Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 5513605" data-attributes="member: 2732">It's not so much a question of which license is used, but how the game has been licensed.&nbsp; Here's where it can get murky.All forms of D&amp;D before 3e are still protected under copyright law.&nbsp; WoTC has never created an open license for any of the former versions of D&amp;D.&nbsp; (In fact, they have specifically licensed it a few times to either paying clients or for other reasons).Rules can't be copyright, according to prior law, but individual expressions of them can.&nbsp; The hard thing with an RPG, as opposed to monopoly, is that the RPG is a lot of words.The problem with a retro-clone is that the goals of them is to duplicate the older non-SRD released versions of D&amp;D.&nbsp; You can legally prove, for instance, that a game like Pathfinder came from 3e as a base and then diverged.&nbsp; Even variants like C&amp;C are safe because while they try to go more towards what 1e was like, they still use the same base d20 ruleset.&nbsp; And a game like M&amp;M is different in so many ways it's more or less original.The problem with a retro-clone is that they are trying to duplicate an existing ruleset that was never given a release under the OGL as specificially as possible.&nbsp; If you look at OSRIC, stuff that is specific to AD&amp;D is in there:&nbsp; Percentile Strength, the Encumbrance tables, the Thief tables, etc.&nbsp; There's no way you can argue parallel development because some of the stated goals are to get as close to AD&amp;D as possible and it would be hard to argue that this was a case of parallel development or independent ideas.&nbsp; (In the past, people who used the game rules are not copyrightable defenses would sometimes use care to use different terminology--like Monster Level instead of Hit Dice, hits to kill instead of hit points, Armor instead of Armor Class.&nbsp; I think if the retroclones did that they'd have more protection).The addition of the OGL is to also allow the addition to the copyright elements that are similar between 1e and 3e to be used in the retro-clones.&nbsp; Things like spell descriptions, for instance.&nbsp; While I believe for the most part they are safe, there are still edge cases that drift towards the grey area.&nbsp; Is the Thief percentile chart considered copyrightable or not?&nbsp; What about spells that were not part of 3e that are in a book like OSRIC, such as Airy Water?&nbsp; I could see--if WoTC wanted to--making a sensible legal argument that it goes too far.&nbsp; And I think that's why some publishers chose not to embrace OSRIC or another retroclone, because I think it's a reasonable argument.&nbsp; (Even if there is little to no chance WoTC will take that action, based on the past few years).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnRTroy, post: 5513605, member: 2732"] It's not so much a question of which license is used, but how the game has been licensed. Here's where it can get murky. All forms of D&D before 3e are still protected under copyright law. WoTC has never created an open license for any of the former versions of D&D. (In fact, they have specifically licensed it a few times to either paying clients or for other reasons). Rules can't be copyright, according to prior law, but individual expressions of them can. The hard thing with an RPG, as opposed to monopoly, is that the RPG is a lot of words. The problem with a retro-clone is that the goals of them is to duplicate the older non-SRD released versions of D&D. You can legally prove, for instance, that a game like Pathfinder came from 3e as a base and then diverged. Even variants like C&C are safe because while they try to go more towards what 1e was like, they still use the same base d20 ruleset. And a game like M&M is different in so many ways it's more or less original. The problem with a retro-clone is that they are trying to duplicate an existing ruleset that was never given a release under the OGL as specificially as possible. If you look at OSRIC, stuff that is specific to AD&D is in there: Percentile Strength, the Encumbrance tables, the Thief tables, etc. There's no way you can argue parallel development because some of the stated goals are to get as close to AD&D as possible and it would be hard to argue that this was a case of parallel development or independent ideas. (In the past, people who used the game rules are not copyrightable defenses would sometimes use care to use different terminology--like Monster Level instead of Hit Dice, hits to kill instead of hit points, Armor instead of Armor Class. I think if the retroclones did that they'd have more protection). The addition of the OGL is to also allow the addition to the copyright elements that are similar between 1e and 3e to be used in the retro-clones. Things like spell descriptions, for instance. While I believe for the most part they are safe, there are still edge cases that drift towards the grey area. Is the Thief percentile chart considered copyrightable or not? What about spells that were not part of 3e that are in a book like OSRIC, such as Airy Water? I could see--if WoTC wanted to--making a sensible legal argument that it goes too far. And I think that's why some publishers chose not to embrace OSRIC or another retroclone, because I think it's a reasonable argument. (Even if there is little to no chance WoTC will take that action, based on the past few years). [/QUOTE]

Verification