Can the GNU be applied to an RPG system?

[Umbran]

I still don't get it.

Are you saying that I could legally use D&D 4e rules in my own publication without paying anything to WotC?

In theory, yes. But there's a risk. You see, you have to properly extract the rules, and not use *any portion* of their particular way of stating those rules. If you do that poorly, so some of the Intellectual Property is left in, you can be nailed by the copyright.

For example, the arrangement of a table telling you what bonuses, feats, and abilities that a class gets per level is covered by copyright. You can't just copy their table - you have to give a novel arrangement of that same information.

Or, for example, the names of monsters - some are public domain, others aren't. If you don't know which is which, you can let "illithid" slip into your copy, and you soon get legal papers from WotC and a lawsuit on your hands.

Obviously that's not the case or there wouldn't have been any hoo-har over the OGL since it would effectively mean nothing.

No, the OGL gives you a prescribed way to use material so that you *know* what they allowed, and what they didn't - even if some of it was technically their IP, they allow you to use it so long as you follow the terms of the license. The material in the SRD was fair game - you could use it verbatim, without having to worry about how you restated it. Stuff not in the SRD wasn't. Clear and simple, no guessing, no risk if you follow the terms of the license.

The GSL is more restrictive than the OGL, putting more restrictions on what you could and couldn't do with their material.

 

[Matt James]

I have a good buddy that is an IP lawyer and avid gamer. He has an ongoing column that discuss this topic.

Loremaster - Protection from Chaos

You may notice that several gaming companies, including Kobold Quarterly, don't subscribe to the GSL. Mainly, because they don't have to. There is very little that WotC (or any gaming company) can protect. The biggest case that was successfully argued (and subsequently won) was WotC's ability to patent the "Tap" ability in MTG.

Anyways, there's good info on this if you read up on it. But yes, there is very little that can be protected in the way of game mechanics. You can't put a stranglehold on describing that a character rolls a d20 when they attack and add an ability modifier to the roll against a target defense.

 

[Glade Riven]

If you are starting from scratch, you can actually place anything you make under your own version of the OGL, GNU, Creative Commons, etc.

 

[pawsplay]

For example, the arrangement of a table telling you what bonuses, feats, and abilities that a class gets per level is covered by copyright. You can't just copy their table - you have to give a novel arrangement of that same information.

That's the tricky thing about tables. Purely tabular information is not copyrightable. But there's pretty much no such thing as a table that contains only tabular information. Even the simplest table contains such novel authorship as headings and choice of font.

For instance, when I use the OGL, I can happily create tables, class writeups, feats, and so forth that mimic, as closely as possible, what WotC or Paizo uses. But if I were publishing a similar game system without a license, it would be in my best interests to make the tables, class writeups, feats, and so forth, as different as possible while preserving the information I need.

It's relatively easy, when creating an entirely new game, to use common "terms of art" like hit points, attack bonus, and so forth, and generic English terms like Strength or Luck. It's much harder when creating a game clone. Is "Power Attack" a novel, copyrightable piece of text, or a title using common English words in a non-artistic way? Only your judge knows for sure.

 

[Morrus]

So in other words, all the people who were up in arms about 4e's OGL debacle weren't upset that they couldn't use the mechanics, they were just upset that they couldn't add a little WotC logo to their products...

That was the primary root of disppointment, yup.

 

[pawsplay]

That was the primary root of disppointment, yup.

I don't really agree. In my view, the root of the disappointment was the end of the "safe harbor." WotC knows other people can publish compatible materials. They chose not to make it clear and explicit how this can be done without invoking their ire. I think the loss of the safe harbor is a loss for everybody; nobody wants to get sued, and if WotC is smart, they don't want to sue anybody, either.

 

[AeroDm]

I don't really agree. In my view, the root of the disappointment was the end of the "safe harbor." WotC knows other people can publish compatible materials. They chose not to make it clear and explicit how this can be done without invoking their ire. I think the loss of the safe harbor is a loss for everybody; nobody wants to get sued, and if WotC is smart, they don't want to sue anybody, either.

This is one of the rare instances where I think it is more sinister than that. If you want your materials to be compatible with 4e, the easiest way is to include the compatibility logo. But inclusion of that logo allows WotC to revoke your license and demand you immediately destroy all materials bearing it. Basically, few companies trusted WotC enough to invest in products up front on the presumption that Wizards wouldn't make them destroy them. It is actually a very damning and rather sad.

I personally doubt that Wizards would have ever exercised their option to hurt a competitor in the fashion described above, but few were willing to let their head hang below that blade.

 

[Morrus]

I don't really agree. In my view, the root of the disappointment was the end of the "safe harbor." WotC knows other people can publish compatible materials. They chose not to make it clear and explicit how this can be done without invoking their ire. I think the loss of the safe harbor is a loss for everybody; nobody wants to get sued, and if WotC is smart, they don't want to sue anybody, either.

Same thing in my mind. It was about indicating compatibility in a safe way; i.e. use of the logo according to a clear license.

 

[pawsplay]

Same thing in my mind. It was about indicating compatibility in a safe way; i.e. use of the logo according to a clear license.

I believe I differ in believing it is the terminology and "look and feel" publishers would like to have, rather than a logo, per se. There is actual very little risk, IMHO, in slapping "Compatible with D&D 4e, not affiliated with Wizards of the Coast, etc." on the cover of a book. The courts have come down time and again with very strong protections for the right to compete, denotative use of trademarks, and so forth. IANAL, but you can be compatible with D&D 4e, vacuum bags, and the Nintendo Famicom, according to the Supreme Court. Unless, of course, you sign the GSL. Then you agree to state compatibility only according to their terms.

Green Ronin ignored the d20 System trademark, basically, but used the OGL to fearlessly work within the d20 lingua.

 

[Morrus]

I believe I differ in believing it is the terminology and "look and feel" publishers would like to have, rather than a logo, per se.

I can't speak for you, but I know which I wanted. I certainly had no desire to make a product look or feel like an official WotC product. I merely wanted to be able to clearly and unambiguously indicate compatibilty in a safe, agreed manner.