the Jester
Legend
On the subject of patience, the DMG's release date has been pushed back.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Rant About Patience
- Thread starter GravyFingerz
- Start date
pming
Legend
Hiya.
"Compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition(r)". Totally, 100% legal. What you can't do is use the "D&D" logo or otherwise have that statement "prominent"...it's all about not trying to "confuse a reasonable person" who would be buying it. If the "Dungeons & Dragons" is similar enough in look (text, color, size, placement, etc) to regular WotC 5e trade dress, thats when you get into trouble. If the courts got involved, they'd look at if what you did would likely lead to confusion of a consumer as to who actually produced the book.
So, as long as you make sure your compatibility statement isn't going to confuse anyone about who made your product...you're good to go.
The copyright/game-rules thing has been mentioned a million times over multiple forums, so I'm not going to repeat it. Do a bit of research on "copyright game mechanics rules" and you'll see it's pretty clear cut.
Someone mentioned above that things like "Short Rest" and "Advantage/Disadvantage" are probably no-no's. I'd actuallly have to agree with that; I think it is unique enough that I'd stay away from using those exact terms. I'd just re-word them to what they are. A "Short Rest" would be reworded to "rest for at least 1 hour", or "1-hr rest". Adv/Disadv would be trickier, as it they describe themselves. I'd be inclined to re-write the rule at the beginning of the book/adventure with my own words and description...like...
Then, when you need to, just sub-in ("Attacking from this point gives the PC the edge (BR+)").
As I said, just stay away from specific names (spells, items, world-locations, etc) and it's not a problem.
With regards to "Ask an attorney"...well, that's always good advice!
^_^
Paul L. Ming
"Compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition(r)". Totally, 100% legal. What you can't do is use the "D&D" logo or otherwise have that statement "prominent"...it's all about not trying to "confuse a reasonable person" who would be buying it. If the "Dungeons & Dragons" is similar enough in look (text, color, size, placement, etc) to regular WotC 5e trade dress, thats when you get into trouble. If the courts got involved, they'd look at if what you did would likely lead to confusion of a consumer as to who actually produced the book.
So, as long as you make sure your compatibility statement isn't going to confuse anyone about who made your product...you're good to go.
The copyright/game-rules thing has been mentioned a million times over multiple forums, so I'm not going to repeat it. Do a bit of research on "copyright game mechanics rules" and you'll see it's pretty clear cut.
Someone mentioned above that things like "Short Rest" and "Advantage/Disadvantage" are probably no-no's. I'd actuallly have to agree with that; I think it is unique enough that I'd stay away from using those exact terms. I'd just re-word them to what they are. A "Short Rest" would be reworded to "rest for at least 1 hour", or "1-hr rest". Adv/Disadv would be trickier, as it they describe themselves. I'd be inclined to re-write the rule at the beginning of the book/adventure with my own words and description...like...
"BR+ and BR-; When you see this notation, it means the player gets a Bonus Roll. BR+ indicates the player takes the higher of the rolls, while BR- indicates he must take the lower of the two rolls"
Then, when you need to, just sub-in ("Attacking from this point gives the PC the edge (BR+)").
As I said, just stay away from specific names (spells, items, world-locations, etc) and it's not a problem.
With regards to "Ask an attorney"...well, that's always good advice!
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
I am not going to argue the point with you. When I advice my RPG clients, and I do represent RPG clients, I recommend they not do that because it may force Hasbro's hand to avoid a future waiver claim. And it's not about "trying" to confuse a "reasonable person". It's about whether or not it is likely to cause consumer confusion.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
Your other sketchy advice aside, that is *precisely* the problem. We're not talking about people trying to create a competing retro-clone while the game is still live, we're talking about wanting an OGL that allows legally-sanctioned supplemental material to be created so small scale publishing partners can drive the sales of the core books. It's the original intent and plan for the OGL. It's why, without an OGL, publishing compatible material is not a route most 3PP will go. Sure, a few folk will color outside the lines and hope to get away with something but that's not me nor most others.
pming
Legend
Hiya.
My main point was that the OGL doesn't actually "give" you any new rights you don't already have, really. I think it gives you (you being "a publisher") permission to use the OGL logo and that kind of thing, but I also think it specifically says that you can't claim compatibility with D&D (something you would be able to do if you didn't use the OGL). So, basically, you're switching out "D&D" for "OGL".
Using the OGL would be (is?) a good thing for recognizability as far as RPG'ers and merchants are concerned. It instantly tells a buyer "This product works with other OGL ones"...so I guess it's sort of like a "brand of approval" stamp. I can see the benefit for that, sure.
Anyway, I am not a lawyer, but from everything I've read, someone writing a supplement, setting or adventure for a RPG and then putting "Compatible with [RPGName]" is legal. It's the same thing as making a particular car part and listing "Compatible with Ford trucks (trucktype, trucktype, trucktype, trucktype)". This is specifically allowed under trademark law. For an easy to find example, next time you go to buy ink for your printer...there are 'generic' brands out there that will specifically list another companies trademark name and their printer types that this cartridge works with. As you said...it's all about confusing the customer; if the customer isn't confused, don't worry.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
My main point was that the OGL doesn't actually "give" you any new rights you don't already have, really. I think it gives you (you being "a publisher") permission to use the OGL logo and that kind of thing, but I also think it specifically says that you can't claim compatibility with D&D (something you would be able to do if you didn't use the OGL). So, basically, you're switching out "D&D" for "OGL".
Using the OGL would be (is?) a good thing for recognizability as far as RPG'ers and merchants are concerned. It instantly tells a buyer "This product works with other OGL ones"...so I guess it's sort of like a "brand of approval" stamp. I can see the benefit for that, sure.
Anyway, I am not a lawyer, but from everything I've read, someone writing a supplement, setting or adventure for a RPG and then putting "Compatible with [RPGName]" is legal. It's the same thing as making a particular car part and listing "Compatible with Ford trucks (trucktype, trucktype, trucktype, trucktype)". This is specifically allowed under trademark law. For an easy to find example, next time you go to buy ink for your printer...there are 'generic' brands out there that will specifically list another companies trademark name and their printer types that this cartridge works with. As you said...it's all about confusing the customer; if the customer isn't confused, don't worry.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
Wrong again. That's precisely what it does, to specific terms and materials that they would release under the OGL in some form of SRD. As they did with 3.XE, while they are in 5E publishing mode, the hope would be that they would also produce a compatibility license with additional terms a publisher would need to meet in order to gain access (specific compatibility language, no level progression included, etc.). If they are going to use the OGL, like they did before and like other companies after them (Paizo, for example), a separate compatibility license would be part of the plan.
Werebat
Explorer
WotC SUCKS because I don't have the 5e Dark Sun books IN MY HANDS *RIGHT* *THE* *HELL* *NOW*!!!
aramis erak
Legend
The announcements of upcoming products, without dates, don't allow planning ahead for the purchases as easily.
A fixed schedule, if adhered to, does.
A fixed schedule that's always blown to hell in a handbasket (like most of the gaming industry's are) is no better than product announcements without dates.
Though it's OK to wait and buy a thing later. Hell when I was younger, the chances of my affording the books as they were released was slim at best whatever warning I had! None of the products will suddenly disappear off the shelves. I don't think it matters all that much, to be honest.
Once upon a time I only found out about many game release when they actually came out.
Evenglare
Adventurer
I'd rather have waited to have a full game a few months than stringing along the game for those months. I'd have rather them all released in december or january to digest the entire game with all the working parts. It would have corrected those PHB errors, and the game would have been the best it could have been, but now we are going to have to get another book with corrected errata. I'm glad they are pushing the release back, with the DMG. I wish they would have had the foresight to do it with everything.
Similar Threads
