PapersAndPaychecks
First Post
dcas said:
It uses the SRD for many other things as well (example: alignment). Without the OGL, there's no way that OSRIC could exist.
More info about this OSRIC thing?
- Thread starter trancejeremy
- Start date
It uses the SRD for many other things as well (example: alignment). Without the OGL, there's no way that OSRIC could exist.
dcas
First Post
Well, I submit that it would be relatively easy to create an AD&D-compatible game, except for the spells. They are the real kicker. For example, creating compatible classes is not difficult (Warrior = Fighter, Scout = Ranger, Vandal = Barbarian, Knave = Thief, etc.), but creating a whole new list of spells for the game is difficult, and I think those who play AD&D would want to see the spells they already know rather than a whole new spell list. That is why, in my estimation, a game like OSRIC could not exist without the OGL.PapersAndPaychecks said:
John Stark
First Post
PapersAndPaychecks said:Before I start: I like John Stark on a personal level, and I'm deeply grateful for his support for OSRIC, but his views are his, and mine are mine. I haven't said what he's said.It's possible that I might take a similar position if challenged, but it's also possible that I might not.
As I had nothing to do with the development of OSRIC, the above is certainly a proper distinction to be made.
I'm merely expounding on my own view of OSRIC and its potential.
John Stark
First Post
dcas said:
Yep, that sounds about right.
I'm about 99% positive that TSR did not acquire Mayfair or Role Aids.
dcas
First Post
John Stark said:
They certainly did not acquire Mayfair . . . Mayfair still exists and is the U.S. publisher of (among other things) Settlers of Catan.
http://www.mayfairgames.com/
Mayfair was bought by Iron Crown Enterprises in 1997.
Here's a link to the TSR vs. Mayfair case
But the same site also states that
Eric Anondson said:
I’m not Stuart’s attorney, and this isn’t in any way an official stance, so take this as you will.
Mr.Dancey’s analysis is insightful, and might even be applicable in certain areas of copyright law. It is compact and elegant. It isn’t the law, it’s an opinion about how the law should be construed, but it is a fascinating approach from the legal perspective.
The idea is that when an author has the infinite scope of numbers to choose from, his selection of particular numbers is as meaningful as the selection of a word, and thus embodies a protectable, tangible expression of creativity. Certainly, even, when numbers are used as words, this is true. If I name a fictional character 45672391, that “name” is almost certainly going to be protectable to a certain degree under copyright law in the same way that a random name using letter-characters would enjoy protection. This is not the area of copyright law that is implicated in “to-hit” tables, but it illustrates that Mr. Dancey’s theory has grounding in copyright law – just not in the applicable part of copyright law.
Also, Mr. Dancey has largely addressed the right issue in looking at OSRIC, in the sense that he realizes that we are not in any way seeking to copy the rulebooks, but the underlying, abstract and nontangible rules themselves, as expressed by numbers plus licenced reference points that give those numbers meaning. OSRIC doesn’t copy a book, it creates a numerical system compatible with the intangible rules expressed in the original books.
How does this play out in less theoretical language? It’s fascinating stuff.
There are two approaches that can be taken to illustrate why Mr. Dancey’s theory doesn’t apply to games – at least, not to tabletop games (computer games, with an infinite number of numbers available, might actually fall into this theory, but that’s not relevant here).
First test of the Dancey theory: apply it to a system that’s clearly not copyrightable and see if it generates the right answer.
Second test: go in reverse and see if the underlying principles of the Dancey theory match with the hit points table he’s specifically applying it to.
First test: Imagine that Chess has never been invented, and someone invents it today, 8/18/06. He does all the right things: trademarks the name “Chess,” and asserts a copyright over the 8x8 board, the look of the pieces, and his rulebook. A week later, someone reads the rulebook, looks at the chessboard, and manufactures an identical game, but with a different rulebook describing the same rules. (OSRIC’s rules, as has been pointed out, are not identical, but this is a hypothetical example that we want to keep clean of other issues). The name of the “new” game is “Mega.” How would a court rule? First, if the pieces look identical to the classic chess pieces, it’s probably a copyright violation (I’m not discussing trademarks). The pieces need to look different because they are like statues, and copyright law covers statues. The 8x8 gameboard is absolutely not copyrightable. We know that the law says the “rules” are not protected. Mr. Dancey’s theory would, however, initimate that the moves of the chesspieces, since they are arbitrary choices of the author not determined by any sort of formula, would be protected as an artistic expression. The original author had the full scope of moves available, and thus the knight’s peculiar move, the choice of the bishop’s diagonal move, all of these are plucked from the air. Moreover, the pawn can engage in an absolutely peculiar progression into a queen. The nature of this pawn-to-queen progression is unrelated to anything mathematical (other than the fact that the queen is one of the existing pieces). It makes sense for the pawn to perhaps gain the movement characteristics of all the pieces – but it doesn’t get the knight’s move. The moves and the progression in chess are arbitrary and cannot be explained by any formula. It is indeed the brilliance and timelessness of the game of chess that these arbitrary moves create a world of mathematical analysis of their interplay, so vast that human players still routinely defeat computers. Under Mr. Dancey’s theory that a progression must be mathematically generated, chess would seem to be the ideal test.
And yet, I cannot conceive that a judge would hold these highly arbitrary attributes of chess to be protected by copyright if chess were suddenly invented today.
The example of board games where a player’s cash or other attributes increases or decreases by the utterly non-linear changes mandated by “spaces” hit on a board is perhaps even more telling than the simpler example of chess. If I play a board game and hit a space that tells me to move using a different die than before, that’s non-linear. The non-linearity of the progression is what makes the game fun. That’s just an aside, since chess is my example, but it’s worthy of consideration.
Second test: It is true that the vast infinity of numbers, used as the source of choice, might arguably approximate the meaning of words (but see above). Let us consider to what degree the selection of numbers is infinite in a role playing game. A game is played in human dimensions. The math must be within the scope not only of human comprehension, but of easy use. Similarly, in a dice-based game, the numbers are generated on pieces of plastic with a finite number of sides. Out of this finite number of sides, in a to-hit roll, the small spread of numbers must accommodate a range of “miss” numbers and the random spread of possibilities to accommodate different classes of armor – all within the reach of easy mathematical use by a human. In human scope, the infinities of choice required to support Mr. Dancey’s theory are simply not available in practical terms.
The foreclosure of numbers and procedures for using them is precisely the reason why courts have consistently ruled that a particular use of numbers cannot be used to foreclose another game manufacturer from using the same numbers in rules, procedures, etc.
Mr. Dancey is effectively asserting that WotC would have a legal monopoly, with the right to sue, anyone using a progression such as +1, +3, +4, +20, +2 …in an area where people need to be able to add numbers in their heads. That is a limited field of numbers, far from the infinity required to support the equivalency of numbers to words.
So I think test 2 fails as well. The premise of Mr. Dancey’s theory does not match up with the practical realities of a game. This is precisely why games have their own category of copyright law; because they are played in the human dimension.
All this is in the high air of theory, of course, but I love theory.
Anyway, I think Mr. Dancey’s theory (as well as existing law, which would be applied more bluntly) fails as a theory of copyright.
PapersAndPaychecks said:
Too many things to say.... I'll start here:
IF WotC got hostile, all they have to do is issue a Take Down order to your ISP. (see link explaining legal bits): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA
A TakeDown order would surely take the bounce out of OSRIC's bungee. And they're ridiculously easy to give (with the hard work going to get it restored).
Dancy's argument seems to be saying that the decision to grant a +4 to-hit bonus for having an 18 score (sorry, I forget the 1E table) was not mathematically deterministic (and thus not a process subject to patent law). And that therefore that would be copyrightable.
It seems that the OGL might still protect rules that state if you have X, then you get Y (per other's posts, IANAL). Additonally, these types of statements sound like rules, and rules aren't patentable. At best WotC could sue if the same wording of "if you have 18 strength, you get +4 to-hit" that appears in the 1E books. Things would have been different if TSR patented the concept of ability scores and bonuses...which is what the inventer of Chess would have had to do to protect the concept of piece transformation (pawn to queen) per reaching a predetermined objective.
Since WotC has given license to use the terms (Strength for instance), they can't sue for having Strength scores in OSRIC. If saying 18 Strength grants a +4 to-hit bonus is protected for being a rule (not copyrightable), than OSRIC seems like it would win.
The biggest risk, is that IF WotC chose to sue, they could tie up OSRIC in courts until the OSRIC folks run out of money (assuming WotC has deeper pockets). This is despite the rightness of OSRIC's case. It's just a matter of lawyers and time wasting.
Now one interesting side effect of OSRIC, is that it and C&C are both targetting "old school gamers" and "those who want simplified D&D" to some extent. C&C has a higher barrier to entry to use it than OSRIC. Therefore, publishers interested in this nice will be more likely to use OSRIC than C&C. That has an interesting economic twist on things.
Now another interesting variable. WotC is heavily invested in D20. It wins when people use its rules. It has little interest in alternatives to its product, even ones that diverge from the common d20 base (which relies on PH sales). So WotC has more to gain by NOT licensing its older engines (unless it chose to publish older engine products, such as reprinting material). Even then, reprints of 1E stuff may detract from 3e sales. The big problem TSR had was too much diversity of product (too many titles). Keeping a tight rein on control and product line has been key to WotC's success.
My guess, is WotC will enjoy the free money from re-releasing existing 1e stuff (PDF probably). If OSRIC seems problematic to them, they will send the lawyers (who are paid retainers, and have nothing better to prove the value of those retainers than to find people to sue). Otherwise, OSRIC is a clever pathway to support old-school gaming, cheaper for other publishers. The odd thing is that the owners of OSRIC don't seem to be gaining monetarily from this, though it has likely cost them money to do this.
PapersAndPaychecks
First Post
Janx said:
I think WOTC's lawyer's would advise them not to go this route, since it would potentially open them up for a fairly expensive anti-trust suit, which I would pursue rather energetically.
Janx said:
I'm British, and I would certainly argue that an American court wouldn't have jurisdiction.
Under British rules of procedure, the loser pays the winner's legal fees. Thus, the argument would need to be won on merit, not on wallet.
Janx said:
The "owners" of OSRIC are me (I own the copyright and jointly own the trademark) and Matt Finch (who jointly owns the trademark). Legal responsibility for OSRIC's publication rests entirely with me.
You're correct to say that I'm not gaining monetarily from this. There are other reasons to do things apart from money.
Similar Threads
