[OGL Questions] Is Dungeons and Dragons a game?

[rkwoodard]

Aha

Title 17 of the United States Code (the copyright law) is 296 pages making about the same size as the D&D Players Handbook.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf

So you admit that 3.5 is as complicated as Copywrite Law!!!

C&C wins.

Just kidding. I love D&D. Thanks for all your hard work and everybody else in the company and the industry.

RK Woodard

 

[Halivar]

So you admit that 3.5 is as complicated as Copywrite Law!!!

But at least it doesn't have Attacks of Opportunity.

 

[Chaos Disciple]

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.

I am certain that my collection of game ideas are not eligible for copyright.

And I woud agree distribution of these ideas is a big concern

 

[Chaos Disciple]

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.

The copyright laws on similar games goes like this "Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles." This would cover the scope of my ideas.

Simply put I am not interested in using the OGL because it would not be required.

I do like the OGL and respect its value to publishers but my project not a intended for copyright like the works of publishing companies and the OGL appears to actually require this.
So its not that I have something aginst the OGL; because I dont.
I just dont believe it would apply to my ideas.

 

[Chaos Disciple]

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".

I guess its a good thing I want to give it away for free

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Ok you obviously dont understand what Im proposing.

Yes, I do. You just don't know what you're talking about.

And thank god its not a work of literature because as you pointed out my word-fu is extremly weak.

It doesn't matter if it's not literature. Your posts are a half-step above unreadable. Explaining your brilliant tweaks on the game via gibberish isn't going to be something people will read.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

But at least it doesn't have Attacks of Opportunity.

You clearly have never sat in a court room!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I guess its a good thing I want to give it away for free

And yet I still predict nobody will read it.

 

[Chaos Disciple]

Yes, I do. You just don't know what you're talking about.


It doesn't matter if it's not literature. Your posts are a half-step above unreadable. Explaining your brilliant tweaks on the game via gibberish isn't going to be something people will read.

WD if you really understand my proposal how come your posts dont explain how its flawed?

Instead your post is just pointless insults.

Maybe you have a hard time understanding my posts because you dont try hard enough

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Maybe you have a hard time understanding my posts because you dont try hard enough

That must be it. It's your sheer genius that is incomprehensible.