Stealing Your Rules! What do you think?

[Tav_Behemoth]

One might ask oneself, why (when there's no legal obligation to do so) mention it at all, and thereby draw attention to the issue? Why take an action that even might open one up to a potential misunderstanding over the use of a trademark?

I could certainly be wrong, but I suspect this is the sort of reasoning behind the general lack of attribution in published games. No one wants to risk a potential liability with little to no real benefit to themselves.

How many people are going to be a nice guy, if they think it might land them in hot water?

One thing you can do as a publisher to encourage citation of your work is to say "Hey, if you're inspired by something I did in this game, or want to use some rules mechanic, you're welcome to do so, and I hope you'll mention that my work was the source (or however you want to be cited)."

Behemoth3 did this with a limited license in the Masters and Minions books. Our version was more complicated because it had to overcome some OGL issues, but the basic idea is good advice for everyone, I think.

My feeling is that citation is something that most people want for themselves & want to do for others, but that the fears you mention hold them back; if you explicitly say you'd like people to cite you, that's good for you and good for the field.

[woodelf]

One might ask oneself, why (when there's no legal obligation to do so) mention it at all, and thereby draw attention to the issue? Why take an action that even might open one up to a potential misunderstanding over the use of a trademark?

I could certainly be wrong, but I suspect this is the sort of reasoning behind the general lack of attribution in published games. No one wants to risk a potential liability with little to no real benefit to themselves.

How many people are going to be a nice guy, if they think it might land them in hot water?

The fact that people think something might happen is not proof that it might happen. I suspect you're right: a lot of people don't cite because they believe that they'd be opening themselves up to accusations of trademark infringement. The WotC OGL has probably reinforced this, because a lot of people are ignorant about how trademarks, patents, and copyrights work, so they see the WotC OGL saying "you can't use trademarks", and they assume this is reiteration of an existing restriction, not one introduced by the license.

As simple counter-evidence for anyone who believes this, send the person in question to an auto-parts store, where they can observe the huge number of un-licensed, un-approved, probably-disliked products that use trademarks without permission beyond what fair use allows.

So why do it? Well, in the absence of any reason not to (i've just shown, as others before me have, that there's no real risk of litigation), why not? I'd say even the nebulous, slight benefits of goodwill from other authors for the free advertising, and being honest about your inspirations/sources, should be more than enough to outweigh the essentialy-zero cost.

[woodelf]

My feeling is that citation is something that most people want for themselves & want to do for others, but that the fears you mention hold them back; if you explicitly say you'd like people to cite you, that's good for you and good for the field.

Actually, i'd say there're two traditions on this matter: the academic tradition, and the business tradition.

In the academic tradition, credit where credit is due is the primary currency. If you use someone else's work, you've done something wrong by [implicitly] claiming it as your own. If you cite it, however, you're just fine.

In the business tradition, sales is the primary currency. If you use someone else's work, you done something wrong by [potentially] stealing their sales. If you pay them for the privelege, however, you're just fine.

In the academic tradition, truth is the important part, so admitting your source is good. In the business tradition, all you're doing by admitting you've borrowed is leave yourself open to claims of stealing sales--but truth isn't inherently important, sales are. So you can make the compatible product and just not talk about it, and you're in the clear, because you haven't told the consumer, so you're not competing, much less infringing on sales.

Hmmm...i'm not sure i've expressed that very clearly. What i'm trying to get at is that i think your "most people" want both to cite and be cited is an oversimplification. In the business tradition, what you want is the additional money that comes from acknowledging influence, and the acknowledgement is merely a tool to that end. Only in the academic tradition do "most people" probably believ in citation as all-good.

[Tav_Behemoth]

"Most people want citation" is shorthand for "Every RPG publisher I've ever heard from or spoken to about this pet issue of mine wants their work to be cited, but this sample is incomplete and there is a minority of large publishers  whose take on citation is likely to be different."

You're right that there is an academic precedent for citation in an open intellectual system, but I think it's wrong to make a distinction between business and academic publication. Historically, academic publication has been a business and one whose scale, concerns, and overall nerdiness makes it a very good fit for thinking about RPG publishing.

In this mini-industry, a lack of citation is bad for the business of both parties. If I use your work without acknowledging it, I deprive you of the potential sales of your monograph that would have come from people who encountered your ideas in my work & wanted to track them down to the source. In addition, I deprive myself of the sales that would come from participating in the academic tradition. A book on hummingbirds is going to sell better if it demonstrably calls on a history of established work by previous authors; one that lacks a decent bibilography is going to be taken as the work of an amateur.

I think RPG publishing is a highly academic tradition, and the academic tradition has been dealing with the commercial use of intellectual issues for centuries longer than anyone else.

In the business tradition, what you want is the additional money that comes from acknowledging influence, and the acknowledgement is merely a tool to that end.

Every tradition wants money. It's still not the sole reason for acknowledgement. Business, like academics and every other human endeavor, is largely driven by ego. People want to be cited. Businesses might not, but people run businesses.

Citation is, like money, merely a highly evolved tool people invented to quantify the process of stroking their egos. Acknowledment is like grooming behavior; tribes that don't do it enough are unhealthy (and probably comprised of too many males).