A call to would-be 4E publishers (if it wasn’t for the GSL).

[Ruis]

Look I appreciate your help, but i don't appreciate the scare tactics. My goal is of course to avoid any copyright infringement. Its just like others asking for help on what they can and cant do in regards to the gsl. They wish to remain inside the bounds of the gsl, I wish to remain inside of us copyright.

I don't want to tread on others intellectual property and i don't see how asking for help on the matter is a bad thing, considering how sticky copyright can be.

if my other threads gave you the wrong impression I am sorry. Perhaps you could help me amend them so when others read it, they understand what my intentions are rather then coming to the conclusions that you have.

 

[FormerlyDickensC]

Just a note to those working on this project. This entire thread (as well as the other, related thread) could easily be presented in court as proof that you are intentionally creating a derivative work.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness and concern about the legal well being of the project. I interpret that as exemplary of your high level of support for these efforts contained in this and similar threads.

However, no matter the intention of any participant, as long as the final product (assuming it is actually published publicly - if it is were not then all efforts fall under fair use doctrine - contains no original material then the product is not an unauthorized derivative work. So what is "original material"? Original material is text (or art or other expression) appearing in published sources. One must also remember: if the product uses OGL material then the product must be released under the OGL as stipulated in the OGL.

Bottom line: if no material, which is to say text from 4E sources, appears in any surrogate product there is no liability for copyright violation. It is text and only text (and art and other expression) that can be claimed as owned by WOTC. The algorithms defined in the text is not owned by WOTC and is reproducable.

[d]hr[/d]
As proof, I present the following text from the US Copyright website:

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

Source: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

Emphasis is mine. I hope this clears the matter finally. Back to work fellas.

 

[Ourph]

I'm well aware of the intricacies concerning copyright as it applies to games which you point out in your post. In fact, I have posted the exact same quote from the U.S. Copyright Office here on ENWorld several times. However, you should be aware that this part of your post...

However, no matter the intention of any participant, as long as the final product (assuming it is actually published publicly - if it is were not then all efforts fall under fair use doctrine - contains no original material then the product is not an unauthorized derivative work. So what is "original material"? Original material is text (or art or other expression) appearing in published sources.

... is full of legal opinions that may very well not hold water. In particular, intent can often be an important factor in copyright infringement cases and derivative works don't need to contain any significant amount of text from the original document to be found infringing.

 

[Oldtimer]

BoXM (Book of Experimental Might) has "Breather" and I do believe that Fantasy Concepts might have Second Wind as OGL. If anything, BoXM might be THE place to go for swiping mechanics and names from the OGL which meshes well with 4E.

Except that Monte didn't include that chapter (with "Breather") in his OGC. Not that much of BoXM is actually OGC. Go figure.

 

[Ruis]

Could people post excerpts that are ogc that they feel where later used to create 4e? and list the source of the excerpt, that would help immensely.

At the moment I have have updated all the races, abilities (scores), attacks and damage, defenses, and conditions. I need to go over them a second time though to fix errors. I am slowly making progress, but its progress.

Most of my focus seems at the moment is to make 3.5 compatible with chapter 9 of 4e

 

[Angellis_ater]

Warlock - OGL name as an "Arcanist Path" in World of Warcraft RPG, 2nd Edition, page 62.

Oldtimer is unfortunately correct that Monte left the Breather mechanic out of the OGL. Does anyone own Fantasy Concepts or perhaps Jason himself can tell us if there is a 2nd Wind mechanic in there that is OGL?

2nd Wind/Stamina/Healing Surges have a commonality with Reserve Points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/reservePoints.htm ) from Unearthed Arcana. The same can be said for Vitality as a faster way of returning HP (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm#healing )

A basis for increasing AC (together with saves) can be found in the Defense Bonus rules of Unearthed Arcana (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm ) and here: http://www.12tomidnight.com/d20modernsrd/Defense.php

Powers is used in True20 to denote ANY supernatural ability, from jumping high to breathing fire. It also offers the use of Ritual Magic, if we need a secondary source for Rituals.

Recharge Magic is a good basis for Per Encounter powers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm )

Weapon Groups works as a basis for the new "groupings" of weapons and armor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm )

Complex Skill Checks is more or less a verbatim for Skill Challenges in 4E (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/complexSkillChecks.htm )

Someone asked where Heroic appears within the SRD: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=015155386140379294602:k9hv7ukafn4&cof=FORID:1&q=heroic&sa=GO

MANY references to "heroic fantasy", heroic classes, heroic abilities, heroic uses of skills, heroic actions. So that ain't a problem.

Saves into Defenses are from http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/playersRollAllTheDice.htm but that has already been quoted, right?

Movement as squares can be found here: http://www.12tomidnight.com/d20modernsrd/Movement.php

Too tired to find more references. Please post what you've got trouble finding reference points for and I'll see what I can do. Other suggestions for good books/PDFs are always welcome.

 

[Ruis]

this is a huge help. It covers alot of the annoying ones.

The reason for not asking about any mechanic in particular is i prefer to use a dragnet, rather then hunt and peck. (which i cant do alone) even if the names are the same Its still very useful to have a source that explains an identical rule. I know the rules themselves cant be copyrighted, but its still good to have.

If I run into any more peculiar instances i will post it here.

Interesting enough i found this
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/racialParagonClasses.htm

Does this mean all 3 levels of play have a suitable presence in the srd?

The rules in 3.5 are already divided by "blank" and epic. Wizards must have just split it again, kept the name epic, used paragon because it was a bonus class in a way, and that called the first set of levels heroic. hmm it makes sense considering races were going to play a bigger part in the dzn at later levels.

 

[Angellis_ater]

Well, since the "normal" rules refer to Heroic all the time for the first 20 levels (what you called the "blank") I would say that D&D was divided into Heroic/Epic and that Paragon was added simply to diversify the spread. Kinda like we could do with Legendary.

 

[kunadam]

Push = Move
Pull = Draw
Shift = Transfer

Isn't push a bull-rush, and shift a 5' step? I would suggest going throught the SRD (3.5) and modifying thing that needs modifying. But largery use the terminology and format presented there.
Powers will be presented as either spells or like class abilities. And not as the nice tables in 4th. Just to avoid any resemblance.

 

[Angellis_ater]

Isn't push a bull-rush, and shift a 5' step? I would suggest going throught the SRD (3.5) and modifying thing that needs modifying. But largery use the terminology and format presented there.
Powers will be presented as either spells or like class abilities. And not as the nice tables in 4th. Just to avoid any resemblance.

Yes, you are correct - those are just renamed variants. But in making a simulacrum we can't COPY what they called it, rather we need something equivalent derived from the OGL.

Why NOT present powers as tables? It is an easier way of collecting all information in one place.