Quote from: the crypt keeper on March 15, 2022, 10:44:05 PM

Quote from: RebelSky on March 15, 2022, 05:15:34 PM
I used to think MEGS was the pinnacle of supers game design. Ascendant has taken that place.

Not really the point of the post. But thanks for your thoughts. Please keep in mind I would hate to see this thread turned into one of the incredibly boring and redundant and plentiful "this is the best game for X" threads.

If you have any knowledge on copyright law and how people have been successful producing legal retro clone though, please pontificate away.

Sega v Accolade is an important precedent, which among other things shows that merely being compatible with a game isn't a copyright violation. TSR v. Mayfair is a specific example involving tabletop RPGs, but unfortunately it was settled, and then TSR bought out the Role Aids line, so it's not as conclusive. But the judgment found technical violations of a contract, not that the AD&D supplements as a whole were a problem.

Digging into the old conversations around the creation of OSRIC may also be useful. It was explicitly created to be compatible with AD&D 1st edition, and they had copyright lawyers go over it with a fine toothed comb to ensure it was in compliance. For instance, there is apparently a body of precedent specific to the presentation of numbers in a table, which is why all the XP progressions are slightly different. One complication is they used the OGL, which allows the use of specific terms (like spell and monster names), but also creates some additional restrictions that wouldn't apply to a clone of another game that doesn't use the OGL. Another complication is the ultimate copyright holder is a UK citizen, which has different rules than the US. (That was quite deliberate.)

QuoteAs some others have said, you can legally copy game mechanics as long as you don't use the same wording to express those mechanics. However, an important point is that they can try to sue you anyway, which could make it difficult even if you would eventually win the lawsuit. That seems unlikely to me, though.

I have the benefit (drawback?) of being an attorney. I want to emphasize what jhkim is saying. The contemporary legal system does not offer justice to those in the right. The legal system offers justice to those with sufficient resources to win the lawsuit. If *both sides have ample resources*, then it matters who is in the right. Most of the time, the guy with ample resources isn't the guy posting on The RPG Site.

Let's imagine, for instance, that you have studiously and slavishly avoided any copyright violation of DC Heroes. Nevertheless (for whatever reason), the rightsholder sues you. You are met with a motion to desist. Then you are met with a motion for summary judgment with treble damages. Then you are met with discovery requirements that will cost you inordinate sums to comply with. You can easily spend $25,000 to $100,000 just in motion practice.

Now, in the case of a clone of MEGS, stripped of DC IP, it's quite unlikely you'd be sued. There's no one with ample resources who stands to benefit from the exploitation of the Mayfair Exponential Game System. You could probably do an almost 1:1 retroclone without issue. But if you DID get sued, it would make almost no difference whether you did a 1:1 retroclone or a carefully studied retroclone that carefully avoided IP violations. Either way you will be drowned in a tidal wave of litigation that makes it not worth your while.



This is, btw, why people are able to maintain control of the rights to Zorro or Cthulhu even when they've slipped into the public domain.

Great information. Thanks for your insight.