Change and the OGL

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Well, the same naming issues were present in the OGL -- "Mage's Disjunction," etc. -- but most players seemed to handle that without much issue. We'll see; my guess is that someone's going to try, once their version of D&D is no longer supported.

 

[Mark CMG]

Well, the same naming issues were present in the OGL -- "Mage's Disjunction," etc. -- but most players seemed to handle that without much issue. We'll see; my guess is that someone's going to try, once their version of D&D is no longer supported.

Those were about a dozen spell name issues that the 3.5 SRD handled, though before that with the 3.0 SRD I put out a document (and I believe just one other publisher did as well) creating similar enough spell names that they would remain in their alphabetical position and sound eerily similar. Remember, however, that these were replacements for proper names (names under trademark that WotC rightfully wished to preserve) so there was some leeway in adjusted spelling that could make it easier and there was no jeopardy attached in regard to the mechanical effects attached, since those were released under an SRD (twice, actually). Incidentally, this is not dissimilar to TSR switching Hobbits to Halflings and Mithril to Mithral.

With anything being mimicked from 4E, there is no safe harbor regarding the mechanics and the names needing replacement attached to those mechanics are often generic (like Marking, rather than true proper nouns) and finding an equivalent to replace them doesn't hold the same ease of transference in the players' minds. Changing the way Marking works wouldn't do. So, too, changing the name, but keeping the mechanics, to something like Branding, would be fairly awkward but really the only way to go. Once you compound that with dozens of such name changes, you might as well write a whole new game, IMO. Take that a step further and look through the number of power names that would need replacement if you wished to maintain the mechanics that go with them (because, remember, you can't keep both) and you can see how the number of replacements create and ever-increasing barrier to playing 4E through use of a clone ruleset.

 

[Alzrius]

Ah, the carefree days of mord's disjunction and big grasping hand.

 

[Glade Riven]

Considering that Big Daddy Hasbro still lets an internet forum/fan news site call itself the Allspark with an owner that claims to own a term covered easily underneith copyright and trademark law, I wouldn't be too worried. File off the serial numbers and don't copy/paste the text, and you're probably fine. Remember, copyright covers expression, not ideas.

 

[Mark CMG]

Remember, copyright covers expression, not ideas.

Precisely key to my above point. The mechanics can be rewritten, expressed differently, but the naming conventions cannot if you want a playable ruleset that bears enough resemblance to 4E so as to make it a clone. Names, like Marking, are an expression, not the mechanic itself. A power that gives a +2 this way or that is a mechanic and can be expressed differently, but the name of that mechanic is an expression that cannot simply be transferred to a non-sanctioned body of work. The serial numbers you glibly suggest can be filed off are what would be needed to make the game playable as a 4E clone.

 

[Glade Riven]

Technical language is not copyrightable, although arguing it in court may be difficult. Trademarks are very, very specific, too - and you can look up what is registered. For instance, I can use the word "Bigby" all I want in relation to an RPG product, because it isn't registered as a trademark and it is a name. You can't just take a common word and claim copyright on it, either. You can claim copyright on the description of Marking, but rewriting the paragraph that describes "marking" to avoid that is pretty easy.

And, if contacted by their legal team, I'd tell them straight off that they should probably make sure they actually register a trademark before attempted to use it for bullying (Bigby is not Trademarked by WotC). WotC is pretty good with registering copyrights (as any publisher should, although I'm surprised that there's only 330 entries listed in the Copyright public catalogue).

 

[Mark CMG]

You can claim copyright on the description of Marking, but rewriting the paragraph that describes "marking" to avoid that is pretty easy.

Except that if you then label the new expression as Marking you are likely treading on WotC's IP, which if you are doing so in the context of an RPG meant to emulate the whole of that 4E IP, you are not going to have an easy defense against a civil suit.

And, if contacted by their legal team, I'd tell them straight off that they should probably make sure they actually register a trademark before attempted to use it for bullying (Bigby is not Trademarked by WotC). WotC is pretty good with registering copyrights (as any publisher should, although I'm surprised that there's only 330 entries listed in the Copyright public catalogue).

Well, the names in question (like Bigby), and the reason for the workaround, has more to do with the restrictions of the OGL as it pertains to the 3.XE SRD material, and probably should have been made clear that it is a separate issue from trying the rewrite and clone 4E However, if one were to try and clone 4E, using the OGL, and further attempted to utilize those proper names within such a document, there would certainly be additional issues to legally handle beyond the direct civil suit that might be raised against someone attempting to clone 4E.

 

[Glade Riven]

True, "Bigby" has more to do with brand identity than copyright, and that's covered under OGL's brand identity clauses. Gameplay terms (such as Marking) are not brand identity. Besides, since 4e wasn't released under OGL, the OGL doesn't apply.

Copyright, Trademark, and Patents are very, very specific in what they protect. Copyright covers expression (not ideas, not common words). Trademark is Branding, covering registered names and logos. Patents are processes (theoretically, game mechanics can be patented since it is a process). The only real argument in court would be a claim that a supposed infringing knockoff is a Derrivative Work (under that specific clause under copyright law), in which I'm not sure if damages could be collected, but a "cease and desist" could be put into place by order of a civil court. Hasbro, as well as most US companies, are usually fairly tolerant of derrivative works (such as fan art, fan fiction, etc) because it grows the fanbase as well as increasing the viability of a brand.

Still, I'm not one to poke the bear - even though I've thought about co-opting some SW Saga and Bo9S mechanics for something Pathfinder Compatable.

 

[Mark CMG]

True, "Bigby" has more to do with brand identity than copyright, and that's covered under OGL's brand identity clauses. Gameplay terms (such as Marking) are not brand identity. Besides, since 4e wasn't released under OGL, the OGL doesn't apply.

The only context under which I have ever seen cloning 4E discussed has been as an OGL project, presumably in the effort to gain access to legacy terms already available as part of the vast pool of OGC and perhaps also to open up the project to future development by others. As to Marking, as one example, if someone rewrites its mechanic to function the same way as it does in 4E but leaves the name the same, then IMO they'd likely find WotC lawyers getting in on the action.


As to the rest, you make some fair points though I also would not risk my time or capital betting against the litigious nature of a corporation.

 

[Glade Riven]

Like I said, I'm not out to poke the bear - doing so can get a person the horns (and yes, I am mixing metaphores). It'll usually take a bit more than a few common terms to incite the wrath of a lawyer, though. Them boys and girls are expensive.