License alternatives for 3rd party D100 supplements

[dragonewt]

The complete name "Windswept Depths of Pandemonium" is definitely protected.

"Beholder" as used to describe a monster is also a valid term for them to protect.

They may want to protect the use of these words, however, what legal protection exists? Does it only stop people within the scope of OGL content?

Or can the noun "beholder" still be used to describe a "watcher" type monster in a non-OGL work, which would be subject to copyright law that is not tainted by OGL. Would this mean that I cannot use the term "runner" as a noun for any type of fast legged monster?

In many ways it seems that the OGL was a restrictive trap, and not the open license (maybe like the GPL) people assumed it to be.

Edited December 5, 2009 by dragonewt

[dragonewt]

Order of the Stick #32

[frogspawner]

I took serious issue with GORE when it first came out, because Mr. Proctor tried to copyright the book from cover-to-cover. Even though he lifted almost verbatim text from the MRQ OGL and d20 OGL. I and others kept on him about it, and he finally opened up everything.

Well done. But it does seem like he wasn't too fastidious about his sources, and 'OGL'-ed some things which weren't his/available to OGLe...

Just checked Elric!:

Criticals @ 20%, Impales with "01"

Parries and Dodges decrease 30% with each subsequent attempt in a round.

I chucked GORE a long time ago, so I am not sure what rules you mean

when you refer to learning spells form books written in other languages,

but the rule in Elric! is that if the PC has INTx5% or better in the language,

no roll is necessary. But, if he possesses less than INTx5% skill in the

language, he must roll against the language skill to understand the tome.

Thanks for confirming it. Yes, that was the wording I found suspiciously similar in BRP & GORE regarding sorcery spells.

So it does seem best to avoid GORE. I'll give Mr.Proctor the benefit of the doubt over his intentions - to kick-start the then-moribund d100 systems(?) - but we don't need that anymore.

Order of the Stick #32

Yay! Order of the Stick! "Role Playing Games... Comedy... Hot Dwarf-on-Dwarf action!"

[RosenMcStern]

The answer to that question is no legal issues whatsoever.

I do not expect Chaosium to object in any way. However, anyone trying to use D100rules in other languages than English could have some bad surprise. Unlikely, but possible.

[frogspawner]

However, anyone trying to use D100rules in other languages than English could have some bad surprise. Unlikely, but possible.

A Creative Commons license with a Share-Alike condition should ensure translations or other derivatives of D100Rules (or whatever) should be similarly covered. Wouldn't that guard against the 'bad surprises' you imagine?

[rust]

A Creative Commons license with a Share-Alike condition should ensure translations or other derivatives of D100Rules (or whatever) should be similarly covered. Wouldn't that guard against the 'bad surprises' you imagine?

Not really, because there is still no internationally accepted version of the

Creative Commons license, different countries with different IP laws still

have different localized Creative Commons licenses and do not necessarily

consider other versions as legally acceptable.

[dragonewt]

Not really, because there is still no internationally accepted version of the Creative Commons license, different countries with different IP laws still have different localized Creative Commons licenses and do not necessarily consider other versions as legally acceptable.

How does this differ when compared with the GPL, BSD or GNU Free Documentation Licenses?

[RosenMcStern]

The problem here is that translations would be covered by the laws of countries at which they are targeted. Also, there is no point in making a work Creative Commons or OGL if you do not own the right to use it freely in the first place. And as BRP is not free, and the RQ SRD is not free to translate, there is ground for legal action against any d100 derivatives in other languages.

Of course I really doubt that anyone would actually sue a free, amateur publication. But one can never know. Especially if someone actually pays for a translation license and then sees someone else giving away the same thing for free.

[dragonewt]

Of course I really doubt that anyone would actually sue a free, amateur publication. But one can never know. Especially if someone actually pays for a translation license and then sees someone else giving away the same thing for free.

I guess the options left for someone like me are:

- Use OpenQuest or MRQ SRD (OGL), without any benefit for non-english speaking groups.

- Unable to work with BRP, unless there is a commercial agreement, which does not meet the free hobby angle I want to take.

- Investigate other D100 related Creative Commons (CC) or OGL options.

- Create my own legal D100 rules interpretation and release it under the CC or GDL.

- Work with a non-D100 CC, GDL or OGL gaming system.

- Write my own game system and release it under a GDL or CC license.

None of these effectively promote or support BRP or D100.

BRP seems to limit itself. Which is a shame.

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours.

[dragonewt]

Of the 6 CC license variations that are available, I would be considering the Attribution-ShareAlike.

Creative Commons Legal Code - Attribution-ShareAlike

Regarding translations to other languages, the following is said:

to create and Reproduce Adaptations provided that any such Adaptation, including any translation in any medium, takes reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work. For example, a translation could be marked "The original work was translated from English to Spanish," or a modification could indicate "The original work has been modified.";

See also:

Creative Commons Licenses

Any thoughts?

[NickMiddleton]

...

- Unable to work with BRP, unless there is a commercial agreement, which does not meet the free hobby angle I want to take.

Unless of course you ask Chaosium. There is no "off the shelf, self service option" that will let you copy any significant proportion of their copyright text without permission, nor grant access to their Trademarks without their express permission - which is entirely understandable when those things have value.

If what you want to do does not diminish the value of those things, I'm sure Chaosium will consider any reasonable proposal. Pinnacle (Savage Worlds) and Moon Design (HeroQuest) effectively do the same thing - they have an announced "licensing scheme", but read the fine print and both are quite explicitly on the basis that third parties put a proposal to them for approval.

Now, does this mean that there is a case for asking Chaosium to come up with something like the Issaries Fan Materials policy (don't spit!), FFE's Traveller Fan Policy or (a better model), the Pinnacle licensing scheme for Savage Worlds? Yes, absolutely - but the best way to persuade Chaosium that's a good idea I think is to accept that in the first instance it's THEIR decision...

...

- Write my own game system and release it under a GDL or CC license.

Ehn? If you write the game system yourself the copyright on that text automatically resides with you, no requirement for any license - and if you are frustrated by the problems of IP laws, why apply ANY license? Explicitly designate your original work as public domain, i.e. free of any and all copy right restrictions. Voila, text of a rule set which requires no license whatsoever, which the entire world is free to use, manipulate and do what they like with... Just don't complain when it's used to power Fatal II :eek:

None of these effectively promote or support BRP or D100.

BRP seems to limit itself. Which is a shame.

Chaosium, like WW, Palladium, SJG (and WotC, Mongoose and several other companies previously heavily involved with the OGL) set value by their trademarks and copyright text, and limit access to them to protect that value. Rather than expecting to give away to all and sundry the text of the BRP core rules (or any other rule system) for free, would it not be more constructive to adjust ones plans so that they don't so flagrantly impact a publisher's rights and therefore earnings?

The BRP quickstart contains a substantial portion of the core BRP rules. It is owned (both trademark and copyright of the text) by Chaosium - but it is also freely available from their website and, whilst they haven't stated this explicitly, a reasonably inference is that they have no objection to someone downloading the quickstart, and then printing a copy for every member of their group (or giving them copies of the PDF)... So, where they can see a benefit to the value of their IP, they may well listen to a reasonable proposal (as they did with Uncounted Worlds).

But there is no freebie option, so if you want to work with BRP (specifically the trademark and Chaosium's copyright text) the only route is direct negotiation with them.

Cheers,

Nick

[dragonewt]

Ehn? If you write the game system yourself the copyright on that text automatically resides with you, no requirement for any license

I listed that point to provide contrast regarding how that path does not help make BRP more popular. It helps me, but doesn't help BRP.

But there is no freebie option, so if you want to work with BRP (specifically the trademark and Chaosium's copyright text) the only route is direct negotiation with them.

Given that this thread is discussing license alternatives for 3rd party D100 supplements, and not specifically BRP, I want to know what legal and moral options we have for a generic D100 system.

[NickMiddleton]

Given that this thread is discussing license alternatives for 3rd party D100 supplements, and not specifically BRP, I want to know what legal and moral options we have for a generic D100 system.

Err, to quote Rosen's orignal post - " what are the alternatives for small press who want to make something with a BRP-like system?". And your own words ("None of these effectively promote or support BRP or D100.") led me to infer that you were interested, at least to some degree, in using BRP specifically. Hence, if you want to actually reference BRP, ask Chaosium.

If not? MRQ SRD, OpenQuest and any other OGC under the OGL - the OGL can never be rescinded (by its own terms) and the MRQ SRD, plus a huge volume of OGC material in other SRD's, is freely available under it.

Provided the work you intend consists solely of material that YOUR hold the copyright for, and OGC properly released under the OGL, you are golden. The work cannot use anyone else's trademarks or copyright materials (without explicit separate licenses), but that's the only limitation.

Nick

[Atgxtg]

Once again it is worth mentioning that someone cannot copyright a system. So it is perfectly legal under US copyright laws (and apparently UK laws too) to write/create a system with game mechanics virtually identical to BRP-or any other RPG for that matter.

So if someone wanted to make a RPG that was BRP compatible they could. The might have to avoid using a few terms but otherwise have few restrictions.

Way back in the old days that Nick mentioned, there were quite a few companies that made unofficial D&D and AD&D products. TSR did go after some of them, and eventually most 3rd party D&D products stopped using the D&D logo, and changed a few terms (Armor Class to Armor Rating, Hit Points to Hits to Kill, etc.) and were fine.

Things were a lot friendly back then between game designs, too. Lots more give and take and exchanging of ideas and much less worry about legal status.

[threedeesix]

Way back in the old days that Nick mentioned, there were quite a few companies that made unofficial D&D and AD&D products. TSR did go after some of them, and eventually most 3rd party D&D products stopped using the D&D logo, and changed a few terms (Armor Class to Armor Rating, Hit Points to Hits to Kill, etc.) and were fine.

Mayfair Games ROLE Aids. Lich Lords, my favorite high level adventure. :thumb:

Things were a lot friendly back then between game designs, too. Lots more give and take and exchanging of ideas and much less worry about legal status.

Like here on this forum. Thanks everyone that allowed my to use some of their great ideas in my monograph.

Rod

[Nightshade]

Ehn? If you write the game system yourself the copyright on that text automatically resides with you, no requirement for any license - and if you are frustrated by the problems of IP laws, why apply ANY license? Explicitly

Because then you're in the potential situation where someone else can copyright the material, not just some of it, but theoretically all of it. A license prevents someone from doing that.

[soltakss]

Personally, I consider BRP, RQ, OpenQuest and so on to be different versions of the same fundamental game.

Rules are not that important, settings are far more important. That's why Glorantha ia still going strong after all these years.

By the way, RQ2 and RQII are different terms and are, hence, not confusing. As a programmer, they are different (have a different length) and contain different characters. As a roleplayer I see them as being drastically different editions of a game.

I've no objection to GORE or RQM being different from BRP. So, they are similar, so they are based on the same core rules, so what? The more the merrier.

As to which direction third-party publishers can go, I'd like to see supplements produced that would be broadly compatible with all the major D100 systems. How to do it? Use the RQM OGL licence to produce something similar or use a variant on BRP to do the same. Introduce different rules to make it different to BRP and RQ, or to make it similar. Write something then worry about what it is compatible with later.

[Atgxtg]

Rules are not that important, settings are far more important. That's why Glorantha ia still going strong after all these years.

If rules weren't important, then RQ/BRP, etc. would be long gone. Try running something with a system that isn't suited for it and see how it goes. I recall a bad experience with Heroes: Unlimited simply because the system didn't handle non-lethal combat. For a superhero game, that is a big problem.

By the way, RQ2 and RQII are different terms and are, hence, not confusing. As a programmer, they are different (have a different length) and contain different characters. As a roleplayer I see them as being drastically different editions of a game.

Except both RQ2 and RQII have been used to refer to Chaosium's RQ game. In fact, RQII is more common than RQ2. Personally, it bugs me, and is just another reason not to bother with Mongoose. All this is going to do is add more confusion.

I've no objection to GORE or RQM being different from BRP. So, they are similar, so they are based on the same core rules, so what? The more the merrier.

Neither do I, but some people seem to feel that doing so is morally wrong.

As to which direction third-party publishers can go, I'd like to see supplements produced that would be broadly compatible with all the major D100 systems. How to do it? Use the RQM OGL licence to produce something similar or use a variant on BRP to do the same. Introduce different rules to make it different to BRP and RQ, or to make it similar. Write something then worry about what it is compatible with later.

I wouldn't want to see that. It would be bad for BRP. It means BRP supplements will end up in direct competition to MRQ products. Since Mongoose puts out products at a faster rate, BRP would loose sales.

For example, someone might buy MRQ Pirates instead of waiting for the BRP Pirate book. When the BRP book is released, said person probably won't want to buy another Pirate book, and so not buy the BRP book. Eventually, companies stop making BRP books since they "don't sell".

[RosenMcStern]

I wouldn't want to see that. It would be bad for BRP. It means BRP supplements will end up in direct competition to MRQ products. Since Mongoose puts out products at a faster rate, BRP would loose sales.

I think Simon meant something different, more on the line of "Write something good, then adapt it to the BRP variant that best suits it." Of course, with MGP RuneQuest out of the way, this could mean more trouble because you cannot publish it for a particular variant.

The problem of direct competition between MRQ and BRP could certainly arise in the future. However, the two systems only overlap for the Fantasy and Ancient Historical genres. There is a vast area ranging from Horror to pulp to sci-fi where BRP is the only existing d100 game, so there will always be room for BRP products. One of the real advantages of the new BRP book is that it is not the usual "this is a generic RPG but in fact it only does medieval/fantasy well, for the rest buy the supplements" product, like GURPS 3e was. You can play Sci-fi with the basic rules if your wish: Jason has explicitly stated that some of the weapons described in the equipment chapter are BRP-ized versions of the X-Com weapons, and there is a Jedi Knight among the examples.

[dragonewt]

Just don't complain when it's used to power Fatal II

You never know, this could be the BRP/D100 project I am working on. :innocent:

Although juggling this with an unrecognizable BRP variant Spawn of Fashan would be hard work.

For those seeking illumination regarding the last refrence:

REAL MEN, REAL ROLEPLAYERS, LOONIES AND MUNCHKINS

Favorite FRPG:

*Real Roleplayers* play RuneQuest III

Edited December 6, 2009 by dragonewt

[vagabond]

They may want to protect the use of these words, however, what legal protection exists? Does it only stop people within the scope of OGL content?

No, it stops people regardless of the OGL. They basically claim trademark

to those words and phrases when used in similar settings and purposes.

Or can the noun "beholder" still be used to describe a "watcher" type monster in a non-OGL work, which would be subject to copyright law that is not tainted by OGL. Would this mean that I cannot use the term "runner" as a noun for any type of fast legged monster?

Basically, they have trademarked the use of "Beholder" and its description

as a floating eye, eye tyrant, etc. Any attempt to use "Beholder" as a monster

without any description, or described in any way similar to the way D&D uses

it, would be illegal. It has nothing to do with using "runner" or even "watcher".

And, again, this is regardless of whether you use the OGL or not.

In many ways it seems that the OGL was a restrictive trap, and not the open license (maybe like the GPL) people assumed it to be.

And, in many ways, this means you do not understand what the OGL does

and does not do. The OGL allows you to use the d20 system in your own

product as long as you meet certain terms. It also allows you to use the

text of the OGC verbatim. The section of the license that spells out what

you cannot use is to protect WotC/Hasbro IP. Even if you choose to no use

the OGL at all, you still cannot use those things listed in the license. So, the

OGL is not a restrictive trap at all if you publish under it, unless you consider

the following as a restrictive trap: a) including the license in your product,

requiring that anything directly derived from prior OGC published under the

OGL remain OGC, c) any OGC used or created by you under the OGL be

clearly distinguished as such, and d) giving credit to any publisher/writer

from whom you utilized OGC published under the OGL.

In many ways, the GPL is more restrictive than the OGL. Hell, the GPL3 is

incompatible with the GPL2, so products that remain published under the

GPL2 cannot be used as building blocks for GPL3 products.

Ian

[dragonewt]

Basically, they have trademarked the use of "Beholder" and its description as a floating eye, eye tyrant, etc.

I am unable to locate the Beholder trademark. Am I missing something?

And, in many ways, this means you do not understand what the OGL does and does not do.

I am interested in views regarding section "C.09 What went wrong with the D20 effort?" of the following link:

THE UNAUTHORIZED UNOFFICIAL OPEN GAMING LICENSE OGL D20 FAQ

[vagabond]

These predated BRP (1980), by their inclusion in RuneQuest 2 (1979).

Correction noted, and Criticals and Impales actually appeared in RQ1

Elric! flipped them - what was a Critical Hit in RQ1/RQ2 and the original

BRP became Impale in Elric!, and Impales became Criticals. GORE took

them both straight from Elric!

Regardless of origin - RQ, BRP, Elric!, Stormbringer, etc. were all based upon

the common rules developed and "owned" by Chaosium. GORE combines

pieces of BRP (aka Chaosium's house system), MRQ and d20.

Ian

[Guest Vile Traveller]

This may not be an option for 3rd party publishers, but it seems there is another way to see your BRP product in print - submit it as a monograph and hope Chaosium likes it and decides to publish it as a proper book.

Well done, that man! :thumb:

[NickMiddleton]

Because then you're in the potential situation where someone else can copyright the material, not just some of it, but theoretically all of it. A license prevents someone from doing that.

No, they really can't. If you assign the rights YOU hold of a work to the public domain, it's public domain. No can reverse that. You cannot take the text Shakespeare's Hamlet (assuredly public domain throughout the world, what with him having been dead for centuries) and publish it with your name as author and now claim you hold the copyright and expect it to stand up in any court in the world.

Yes, I know you can copyright your specific presentation of that text separately from the text itself, and yes, I know that there is the whole complex area of "derivative works" - but the basic point stands: Evil RPG Publishing Corps could NOT take your explicitly Public Domain document and claim that text as their own copyright and expect it to stand up in court. I suppose they might hope to have deeper pockets for an extended legal battle BEFORE it got to court - but contrary to popular myth, that's NOT tactic that most legal briefs would recommend in this case...

Nick