[Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest

[Peter Brink]

Styopa skrev:
 > Peter's cogent analysis covers very well the disagreeability of
 > the whole 'rules lawyerlyness' of the trademark/copyright
 > issues. On the one hand, I can see the companies' concern: with
 > the simplicity and quality of DTP software (and recognizing
 > that most of the gaming-publishing entities out there either
 > are now, or started from, little more than 'a guy with a
 > computer') I can very well see that the ease with which someone
 > could copy wholesale work that was the product of another
 > person, would make them decidedly nervous.

One part of the problem is, IMO, that game manufacturers see themselves 
as producers of products when in fact they produce services. Any 
reasonably experienced role-player could, given time, equipment and the 
right motivation, write his own role-playing game. I know that I could. 
I'm however willing to pay Chaosium (for example) to do it for me - I 
simply don't have the time to write a full fledged RPG. The industry is 
really only doing the work that we, the fans, could do for ourselves - 
if we wanted to.

 > However, there's a meta-issue about re-arranging the deck
 > chairs on the Titanic, as it were.  Our is not (AFAIK) a
 > vibrant and flourishing hobby. It's hanging on by fingertips
 > and every time that someone who wants to make some fan modules
 > or information, pauses to wonder if their publication (on the
 > web, not for profit) is going to get them sued - that's a
 > problem. Every time those fears actually make them say "screw
 > it, I don't dare put it on a website for my campaign" the hobby
 > LOSES that opportunity to grow.

Putting out those fears and allowing people to create game material 
without having to worry about the legal issues are some of the selling 
points of the Open Game License. Unfortunately that license also 
contains other, not so pleasant features, which – in the end – makes it 
a poor choice for the RPG community. If the goal is to create the best 
possible environment for producing games an gentleman's agreement that 
descriptions of game mechanics are non-copyrightable is in fact a far 
better (and fairer) solution.

It's fairer because it's actually very close to the truth. Descriptions 
of individual rules of how to play a game are very rarely copyrightable. 
A selection of such descriptions might be copyrightable, but I wouldn't 
bet on it... It should be pointed out that, again, the situation in the 
US is different from that of Europe. My personal assessment is that 
games, as a type of product, are far less well protected in Europe than 
in the US and this is, IMO, a good thing for us Europeans... Not because 
copyright system as such is a bad thing, it isn't, but not everything is 
meant to be copyright protected, some products simply creates a far too 
great burden on society if they would be allowed copyright protection.

So yes – I agree that the industry would do better if it dropped their 
"rules-lawyering" and accepted that it provides its customers with a 
service – the RPG industry are doing the job their customers could have 
done by themselves.

/Peter Brink