[OGL Questions] Is Dungeons and Dragons a game?

[Yair]

My point is this: theft is theft, and it's not a victimless crime.

I actually hate this stand. Copyright infringement isn't theft. In other news, burglary is not murder, larceny is not mugging, and causing property damage isn't assault. We have different rules and terms for a reason, folks.

 

[Chaos Disciple]

My point is this: theft is theft, and it's not a victimless crime.

What you're proposing to do in this thread is steal something that rightfully belongs to someone else. They'll probably feel bad about that.

Like, with lawyers.
-blarg

What Im proposing is not theft if the material is free for the public to use w/ or without the OGL. Please go read the first post in this thread it will explain what im refering to

 

[Fifth Element]

...but then agian the US copyright law is very clear and simple

This made me laugh, thank you. Yes, it's out of context but any time those words are used together it's amusing.

"The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

You keep going back to this. Have you considered that maybe you cannot copyright the idea for a game (you imagine you're in a fantasy world, magic is real, you use swords to kill orcs and take their stuff), but that an actual game based on that idea might be (such as D&D, or the d20 mechanics) copyrightable.

Of course, the name or title given to the game can be trademarked, which it is in this case.

Copyright law is *not* simple by any stretch of the imagination.

But since you refuse to heed the advice you requested, I wish you well in the future. If I knew your name, I would look out for it in the news, when the lawsuit comes.

 

[Arkhandus]

Except it's not free to use without the OGL. If you're going to make derivative work from the SRD or other Open Game Content, you have to use the Open Game License have free use and avoid possible legal complications.

The OGL is there to acknowledge who produced the original content you're intending to base your own work on, and it's only fair to follow the OGL if you're going to produce derivative work. It doesn't matter that you're not planning to profit off of it, the point is that it's probably not 'fair use' if you don't comply with the OGL and include an OGC declaration.

You can't use terminology or specific lines of text (or specific tables or the like) out of the SRD unless you adhere to the Open Game License. If you rewrite all your work to avoid that and to avoid copyright infringement, then it's likely people will not be able to understand whatever it is you had written, and it will have been a pointless effort to put the material out there.


The game mechanics can't be copyrighted, but the actual text describing how they work, and the names for those mechanics, are copyright material (and the D&D name itself is trademarked, which is why other products these days don't say they're compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, they instead use a substitute like 'the third edition of the world's most popular roleplaying game'). You would have to go to some significant lengths to write everything in different terms and using differently-formatted tables, if you were going to avoid copyright infringement while also avoiding the OGL for some odd reason.

 

[Shining Dragon]

A game (or supplement) that requires me to re-interpret its nomenclature into its DND analogies to use with DND (as the OP has mentioned is the games intention) is not a game I (and I wager most other people) would be interested in.

I personally suspect that the tables and charts are currently riddled with terms such as "hit points (hp)" and "armor class (ac)" and BAB....



I think such a supplement is what we endearingly term a "heartbreaker".

 

[Yair]

What Im proposing is not theft if the material is free for the public to use w/ or without the OGL. Please go read the first post in this thread it will explain what im refering to

I agree. If the material is free for the public to use under copyright law, then you can use it with disregard to the OGL. The OGL only lessens some protections of copyrights, it cannot override copyright law.

However, the material is not free for public use under copyright law. If you would write using things like D&D's skills, levels, classes, size categories, initiative structure, and so on you will be definitely making a derivative work. If you won't, you'll find you can't make a compatible work. Even if you choose this path, and actually manage to pull all references and reliance to the D&D game out (which I doubt), precedents from software copyright law may very well persuade the court that saying "mage" instead of "wizard" doesn't mean you haven't stolen another's work. Not putting your name on your work will only persuade the court you have something to hide. Not claiming copyright explicitly would make no difference, it's still your copyright.

In short, writing a game extending D&D without infringing on D&D is next to impossible. You can do it easily and legally with the OGL, but you can't otherwise. You still didn't give a reason for not wanting to use the OGL besides not wanting to credit WotC for the work you build on, which isn't exactly an argument I would get behind.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Currently the project is close enough to a complete game system (still not eligable for copyright) to start investigating its uses as just that a game system. If I was to actually write it out this could increases the risk of copyright infringment.

I'm sorry, there's no other way to say this.

With all due respect for your ingenious descriptions of the current state of your game, you clearly have no idea at all whether or not it's eligible for copyright.

Further, writing it out does not risk an actionable infringement (otherwise people who have D&D house-rules documents would find themselves in front of the courts every week). You need only concern yourself with distribution to the general public.

 

[kenmarable]

I dont really fear any legal response because the game wont violate copyright or trademarks also I can give it away with out putting my name to aviod any problems

Wow, this is the legal equivalent of "if I wear a mask, I can get away with robbing banks!!". If you think not putting a name on it (especially after posting an entire thread about it), giving it away for free, and not mentioning the term "Dungeons & Dragons" are all firm legal defenses, then best of luck to ya!

It was said back on page 1 - use the OGL.

It's pretty obvious that you don't want to use the OGL and aren't looking for advice. It seems to me that what you were looking for is a nice place to expose your pet legal theories. You aren't even having an actual debate, just repeatedly telling people they are wrong because you interpret the law differently.

Here is a copyrightable expression of a game mechanic that may be appropriate here.

 

[francisca]

I seriously doubt their lawyers would encourage WotC to attempt claiming the D&D game as their own.

That might be the most uninformed, yet hilarious thing I've ever read on this board.

 

[Numion]

This gives the game the potential for an infinite number of skills.

I thought you said you were improving the game?