This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Big Developments in the ORC License  (Read 14328 times)

Ruprecht

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
    • Ruprecht's RPG blog
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2023, 10:43:26 AM »
I agree if all you're doing is releasing a product for others to buy, you absolutely don't need to use any OGL. However, another reason to use a OGL type license you missed was "because you want other people to be able to make content for your system."
How does the OGL allows others to make content for your system in a way different from Creative Commons or other licenses? I would think it was a bit more restrictive because the OGL says those others can't write on the cover "Compatible with Chris24601's Brilliant Game System" and can't use your logo or other things (which are legally allowed if carefully controlled in how) while other licenses would allow that.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2023, 10:45:45 AM by Ruprecht »
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing. ~Robert E. Howard

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2023, 11:16:27 AM »
Social/Religious prohibitions are not the same as fundamentally different systems of magic. Black vs White magic is more akin to “Magic Schools” than completely different ways of using magic. Within real life mystical traditions anyone could use either type, it’s just that “Black Magic” is frowned upon and has negative spiritual consequences. But you could still try it if you dare, and most of what we take for “wizard” magic today originates from Hermetic traditions that call upon angelic beings and were mixed up with Abrahamic religions, even if the mainstream forms of those religions are against magic or consider it heretical.

D&D magic and D&D psionics are fundamentally different systems. Arcane and Divine magic are not "fundamentally different systems of magic". They're the exact same system of magic. The spells function the same way, casting functions the same way, you roll the same things, etc. Just different spell lists. They're no more fundamentally different than Evocation and Necromancy.

Nitpicking/Pet Peeve of mine, but…

Even the idea of “Psionics/Psychic” abilities originated as a pseudoscientific distinction made in the study of purported magical abilities within parapsychology. Terms like Psionics and Miracles are artificial distinctions used to refer to what’s essentially “Magic” by another name, even within the real life context they originate from. They’re ALL “Magic”! People just have an emotional investment on them.

And from a game mechanic PoV, dragging these distinctions only brings unnecessary complications to the game system and extra stuff to keep track of, like bookkeeping all the tiny variations of what are essentially magic attacks, buffer effects, status effects, etc., as separate “spells”, “miracles” or “psionic powers”. It would be much more efficient to just treat all magical powers as the same thing, divided by core effects, then sprinkle flavor or tiny modifiers on top by using trappings, like “This Magic Attack is specifically Fire damage (or Holy damage or whatever)”, or “I use magic by praying” vs “I use magic by reciting incantations”, etc. And maybe give special bonuses if your power’s trappings match your mystical tradition or whatever (Holymen get +X to healing and buffing powers; Unholymen get +X to energy drain and debuffs).

BUT

All of this is immaterial to the discussion anyways, since the idea of distinct Arcane/Divine/Psionic/Whatever magic has become so ubiquitous in modern fantasy outside of D&D I don’t think WotC even realizes that the Arcane/Divine divide originated within D&D. And I don’t think that they’d have a leg to stand on legally.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2023, 11:18:05 AM by VisionStorm »

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2023, 11:18:50 AM »
- the arcane/divine casting divide

This is not a divide restricted to D&D, and never has been. In fact, it began in the real world: witchcraft, sorceries, and divinations have been forbidden to worshippers of Christianity since the beginning.

More, it's appeared in other games going back to 1991 at least, such as TORG: not only are Miracles and Magic two different rules subsystems, they're governed by two different axioms!

Use this with impunity.

It goes way back than Christianity, Jews had the same restrictions, after all the Old Testament is nothing but a part of their holy book. So it's at least 2023+ years old.

Even the Maya who allegedly did not make the distinction had the priests who "performed miracles", the white witches and the black witches (who often could be the same person depending on how they were using their "powers".

You find the same division almost in every culture you find going back to the Summerians. gods on one side, demons on the other with sometimes a grey area where witchcraft wasn't forbidden as long as it wasn't black witchcraft.

Social/Religious prohibitions are not the same as fundamentally different systems of magic. Black vs White magic is more akin to “Magic Schools” than completely different ways of using magic. Within real life mystical traditions anyone could use either type, it’s just that “Black Magic” is frowned upon and has negative spiritual consequences. But you could still try it if you dare, and most of what we take for “wizard” magic today originates from Hermetic traditions that call upon angelic beings and were mixed up with Abrahamic religions, even if the mainstream forms of those religions are against magic or consider it heretical.

Oh, but they ARE different systems of "magic"! Praying to God for a miracle is very different from working with demons (even if they have fooled you into thinking they are angels):

Deuteronomy 18: 9-12
Exodus 220:18
Leviticus 20:27
Job 1:12
2 Corinthians 4:4
Revelation 20:2
Exodus 8:7
Genesis 3:5

Now, I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just providing EVIDENCE that under Abrahamic Law Witchcraft isn't the same as praying for a miracle, because the first comes from the devil and the second comes from God.

You can disbelieve as hard as you want, what you can't do is come and re-interpret thousands of years of Theology to make the religion say something it doesn't say.

Jews believed Witchcraft to be of the devil, either through revelation as religious people think or through osmosis taking it from their neighborgs and enslavers.

Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2023, 11:19:06 AM »
As to my point about the arcane/divine magic divide…

If you have priests using miracles and wizards casting spells, that is a divide recognized for millennia.

It in no way infringes on WOTC’s intellectual property.

Like using leprechauns, will-o-the-wisps, bears, toads, and frogs: these are all common things and the Coast brigade has no rights over them.
Again, it’s not just the divide its the divide representing fundamentally different sources of power (some natural aspect of reality vs. power from gods) connected to eight specific schools of magic, Vancian preparation, nine levels of spells, VSM components, slot-based casting, wizard armor restrictions, cleric weapon restrictions, fireball being a level 3 evocation while invisibility is a level 2 illusion, etc.

All of those combined add up to a specific expression of a concept of a spellcaster that can actually be copyrighted.

There’s a reason Palladium wizards and priests don’t use magic the same way as their D&D counterparts do, why Tunnels & Trolls doesn’t even have priests and their wizards use spell points, why pretty much every non-OGL system has its own unique expressions for their magic systems. It’s because a particular combination of aggregate elements IS something you can copyright.

To quote https://guides.library.unt.edu/SCCopyright/basics#s-lg-box-14997580 ;

Notably, copyright protects the expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. This should be intuitive: Copyright is designed to protect art not the ideas art is based on. So, just because copyright protects the Harry Potter stories does not prevent another person from writing a completely unique story about a boy wizard using magic to fight evil. The law protect's J.K. Rowling's specific telling of that story, but not all of the ideas that are contained within the story.

You can’t copyright a wizard or any of the individual components that comprise a D&D wizard and their magic; but the specific collection of components is something that falls under copyright and Hasbro/WotC holds that copyright (and not just to the SRD versions, but the version from every D&D edition).

Do what you will. I’m just sharing a potential point of weakness that a vindictive WotC could attack a work with that a lot of people are just writing off because 20+ years of the OGL has made the concepts so common within the OGL community that no one thinks of them as unique copyrighted elements when almost everything that actually does include those elements is another OGL/SRD D&D derivative where Hasbro/WotC just has to say “we’re pursuing legal action against them too” and your “but everyone’s doing it so it’s not unique” argument is largely defused.

How does the OGL allows others to make content for your system in a way different from Creative Commons or other licenses? I would think it was a bit more restrictive because the OGL says those others can't write on the cover "Compatible with Chris24601's Brilliant Game System" and can't use your logo or other things (which are legally allowed if carefully controlled in how) while other licenses would allow that.
OGL in this case is just shorthand for any license that grants a license to use your content because who wants to write “the Open Game License, Open RPG Creative License, Creative Commons licenses and various other system licenses open or otherwise” again and again when you can type three capital letters and convey 90% of the same sentiment.

Also, not all restrictions are bad by default. Not letting eight year olds vote in state or national elections is a restriction that I don’t think anyone would regard as a bad thing.

So too, on Freedom of Association grounds I actually don’t have a problem with “if you want to indicate compatibility just contact the licensor first” as a license condition. Really, I struggle to think of reasons why it would be so terribly important for you to use someone else’s trademarked name without their permission other than because you think they’d object to your product for some reason.

If you don’t wish to deal with that condition (I assure you my conditions for use would not be monetary, but rather center around “don’t shit on my setting”) then I’m sure there are other systems with other licenses you can make content for.

That’s the beauty of Freedom of Association; you only have to associate with people you want to.

I don’t want to associate with people who lack the common courtesy to reach out to someone whose content they’re using word for word and take two minutes to describe what they’re doing and ask permission to use my trademarks on their product.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2023, 11:26:39 AM »
As to my point about the arcane/divine magic divide…

If you have priests using miracles and wizards casting spells, that is a divide recognized for millennia.

It in no way infringes on WOTC’s intellectual property.

Like using leprechauns, will-o-the-wisps, bears, toads, and frogs: these are all common things and the Coast brigade has no rights over them.
Again, it’s not just the divide its the divide representing fundamentally different sources of power (some natural aspect of reality vs. power from gods) connected to eight specific schools of magic, Vancian preparation, nine levels of spells, VSM components, slot-based casting, wizard armor restrictions, cleric weapon restrictions, fireball being a level 3 evocation while invisibility is a level 2 illusion, etc.

All of those combined add up to a specific expression of a concept of a spellcaster that can actually be copyrighted.

There’s a reason Palladium wizards and priests don’t use magic the same way as their D&D counterparts do, why Tunnels & Trolls doesn’t even have priests and their wizards use spell points, why pretty much every non-OGL system has its own unique expressions for their magic systems. It’s because a particular combination of aggregate elements IS something you can copyright.

To quote https://guides.library.unt.edu/SCCopyright/basics#s-lg-box-14997580 ;

Notably, copyright protects the expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. This should be intuitive: Copyright is designed to protect art not the ideas art is based on. So, just because copyright protects the Harry Potter stories does not prevent another person from writing a completely unique story about a boy wizard using magic to fight evil. The law protect's J.K. Rowling's specific telling of that story, but not all of the ideas that are contained within the story.

You can’t copyright a wizard or any of the individual components that comprise a D&D wizard and their magic; but the specific collection of components is something that falls under copyright and Hasbro/WotC holds that copyright (and not just to the SRD versions, but the version from every D&D edition).

Do what you will. I’m just sharing a potential point of weakness that a vindictive WotC could attack a work with that a lot of people are just writing off because 20+ years of the OGL has made the concepts so common within the OGL community that no one thinks of them as unique copyrighted elements when almost everything that actually does include those elements is another OGL/SRD D&D derivative where Hasbro/WotC just has to say “we’re pursuing legal action against them too” and your “but everyone’s doing it so it’s not unique” argument is largely defused.

How does the OGL allows others to make content for your system in a way different from Creative Commons or other licenses? I would think it was a bit more restrictive because the OGL says those others can't write on the cover "Compatible with Chris24601's Brilliant Game System" and can't use your logo or other things (which are legally allowed if carefully controlled in how) while other licenses would allow that.
OGL in this case is just shorthand for any license that grants a license to use your content because who wants to write “the Open Game License, Open RPG Creative License, Creative Commons licenses and various other system licenses open or otherwise” again and again when you can type three capital letters and convey 90% of the same sentiment.

Also, not all restrictions are bad by default. Not letting eight year olds vote in state or national elections is a restriction that I don’t think anyone would regard as a bad thing.

So too, on Freedom of Association grounds I actually don’t have a problem with “if you want to indicate compatibility just contact the licensor first” as a license condition. Really, I struggle to think of reasons why it would be so terribly important for you to use someone else’s trademarked name without their permission other than because you think they’d object to your product for some reason.

If you don’t wish to deal with that condition (I assure you my conditions for use would not be monetary, but rather center around “don’t shit on my setting”) then I’m sure there are other systems with other licenses you can make content for.

That’s the beauty of Freedom of Association; you only have to associate with people you want to.

I don’t want to associate with people who lack the common courtesy to reach out to someone whose content they’re using word for word and take two minutes to describe what they’re doing and ask permission to use my trademarks on their product.

So you say that magic comes from demons or from nature (as the "Native Americans" and others seemed to believe), while miracles come from the gods.

It's not something WotC can claim, just their fluff.

THEIR specific schools of magic, that is correct, create your own.

Vancian magic, that's correct, create your own system. Create your own spell list with new names where needed, different fluff and mechanics.

Others have done it and WotC has done shit, BECAUSE they know they can't do shit. I'm speaking of games not under the OGL like WWN/SWN, what has wizards done? NOTHING.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Bruwulf

  • Dwarf Fanboy
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 489
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2023, 11:47:24 AM »
Even the idea of “Psionics/Psychic” abilities originated as a pseudoscientific distinction made in the study of purported magical abilities within parapsychology. Terms like Psionics and Miracles are artificial distinctions used to refer to what’s essentially “Magic” by another name, even within the real life context they originate from. They’re ALL “Magic”! People just have an emotional investment on them.

I meant that mechanically they were distinct systems, while the arcane/divine divide is purely just spell lists and fluff.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2023, 12:10:22 PM »
So you say that magic comes from demons or from nature (as the "Native Americans" and others seemed to believe), while miracles come from the gods.

It's not something WotC can claim, just their fluff.

THEIR specific schools of magic, that is correct, create your own.

Vancian magic, that's correct, create your own system. Create your own spell list with new names where needed, different fluff and mechanics.

Others have done it and WotC has done shit, BECAUSE they know they can't do shit. I'm speaking of games not under the OGL like WWN/SWN, what has wizards done? NOTHING.
So, you’re agreeing with me in the most belligerent way possible? Alright. You do you.

You just agreed to my entire point though… a lot of the OGL products do have all those things stacked atop each other… Paizo especially despite some mechanical changes has races (sorry, ancestries) and classes and spells in specific schools at specific levels that basically amount to “Gary Porter and the Immortality Elixir” (including a magical scar on his ankle that aches whenever Lord Mortis who killed his parents is near) when taken a combined whole.

Stripping that out to a degree that is actually free and clear is going to take more than just rewriting some fluff text in your own words… it means for more specific concepts deciding which particular elements of the “concept stack” are most important to retain and which you will need to change to avoid too similar a stack and what you want to change those elements to.

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2023, 12:15:01 PM »
Yeah. You're not gonna stop Hasbro from trying to sue you anyway and they still waste your money on frivolous lawsuits. So it's probably better to sanitize your work of anything that clearly originates from D&D.

For example, rename the genie tribes to names from Tunisian folklore like ifrit (fire genies), baharia (genies of the sea), leriah (genies of the airs), and siadna (genies of the land).

The lich and phylactery were invented by D&D, so you'll need to rename that too. J.K. Rowling helpfully coined "horcrux," and the monster could be renamed to "koschie," "greater dead adept," "Kostagian mage," or whatever. Maybe "dwimmerlich" if you really need to retain that particular syllable, and you can argue that this is a play on Tolkien's dwimmerlaik.

Scaly kobolds will need to be renamed. Do you like "dragonewt"? Scaly goblins?

Assuming that works. The concept stack thing is still a problem. You'll need to find public domain replacements for absolutely everything WotC could claim, and then you'd have to scrub it further to avoid concept stack.

Another great reason why copyright law needs to be reformed.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2023, 12:22:02 PM »
So you say that magic comes from demons or from nature (as the "Native Americans" and others seemed to believe), while miracles come from the gods.

It's not something WotC can claim, just their fluff.

THEIR specific schools of magic, that is correct, create your own.

Vancian magic, that's correct, create your own system. Create your own spell list with new names where needed, different fluff and mechanics.

Others have done it and WotC has done shit, BECAUSE they know they can't do shit. I'm speaking of games not under the OGL like WWN/SWN, what has wizards done? NOTHING.
So, you’re agreeing with me in the most belligerent way possible? Alright. You do you.

You just agreed to my entire point though… a lot of the OGL products do have all those things stacked atop each other… Paizo especially despite some mechanical changes has races (sorry, ancestries) and classes and spells in specific schools at specific levels that basically amount to “Gary Porter and the Immortality Elixir” (including a magical scar on his ankle that aches whenever Lord Mortis who killed his parents is near) when taken a combined whole.

Stripping that out to a degree that is actually free and clear is going to take more than just rewriting some fluff text in your own words… it means for more specific concepts deciding which particular elements of the “concept stack” are most important to retain and which you will need to change to avoid too similar a stack and what you want to change those elements to.

I'm not trying to be belligerent, sorry if I came out like that.

So, your entire point is that you need to change MORE than the fluff on some pleces?

I don't think anyone has disagreed with that, but I might be wrong.

Yes, you do need to come up with a different magic system that doesn't work like "vancian" magic, just to be on the safe side, since the mechanics can't be copyrighted this might be useless but better safe than sorry (plus bolting back vancian into the game at my table is a chore of about 5 seconds.

More importantly tho is the schools of magic IMHO and the spell list, those need to be reworked thoroughly.

As for the magic division, this is now on the public domain (If it wasn't already):

Miracles instead of divine magic
Hermetic instead of Arcane, powered by ley lines, crystals, the moon, stars, etc.
Demonic for the evil guys.

And for all that's fun and good about this hobby, make the spells REALLY different among the types?
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

DocJones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1082
  • theofascist
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2023, 12:26:55 PM »
As to my point about the arcane/divine magic divide… angels and demons are of a kind in most religions and the distinction is whether you are relying upon good or evil powers of basically the same type (God could drop a pillar of fire and the Devil could cure your illness… neither happened often, but that was due to a difference in the grantor’s intent not “this magic is fundamentally different and can’t do that”).
Rolemaster has always divided magic that way arcane/divine or essence/channeling.
Also their dragons are different colors.  Red green, white, orange, black, metallic, etc.

Those two things are concepts/ideas not expression, thus not protected.


GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2023, 12:27:54 PM »
Yeah. You're not gonna stop Hasbro from trying to sue you anyway and they still waste your money on frivolous lawsuits. So it's probably better to sanitize your work of anything that clearly originates from D&D.

For example, rename the genie tribes to names from Tunisian folklore like ifrit (fire genies), baharia (genies of the sea), leriah (genies of the airs), and siadna (genies of the land).

The lich and phylactery were invented by D&D, so you'll need to rename that too. J.K. Rowling helpfully coined "horcrux," and the monster could be renamed to "koschie," "greater dead adept," "Kostagian mage," or whatever. Maybe "dwimmerlich" if you really need to retain that particular syllable, and you can argue that this is a play on Tolkien's dwimmerlaik.

Scaly kobolds will need to be renamed. Do you like "dragonewt"? Scaly goblins?

Assuming that works. The concept stack thing is still a problem. You'll need to find public domain replacements for absolutely everything WotC could claim, and then you'd have to scrub it further to avoid concept stack.

Another great reason why copyright law needs to be reformed.

Exactly, because I don't have the kind of money needed to fight them, the safest thing to do is to scrub EVERY single D&Dism from your work.

Concept Stack? First time reading that and Google isn't helping, care to expand for the rest of the class?
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

PulpHerb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • P
  • Posts: 400
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2023, 12:30:38 PM »
The devil is still in the details of the wrapper licenses. I worried about how open this would be when I learned Chaosium was involved for reasons divorced from politics.

This is in their "open" licenses for BRP and OpenQuest (source: https://www.chaosium.com/brp-system-reference-document/):

Quote
Prohibited Content is material you can’t use with this SRD. It is defined as:

All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, place names, etc.), plots, story elements, locations, characters, artwork, or trade dress from any of the following: any releases from the product lines of Call of Cthulhu, Dragon Lords of Melniboné, ElfQuest, Elric!, Hawkmoon, HeroQuest, Hero Wars, King Arthur Pendragon, Magic World, Nephilim, Prince Valiant, Ringworld, RuneQuest, 7th Sea, Stormbringer, Superworld, Thieves’ World, Worlds of Wonder, and any related sublines; the world and mythology of Glorantha; all works related to the Cthulhu Mythos, including those that are otherwise public domain; and all works related to Le Morte d’Arthur.

So the goal is nothing that parallels one of their game lines even if the material is not owned by them or anyone in the last case. I suspect they'll claim anything Arthur derives from Le Morte d'Arthur.

Also, for BRP, they limit what new mechanics you can make:

Quote
In addition, game mechanics that are substantially similar to the following unique or characteristic features of other Chaosium games are Prohibited Content:

Augments: The use of one ability — whether skill or characteristic — to augment another ability of the same or a different type, in a manner substantially similar to those of the RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha rules.
Glory: If substantially similar to the King Arthur Pendragon rules.
Passions: If substantially similar to the King Arthur Pendragon and/or the RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha rules.
Personality Traits: If substantially similar to the King Arthur Pendragon rules.
Pushing: If substantially similar to the Call of Cthulhu rules.
Reputation: If substantially similar to the RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha rules.
Rune Magic: If substantially similar to the Rune or divine magic mechanics presented in any version of the RuneQuest rules. Original magic systems not derived from RuneQuest may be called “rune magic” if they do not include any components of the Gloranthan Runes.
Runes: If substantially similar to the Runes contained in the RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha rules.
Sanity: If substantially similar to the Sanity mechanics in the Call of Cthulhu rules, including Bouts of Madness, Temporary, Indefinite, and Permanent Insanity.
Sorcery: If substantially similar to the sorcery mechanics presented in any version of the RuneQuest rules. Original magic systems not derived from RuneQuest may be called “sorcery.”
Spirit Magic: If substantially similar to the spirit or battle magic mechanics presented in any version of the RuneQuest rules. Original magic systems not derived from RuneQuest may be called “spirit magic.”

That's enough to render pretty much any BRP based fantasy or horror game in violation.

I'm sure the Chaosium version of ORC will be similar which makes me wonder how open ORC will be in practice.

PulpHerb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • P
  • Posts: 400
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2023, 12:35:32 PM »
The lich and phylactery were invented by D&D, so you'll need to rename that too. J.K. Rowling helpfully coined "horcrux," and the monster could be renamed to "koschie," "greater dead adept," "Kostagian mage," or whatever. Maybe "dwimmerlich" if you really need to retain that particular syllable, and you can argue that this is a play on Tolkien's dwimmerlaik.

While I'm not up to fighting Hasbro lawyers, neither originates with D&D. Both are older terms from core D&D sources used in D&D in a specific way. Lich for an animated corpse with intelligence is from Clark Ashton Smith and phylatctery is a religious item in Judaism and Christianity as well as a name used for some amulets from animist traditions.

More importantly, trying to claim things like those invites scrutiny that Hasbro lawyers might not like on what they are claiming copyright or trademark on.

PulpHerb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • P
  • Posts: 400
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2023, 12:38:13 PM »
THEIR specific schools of magic, that is correct, create your own.

Can they?

Serious question?

D&D didn't introduce schools until 2nd edition, but C&S had schools, most with the same names, a decade earlier in the 70s.

Again, Hasbro lawyers could snow yours, but would they? At some point, trying to claim things with clear prior art could be a pyrrhic victory. You might bankrupt the person you're suing but establish the prior art enough that you can't win in the future.

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2023, 12:38:28 PM »
So you say that magic comes from demons or from nature (as the "Native Americans" and others seemed to believe), while miracles come from the gods.

It's not something WotC can claim, just their fluff.

THEIR specific schools of magic, that is correct, create your own.

Vancian magic, that's correct, create your own system. Create your own spell list with new names where needed, different fluff and mechanics.

Others have done it and WotC has done shit, BECAUSE they know they can't do shit. I'm speaking of games not under the OGL like WWN/SWN, what has wizards done? NOTHING.
So, you’re agreeing with me in the most belligerent way possible? Alright. You do you.

You just agreed to my entire point though… a lot of the OGL products do have all those things stacked atop each other… Paizo especially despite some mechanical changes has races (sorry, ancestries) and classes and spells in specific schools at specific levels that basically amount to “Gary Porter and the Immortality Elixir” (including a magical scar on his ankle that aches whenever Lord Mortis who killed his parents is near) when taken a combined whole.

Stripping that out to a degree that is actually free and clear is going to take more than just rewriting some fluff text in your own words… it means for more specific concepts deciding which particular elements of the “concept stack” are most important to retain and which you will need to change to avoid too similar a stack and what you want to change those elements to.

I'm not trying to be belligerent, sorry if I came out like that.

So, your entire point is that you need to change MORE than the fluff on some pleces?

I don't think anyone has disagreed with that, but I might be wrong.

Yes, you do need to come up with a different magic system that doesn't work like "vancian" magic, just to be on the safe side, since the mechanics can't be copyrighted this might be useless but better safe than sorry (plus bolting back vancian into the game at my table is a chore of about 5 seconds.

More importantly tho is the schools of magic IMHO and the spell list, those need to be reworked thoroughly.

As for the magic division, this is now on the public domain (If it wasn't already):

Miracles instead of divine magic
Hermetic instead of Arcane, powered by ley lines, crystals, the moon, stars, etc.
Demonic for the evil guys.

And for all that's fun and good about this hobby, make the spells REALLY different among the types?

D&D's magic class distinctions are pretty anal-retentive anyway. I vastly prefer Spheres of Power.

Yeah. You're not gonna stop Hasbro from trying to sue you anyway and they still waste your money on frivolous lawsuits. So it's probably better to sanitize your work of anything that clearly originates from D&D.

For example, rename the genie tribes to names from Tunisian folklore like ifrit (fire genies), baharia (genies of the sea), leriah (genies of the airs), and siadna (genies of the land).

The lich and phylactery were invented by D&D, so you'll need to rename that too. J.K. Rowling helpfully coined "horcrux," and the monster could be renamed to "koschie," "greater dead adept," "Kostagian mage," or whatever. Maybe "dwimmerlich" if you really need to retain that particular syllable, and you can argue that this is a play on Tolkien's dwimmerlaik.

Scaly kobolds will need to be renamed. Do you like "dragonewt"? Scaly goblins?

Assuming that works. The concept stack thing is still a problem. You'll need to find public domain replacements for absolutely everything WotC could claim, and then you'd have to scrub it further to avoid concept stack.

Another great reason why copyright law needs to be reformed.

Exactly, because I don't have the kind of money needed to fight them, the safest thing to do is to scrub EVERY single D&Dism from your work.

Concept Stack? First time reading that and Google isn't helping, care to expand for the rest of the class?
I was referring to another post here:

So you say that magic comes from demons or from nature (as the "Native Americans" and others seemed to believe), while miracles come from the gods.

It's not something WotC can claim, just their fluff.

THEIR specific schools of magic, that is correct, create your own.

Vancian magic, that's correct, create your own system. Create your own spell list with new names where needed, different fluff and mechanics.

Others have done it and WotC has done shit, BECAUSE they know they can't do shit. I'm speaking of games not under the OGL like WWN/SWN, what has wizards done? NOTHING.
So, you’re agreeing with me in the most belligerent way possible? Alright. You do you.

You just agreed to my entire point though… a lot of the OGL products do have all those things stacked atop each other… Paizo especially despite some mechanical changes has races (sorry, ancestries) and classes and spells in specific schools at specific levels that basically amount to “Gary Porter and the Immortality Elixir” (including a magical scar on his ankle that aches whenever Lord Mortis who killed his parents is near) when taken a combined whole.

Stripping that out to a degree that is actually free and clear is going to take more than just rewriting some fluff text in your own words… it means for more specific concepts deciding which particular elements of the “concept stack” are most important to retain and which you will need to change to avoid too similar a stack and what you want to change those elements to.

The lich and phylactery were invented by D&D, so you'll need to rename that too. J.K. Rowling helpfully coined "horcrux," and the monster could be renamed to "koschie," "greater dead adept," "Kostagian mage," or whatever. Maybe "dwimmerlich" if you really need to retain that particular syllable, and you can argue that this is a play on Tolkien's dwimmerlaik.

While I'm not up to fighting Hasbro lawyers, neither originates with D&D. Both are older terms from core D&D sources used in D&D in a specific way. Lich for an animated corpse with intelligence is from Clark Ashton Smith and phylatctery is a religious item in Judaism and Christianity as well as a name used for some amulets from animist traditions.

More importantly, trying to claim things like those invites scrutiny that Hasbro lawyers might not like on what they are claiming copyright or trademark on.
I'm not risking it. And besides, I don't consider the D&D terms sacred anyway. A rose by any other name is still a rose.