Hacker News Reader

Comment by LarryMullins | Hacker News Reader

I have never played D&D but I have some very limited experience with matrix games for wargaming, which I understand to be similar. Can somebody explain the scope of the ruleset(?) that was being licensed under this OGL license? How much would you need to change a game based on OGL licensed rules to make it independent of WotC?

Specifically, what does this mean?

> Much of the original OGL is dedicated to the System Resource Document, and includes character species, classes, equipment, and, most importantly, general gameplay structures, including combat, spells, and creatures.

If your tabletop roleplaying game has an "orc" species and "rogue" class and "sword" equipment, is WotC going to sue you? Or is this pertaining to games that specifically reference D&D documents in their rules?

View on HN

You can see pretty much the whole original SRD here: https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm Everything in the first two columns is the stuff from that turned into a nice web format.

> If your tabletop roleplaying game has an "orc" species and "rogue" class and "sword" equipment, is WotC going to sue you?

There are plenty of games that already have those. In fact, there's an entire sub-genre of D&D-like game ("OSR") designed around directly emulating older editions of D&D, based on the fact that you can't copyright game mechanics themselves, just the text that expresses them.

So what exactly have WotC managed to trademark here ?

"Orc" would be trademarked for a RPG, but not a book, movie, video game ?? (Wait, is this why Game Workshop's Warhammer's are OrKs ?!)

That is why Pathfinder might have issues, despite having replaced basically all the proper names and stories ??

"Orc" is Old English and is used in Beowulf.

"Ork" is a 1990s idea of a cool spelling, like "magick".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc

Tolkien preferred "ork" in his later writings. There is some discussion of the spelling in his guide to translating names:

> It should be spelt ork (so the Dutch translation) in a Germanic language, but I had used the spelling orc in so many places that I have hesitated to change it in the English text, though the adjective is necessarily spelt orkish.

They've trademarked "Dungeons and Dragons" branding and those bits of the D&D brand that are actually at least somewhat unique rather than directly based on other fantasy sources (this is part of why, for example, tieflings are fairly prominent in newer editions).

There are plenty of things in D&D that would be protected by neither copyright nor trademark because they aren't even close to being original or unique to D&D: fighters, wizards, orcs, dungeons, dragons, taverns, elves, gnomes, the list goes on and on...

What WotC is trying to do now is say their new license invalidates the old license and magically everything under the OGL 1.0a is now licensed as OGL 1.1. The System Resource Document has a lot of non-trademarked content under the OGL 1.0a. Anyone could use those non-trademarked items under that license without any sort of issues.

They don't have a trademark on the word "orc". They have IP covering a fictional "orc" species for a role playing system with some statistics and basic descriptions. This generic "orc" entity was licensed under the OGL 1.0a for anyone to use in their own games. Paizo and others based the "orc" species on the SRD.

Yes, Warhammer tries to give their stuff unique names for copyright reasons.

They aren’t Space Marines anymore, they are Adeptus Astartes.

And the Imperial Guard? Those are Astra Militarum.

That's more trademark than copyright. Anyone can sell a "space marine miniature figure" or make a game featuring "power armor marines in space", but only GW can sell Adeptus Astartes stuff.

The OGL covers specific verbatim rules text, which is copyrighted even if the mechanics aren't. If you want to rewrite every rule in D&D, you can, but it's easier to copy text or reference specific identifiable terms in D&D with the OGL.

The OGL also defines what's protected identity, like the word "beholder" for the monster or specific book titles, and what's not, like the spell named "magic missile".

Regardless of trademark or fair use, if you agree to the OGL then you also agree to not use declared protected identity terms. For D&D, that generally means things related to their setting or branding.

It's not really a trademark issue - WotC has a trademark on D&D, particular styling of that, and other stuff like Beholders. They also hold lots of copyright on stuff that is explicitly not (and never was) under the OGL - the setting of the main D&D adventures and books, for example.

They probably can't copyright the idea of a playable race of Orcs or Elves, likely can copyright (and license) particular descriptions or art of those races, and maybe can copyright the specifics about how those races work. It isn't clear, because this all hasn't been tested in court. Spells are another example - is a spell like "Lightning Bolt" with particular effects something that can be protected by copyright? It didn't use to matter much - anyone could just add the OGL to their publication and be fine - but it might start mattering a bunch more.

Matrix games, as they have become popular in institutional settings, are tabletop simulations where interactions are adjudicated by expert referees. The documentation for a matrix game may be no more than a few pages of backstory, as the operation of the simulation will rely on the experience of the referees.

Tabletop RPGs are (traditionally) built on elaborate systems of rules for managing character traits and interactions. The rule set will strongly influence the structure of the game narrative and your perception of options. Converting settings and scenarios to another system can be a major change. D&D prevails in the market due to the huge inertia, despite the existence of many attractive alternative systems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com