thought of before I let this thread go into the archives-of-awesomeness. Will I have to trademark all of the character names I create for the final product?
You can claim any name you like as a trademark, but unless you've marked something that's being traded (read: sold) with it, the declaration is most likely to be entirely inconsequential (you wouldn't be able to defend the mark).
You generally see character names trademarked when character-specific merchandise is offered for sale. Thus, Elminster™ miniatures or Legend of Drizzt® novels (set in the Forgotten Realms®), but Elminster's statistics (no trademark declaration) and Drizzt's now-cliche storyline (no trademark declaration).
(In the US. the ™ is for when you're declaring something as a trademark; the ® is for when you've actually gotten the trademark registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office (United States Patent and Trademark Office Home Page).)
Personally, I wouldn't bother declaring your characters' names as trademarks. If you later go on to publish or create character-based merchandise, then marking those objects with the characters' names and declaring the names as trademarks should suffice.
But remember that if you need specific legal advice, you should consult an intellectual property attorney and not an Internet messageboard.
But remember that if you need specific legal advice, you should consult an intellectual property attorney and not an Internet messageboard.
I am aware of this, haha. I figured I was getting ahead of myself. I need to finish the book(s) before I move on to publishing and trademarks and all that.
Thanks again everyone for their help! These forums are great, I'll be sticking around.
While I might personally like to see a more "folkloric" approach*, "kobolds" (however they look and whatever they're about**) do, as I said, fill the "puny humanoid" niche in several other RPGs and CRPGs without any apparent issue.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
