[OGL Questions] Is Dungeons and Dragons a game?

[Chaos Disciple]

Perhaps I missed it in one of your posts, but are your mechanics going to be a stand alone roleplaying game?

The only thing needed to play is the book with my game systems. Does that qualify as stand alone RPG?

 

[rkwoodard]

not just ideas

Im guessing you didnt see this before you made your post

"Most people on this thread seem to be confused about what is owned material and what is not (the OGL was created to clarify this to publishers). My ideas are not some kind of game supplement produced by an indie publisher they are basically just ideas and therefore cant be copyrigthted and for this reason might not even qualify for the OGL."

Hi,
But they are not just ideas. You say you have mechanics to take levels up to level 100. As soon as you put pen to paper you are expressing your idea for that mechanic. That is thorn in the paw. I think.

RK

 

[Mercule]

Im guessing you didnt see this before you made your post

"Most people on this thread seem to be confused about what is owned material and what is not (the OGL was created to clarify this to publishers). My ideas are not some kind of game supplement produced by an indie publisher they are basically just ideas and therefore cant be copyrigthted and for this reason might not even qualify for the OGL."

No. I saw it. You are just wrong. If you release some game rules, you are a publisher. You may be non-profit and an unincorporated entity, but you're still a publisher.

Your profit motive or status as a "real" publisher has nothing to do with whether there are -- or infringe upon -- copyrightable IP. I guarantee you that, if WotC published an identical system in three years, your "ideas" would qualify as prior work and would have some legal standing.

The very post or yours, that I'm quoting, is evidence that you do not understand copyright law or the OGL.

For crying out loud, you won't even believe the man (Ryan Dancey) responsible for the existance of the OGL about what its purpose is.

Read that again, please. Absorb it. Internalize it. If, after that, you can't tell why people are chuckling at this thread, I urge you to never, ever, try to interpret any law legal document for yourself.

 

[JPL]

On the other hand....

I have often wanted to roleplay a fight between a microscopic organism and a planet.

Tell me more of these rules, that my gaming experience might be enriched!

 

[Halivar]

I urge you to never, ever, try to interpret any law legal document for yourself.

This statement should stand without qualification. I, myself, am not very eager to publish our group's campaign setting because I do not (and cannot) fully understand the OGL, and what my rights are both with and without it.

CD, talk to a lawyer.

Worry about what you are actually going to do when you get that cease-and-desist, and then get served with a Complaint and petition for preliminary injunctive relief, and then get hit with a court date. Worry about Hasbro's giant lawyers with their high Charismas and black hearts.

QFT. Do you have the funds to pay a lawyer to defend you against a C&D, or see you through a civil trial? Or do you intend to go pro se (in which case, go ahead and hock your belongings now so you can pay off the damages awarded to WotC when the time comes)?

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

The only thing needed to play is the book with my game systems. Does that qualify as stand alone RPG?

Okay, so you're writing an independent game that will utilize revised mechanics from D&D, but will not require D&D to play. Okay, so far it resembles other games that function likewise and contain the OGL.

I supposed that you can change enough to call it your own, but that doesn't appear to be what you want. You appear to be saying that these are not mechanics that you can call your own, which would suggest that there may be an issue.

You state that the mechanics cannot be protected according to your interpretation of the law, but how far does that extend? A mechanic in which the roll of a die (or dice), modified by skill level (and perhaps other things) that must meet or exceed a value in order to indicate success would not appear to be an issue. Many games do this.

If, on the other hand, the specific die is a d20 and the skill level is purchased with skill points gained at certain character levels and measured in ranks and modified by attributes would start to get somewhat more shaky. You add in movement rules, armor, weapons, magic system (be careful that you don't step on any magic systems from other companies that are protected), saving throws, etc. and you're walking onto even shakier ground.

If you take some of the base ideas and truly divorce them from the d20 system, you may very well be legal. It just isn't the impression that you are giving to people.

 

[Chaos Disciple]

No. I saw it. You are just wrong. If you release some game rules, you are a publisher. You may be non-profit and an unincorporated entity, but you're still a publisher.

Your profit motive or status as a "real" publisher has nothing to do with whether there are -- or infringe upon -- copyrightable IP. I guarantee you that, if WotC published an identical system in three years, your "ideas" would qualify as prior work and would have some legal standing.

The very post or yours, that I'm quoting, is evidence that you do not understand copyright law or the OGL.

For crying out loud, you won't even believe the man (Ryan Dancey) responsible for the existance of the OGL about what its purpose is.

Read that again, please. Absorb it. Internalize it. If, after that, you can't tell why people are chuckling at this thread, I urge you to never, ever, try to interpret any law legal document for yourself.

I would like to point out agian this is an collection of systems which can not be subject to copyrights.

You might not be very familar with game design but I dont have any problem determining systems and methods from names and text.

I am also unsure if this infornation even qualifies for the OGL

I seriously doubt I could or would sue WotC because like I told scott its intended for public use so they wont have to worry

 

[Obryn]

I guess what I'm really missing after reading all 3+ pages of this trainwreck is specifically why you're not going to use the OGL. Near as I can see, you have listed a few reasons...

(1)

If Dungeons and Dragons is a game and has no copyright protection then what is the purpose of an Open Gaming License?

As has been expressed elsewhere in this thread, your understanding of copyright law may be flawed. I'm not going to come out and say you're wrong - but you may not be as right as you think you are.

(2)

Im just saying why use it if I dont need to?

To turn it around, why not use it if it might save you legal problems. Even if you're right, can you afford the court costs you'll incur in proving you're right? It's insurance, pure and simple.

(3)

I am dissappointed to hear that WotC could consider material which is perfectly legal to use without the OGL as a threat to the game or their "intrests". And extremly concerned that they would try to force the OGL on the RPG industry through legal means.

I don't really see why this is surprising at all. The OGL is in WotC/Hasbro's ultimate interests. WotC may want to help out gamers - but they also must act in their own interests as part of a publicly-traded company.

(4)

I am not interested in using the OGL because it requires you advertise the OGL and WotC in your product and I dont want a commercial in my game; especially if its not legaly required.

It's the other way around. Nobody will come to your game and see it as a commercial for WotC. However, if you label that it's OGL-compatible, you can increase your audience. This is an excuse, nothing else.

Seriously, though - WHY are you so strongly against using the OGL for a product that's clearly exactly what the OGL was meant for? What's your purpose?

I'm guessing it's sheer obstinacy and maybe ignorance. Maybe both. Maybe there's a good portion of iconoclasm in there too. None of these are positive qualities for anyone who's self-publishing (even for free) a document that may or may not be infringing. Talk with a copyright lawyer if you want to try something like this - maybe you'll listen to them more than you will to the folks in this thread.

-O

 

[Chaos Disciple]

Okay, so you're writing an independent game that will utilize revised mechanics from D&D, but will not require D&D to play. Okay, so far it resembles other games that function likewise and contain the OGL.

I supposed that you can change enough to call it your own, but that doesn't appear to be what you want. You appear to be saying that these are not mechanics that you can call your own, which would suggest that there may be an issue.

You state that the mechanics cannot be protected according to your interpretation of the law, but how far does that extend? A mechanic in which the roll of a die (or dice), modified by skill level (and perhaps other things) that must meet or exceed a value in order to indicate success would not appear to be an issue. Many games do this.

If, on the other hand, the specific die is a d20 and the skill level is purchased with skill points gained at certain character levels and measured in ranks and modified by attributes would start to get somewhat more shaky. You add in movement rules, armor, weapons, magic system (be careful that you don't step on any magic systems from other companies that are protected), saving throws, etc. and you're walking onto even shakier ground.

If you take some of the base ideas and truly divorce them from the d20 system, you may very well be legal. It just isn't the impression that you are giving to people.

Well maybe I should point out that maybe 20% of the whole game design would cover all D&D related mechanics (back to 1974).

I have added and changed alot of things but I prefer to keep the mechanics as gereric as possible.

This does take out all the flavor most expect in RPG's but I think thats what the players are for.

 

[bodhi]

I get where you're going, and I agree with you. But I believe your examples are non-protectable. "Red Wizard of Thay" is protectable, but "rogue" is not. Likewise with size names. "Monkey grip" could be protectable, but I'm pretty sure "Dodge" is not.

Oh definitely. It wouldn't be the use of individual (relatively) common words. But if all the core class, size category, and skill names are identical, that's a pretty clear argument that it's a derivative work.

Here's what I was saying earlier: even if you re-write everything, if you use the same exact mechanics, it's almost given that part of your work is going to inadvertently infringe.

Agreed. I was just thinking that the line of reasoning might be "I re-wrote everything, so nothing's the same, so I'm not infringing", which is understandable, but not secure.