D&D 5E Prepping for the 5e gaming licence

[Pauper]

[MENTION=17607]Pauper[/MENTION], I'm having trouble deciding whether you are more informed and being a bit rude about it, or you're just not used to the same definitions of words as I am.

I'm guessing the issue is that, when you say Hackmaster was a 'parody', what I read into your explanation is that WotC had no choice but to allow the use of their intellectual property because the use was protected under the First Amendment as parody. That's possible, but we'll never know that, because it was never adjudicated in court. And the reason it was never adjudicated in court is that Kenzer & Co had a license to the AD&D rules that they 'parodied' in Hackmaster, and when Kenzer & Co has the chance to do so after the expiration of their license, they instead chose to redesign the game to remove the AD&D references and make it a truly independent game, more 'inspired by' than derivative of old-school AD&D.

Admittedly, we don't have many concrete details on any of this, but the details we do have don't support a 'Hackmaster was a protected parody of AD&D' theory. Was it a 'parody' in a non-legal sense? Sure, but then again so were the old Munchkin d20 books published by Steve Jackson Games -- and even those were published under the d20 license, not as a protected parody of D&D 3E.

Maybe I'm being a bit nit-picky, but my experience is that people who read these accounts don't remember them as being some dude's remembrances and repeat them as if they were gospel. If I can help correct the record occasionally, I don't mind doing so.

--
Pauper

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The only "nit-picky" I would point out is you assuming that I am using the legal definition of a word rather than the colloquial. I agree that it is important to frame one's statements as being one's remembrance, which I thought I had done by choice of words and even including that I wasn't going to do any research, so that anyone repeating them as gospel looks extra silly for doing so, so I can't fault you for that.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Maybe, but doubtful. I think it's more like 3PP have 5e stuff they've worked on, but because they have things in there that aren't specifically covered in the OGL (like terms like "advantage" or the names of certain abilities like "pack tactics"), they want to see a 5e license to give them a sense of ease before publishing. I mentioned this in another thread, but as a 3PP, I've had Felk Mor (old school superdungeon) done for coming up on 2 years now, waiting for a license. I haven't held off publishing it because I'm worried about WotC's attention. I've held off because if I publish it using the OGL, I have to make modifications and take some things out that I think would hurt the quality of a 5e specific adventure. For example, some of the key NPCs I have tear away pages just for them, but without a 5e specific license, I don't feel comfortable listing things like "champion fighter with second wind and indomitable" even if I don't say what those things do. I know for sure listing what they do is verboten, but it's still a bit shaky if you're in violation for just using the same words of the ability. Obviously those things aren't in the OGL. So If I go the OGL route, I have to take out a lot of that, which creates more work for the players.

Alas, it looks like that's exactly what I will end up doing, since there is no 5e license in sight or in the near future. How many more years must I hold off lol.

There are ways around these issues. You can list an ability with a monster, call it gang tactics then describe what "gang tactics" does in game terms. Obviously I wouldn't replicate stat blocks from the MM but simply describing a fighter as a champion should be fine. "Champion" has a dictionary meaning and was around long before it became an archetype. A brand new monster you create should be fine to print the whole stat block.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There are ways around these issues. You can list an ability with a monster, call it gang tactics then describe what "gang tactics" does in game terms. Obviously I wouldn't replicate stat blocks from the MM but simply describing a fighter as a champion should be fine. "Champion" has a dictionary meaning and was around long before it became an archetype. A brand new monster you create should be fine to print the whole stat block.

Yeah, I know. And I've done that to an extent. I just wish you didn't have to do that, and cause confusion, because they don't seem to care all that much about a license.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Good point. It's hard to imagine why someone would assume the repeated use of the word "parody" in the context of why someone could freely publish something (vis-a-vis intellectual property law) might leap to the conclusion that the person using the word "parody" was talking about, you know, "parody."

The well-established fair-use exception. In a conversation about licenses for intellectual property.

I didn't use the word in that context.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Well, not being a mind reader, I did read post #27, in which you responded to a post talking about licensing, and talking about IP, and talking about copyright attorneys, by noting the license and parody use of Hackmaster. Given that the parody/fair use exception is pretty well known, even to laymen,* and you were just responding to a post going into great detail about intellectual property, it would certainly be odd that you were just using the colloquial expression. But it happens.

In which case, it would probably be pleasant to say, "Thanks for the additional information- I hadn't researched that issue, and I always like to learn new things."

Personally, I love it when I'm wrong. It's the best way to learn. As my friends always tell me- that's why I'm constantly learning.

*Albeit terribly misapplied.

Alright, I get it; you have a problem with me. It's cool, no sweat dude... just add me to your ignore list or at least take it to private messages or something, there is no point in crapping up everyone else's view of the forum by following me around it to prove me wrong or whatever it is you are trying to do by constantly misinterpreting or misconstruing everything I say.

 

[Shasarak]

No, you don't need an existing relationship with WotC. What you do need is advice from a lawyer.

And remember even with a seal of approval from your Lawyer that will not prevent WotC Lawyer from disagreeing.

 

[Morrus]

OK, [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION], it's probably a good idea if you guys stop responding to each other. Starting to get a little heated there!