I remember reading in a Different Worlds article the phrase "the first rule of game design is plagiarism." That article went on to talk about ripping off the Resistance Table from Runequest and using it as the central system of a roleplaying game. (Big prizes to anyone who can actually point me to that DW ish! :)

I also remember vaguely hearing that game rules are not copyrightable, though there has been some muddying of that water in the past by TSR, in response to which WOTC lawyers had to go to crazy lengths to put together Open Game Content Licenses and so on.

Some of the games we see bandied about on the Forge have some really innovative mechanics. Often they lift innovative mechanics from each other, in a complex chain of mutual influence.

I guess I'm wondering, how far would that have to go before you felt you were cheating, or worried that someone was going to accuse you of theft? Where do you draw the line? Is there a good source somewhere that discusses these issues?

I'm working on a little something of my own and I feel like utterly ripping of Wushu's action system, but I don't want to get to the point where I could never publish it for fear of accusations of theft.

ejh wrote: I also remember vaguely hearing that game rules are not copyrightable, though there has been some muddying of that water in the past by TSR, in response to which WOTC lawyers had to go to crazy lengths to put together Open Game Content Licenses and so on.

Well, what I said may have been backwards, but that was what I meant. :) By "you can't copyright game rules" I meant "you can't copyright the *procedures for play* which the text of the game rules describes." But what I said was ambiguous.

So I could write up a game called "Wizards" from "Arcanist Press" about summoning "Devils," which used D10 rolls and all that, to create my low-rent ripoff of Sorcerer, if I were so inclined.

I wonder at what point you *would* have to change things? Specific terms for in-game concepts, like Armor Class and so on? But a lot of games do in fact borrow these terms from each other, so that can't be it...

Just one of those ambiguous conundra.

Hi Ed,

See the Internet piracy of documents thread for some links I posted which are relevant to your question.

Here's my take on your point - it's not a matter of ambiguous conundra at all. The rock-bottom reality is that no one can enforce a standard across hundreds or thousands of independently-moving instances. There is no authoritative body, no constitution, no licensing, nothing.

The immediate parallel I can think of is the rank of "black belt" or its equivalent in modern martial arts. A black belt is only as good as the school it comes from, and the fighter is only as good as he or she is, regardless of the belt they're wearing. There is no Black Belt Board which reviews various schools' standards and practices.

So the same concept applies to "originality" of game mechanics. The fact is that no one's watching.

My take on the practical approach is well-documented - I think that not only should an author acknowledge his or her sources of inspiration, but also be well-educated enough in the hobby's history to know about and acknowledge games that didn't inspire the current game, but nonetheless did one or another of its mechanics/features first.

Best,
Ron

In this insular little hobby, how far do you think a real rip-off would get? How long until somebody on RPG.net tore into it with zeal pointing out the lack of originality? Think about that on your next design. If you think people will respect the design then it's original enough. I think you'd feel it if that weren't the case.

Mike

H'm, given Mike's point, I should emend my point to specify:

"no official and empowered persons are watching"

Best,
Ron

How long until somebody on RPG.net tore into it with zeal pointing out the lack of originality?

Right. Basically nobody has ever dared to tread that water that I'm aware of. At the point that the public can tell, and make the decision to refrain from buying, that's a definite cue that you've failed to meet your originality requirement.

From an ethical POV? Well, that's going to be rather personal. I think that the potential for reaction renders an ethical standard moot. If you do something unethical the game won't sell. Unless you're Bill Gates.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Basically nobody has ever dared to tread that water that I'm aware of

Mike Holmes wrote: Right. Basically nobody has ever dared to tread that water that I'm aware of.

Slight "pendantic" correction:

The things you describe as verboten are under the d20 STL, not the OGL. The OGL is a free-for-all orgy, the d20 STL is a bunch of simple restraints for those people who like that sort of thing.

LX, the one requirement of the OGL is that the original game be credited. It's exactly that they don't do this, despite the similarities that would be allowed under OGL that constitutes what they'd like to term a "violation". It's exactly the intent of the OGL to prevent such similar games without the "profit" of at least some credit.

Ben, Anya, note how D&D still outsells those imitators? They are, often, improvements over D&D. It's their imitation itself that relegated them forever to "also ran" status. Again, imitate at your own risk.

Mike