Category Archives: RPG Philosophy

License? We don’t need no stinkin’ license!

There is a lot of confusion about Wizards of the Coast, Inc. (WotC) and the Open Game License (OGL). Some people seem to think that if you make a game that is in any way similar to products made by WotC, or some other game, you have to have permission, or a license to do so. Unlike the complex task of cutting hair, doing nails, fixing plumbing, etc., you do not need a license or permission to write games. I think that for most projects based upon the OSR or any project with game mechanics similar to other games, there is no need to use any OGL, license, or obtain any permission other than that required by the ‘fair use’ doctrine and common courtesy.

As I suggested in Is it OK to “steal” game rules or mechanics?, game rules generally cannot be protected, only the actual words and images (copyright), trademarks and tradenames, and occasionally patents for really unique processes and game items. So, unless you are just copying another source word-for-word, which is what the WotC OGL 1.0a allows you to do, you do not need to worry about copyright or getting permission or a license to use copyright protected content.

The ‘fair use’ doctrine does allow for the use of copyright protected material under limited circumstances:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  • the nature of the copyrighted work;
  • the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  • the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

17 U.S.C. § 107

In effect the ‘fair use’ doctrine allows for the word-for-word use of copyright protected material in limited circumstances and properly cited. Including brief properly cited quotes of someone else’s work is fine, including vast amounts of that work without the author’s permission may not be wise.

But remember, only the words are protected by copyright, not the mechanics, formulas, systems, processes, etc. If you take a set of rules and use the exact same mechanics, but you do not copy the text, images, trade name, or trademark then there is no violation of copyright, and you do not need any permission. Nor do you have to provide any attribution at all, but courtesy would suggest you do so.

It is possible that certain unique process ‘tech’ used in a game might be protected under patent law for some ‘process patents’, whether those ‘processes’ are filed or not. However, such ‘process patents’ have a very limited time period for protection (20 years at most) after which they become part of the public domain. Such ‘process patents’ can also be abandoned by the maker if others use the process and the maker does not legally defend it within the statutory period of limitations to bring suit.

The OGL 1.0a created by WotC allowed the user to copy specific protected content word-for-word as long as you followed the terms of the license, which is more strict in some ways than traditional copyright law, trademark and tradename law, patent law, etc.

If you are not copying word-for-word from protected content, using the tradename or trademark of another author, or using mechanics, formulas, or other game systems that are currently protected under patent law (very unlikely), there is no reason to use ANY licensing system.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this article is being provided as legal advice or a substitute for legal representation. I am not your lawyer.

The OGL Crisis and the Hit Dice Formula

With all the kerfuffle going on about the new WotC OGL 1.1 and the possibility that the old OGL 1.0a will be revoked, rescinded, unauthorized, whatever by WotC, I have been thinking about how to proceed in the future without the OGL 1.0a or anything whatsoever from WotC.

I do not make game modules, adventure settings, or anything else intended to be used with any WotC products. My games are all free standing and already ‘mostly’ non-derivative of anything associated with the OGL 1.*, the SRDs, or anything from WotC… except for the monsters. In all my role playing games (RPGs) I use the Hit Dice Formula from the SRD 3.5.

But let’s backtrack a bit. You may be asking, “What the heck are all these acronyms about; OGL, SRD, WotC, etc.”

Let’s start with OGL. OGL stands for the Open Game License which was introduced in 2000 by Wizards of the Coast, Inc. (WotC — I killed two birds with one stone there!). So far there have been two authorized versions of the OGL; 1.0 and 1.0a. Both give the licensee the ability to use designated Open Game Content free of any royalty to WotC into perpetuity (Section 4 of the OGL 1.0a) in consideration for extending certain rights to WotC described in the OGL beyond that normally given by copyright laws and other intellectual property laws. The various versions of the OGL were clearly intended to be irrevocable as described in the document itself and in FAQs issued by WotC:

Q: Can’t Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn’t like?

A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there’s no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

Archived FAQ from WotC

The Open Game Content that is referenced in the OGL are the SRDs (man there are a lot acronyms here; SRD refers to System Reference Document). WotC have created three primary SRDs covered by one or more of the OGLs:

  • System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc. (covering the Third Edition),
  • Modern System Reference Document Copyright 2002-2004, Wizards of the Coast, Inc. (covering d20 Modern, and
  • System Reference Document 5.1 Copyright 2016, Wizards of the Coast, Inc. (covering the Fifth Edition).

Anything from these sources are available under and subject to the OGL 1.0 or OGL 1.0a.

Ok, I think that brings us to the current problem. WotC is supposedly issuing yet another OGL to cover its newest version of D&D; OGL 1.1. From what I have heard this OGL is the very opposite of an ‘open’ license and as such is a gross misnomer. In supposed leaks of OGL 1.1 WotC describes the old OGL as ‘unauthorized’. It is not clear what that means. Is it ‘unauthorized’ for those who accept and use the new OGL 1.1? Or is WotC trying to ‘revoke’ the old OGLs, and if so is this revocation only as to the future or retroactive? I do not know, and if WotC follows through with this I suspect the only way it will be solved is in the courts.

As such, I no longer feel very comfortable using the OGLs, SRDs, or anything else from WotC in the future. I believe my past works are protected by the clear language of the OGL, the written and published interpretation of that language by WotC, and the legal concept of ‘reliance’ which protects those who reasonably rely upon the words, actions, etc. of another.

So I am trying to figure out how to remove any content from future games that could be in any way interpreted as coming from WotC so that I can proceed without the OGL. Since most of my games are not set in the sword and sorcery genre I thought this would be easy. In the past WotC has declared that the Character Creation process, which is excluded from all the SRDs, is proprietary and protected property of WotC. Regardless of whether this claim is legitimate, accepting the OGL 1.* puts the user into the situation that this interpretation should be respected. Another area that WotC has suggested as ‘proprietary’ protected process is the use of the d20 (20 sided dice); which I believe is a ridiculous claim. None of my games use the Character Creation process since I do not particularly like it, so I seem to be good on that one. As for the d20s, just to be ultra cautious, I think I will convert any 1d20 rolls to 2d10 rolls (d10; ten sided die) which has the added benefit of creating a statistical ‘curve’ for results.

Easy Peasy — No more OGL!

Then I realized I have a much bigger problem; the Hit Dice Formula used to create, define, modify monsters in the D&D system. If there is something proprietary, unique, and potentially protected as a unique ‘process’ as intellectual property it is the Hit Dice Formula. How to do without it?

And again, what the heck is the Hit Dice Formula?

Here is the Hit Dice Formula as used in the SRD 3.*:

(X)d(Y)+(Z)
X = Number of HD
Y = Size of Dice (4, 6, 8, 10, 12 or 20)
Z = HD Bonus

From this formula the monster’s level (X), attack bonus (X), and hit points (X * Mean Value of Die + Z) are derived. Replacing it would be a monumental task. Or at least that is what I am thinking right now.

What to do? I think I have a lot more research on this matter.

UPDATE 09 JAN 2023: I think I have sorted out the issue of the Hit Dice Formula to my satisfaction. A mathematical formula cannot get copyright protection. It ‘might’ by covered as a ‘process patent’ but if so the time period has expired. So I don’t think I have anything to worry about there.

Is D&D ‘under-monetised’?

“D&D has never been more popular, and we have really great fans and engagement,” Williams began. “But the brand is really under monetised.”

Or in other words, Hasbro wants to find a way to make more money from D&D. There is nothing wrong with this. The problem with these guys, heartless ESG driven corporations and woke wackos, is that they have not been doing a very good job of that lately. Instead of finding and adding new customers they tend to run off the old customers without developing those shiny new (politically correct woke) customers to take their place.

There is nothing wrong with expanding your customer base, perhaps by using the brand identification to enter new markets. Common sense would dictate that you need to be careful not to lose the original market and thus damage your brand. It would be like Rolls-Royce coming up with a small economy car to compete with Toyota. Even if it is a great car, it might result in the original buyers abandoning the brand without attracting those Toyota customers. On the other hand Ferrari, Harley Davidson, etc. have had some success with branching out into totally new markets like fashion, etc.

The key issue seems to me is don’t insult and drive off your original customers. These Big Business corps are obsessed with ESG which is just a systematic method of imposing wokeness, and thus they develop a loathing for their original customers. I wonder how much of this talk of ‘under monetising’ is about increasing sales revenue or just getting rid of your embarrassing non-woke customers?

https://kotaku.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-fifth-edition-one-dnd-1849884812

Role Playing vs Roll Playing

Here is a video that I rather liked on this subject, and my comments are below:

What is Role Playing?

  1. Everything…
  2. Interacting in the game as the Character you are playing.

I can see how both can be the same. Is it wrong for someone to just ROLL PLAY? No. Role Playing can get tedious if taken to an extreme, and Roll Playing is not evil.

This issue reminds me of a time when I was GMing a Dungeon World game with Players who were all ‘hard core’ D&Ders. I tried to GM in the spirit of Dungeon World using Fronts rather than a set plot. I asked the Players, “What do you think is going to happen?” and similar questions. I had an idea of what was going to happen, but if someone came up with a good idea I went with it.

One Player told me, “I don’t like this. You are just being lazy!”

I asked him if he would prefer that I just railroad the game and force him to do what I thought was best? He didn’t answer, but just said that he didn’t like it.

I then invited him and anyone else who did not like how I was GMing to leave. No one left so I proceeded as before, but then just gave up and started railroading them.

They seemed happier.

Is there a right way to Role Play? How do you encourage Players to Role Play vs Roll Play? I try to reward Role Playing by giving the Player/Character an advantage of some sort in their next action if it relates to the Role Playing. I know some games and GMs give out tokens of some sort that can be used as Inspiration et al. Is there a better way?