D&D 5E Dungeonscape no more?

[UngainlyTitan]

Read the thread, remarkably calm considering the past on simiilar topics. Got invited to the web betya at the end of October. Had a chance to get one look at it before going to a con and taking a week off and come back to see it canned. First impression was that it had a very long way to go. I have a hard time seeing how the iOs version could be much better since it should be using the same backbone.

What do I think, now?

I think that I do not need an char-builder. I can knock a character sheet in excel in no-time flat for 5e it that is what I need or an editable pdf would also do. I do not really need an e-version of the books though if one were available as an ebook rather than pdf I would buy it.

What I do want is monster stat blocks at will and maps for published adventures with some attached meta data. pixel size and pixels per unit length so I can adjust them to work with a VTT. Roll20 is my choice and I would like character and monster tokens for use with the same.
And to be honest I would prefer to get them as a service for a small subscription than buy them
As a service they are available while I need them and the service provider curates them while when I buy them sit on a hard drive and disappear when that drive fails or I rebuild the machine or what ever.

One interesting thing with the Dungeonscape product is that a Forge user driven content maketplace was envisioned, so somewhere in the bowels of WoTC the vision of Gleemax still lives on.

So if I could command WoTC to obey me, I would like the graphical elements of published adventures available, optimised for use in a VTT, while being agnostic as to what VTT. The statblocks and adventure could also accompany this as a pdf in the delve format. Or a hyperlinked document that takes from DM map and room description to the statblocks and back. Start with that the rest is gravy.

 

[jeffwhitfield]

That is incorrect.

The Basic Rules, while free to download, are still covered by copyright. You cannot legally reproduce their content, any more than you can legally reproduce content from the print version of the PHB.

Let us be clear - how much you charge, or how much WotC charges, for content is irrelevant to copyright protection. They wrote and published it. They own it. Unless they specifically make a different license available standard copyright applies.

This point is important for a simple reason - EN World does not support copyright infringement. As a general rule, we do not allow the site to be used to distribute blatantly infringing materials - so until WotC puts out some official policy, if folks start giving links to software alternates that are not obviously in the clear, we are likely to have to start stomping on the links.

I'm sorry to be a wet blanket about this, but that's the way it is, folks. Legality matters, so please don't go that way. Thanks.

Nah, you're not being a wet blanket. Very, very good point. Thanks for the correction!

I think what I meant was that getting permission to use stuff from the Basic Rules is much, much easier. WotC isn't likely to get pissed if you do that. It's the published books that they make money off of where they really raise a stink. I think if app developers were to just concentrate on the basic rules but make it easy to incorporate your own parameters (ie. stuff from PHB, MM, and DMG) then it'll be much easier to get the WotC to approve a bunch of this stuff.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Actually, no, Dungeonscape never worked. It was a confusing mess and wasn't at all useable, especially on tablets (ie. iPad).

I was not referring to Dungeonscape. This comment was on the fan made character generator that was released when the PHB hit.

I don't have any experience with Dungeonscape, and so offer no comment on it's functionality.

 

[Morrus]

I think what I meant was that getting permission to use stuff from the Basic Rules is much, much easier.

It is? I find that surprising. Has anybody done so?

WotC isn't likely to get pissed if you do that.

Well, no, not if you've gotten permission, no. If you haven't, they'll get very pissed off with you very quickly.

It's the published books that they make money off of where they really raise a stink.

Again - it is?

As an aside, the basic stuff is excerpted directly from the books. It's the same content.

I strongly advise people not to reproduce or distribute the content of the basic rules if WotC hasn't specifically licensed you to do so.

 

[MagicSN]

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]: i fully agree with you. Even if it isvery frustrating for me I will not give out any of the stuff I wrote. I will try to talk with WotC on the issue though and discuss if there would be possibilities regarding a license. I do not have much hope regarding this discussion though
[MENTION=6777052]BoldItalic[/MENTION]: I know Prolog though I never did a real project with it. 100k? Wow, nice work. I guess it is so much smaller as you do bot have the powercards and attack/damage calculations in. My gui basically is part of the framework i use so it was nearly no work, the gui part. The personal pronoun feature you have - this is sonething the hero lab framework cannot do.

 

[jeffwhitfield]

It is? I find that surprising. Has anybody done so?



Well, no, not if you've gotten permission, no. If you haven't, they'll get very pissed off with you very quickly.



Again - it is?

As an aside, the basic stuff is excerpted directly from the books. It's the same content.

I strongly advise people not to reproduce or distribute the content of the basic rules if WotC hasn't specifically licensed you to do so.

The d20 Fight Club app is based on the Basic Rules and includes some content from it like spells and such so I can only presume they got permission from WotC to release it. Either that or WotC doesn't really care so long as you don't include content from the books. Dunno. But this does raise questions.

 

[Morrus]

The d20 Fight Club app is based on the Basic Rules and includes some content from it like spells and such so I can only presume they got permission from WotC to release it. Either that or WotC doesn't really care so long as you don't include content from the books. Dunno. But this does raise questions.

It doesn't really raise questions. Either the creators of that app got a license from WotC, or it's illegally using copyrighted material. They're the only two options.

Obviously we don't know which it is. But the permission option seems unlikely; WotC wouldn't be likely (at the time) to undermine DungeonScape so blatantly.

The "doesn't care" has been shown to be untrue. WotC has sent C&Ds to spell card websites which included the spell content from the basic rules.

 

[FernandoG.Piqueres]

Software that won't be finished for at least 13 months could fill the gap? Uh, no.

13 months is better than nothing...

 

[hardvice]

WOTC was pretty clear that they weren't going to license anything until after the DMG was released, at the earliest, on the theory that they didn't want people releasing licensed content for a game that's only half finished. (I suppose one could point out that that's essentially what's happened with HotDQ and RoT, funnily enough). So I'm guessing anyone using Basic content is just playing the odds that WOTC won't go after them for it.

And in the case of most character creation apps, they might be right. Unlike spell cards, which don't exist at all without licensed content, a character sheet app can pull out the basic data and still have a functioning product, albeit a fairly user-unfriendly one. And since the Basic rules are available as a PDF, the end user would just end up cut-and-pasting the content back in anyway (and be well within the "personal use" granted to them in doing so).

My guess then is that WOTC probably doesn't see much value (yet, without a competing product) in going after character sheet apps with content from the Basic rules, but probably does see digital spell cards as directly competing products for Galeforce 9's licensed spellbook cards.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that, once WOTC does end up releasing licensing terms to the general public, the Basic rules end up being free to use in non-commercial works. But that's certainly not the case right now, and anyone doing so is at the mercy of WOTC.

 

[Morrus]

WOTC was pretty clear that they weren't going to license anything until after the DMG was released, at the earliest, on the theory that they didn't want people releasing licensed content for a game that's only half finished.

No, that was referring to any possible announcements about open licenses. They have licensed stuff to Trapdoor, Gale Force 9, WizKids, and possibly more we don't know of already (though they just terminated Tradoor's license).

 

[aramis erak]

In the US, processes are EXPLICITLY not protected by copyright law. Explicit in the law itself, and pretty plain english.
Only the exact wording is protected by copyright. See US Copyright Circular 31 (PDF) - which uses a recipe as example. An RPG is functionally a recipe. Don't use the literal text, don't use the names of distinctive characters from the fluff, and they can't get you on copyright. See also Copyright and Games (webpage). Both links are to the US Copyright office.

There is another issue, tho - that of Trademark. Indicating 5E compatibility may run afoul of that. Trademark also (since the 90's) can be applied to "look and feel"... but that is a dicey situation. If you get a C&D, expect to go broke if you insist on going to court.

And a third issue, but one which isn't relevant - patent. Processes can be patented... but the window for patent on RPGs is long expired.

 

[Morrus]

In the US, processes are EXPLICITLY not protected by copyright law. Explicit in the law itself, and pretty plain english.

We all know. Trust us, the "rules can't be copyrighted" thing has been bandied about here approximately once every 3.5 seconds for the last 15 years to the point that we stab ourselves in the eyes every time somebody mentions it. Believe me when I say your startling CAPPED ITALICS aren't necessary.

Sorry. That was slightly snarky. Sometimes I just think I'm hilarious! YMMV, of course.

We were talking about reproduction of the text from the basic rules, which is copyrighted.

 

[hardvice]

No, that was referring to any possible announcements about open licenses. They have licensed stuff to Trapdoor, Gale Force 9, WizKids, and possibly more we don't know of already (though they just terminated Tradoor's license).

Very true, and what I meant to say but didn't.

Nevertheless, I think it's pretty unlikely that they've licensed anything to small-scale app developers yet. The intention of the no-license-until-it's-all-out statement seemed to be that they only wanted folks they're working closely with working with unfinished rules.

I suppose it's possible someone they didn't already have a relationship with asked them expressly for permission to use the Basic rules and got the go-ahead, but I definitely wouldn't put any money on it. Lone Wolf and others who asked were told they'd have to wait until licensing was announced; I don't see them making an exception to that policy for a smaller, independent developer like Lion's Den.

While we're on the subject, I definitely overstated the case for spell apps, too. I mean, I've crammed all of the 5e spells into SpellbookMaster on iOS (designed for Pathfinder and 3.5, but works fine with 5th), either by copy-and-pasting from the Basic Rules or (*sigh*) typing them manually from the PHB. So it's definitely possible to release a 5th-edition spell app without violating WOTC's copyright to either the Basic or full rules; it just ain't pretty.

 

[pemerton]

In the US, processes are EXPLICITLY not protected by copyright law. Explicit in the law itself, and pretty plain english.
Only the exact wording is protected by copyright.

In general, it is not true that only "exact wording" is protected by copyright.

In the case of rules text, I don't think that would be true either.

A further complication in the case of D&D is that I think it is an open question whether the rule that dwarves get +2 STR is a mere process, or is also a story - a story about dwarves being notably strong. Likewise for many other game elements. (Not all. That a sword does d8 damage is probably a mere process. But that a flametongue gets a bonus against avian creatures? - looks to me like it could be a story about a magic sword that sets feathers alight.)

To the best of my knowledge there has been no litigation that has tried to tease out the precise nature of what is copyrighted in an RPG rulebook. Good luck to the person who goes first!

 

[Dannager]

To the best of my knowledge there has been no litigation that has tried to tease out the precise nature of what is copyrighted in an RPG rulebook. Good luck to the person who goes first!

Heh, one of the issues of novel IP law - you can't really answer the question of what the boundaries of allowable behavior are without opening yourself up to the possibility of ruinous litigation.

 

[aramis erak]

In general, it is not true that only "exact wording" is protected by copyright.

In the case of rules text, I don't think that would be true either.

A further complication in the case of D&D is that I think it is an open question whether the rule that dwarves get +2 STR is a mere process, or is also a story - a story about dwarves being notably strong. Likewise for many other game elements. (Not all. That a sword does d8 damage is probably a mere process. But that a flametongue gets a bonus against avian creatures? - looks to me like it could be a story about a magic sword that sets feathers alight.)

To the best of my knowledge there has been no litigation that has tried to tease out the precise nature of what is copyrighted in an RPG rulebook. Good luck to the person who goes first!

Most of the RPG IP litigation has revolved around Trademarks. Examples include TSR v. Judges Guild and TSR v. Mayfair Games (Which, substantially, TSR lost... the copyright violations were deemed irrelevant to the requested relief, and the trademark violation deemed too minor for recourse). And recently, several Games Workshop v. .... and most of these result in settlements, not trials, and so don't set precedents. Likewise, most of the Copyright litigation in gaming results in settlements. (KenzerCo v WotC, for example, was a clear case of copyright - but it wasn't about the gaming elements. It was expressly about the copyrighted art that TSR had 1st publication rights only...)

Several, however, have established significant precedents in the boardgaming venue. One that's particularly relevant is Allen v. Academic Games... JH Kim has a page discussing it: http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/academic.html And note that WotC operates within the purview of the 9th Circuit... and the 9th Circuit handles a disproportionately large number of copyright and trademark cases, and is the most frequently overturned circuit court in the nation.

TSR v. Mayfair is also interesting... mostly, the copyright claims in it were tossed by the court, leaving only the trademark and breach of contract portions.

And, assuming the Certiorari is granted on Oracle v. Google, it's going to be REAL interesting, because if may make even artistic renderings of process uncopyrightable as such. And there's not much outside of law and gaming that is as reliant upon specific wordings as an API...

 

[drjones]

Am I safe in assuming there is no useful information in this thread and just a lot of armchair game marketing/ip lawyering?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

TSR v. Mayfair is also interesting... mostly, the copyright claims in it were tossed by the court, leaving only the trademark and breach of contract portions.

...

Mayfair was a 3rd party D&D gameing company before the OGL or SRD was even a dream. I find it to be the real backbone anyone would use if they wanted to publish anything for a closed game. I also loved there Archmage and Half demon rules and still to this day use Grimours in 3e, 4e, and plan on doing so in my first 5e game

 

[Bugleyman]

Am I safe in assuming there is no useful information in this thread and just a lot of armchair game marketing/ip lawyering?

The information is in the title: WotC has ended its partnership with Trapdoor. No additional information has been forthcoming.

The rest of the thread is people discussing it. Which is what tends to happen on a discussion board.

As for armchair game marketing -- at this point, would it even be possible to do it worse than the real thing? I can't imagine how without resorting to the patently ridiculous (punch everyone who buys a PHB in the face!)

 

[UngainlyTitan]

There is also some wishful thinking