License alternatives for 3rd party D100 supplements

[Rurik]

Since RPGs tend to build upon their predecessors, it would be difficult (if not impossible) for most RPG companies to exist if companies could copyright RPG game mechanics.

Think about it. As much as we like the old CHaosium products, they built upon earily RPGs, such as D&D. Things like rolling up 3D6 for attributes, hits points, weapon damage dice and other all were orginaled in D&D. Even the typical RPG dice (d4, D8, D10, D12, D20 and yes D100), were first created for D&D.

As I recall the dice predate RPG's - they were in production as teacher accessories for math classes.

Of course, provided you take care that neither the skills nor the spells have

names that are used only by one other game.

So Sneak and Climb can only be used in one game as skill names? :shocked:

It is tricky indeed. The wording of the description of the Sneak Skill in a game is protected as IP, but I don't think you can (or should be able to) say that because one game has a sneak skill no other games can.

[seneschal]

That's why I don't understand the disdain for GORE. It was made available before BRP, before Quick-Start Edition, before Chaosium gave any indication of wanting to do anything other than publish occasional Cthulhu monographs. I have BRP (and Quick-Start) on my shelf today because of GORE; it was my quick start edition, my gateway to BRP. It was published, not to rip off Chaosium, but to enable would-be authors and publishers to make available d100-based material Chaosium seemed uninterested in producing. I see that as a boon to authors, players, and fans, not a vile sin.

The retro-clone itself is about the same page length as Quick-Start Edition. It's less newbie-friendly and less well-written and organized but a more complete rules set, without any settings info that would violate anyone's IP. And despite the lurid clip art, it is truly generic. Publishing with it is as simple as including the "compatible with GORE" and OGL blurbs with your product. I don't see why that would be more objectionable than publishing with OpenQuest if the material in question didn't appeal to Chaosium or didn't fit its publishing schedule. :confused:

[frogspawner]

That's why I don't understand the disdain for GORE. It was made available before BRP...

Well, I've just re-read GORE and now I can understand the disdain, and specifically NickM's righteous outrage. It's clearly (new) BRP, with very few changes. Some spells from D&D, increase-rolls from MRQ (or similar? I don't know it that well), Criticals replaced by Impales and Specials renamed Criticals. That's pretty much it for differences, as far as I can tell.

Was it really available before BRP? Was it based on Zero, then? (Or was the 30% per Parry/Dodge reduction in Stormbringer, or some such?)

And he has the gall to put his copyright and an OGL on it!

That said, I think it's pretty good. Just the sort of thing I'd like to do for my own homebrew...

[Atgxtg]

Mongoose bought their Runequest license from the IP owner, they did not

just copy it without asking ...

The bought the name-not the system. Mongoose was quite plain about that on their forums. Anybody can use a game system, provided that you don't use and system specific setting, creatures, or terms.

[Atgxtg]

Of course, provided you take care that neither the skills nor the spells have

names that are used only by one other game.

No, skill names are fairly open. After all, RPGs didn't invent riding, first aid, or archery, they just took real skills and gave them game equivalents.

Likewise with spells (you can't copyright lightning any more than you can copyright the sun).

The same holds true to characteristics/attributes. Otherwise RQ would have gotten into problems by "Swiping" STR, CON, INT, DEX and CHA. By as those terms were already qualities used to describe people before there were RPGs, they are fair game.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Atgxtg

[seneschal]

Was it really available before BRP? Was it based on Zero, then? (Or was the 30% per Parry/Dodge reduction in Stormbringer, or some such?)

It was available before Zero Edition. I discovered GORE around October/November 2007, and discussions on the Goblinoid Games site led me here, where Zero Edition was being hyped but had not yet been released.

[rust]

@ Rurik & Atgxtg:

You misunderstood my post.

If you use common words, there is of course no problem. However, if you use

names that are used only by one other game, and nowhere else, for example

"Kenser's Gloating Disc", you have used the other author's IP.

@ Atgxtg:

I still think that Mongoose bought a lot more than just a name, they bought

an entire setting with all the names and descriptions of people, places, crea-

tures, and so on - the result of decades of creative effort.

Edited December 4, 2009 by rust

[frogspawner]

It was available before Zero Edition. I discovered GORE around October/November 2007, and discussions on the Goblinoid Games site led me here, where Zero Edition was being hyped but had not yet been released.

Daniel Proctor should sue! Mr D./Chaosium failed to include a copy of the OGL...

PS: In their defence, I expect they intended to - just overlooked it, like other minor things such as Tables of Contents... >:->

Edited December 4, 2009 by frogspawner
PS

[seneschal]

As I said in my comparison review of BRP Quick-Start Edition and GORE, GORE is aimed at a different audience. It assumes that the reader is a veteran role-player and an old d100 hand and presents the retro-cloned rules as a tool for would-be publishers and developers. It could definitely use some polishing but overall isn't too bad for a one-man effort, no worse than some of the official Chaosium monograph material (even Bill Shakespeare needed an editor, dang it!). Goblinoid Games has stopped actively supporting GORE mainly because the small company needs all its resources to promote Labyrinth Lord and Mutant Future, but also because the subsequent publications of BRP and BRP Quick-Start have made it less necessary. There are more open doors (and -Quests) for d100 products than when it was first conceived.

[NickMiddleton]

Daniel Proctor should sue! Mr D./Chaosium failed to include a copy of the OGL...

I wonder what would happen if someone used the OGL and d20 SRD to produce a "retro-clone" of D&D 4e?

The "new" BRP is Worlds of Wonder and Stormbringer/Elric! and Call of Cthulhu, plus a few bits from other Chaosium games. The newest game in that mix is from 1993 or there about and predates GORE by nearly fifteen years - and was available in print through normal distribution when GORE was released...

Nick

[frogspawner]

I wonder what would happen if someone used the OGL and d20 SRD to produce a "retro-clone" of D&D 4e?

Not much, I'd imagine - if the 'clone' actually pre-dated 4e.

The "new" BRP is Worlds of Wonder and Stormbringer/Elric! and Call of Cthulhu, plus a few bits from other Chaosium games.

Two points caught my eye: the 30% reduction per parry/dodge, and suspiciously-similar wording about sorceror's learning spells from books in other languages. Neither appears to be in WoW, and presumably not CoC. Could someone please tell me if they are from Stormbringer/Elric (or other)?

[seneschal]

Of course, something has to exist before you can retro-clone it.

But as you've pointed out, for 15 years Call of Cthulhu was practically the only Chaosium d100 game in town. No RuneQuest. No science fiction. No cowboys. No superheroes. No hard-boiled detectives or secret agents. No intrepid pulp adventurers or scurvy pirates doing intrepid or scurvy stuff. GORE was created to enable interested parties to provide those options since Chaosium was apparently unable to.

[rust]

But as you've pointed out, for 15 years Call of Cthulhu was practically the only Chaosium d100 game in town. No RuneQuest. No science fiction. No cowboys. No superheroes. No hard-boiled detectives or secret agents. No intrepid pulp adventurers or scurvy pirates doing intrepid or scurvy stuff.

Yes and no. Many genres developed their own material within Call of Cthul-

hu, from fantasy (Dreamlands, etc.) to science fiction (Cthulhu End Time,

etc.) to modern (Cthulhu Now, etc.), and it was easy to play them without

using the Cthulhu mythos at all.

[vagabond]

Well, I've just re-read GORE and now I can understand the disdain, and specifically NickM's righteous outrage. It's clearly (new) BRP, with very few changes. Some spells from D&D, increase-rolls from MRQ (or similar? I don't know it that well), Criticals replaced by Impales and Specials renamed Criticals. That's pretty much it for differences, as far as I can tell.

Was it really available before BRP? Was it based on Zero, then? (Or was the 30% per Parry/Dodge reduction in Stormbringer, or some such?)

And he has the gall to put his copyright and an OGL on it!

That said, I think it's pretty good. Just the sort of thing I'd like to do for my own homebrew...

Criticals and Impales came from Elric!/Stormbringer 5th. Crits were 20% of

attack chance, Impales were a roll of "01".

Stormbringer 1st had 20% reduction for subsequent parries/dodges. I don't

recall if it was bumped up to 30% in Elric!/SB5, or if it remained at 20%.

I am pretty sure the sorceror learning spells from books in other languages

is also lifted from Elric!

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.

Ian

[Atgxtg]

@ Rurik & Atgxtg:

You misunderstood my post.

If you use common words, there is of course no problem. However, if you use

names that are used only by one other game, and nowhere else, for example

"Kenser's Gloating Disc", you have used the other author's IP.

Even that isn't quite so cut & dried. All those "original" spells were named after the characters/ and/or players of the old campaigns, or in reference to real people. So any legal action taken would open a who can of worms. For example, did Dave Hargrave get (or need) permission to name an spell in Arduin after Greg Stafford?

@ Atgxtg:

I still think that Mongoose bought a lot more than just a name, they bought

an entire setting with all the names and descriptions of people, places, crea-

tures, and so on - the result of decades of creative effort.

Actually the leased Glorantha, but that was in addition to the RQ license-not part of it. I believe Greg/Issaries own RQ and Glornatha.

[RosenMcStern]

Actually the leased Glorantha, but that was in addition to the RQ license-not part of it. I believe Greg/Issaries own RQ and Glorantha.

Exactly. Issaries own the Copyright/Trademark/whatever on Glorantha. When Greg left Chaosium he took it with him. It owns the RQ trademark, too. But not so tightly as it owns Glorantha. Mongoose is a licensee.

NB: not so tightly means that not all words used for a RQ product over the years belong to Issaries. Some words are Copyright of Chaosium. All of Glorantha belongs to Issaries, instead.

[Trifletraxor]

D100Rules (but I can see some legal issues here)

What legal issues might there be for d100Rules? (I must admit to being worried by this thought myself, when Trif announced it).

The answer to that question is no legal issues whatsoever. BRP is a toolbox which D100rules will not try to compete with. Chaosium and BRP/old RuneQuest is the systems I love and will continue to buy. D100rules try to keep the "spirit" of RQ3, but is actually more different from BRP than MRQ. Al the wording will be new, most of the rules will be different. All the text of D100rules will be open content, but I expect that commercial publishers would want to use BRP or MRQ licenses to have some brand recognition.

I should have phrased it as "third party" supplements. Trif, would you change the thread title?

Okeydokay.

SGL.

[dragonewt]

Of course, provided you take care that neither the skills nor the spells have names that are used only by one other game.

Well, there goes my idea of having an acrobatics or dodge skill.

I need to think of a new name for the "use sword" skill.

[dragonewt]

Criticals and Impales came from Elric!/Stormbringer 5th. Crits were 20% of attack chance, Impales were a roll of "01".

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

Confused? Which is the retro clone of itself? RuneQuest II hasn't been released yet. :shocked: :innocent:

Edited December 5, 2009 by dragonewt

[vagabond]

Well, there goes my idea of having an acrobatics or dodge skill.

I need to think of a new name for the "use sword" skill.

You either missed what rust said, or you are making a bad joke.

What rust said was:

Of course, provided you take care that neither the skills nor the spells have names that are used only by one other game.

In other words, many games use acrobatics, dodge, and <insert name of

weapon here>, so you can use those skill names as is. They are not unique

to any game, and thus not copyrightable at this point.

However, spell names or skill names unique to a product or setting will have

to be renamed. And, the general wording itself needs to be sufficiently changed.

Ian

[vagabond]

Criticals and Impales came from Elric!/Stormbringer 5th. Crits were 20% of

attack chance, Impales were a roll of "01".

Stormbringer 1st had 20% reduction for subsequent parries/dodges. I don't

recall if it was bumped up to 30% in Elric!/SB5, or if it remained at 20%.

I am pretty sure the sorceror learning spells from books in other languages

is also lifted from Elric!

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.

Ian

[dragonewt]

You either missed what rust said, or you are making a bad joke.

Yes it was a bad joke, and I also did not clearly express myself.

I think what we are saying is:

- Use of "generic" skill names is fine. Even when (perhaps in RPG early days) only one game used a particular name for a generic skill. For example, there was a point in time when only one game would have been using 'acrobatics'.

- Use of skill names that can be trademarked or are 'unique identity' cannot be used. But it is the use of unique identity rather than the skills themselves that is being raised.

If my game was the first and only game to have the "inline skating" skill, then there should be no issue if other games use the same skill name as "inline skating".

However, if my game was able (due to permission from the trademark owners) to use the trademarked term "rollerblading" as a skill, other games could only represent that skill with "inline skating". I am sure the owners of the Star Trek franchise would take the same view regarding the "Bat’leth" skill.

Edited December 5, 2009 by dragonewt

[threedeesix]

If you use common words, there is of course no problem. However, if you use

names that are used only by one other game, and nowhere else, for example

"Kenser's Gloating Disc", you have used the other author's IP.

This is true, obviously Classic Fantasy is walking that very fine line itself. While trying to decide what spells to rename and what ones to keep as is, as well as monsters for the next volume, I noticed this in their very own SRD.

The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, d20 (when used as a trademark), Forgotten Realms, Faerun, proper names (including those used in the names of spells or items), places, Red Wizard of Thay, the City of Union, Heroic Domains of Ysgard, Ever-Changing Chaos of Limbo, Windswept Depths of Pandemonium, Infinite Layers of the Abyss, Tarterian Depths of Carceri, Gray Waste of Hades, Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, Nine Hells of Baator, Infernal Battlefield of Acheron, Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia, Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, Twin Paradises of Bytopia, Blessed Fields of Elysium, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Olympian Glades of Arborea, Concordant Domain of the Outlands, Sigil, Lady of Pain, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar'ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti.

This verified what I already knew, I had to drop Tencer from his Floating Disk, but I was happy to see I could use Prismatic Spray, Prismatic Sphere, etc. as they do not consider those to be product identity, which did kinda surprise me as I have yet to see them elsewhere.

I was also happy to see that they don't consider the owlbear product identity either, as we all discussed awhile back when I was trying to rename it.

The end result was they listed in a legal document just what they consider product identity.

Rod

Edited December 5, 2009 by threedeesix

[dragonewt]

I noticed this in their very own SRD.

I would say that WoTC are walking a fine line themselves. Some nouns are clearly unique, but others are not.

If I create my own world and publish it, it does not grant me the power to control any noun I choose to. I wonder if there is a legal requirement for WoTC to trademark these words before declaring them out of bounds.

This one is dubious: "Windswept Depths of Pandemonium". I am sure there is prior art somewhere.

"Beholder" is another one. As in "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

I watch with amusement as Games Workshop issues cease and desist letters to various fans sites, yet the whole feel of "Beastmen and Chaos" in that combination seems to have origins elsewhere, both from human myth, but more so from the combination and identity that provides a degree of uniqueness to Glorantha.

Edited December 5, 2009 by dragonewt

[vagabond]

This one is dubious: "Windswept Depths of Pandemonium". I am sure there is prior art somewhere.

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

"Beholder" is another one. As in "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

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

"Beholder" may be a generic term, but used as a name of a monster

and therefore linked to a particular monster means that you cannot use

"beholder" to describe any monster, whether similar or not to the one found

in D&D.

Ian