Help me clear up OGL FUD

[Ranger REG]

If it is not expressed in OGC terms, it might well be unprotected regardless of what its OGL status is. Game rules are unprotectable by means short of patent, though their expression is covered by copyright. Any term covered by prior art would probably be safe (a Strength score), but some kinds of templating with novel uses of terminology might be troublesome (a "divine bonus" is a fairly novel term).

Sounds like you're questioning the existence of the OGL, or its application in the programming code area ... if one were to adapt OGC into datacode.

 

[eyebeams]

Sounds like you're questioning the existence of the OGL, or its application in the programming code area ... if one were to adapt OGC into datacode.

Let me be more clear. Neither WotC nor anyone else has any legally legitimate ability to restrict the use of game rules. Game rules cannot be protected by any means short of patent, and even then, the patent can only be granted if the rule is novel. There is probably no part of OGC which is not prior art though, so it doesn't qualify. The OGL is *irrelevant*; it can't remove the ability to freely use game rules at all. That's hy Technomancer Press sells D&D compatible material without using any license at all. It's also why there are unlicensed RISK variants and such.

What the OGL actually opens is not game rules. They're already "open." It is an expression of game rules. This expression includes the phrasing used to describe rules and terms and maybe names for things that are not covered by common usage or prior art. If you were to create an application that resolved D&D style combat without ever copying OGL descriptions and avoiding all terms that aren't basically common terms of us in the hobby, the OGL is also irrelevant. It exists, but technically doesn't matter since nobody has any exclusive claim on the content.

*However*, you or I probably couldn't afford it is anybody sued us, even if such a lawsuit is totally spurious (as a suit against the aforementioned emulator would be). The OGL is useful as far as it signals that WotC has defined situations where they probably won't sue you.

That doesn't mean that chargen or combat resolution applications would also be unprotected, as the method by which one generates the output is somebody's property.

 

[Ranger REG]

Let me be more clear. Neither WotC nor anyone else has any legally legitimate ability to restrict the use of game rules. Game rules cannot be protected by any means short of patent, and even then, the patent can only be granted if the rule is novel. There is probably no part of OGC which is not prior art though, so it doesn't qualify. The OGL is *irrelevant*; it can't remove the ability to freely use game rules at all. That's hy Technomancer Press sells D&D compatible material without using any license at all. It's also why there are unlicensed RISK variants and such.

What the OGL actually opens is not game rules. They're already "open." It is an expression of game rules. This expression includes the phrasing used to describe rules and terms and maybe names for things that are not covered by common usage or prior art. If you were to create an application that resolved D&D style combat without ever copying OGL descriptions and avoiding all terms that aren't basically common terms of us in the hobby, the OGL is also irrelevant. It exists, but technically doesn't matter since nobody has any exclusive claim on the content.

*However*, you or I probably couldn't afford it is anybody sued us, even if such a lawsuit is totally spurious (as a suit against the aforementioned emulator would be). The OGL is useful as far as it signals that WotC has defined situations where they probably won't sue you.

That doesn't mean that chargen or combat resolution applications would also be unprotected, as the method by which one generates the output is somebody's property.

Okay, then let's talk about the "expression of game rules." Under the OGL, does translation of an expression is defined as being "Used" in Section 1 Definitions?

 

[eyebeams]

Okay, then let's talk about the "expression of game rules." Under the OGL, does translation of an expression is defined as being "Used" in Section 1 Definitions?

An expression of the rules would be something like the description of a feat in the OGL. If you use that description, you're using OGC. If you describe the same game mechanic in your own way, it might be OGC for the sake of the license, but that is utterly immaterial, since the OGL has no power over your words or the actual game rule.

This is OGC:

Cleave

Prerequisites

Str 13, Power Attack.
Benefit

If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round.
Special

A fighter may select Cleave as one of his fighter bonus feats.

(The preceding content is Open Game Content according to the Open Game License. For a full declaration, see: http://www.d20srd.org/ogl.htm )

Now *this* is a problematic case. The following text is mine; I own it according to the Berne Convention (possibly barring some kind of click-through EULA on this board).

Cutting a Swath

Prerequisites: Strength 13, the ability to make power attacks.
Benefit

If your character inflicts enough damage to make an enemy drop (by knocking the target down to 0 hit points or delivering a killing blow), he can immediately attack again with a ready melee weapon. The character must be able to reach the opponent without even taking a 5 foot step. The character uses this bonus attack no more than once per round at his normal attack roll bonus.

Special

Cutting a Swath can be gained by fighters just as they gain other fighter abilities.

It falls under my copyright as my particular expression of game rules. It might be too cautious, really, as I might be able to use words like "feat," for instance or "fighter bonus feat" instead of talking around them. But fighter, Strength (score), attack roll and the like are clearly not protected as they are used by multiple games, and the actual game mechanic, which is identical for both descriptions, is not. Given the amount of money WotC has compared to the money I have, I prefer to be circumspect. *That*'s one of the benefits of the OGL. I don't have to bite my nails over this kind of thing and can call Cleave, Cleave without hiring a lawyer.

But this:

(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.

Says what I wrote *is* Open Game Content. Section (d) basically says, "Screw the law, WotC claims ownership of game mechanics but is letting you use them." This is pretty ridiculous, but it's not a license designed out of the goodness of anybody's heart now, is it? The thing with the OGL is that it implies a certain amount of broad control that is not technically enforceable, but are you really going to go to court over it? Can't claim compatibility with D&D without permission? That would make it rather unique, considering cases like this:

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=3394&

There are two things to consider, then:

1) The OGL implies ownership over some things things that nobody can claim ownership of. It is legally unenforceable to claim copyright over all possible descriptions of a set of game rules.

2) The company that wrote the thing could crush you with even spurious legal action.

This is the kind of thing that makes the OGL different from any other open source movement, in that it's the only one that actually tries to *reduce* the intellectual commons in the marketplace. Despite this, it is useful in other ways as an assurance that you won't get sued. My personal fear is that, should WotC/Hasbro try to make a grab for the commons in a more overt way, a court will take the industry standard of practice (which pretends the company owns things it doesn't) into consideration, which is bad for pretty much everybody.

Let's say you design a computer game that automatically implements Cleave on adjacent opponents when the condition arrives. If this process runs in the background and never uses the distinct termionology of Cleave, then it's none of WotC's business whether or not warriors in your game automagically extra-attack guys under exactly the same conditions. If a little "Cleave!" sign comes up on the screen, you might be in trouble, but might not. If the OGL description of the Cleave feat shows up anywhere in the program, you most definitely *are* using WotC's copyrighted material.

Ultimately, I wouldn't apply the Use clause to computer games. It might be better to duplicate the rules set without using distinct OGC terms and then not use the OGL at all, because you won't be claiming derivation from OGC and are using your own protected expressions of game rules. The Use clause is not very distinct in terms of media, which makes it unclear, though lack/type of action against other software developers might be something to watch (as long as you *know* they aren't using a special license other than the OGL). If, on the other hand, you merely replicate the rules, you're not doing anything much different than the makers of many, many computer games with classes and levels.

Then again, you could get sued anyway.

 

[arscott]

eyebeams, it's becoming increasingly unclear that you don't know what you're talking about.

Firstly, your "Cutting a Swath" feat wouldn't be protected under copyright, with or without the OGL. It's a transparent copy of WotC's copyrighted text, and changing the words around isn't enough to remove WotC's claim of ownership.

Secondly, you are horribly misconstruing the terms of the Open Gaming License. WotC doesn't make any claims about the ownership of game mechanics. In fact, it doesn't even make claims about the ownership of particular (copyrightable) expressions of those mechanics. Under the OGL, WotC retains the copyright to the original text it has written, while other game companies retain the copyright to any original text that they have written. All it does is grant other companies permission to use that copyrighted text in their own works.

The entire point of copyright is that the copyright holder gets to decide who is allowed to make copies of the work. For instance, an author who owns the copyright for a book he has written might grant a publishing company permission to print copies of his work in exchange for royalties. Or a band might grant its fans permission to download their copyrighted song from their website. The OGL is just a contract by which game companies grant other game companies permission to use their copyrighted material (Open Content) in exchange for following certain guidelines (publishing under the terms of the OGL).

Thirdly, that Medieval Risk game you link to is a bad example. It's almost certainly an illegal product, not for reasons related to copyright or the OGL, but because it's violating trademark law by calling itself Risk. Anyone is allowed to publish a game that uses the mechanics of the game Risk, but the name is afforded special protections. Likely this game only exists under its present name because it's such an insignifican product that the people who make risk don't know it exists.

 

[eyebeams]

eyebeams, it's becoming increasingly unclear that you don't know what you're talking about.

You're free to believe that if you like. The OGL is a strange license. When I've talked to lawyers about it they've remarked that it's incoherent in spots and serves best as a social custom. It's been my experience that it's a Inkblot test that brings out what people want the business end of the hobby to be like.

Firstly, your "Cutting a Swath" feat wouldn't be protected under copyright, with or without the OGL. It's a transparent copy of WotC's copyrighted text, and changing the words around isn't enough to remove WotC's claim of ownership.

You're calling it a feat. My text refers to no such thing and I am certainly not responsible for you or anyone else calling it a "feat." The primary points of similarity are in an implementation of prior art, including the use of such terms as "Strength," numerical ratings thereof, and so on. You do not know whether this plugs into a D20 mechanic, whether movement occurs in squares, or much else, except for what you're inferring. The fact is, nobody can own describing the ability to attack another guy immediately if you drop a guy in an RPG.

If the number of similarities went up? Then you might have a point. But frankly, there's no point to recreating D&D with different phrasing. It's easy to make a game that's substantially similar but with your own rules tweaks, and most distinctive features of the game (ability scores, classes and levels) are not protected.

Secondly, you are horribly misconstruing the terms of the Open Gaming License. WotC doesn't make any claims about the ownership of game mechanics. In fact, it doesn't even make claims about the ownership of particular (copyrightable) expressions of those mechanics. Under the OGL, WotC retains the copyright to the original text it has written, while other game companies retain the copyright to any original text that they have written. All it does is grant other companies permission to use that copyrighted text in their own works.

Hasbro claims that it owns rules instead of expressions thereof all the time (they did it in the letter that shut down Google Risk). OGC is supposed to content under copyright that third parties have permission to use, but the OGL doesn't actually define OGC this way. It uses a definition that encompasses things that can't be licensed because WotC doesn't own them. I find the idea that anybody can, as you suggest, license something without having any rights over it to be extraordinarily bizarre.

That covers your second point too.

Thirdly, that Medieval Risk game you link to is a bad example. It's almost certainly an illegal product, not for reasons related to copyright or the OGL, but because it's violating trademark law by calling itself Risk. Anyone is allowed to publish a game that uses the mechanics of the game Risk, but the name is afforded special protections. Likely this game only exists under its present name because it's such an insignifican product that the people who make risk don't know it exists.

I'm not talking about the name. I'm talking about whether you can claim compatibility with an existing game. In Risk's case, there are in fact other commercial expansions for Risk that are listed as such, like One World Dominion:

http://www.nobleknight.com/ProductD...ID_E_726856413_A_CategoryID_E_16_A_GenreID_E_

Or you could go for A House Divided:

http://conquestgaming.com/divided/

AFAIK, the last time anybody tested whether or not a third party could claim compatibility with D&D was Mayfair Games. I think Technomancer Pres tried something similar. They, by the way, release compatible products with no special license.

I use it because it's the standard of practice. It's very useful as a pretext to do things you'd be nervous about doing otherwise.

 

[jdrakeh]

AFAIK, the last time anybody tested whether or not a third party could claim compatibility with D&D was Mayfair Games. I think Technomancer Pres tried something similar. They, by the way, release compatible products with no special license.

Claiming compatability is covered under fair use. The key here is that incorporating an existing trademark into your own is not necessary to claim compatiability and, thus, not allowed by law. Such use is not in good faith but rather, implies ownership of the trademark in question. This is why Technomancer removed the reference to "d20 System" in their old trademark ("Makers of d20 System Products" or some such) and why the example of Medieval Risk that you pointed to earlier is a bad example of fair use and a great example of trademark infringement.

 

[Vigilance]

AFAIK, the last time anybody tested whether or not a third party could claim compatibility with D&D was Mayfair Games. I think Technomancer Pres tried something similar. They, by the way, release compatible products with no special license.

I use it because it's the standard of practice. It's very useful as a pretext to do things you'd be nervous about doing otherwise.

Except that as soon as you start contesting the OGL, you VOID the OGL.

That's part of the OGL.

IOW, don't try to game the system. If you want to make a game and tie in the mechanics in super-cool ways that you'll grow so attached to that you want to use them in a video game, come up with your own super-cool mechanics and avoid the license entirely.

 

[eyebeams]

Except that as soon as you start contesting the OGL, you VOID the OGL.

That's part of the OGL.

Sure. What's your point exactly? This has nothing to do whether or not the OGL is capable of granting rights the parent company doesn't even have.

IOW, don't try to game the system. If you want to make a game and tie in the mechanics in super-cool ways that you'll grow so attached to that you want to use them in a video game, come up with your own super-cool mechanics and avoid the license entirely.

It's certainly practically prudent (because virtually nobody could survive legal action of *any* merit), but if this were technically true just about every CRPG wouldn't exist as they virtually all use elements that are very similar to D&D's rules.

 

[eyebeams]

Claiming compatability is covered under fair use.

That is rather my point -- or rather, a short aside to a more general observation.