peterb

Not really answering your question, but IMHO GURPS magic is a very good alternative magic system for BRP. It can be integrated with BRP with very little work and can coexist with RQ II and III spirit- and divine magic. It can be bought in PDF format from SJG:s site. Another alternative is Sandy Peterson's Sorcery Rules. Google for it.

As a general rule a mere mechanical reproduction of a work in the PD does not give the reproducer a copyright. The question then becomes: what is a mere reproduction? A photostatic copy or a unmodified scanned image are both just mechanical reproductions and no copyright can arise from them. If the copy has been altered it might have become an adaptation or a derivative work. The amount of alteration needed would vary btw common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions. In Europe (excluding Ireland and the UK) you would need to adapt the image in such a way that the result becomes at least somewhat unique. You need to create an adaptation. Making a few simple choices is not enough. Applying filters or other features common to image editing software is not enough. Being a little bit creative is not enough, you must be creative in a individual, personal and original way. In the UK it would probably be enough to just apply some editing, the same goes for the US. So the answer depends on where the book is published, how the images was produced and also on where and how the images would be used by you. As has already been pointed out, ask the publisher, that might solve the problem.

There's also a game called "Western" set in the Old west in 1870-ies that is clearly a decendant of BRP. It's similar to En Garde! but you must roll a d20 above 20 adding your skill to succeed with a skill check.

It's quite similar to the "magic" magic-system in the new BRP book (and old Worlds of Wonder). They added magic schools and spells do more damage (about a d8 per MP). As a side note: if anyone is looking for an alternate magic-system for BRP that can be grafted on with little trouble - check out GURPS Magic... At the peak of the hobby in the end of the eighties about 300.000 people played RPG:s in Sweden and the majority played Drakar och Demoner (the abbreviation "D&D" is to most Swedes, who know something about RPG:s, not linked to Dungeons and Dragons...). The system is well tested and played by a huge number of people. It's an OK system.

The only real difference btw BRP and Drakar och Demoner edition 3 to 6 is the use of d20, slightly different weapon damages and a hit location table that is upside down compared to BRP, i.e. Head is 1-2, L arm 3-4 etc. Beyond that they use their own background skills system, but most BRP-clones do that. There are less differences btw D&D 3-6 and BRP then btw RQIII and MRQ, IMHO. Drakar and Demoner 7 (released 2007) went back to using a d100 but also did away with the standard abilities and added feat-like features, so the latest version is probably the version most unlike BRP.

I know of quite few copyright cases regarding the description of game rules. In Europe no one has been able to win such a case. The situation is the same in the US. The reasons are different though. In the US courts have referred to the "merger-doctrine", arguing that the description of the rules was to "close" to the idea for them to be considered original. In Europe courts have dismissed the expressions as being non-original, i.e. not unique enough to warrant protection. Parker for example, lost a case about Monopoly in Norway in the mid-80ies. The case Rust refers to is in fact a point in case here. The court dismisses the plaintiffs claims that rules or rules systems could be copyright protected. Neither are names, or the names of skills, talents, attributes copyrightable, nor are the individual rules elements as such works in the copyright sense. Between the lines the court seems to say that "well, yes you can get a copyright to a description of the rules of a game, but such a description must be pretty unique, it cannot be based on standard elements of the genre". In general descriptive texts that are also functional have a very thin copyright, if it even exists (source code being another good example).

There is actually nothing in the license that says that game mechanics become OGC only if it's derived from other OGC. The license says that you must use the license if you derive from OGC (of any kind). But nothing in the language of 1.d limits the "viralness" of OGL regarding game mechanics. This part makes all game mechanics OGC: "(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art". Except such game mechanics that lack originality (i.e. are un-copyrightable) or such parts of the text that can be made into PI. This part turns all other content clearly identified as OGC into OGC: "and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, " This part turns all derivative works based on OGC into OGC: "and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity." There is in fact nothing here that limits "game mechanics" as a concept to such mechanics that is derived from other parties OGC. The license defines game mechanics as "the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art". Not as "the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and is derived from open game content [my addition] ." It would have been very easy to add such a clarifying statement. But on the other hand why would you need to define game mechanics if OGC is only contents that have been clearly designated as OGC? If that was the intention it would have been sufficient to define OGC as: I realise that industry people has an interest of trying to limit the scope of the license. But you really need to go beyond the language of the text itself to make an argument that OGC must be derived from prior OGC.

Rust, Is there any online info on this? It would be very interesting for me to read since Swedish and German copyright legislation are quite similar.

The irony is that just about everyone agrees that game mechanics, both the rules as such and the descriptions, more or less lacks any copyright protection. The point with OGL was always that it was tied into the d20-trademark license, opening up a huge potential market. OGL was designed to be a safe harbour from law suits, and even if people knew they fairly easy could go the copyright route (i.e. describe game mechanics in more or less their own words) it was easier to go the OGL route. It's also interesting to see that now a few companies choose to go the copyright route when producing D&D 4th. ed. compatible material.

There are no rulings on OGL at all. You don't label anything as closed (but possibly as PI), the notion of closed game mechanics has been created after the release of the OGL by the industry it self. Industry praxis can be used to fill out omitted parts of a contract and can also become binding to new parties but such praxis cannot force upon a party someone else's interpretation of the contract. A legal deed such as the OGL is primarily interpreted by courts based on it's purpose and language. Between two parties where both has a documented history of interpreting the OGL in certain way, a court would use the shared interpretation (obviously). Between two parties where one reads the license as written and the other uses the industry praxis, most courts would go by the language of the license. So no, this is not just a law-school exercise. I base my arguments on established court practices, which by the way do not differ that much between civil law courts and common law courts...

That doesn't mean a thing. "Ambiguitas contra stipulatorem est" and "in dubio contra stipulatorem" are two names for a principle that, while it's commonly used when the text of a legal document is ambiguous, is also commonly applied when the party who wrote a deed, especially a take-it-or-leave-it contracts (or adhesion contract), tries to interpret his own text in a way that does not follow from the text it self. In these cases courts let the text rule. What Dancey may have had in mind when he wrote the text, but failed to implement, is of little importance, it's the text of the license that matters not the drafters interpretation. Otherwise how would anyone know what OGC is? The same goes for the mistake(?) of not using "game mechanics" in plural. It's an entire different matter that the publishers, in union, has established a praxis among themselves to interpret the license as Dancey does. That sticks among the publishers because a party can be made to stick by how he appears to have interpreted a contract. For example, assume that an insurance company always pays any bicycle theft claims below $ 250, even if all such claims, according to the terms of the insurance contract, should not be paid. The established praxis of the company can be used against it if it, referring to the terms of the insurance, refuses to pay a $ 230 claim for bicycle theft.

That interpretation doesn't line up with the language of the license. As written the OGL defines OGC as: -- all game mechanics that ---- does not embody the Product Identity ---- is an enhancement over the prior art and ----any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor and means: --any work covered by this License ----including translations ----and derivative works ----but specifically excludes Product Identity The license kicks in when you (re)use any OGC. If you mix your own rules with OGC from other works, your game mechanics becomes "contaminated" and transforms into OGC. This is how any reasonable objective party (as in a judge) would read the license. Unfortunately publishers started to act as if only game mechanics clearly labelled as OGC was covered by the license. They did this because the OGL contains a rule (art. 2) that you must attach a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License to the work. Another factor was that WotC allowed it and then everyone just tagged along. This behaviour is not, as I already noted, supported by the language of the license. Using a license that is not used as written, even by its drafter, is probably best avoided unless one really feel a need to do so.

Well, yes, but... what is allowed as PI is somewhat limited: "[1.](e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;" It's possible to cripple game mechanics that are related to magic (as you point out) so that people that wants to reuse the OGC must come up with new names for spells and other parts of the magic system. Trying to PI an entire block of magic rules would be an violation of the license.

Sorry, but no - you are the one making the mistake. The key is the last "and" in the sentence below. "1.d "Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor" OGC is: * All game mechanics and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art. * Any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor. All game mechanics that are an improvement over prior art is OGC, as is any other material clearly identified as OGC. Game mechanics is always either OGC or falls outside the scope of the license because it's non-protected (i.e. non-copyrightable or more properly non-patentable).

Unfortunately you make the same mistake as many publishers do. Game Mechanics, and the descriptions of such, are as a starting point always Open Game Content. You can "close" some parts of the OGC but those parts are in practice limited to the names of skills, spells and such (see section 1.e of the OGL). The description of rules (i.e game mechanics) are always OGC. Combining the OGL and its requirements that all game mechanics are OGC and the BRP license is problematic. But Chaosium may, if they wish, ignore those problems.

Either they (Mongoose) use the OGL (in Elric of Melnibone) or they don't. If they state that nothing in the work is available under the OGL then they cannot use the parts of the MRQ SRD that is derived from the d20 SRD (or any other OGL:ed work). Period. Ideas are never copyright protected. Period. Only the expression of an idea may be copyright protected. The style, manner, or method used to express an idea also lack copyright protection. George Lukas only owns his expressions of the ideas behind Star Wars. Palladium definitely doesn't own the ideas behind Rifts. Both could try use other laws, such as trademark laws and the rules about unfair competition to keep other companies from using their ideas - but not copyright laws. If Chaosium wants to allow things, that the contract they have drafted, doesn't allow - then that's their problem. As written the two deeds (OGL and the BRP license) are not compatible.

"Elric of Melnibone" is not based on any material from the d20 SRD. Some parts of MRQ are based on the d20 SRD (e.g. parts of the combat chapter) but those parts are not used in Elric of Melnibone, so Mongoose can publish said book without using the OGL. First part wrong, second part dead wrong. Ideas are never ever copyrightable, nor is the style or method used when expressing an idea copyrightable. The problem here is that expressions of the rules of a game have a very thin copyright or even non-existing copyright. Also - the trademark Runequest belongs to Greg Stafford, who is a co-author of parts of the original RQ rules. The most efficient way of dealing with a game that is very similar to your own game is to sue for "unfair competition", but that path is closed in this case since Greg own the trademark. Suing for copyright infringement when it comes to the rules of a game is a very uncertain affair if the texts are not identical. I maintain that the OGL and the BRP licenses are constructed in a way that makes it impossible to use the OGL and OGL licensed material if you also is a licensee of Chaosiums. This is not a problem for fan created non-commercial projects that are not published under the BRP license. We can use MRQ and the OGL as much as we like.

You are not allowed under the OGL to select which rules descriptions should be under OGL and which don't. The OGL covers all game mechanics, that's one of the main points with the license. Besides, the BRP license contains a preamle section in which licensee agrees that Chaoisum owns the rules of BRP, so a licensee of Chaoisums could not release any BRP rules under OGL (which he would be required too do under the OGL). I'm sorry, but the OGL and the BRP license are not compatible.

Chaosium is free to use the "Distinctive Features" section from "Dragonlords of Melnibone" in any way they want, they do not have to offer it under the OGL - because they are the owner of that text. Just because a copyright holder has included a feature, that he has created all by himself, in a work that is offered under the OGL, he need not use the OGL in all other works that include the feature (provided, of course, that the new work doesn't use any other copyright holders OGL licensed material).

No, that is not possible. If you use OGL material you must offer your work under the OGL as well and you must have the right to do so. The BRP license draft, which is available in the download section, does not allow the licensee to sublicense his work - and therefore the OGL and the BRP license is not able to coexist, one cannot become both a licensee under OGL _and_ under the BRP license at the same time. You can use OGL on it's own but then you cannot produce an official BRP supplement.

Fair use and fair dealing are common law concepts, in civil law jurisdictions (Europe and former European colonies) we use exemptions from copyright instead. But the issue here is really not about fair use, it's about using things that lack copyright protection, and as a consequence also about what, precisely, can be copyright protected and what cannot.

There are companies (Palladium being a good example) that claim that a consumer isn't even allowed to publish characters they have made by using the RPG's rules. That's a bogus claim. Copyright can only protect the expression of an idea - not the idea as such. When you use the rules of a game you are making use of the ideas being described and not the expression of those ideas. Also - the results of functions, mathematical formulas etc. cannot be copyrighted. There are rulings in the US proving that point and the copyright doctrine in Europe is clear on this point as well. Again, copyright only covers the expression of an idea and not the idea itself. When you describe places and creatures in a setting _you_ express your own interpretation of the thoughts being expressed by the creator of the setting, and this is quite OK.

One should obviously respect the rights of authors and creators. Yet there are limits to copyrights and those limits are laid out by the legislator in order to promote the distribution of new art and to safeguard the interest of the rest of society. Copyrights as such do not, after all, exist primarily in the interest of the author but in the interest of society. We offer a author a copyright in order to give him an incitement to publish his work so that we may enjoy it, learn from it and use it. Copyright exists to fulfil a need of society (which is all of us). I make this distinction because it explains why it's quite OK to take the ideas, concepts and thoughts of others and express them in your own words. It also make it clear that it's not immoral or wrong to make use of other peoples expressions, or parts of those expressions, when those expressions lack copyright protection. A few rules of the road: Making new creatures for BRP does not violate any copyright of Chaoisum's, because Chaosium does not own the way of describing a creature using their rules. Describing the landscapes or creatures found in Tolkien's world does not violate any copyright, as long such expressions are just based on the ideas found in Tolkien's work and do not copy other peoples expressions of those ideas (including Tolkien's own expressions). Providing a set of rules enabling people to make use of BRP plus any other material they own that describes ME is quite OK. It does not violate anyone's copyright as longs as it make use of those parts of other peoples works that are not copyright protected. I do agree with deleriad that it's good manners to identify a work such as this, as one's own interpretation and expression of someone else's ideas and thoughts. Creating a graphically slimmed down version of the document would also - probably - make it faster to write. Keep the full-featured version as a private document and publish a more bare-bone version here.

Data about a creature, i.e. it's properties, even if the creature is fictional lacks copyright protection in most jurisdictions. In the US - fictional data might be protected. Data about a landscape would in a similar way be free game in most places. Just make sure you use your own words. I'm much more worried about the screen shots. If would remove those, as a prudent safety action.

Well, if the Chronopia setting you mention is the same as Target Games' "Drakar och Demoner: Chronopia", then there already is a BRP-clone: Drakar & Demoner v. 5. Unfortunately (for most people) it's in Swedish and it's also out of print...