Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8883874" data-attributes="member: 42582">The Davinci decision includes the following:this court agrees that certain games can have a progression of events and a roster of developed characters that make the game expressive, just as the progression of a book or movie plot can be expressive even when the basic elements are common. Many video games, for example, involve lead characters in fictional worlds who embark on a quest to achieve a specific goal, such as saving a princess or avenging a wrong. This lead character progresses down a predictable or even predetermined path and interacts with a series of characters along the way. Many of the characters have back stories and personalities. . . . But other games have plot progressions and characters who interact in ways that fall short of the expressive character interactions and plot progressions that are protected by copyright law. . . Bang! is in this second category. In Bang! , the Sheriff and Deputies are pitted against the Outlaws and the Renegade. Other than these alignments, the events in a Bang! game are not predetermined because the interactions between the roles have no underlying script or detail and are not fixed.This makes me think that the degree of protection an action economy system might enjoy would depend on the extent to which it combined with characters to produce a prior authorially imagined series of events.A very railroady resolution framework might be an example!, but also perhaps one where the action economy is expressive of a particular imaginative conception of a particular character or character type. The basic action economy of modern D&D doesn't seem to me to meet this threshold. I'm thinking of something like My Life With Master as perhaps getting closer to protectability.</blockquote>

Verification