MerricB Has Reviewed a Bunch of 3rd-Party D&D 5E Products! And One Old One!

Despite the lack of a license, the third-party market for D&D 5E stuff is growing - an adventures seem particularly popular. MerricB (long time EN World member and blogger) has taken it upon himself to review these products as they come out. I've listed the reviews and his short comments, below, but click through for the full reviews plus a bonus scathing review of the old D&D adventure Quagmire! from back in 1984.

The Temple of Qultar by Chubby Monster Games -- Short site-based adventure with good flavour.

DG1: Secrets in the Dark by Dan Hass Endeavors -- Two foes ally with each other in a short, mostly linear adventure.

DG2 - The Lost Tome by Dan Hass Endeavors -- Simple adventure around the quest for a book.

DG3: The Archaeologist -- A noble needs help (but beware his previous "help"!)

DG4: And the Elf Prince Wept -- Promising beginning of a war-based adventure arc.

M1: An Echo of Days Past: A Storm About To Break by Arcadian Games-- Ambitious 99-page adventure set on the frontier lands of an expanding kingdom.

Merric also reviews old D&D adventures, and recently took on Quagmire! which he thinks is awful: "People talk about bad adventures like The Forest Oracle because they’re at least interesting in how they go wrong. No-one talks about Quagmire! because it’s just dull. The main hook for the adventure doesn’t work, and though there is some attempt at more detailed wilderness exploration, the results are hardly worth the effort. This is one of the worst adventures I’ve read in the line."

​

 

[pemerton]

Copyright, no.

Why do you say that?

 

[pemerton]

MerricB's blog links to this account of the making of Quagmire. That account, in turn, contains copies of the original TSR project documentation.

One of the more interesting parts of that documentation is the following:

The module will spur involvement and interest frm the start. Most defeats will merely be exciting setbacks leading to new opportunities.​

This seems like an early expression of the "fail forward" technique of encounter design and adjudication.
[MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION], is there any realisation of this aspiration in the published module?

 

[Morrus]

Why do you say that?

Because you can't copyright names. You trademark them.

 

[Eejit]

I'm sure of that. Sadly I'm not much learned in the field. Probably they're referring to the old OGL.

I am wondering about one scenario, though, and maybe someone can help me: if I publish an adventure that features an Illithid, and I just give the reference (i.e.: you encounter a Mind Flayer, with n HP) leaving the DM to look up the stats in the manuals, am I infringing WotC copyright, or some other law?

Could you make it for 5E but use the 3E OGL to include a Mindflayer?

 

[Morrus]

Could you make it for 5E but use the 3E OGL to include a Mindflayer?

No, because the Mindflayer was never made OGC. Neither was the Beholder, and a couple of other monsters.

Some third parties got around that by making their own similarly themed but differently namd monsters.

 

[ExploderWizard]

There are ways to include these monsters in substance yet not in name. Cthulhu is in the public domain now so you can call mind flayers Cthulhuians. Reaper makes a beholder miniature and calls it an eye beast. Avoid the trademarked IP buzzwords and you can make whatever you like.

 

[pemerton]

Because you can't copyright names. You trademark them.

A name that is nothing more than a label used in trade can't be copyrighted. It is (if anything, from the IP point of view) a trademark.

But "mind flayer" is not primarily a label used in trade. (I'm not sure it's a label used in trade at all, but I don't know enough trademark law nor enough about TSR/WotC's publication history. Didn't their mind flayer book use "Illithid" in the title?) It's a name of certain fictional beings with associated story.

Also, if someone published a (non-licensed) RPG book that included mind flayers, they would probably not be using mind flayer as a trade mark. (It might be different if they stuck a picture of a mind flayer on the cover and called it "The Big Book of Mind Flayers". But they probably wouldn't do that.)

At least according to wikipedia (here), the Tolkien objections to early TSR use of "hobbit", "ent" and "balrog" were on copyright grounds, not trademark grounds. That makes sense to me. WotC would have the same sort of objection to someone writing a non-licensed RPG book that included mind flayers.

 

[pemerton]

Avoid the trademarked IP buzzwords and you can make whatever you like.

I don't think that's generally good advice.

In the case of a miniature, there is no replication of the story/stories in respect of which WotC holds the copyright. But authoring a fantasy RPG book in which aberrant "eyebeasts" live deep underground, carving out tunnels of stone with their eyebeams, would be something quite different.

Before doing that I would advise anyone to seek legal advice - it is possible to violate WotC's copyright in their story/stories without copying the names of their characters.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't think that's generally good advice.

In the case of a miniature, there is no replication of the story/stories in respect of which WotC holds the copyright. But authoring a fantasy RPG book in which aberrant "eyebeasts" live deep underground, carving out tunnels of stone with their eyebeams, would be something quite different.

Before doing that I would advise anyone to seek legal advice - it is possible to violate WotC's copyright in their story/stories without copying the names of their characters.

If said storyline included other WOTC owned property such as FR or Greyhawk lore sure. But if I want to create a race of eyebeasts who dwell deep beneath the ground and receive tribute from the inhabitants of Huganquatzem then I certainly can. If dark elves are a part of my world then I can have them. I just cannot call them Drow. Dokkalfar come from Norse mythology and the concept can be used by anyone. The actual plot and storyline elements are too generic to be owned by anyone. If that were possible then there wouldn't have been any new stories written for quite a long time because all the basic story concepts would be copyrighted. You say you have a story rife with betrayal and revenge eh? Sorry no go, its already been done. Preposterous.

 

[pemerton]

The actual plot and storyline elements are too generic to be owned by anyone. If that were possible then there wouldn't have been any new stories written for quite a long time because all the basic story concepts would be copyrighted.

The plot of beholders - that they travelled into this world from another dimension, that they live underground, that they worship "Great Mothers", that they carve tunnels using their eyebeams, etc - is not all that generic.

Similarly a story about matriarchal dark elves who worship a spider queen and engage in unconventional sexual practices. That's not a "basic story concept".

There are technical questions about what is an uncopyrightable idea, and what is the original work of authorship in which that idea is expressed; but were it me, I would be getting legal advice before I bet the farm on publishing that book, especially if it is being sold as something that is meant to expand or complement WotC's published work.