Here are my questions:
- May I use the names ‘Arkhosia’ and ‘Bael Turath’ or must I use generic terms to describe Dragonborn history?
- Is creating content about Arkhosia that does not contradict with established fluff considered redefining/altering non-mechanical material? Examples: A specific battle between Arkhosia and Bael Turath. A specific political structure within this city.
- May I refer to something outside of the Core Rulebooks that is not mentioned in the SRD, such as “Rules for Blahblahblah may be found in issue #xxx of Dragon Magazine” or is all non-Core and/or D&DI material unable to be referenced?
- May I use possibly trademarked names found in the Core Rulebooks but not in the SRD as long as I only reference them and do not define, redefine, alter them? Examples: A map of the city marking temples to Avandra and Bahamut. Scrolls detailing that the citizens of this city viewed themselves as Bahamut’s chosen people.
Here are my questions:
- May I use the names ‘Arkhosia’ and ‘Bael Turath’ or must I use generic terms to describe Dragonborn history?
- Is creating content about Arkhosia that does not contradict with established fluff considered redefining/altering non-mechanical material? Examples: A specific battle between Arkhosia and Bael Turath. A specific political structure within this city.
- May I refer to something outside of the Core Rulebooks that is not mentioned in the SRD, such as “Rules for Blahblahblah may be found in issue #xxx of Dragon Magazine” or is all non-Core and/or D&DI material unable to be referenced?
- May I use possibly trademarked names found in the Core Rulebooks but not in the SRD as long as I only reference them and do not define, redefine, alter them? Examples: A map of the city marking temples to Avandra and Bahamut. Scrolls detailing that the citizens of this city viewed themselves as Bahamut’s chosen people.
I'll answer these to the best of my ability, I am not a lawyer so I wont answer questions if I don't think I know the answer.
- This one I am not sure about the answer, so I think you would have to ask WotC directly.
- As long as you're expanding on the material, not contradicting the existing material, you should be fine, since it would by definition be expanding the material when you add something.
- To my knowledge No you cannot refer to dragon issues, or anything non-SRD. But again, you may have to ask WotC directly.
- See answers 1&3.
So my full answer is ask WotC directly for most of this, though I don't believe you can use anything that has not been added to the SRD without express written permission. And if you do obtain EWP be sure to keep a copy to avoid any potential problems that may arise in the future.
I am finding sections 4.1 (4E References) and 5.1 (Use of Trademarks) of the GSL a bit confusing. If my questions have already been answered in a previous thread I apologize. Let us assume I desire to create a supplement about Dragonborn, specifically a ruined ancient city. I understand that I “cannot define, redefine, or alter any 4E Reference, including “fluff.” ” and may only expand on it. I also understand that trademark usage “is limited to use solely to refer to 4E and the Core Rulebooks.”
Here are my questions:
May I use the names ‘Arkhosia’ and ‘Bael Turath’ or must I use generic terms to describe Dragonborn history?
I would use generic terms.- Is creating content about Arkhosia that does not contradict with established fluff considered redefining/altering non-mechanical material? Examples: A specific battle between Arkhosia and Bael Turath. A specific political structure within this city.
This gets dicey as it is hard to have good flavor with out using those settings. In theory you can add to fluff without redefining/altering but the proof will be in the execution. - May I refer to something outside of the Core Rulebooks that is not mentioned in the SRD, such as “Rules for Blahblahblah may be found in issue #xxx of Dragon Magazine” or is all non-Core and/or D&DI material unable to be referenced?
If you want to refer to a rule found in another source that should be fine. - May I use possibly trademarked names found in the Core Rulebooks but not in the SRD as long as I only reference them and do not define, redefine, alter them? Examples: A map of the city marking temples to Avandra and Bahamut. Scrolls detailing that the citizens of this city viewed themselves as Bahamut’s chosen people.
The cosmology and pantheon were left out of the SRD so this is not allowed.
It sounds like you have some cool ideas that are very tied to the 4e POL. Have you considered submitting the ideas to Dungeon? It could be instead of trying to make it independent you could possibly have it be official D&D content.
I have always shown an affinity towards darker fantasy settings, and even though Points of Light is all about banishing the darkness I see it as almost post-apocalyptic. This is my cup of tea and I fell in love with it as soon as I read Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters. The ruins of Arkhosia material was entirely hypothetical, but the material I have already created is of course very similar.
I have considered, and still am considering, submitting to Dungeon because it would be safer for me both financially and time-wise to serialize my ideas. I was originally planning on creating a complete supplement along the lines of the 3.5 Expedition to books, but it will not hurt me one whit to submit to Dungeon and if the sixty days passes without a response work on publishing the material as a 3P supplement.
With the Pantheon names left out, if I create a class am I allowed to say that the class typically worpships Sehanine in the religious entry of the class overview?
The cosmology and pantheon were left out of the SRD so this is not allowed.
Taking Scott Rouse's responses into consideration, I do not believe you are allowed to discuss existent deities in 3P products (as I am sure you guessed by my placement of the quote above). To avoid mentioning the deity's setting of origin seems irrelevent. If I am understanding correctly then that is a major roadbump to 3PPs creating content compatible with 'generic' D&D, but I think it is WotC's way of encouraging the publication of unique settings.
Thanks!
I have a follow-up question. What constitutes a alteration/redefinition of "fluff"? Does it simply mean that I cannot use such terms as Bael Turath and Arkhosia?
Scott Rouse suggested using generic terms instead of Arkhosia and Bael Turath--I suspect they are either trademarked or WotC would like them to be trademarked and will drop to license of people who use them. Which is understandable since Points of Light is a setting like the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Greyhawk, et cetera, and no one would question dropping the license of a 3rd party publisher who, for example, published a supplement about Elminster or Mordenkainen. He did not expressly state a 3PP could not use those terms, but it sounded like a 'no' to me and I know better than to prod the 800 lb gorilla in the room just to see what happens.
Or would redefining halflings from the PHB's description of "affable, warm, and cheerful people" to being "scary, graveborn cannibals" also violate the clause?
That would definitely violate section 4.1 of the GSL. As I understand it, a 3PP may create a new race but may not change the details of an existing race. Take a look at this, specifically the nineteenth and twentieth questions, Q: Can I redefine non-mechanical materials ("fluff")? and Q: Section 4.1 states that, “Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter the definition
of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product.” What does this mean?
On a non-GSL note, I love the concept of halflings as terrifying cannibal necro-pygmies.
That would definitely violate section 4.1 of the GSL. As I understand it, a 3PP may create a new race but may not change the details of an existing race. Take a look at this, specifically the nineteenth and twentieth questions, Q: Can I redefine non-mechanical materials ("fluff")? and Q: Section 4.1 states that, “Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter the definition
of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product.” What does this mean?
On a non-GSL note, I love the concept of halflings as terrifying cannibal necro-pygmies.
I suppose a new race could alway be invented, called graveborn halflings, which, not unlike their well-known cousins, are short in stature and have x abilities, but their demeanor is as described.
Now I find myself in a conundrum; I have no room for affable, warm, and cheerful non-fey people in my CS, but I don't want to exclude halflings altogether, either. Originally, my plan was to include them with a re-defined flavor. But now it has come to my attention that it could not be done that way. (On that note, my dragonborn have been redefined visually as well).
Hmm... I think I should PM Mr. Rouse to discuss how I can best work my ideas under the GSL. I hope he's an affable, warm, and cheerful fellow when it comes to wannabe first-time publishers like myself.
Now I find myself in a conundrum; I have no room for affable, warm, and cheerful non-fey people in my CS, but I don't want to exclude halflings altogether, either. Originally, my plan was to include them with a re-defined flavor. But now it has come to my attention that it could not be done that way. (On that note, my dragonborn have been redefined visually as well).
From what I have read, the way to add a unique "re-defined flavor" to the races in your setting is to create racial variants for each of the core races. For example, you could have 'riverfront halflings', 'highland elves', and 'lowland dragonborn' that are substantially different from the halflings, elves, and dragonborn in the PHB. I suggest following the example from the FAQ I posted in my last message and what Scott Rouse graciously wrote in reply to my original posting.
Hmm... I think I should PM Mr. Rouse to discuss how I can best work my ideas under the GSL. I hope he's an affable, warm, and cheerful fellow when it comes to wannabe first-time publishers like myself.
From what I have seen and heard he is as you describe. I have yet to see him be anything but incredibly helpful and supportive.
From what I have seen and heard he is as you describe. I have yet to see him be anything but incredibly helpful and supportive.
Indeed. I'd add "friendly" to the list in your last sentence as well.
This is in the FAQ on the subject in the thread:
Q: Do I have to use the Defined Terms in my product?
A: No, you are not required to use any specific Defined Term although it would be difficult to avoid using them. You are, however, required to reprint the legal text identified in the GSL.
Q: Can I extend the definition of a Defined Term?
A: Yes, as long as you do not change the substance or the meaning of the definition. For example you may add a new use for the Athletics skill as this does not redefine the whole skill.
Q: Can I define a new class?
A: Yes.
Q: Section 4.1 states that, “Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter the definition of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product.” What does this mean?
A: This means you that if you want to use a 4E Reference listed in the GSL SRD (for example, Dragonborn), you must not alter the definition in such a way as to define or redefine, or alter the definition as found in the Player’s Handbook (e.g. “Classes that use Dragonborn get an additional +1 to Strength and +1 in Intimidate). You may, however, extend a definition by adding to the original content. As an example: “…if you want to play a Dragonborn please refer to the Race Chapter of the 4th Edition Player’s Handbook. For a Greatmountian Dragonborn take and additional +1 Strength and +1 in Intimidate.”
Q: Can I redefine non-mechanic materials (“fluff”)?
A: No. You may add new material, but you cannot define, redefine, or alter any 4E Reference, including “fluff.” Please refer back to Section 4.1 on redefining 4E References. As an example: “In this world Eladrin are between 5’ 9”- 6’ 5” in height and can use Fey Step as an At-Will Power” would redefine the definition of Eladrin, whereas the statement: “The isolation of the Deepwood Eladrin have allowed them to evolve with several unique traits including being slightly taller in height, between 5’ 9”- 6’ 5”, and
after generations of meditation can use Fey Step as an At-Will Power” would extend the definition by adding a Deepwood sub race while allowing the term Eladrin to maintain its original definition as found in the 4th Edition Player’s Handbook.
So creating a new sub-race of cannibal halflings would be ok as long as it extends the current definition.
As for gods you may just want refer to the "God of the Orcs" or something similarly generic
Thanks for the replies; it seems I have to go back to the drawing board with regards to some of my concepts for the campaign setting I'm making.
Now I find myself in a conundrum; I have no room for affable, warm, and cheerful non-fey people in my CS, but I don't want to exclude halflings altogether, either. Originally, my plan was to include them with a re-defined flavor. But now it has come to my attention that it could not be done that way. (On that note, my dragonborn have been redefined visually as well).
Hmm... I think I should PM Mr. Rouse to discuss how I can best work my ideas under the GSL. I hope he's an affable, warm, and cheerful fellow when it comes to wannabe first-time publishers like myself.
You can state that the standard halflings aren't used in your setting. You can exclude, just not re-define.
Now, I'm not saying that it's unfair to shaft publishers when they want to use the setting you've provided, since you're basically telling them 'here's a bunch of rules, you can only make peripheral and vague references to them, and keep it undefined'.... but I'm saying that it's unfair that this corporate-bureaucratic structure makes it harder for a 'personal connection' to the original content created when no supplements can *gasp* -supplement- the original materials.
[*] I would use generic terms.
Why should we have to avoid using the defined settings and locations? Because some dungeon somewhere along the way might want to use them, and if there's a 'plot inconsistency', the Shadowfell rift will finally open in the mortal plane?
Or, because the corporation would like to see writers spend extreme amounts of energy to research a setting (which changes with every edition, and has an evolving history) that itself is mutable? And then once they get someone to spend excessive time investing in learning how to 'color within the lines we've given you', the fears that it could be (a) outright rejected, (b) used for mostly Hasbro's profit since Hasbro as I understand it gave WotC a push to profit, or (c) appropriated, approximated, and assimilated?
[*] This gets dicey as it is hard to have good flavor with out using those settings. In theory you can add to fluff without redefining/altering but the proof will be in the execution.
Well, if WotC doesn't like sharing anything of its campaign settings, cosmologies, and such with others -- yet touts them in nearly every one of its core and source books -- what is the major to-do about trying to make something that is harmonious with that?
If WotC wants me to write generic fluff, for the sake of it, I could write stories about 'dragon people', 'snake people', 'frog people', and so on, and just ignore all the -special- copyrighted or trademarked terms -- but the product will lack specifically on two points. (1) It will have no baseline with which to reference the core materials, which again, are touted to be something to hold on to in this sea of change, and (2) it will essentially be poorly-written, and if I can stamp the GSL symbol on it and sell it to some unsuspecting fool for three dollars, I've turned a profit, and probably defamed the concept of the GSL. Is this really a goal that WotC set for themselves?
[*] The cosmology and pantheon were left out of the SRD so this is not allowed.
First, I think the question here was misunderstood.
Is there actually a problem with making a city/locale-map that simply depicts points where a 'temple of Avandra' or 'temple of Bahamut' might be found? Or is that too much context?
What if, supplementing that map, could be found some 'scrolls', which are conjecture themselves, since the people themselves ought to certainly be subject to a wide variety of opinions... these 'scrolls' just might have mention that the scroll's text, suggesting that from the author's point of view, the city was composed of a majority that viewed themselves as Bahamut's chosen people -- and although it may not be accurate and true to canon (and who knows what constitutes canon vs. breaking canon), it could be considered 'flavor, fluff, and rumor'?
I am sorry, Scott Rouse, that your companion in the topic area, was let go. I'm sure that there are so many intricacies involved from your point of view that I'm certain (without a doubt) that it is hard for you to give people answers that they want to hear -- because you are bound to a set of rules and codes that keep you on a short chain.
Further, I think that it is difficult to take a step 'outside the box' to see what I see, for example, from the outside-looking-in, seeing that the environs seems to be a contained cube with particles bouncing around inside of it. While some may attempt to stay stoic and stable, eventually, there's going to be a collision.
My biggest argument, here and forever, is going to be originality. If there is going to be an attempt to depict a specific pantheon as 'original' and thus, desiring to be the 'origin' of thoughts or ideas to work with, then there should be more slack to the chain to give authors some leeway to work with.
I enjoyed reading the PDF about 'Writing for a Living Greyhawk campaign', and I've wondered why that last page or two, the 'idiot page', never made it into a formal lesson on 'don't do things that have Oerth-shaking consequences'. However, since all of those submissions were subject to approval and rejection on a case-by-case basis, a higher standard could be maintained.
Shouldn't the capitalist ventures of authors be driven by the demand for creative yet conformative works of authors, rather than suggesting them to avoid using any of the given material? It sort of unsettles me that even you have to give answers that say "just don't step on the toes of the company, I can't control them" and implies that we should simply just let Mearls and whomever keep within their collective boxes, and let D&D4E be an island unto itself. Shouldn't it be the case that authors should feel inspired (as this one has) to use and improvise within the campaign setting without necessarily disrupting it, but instead adding the potential for flavor to it?
To defend this author's concept, isn't there clearly a stated conflict of interests between Dragonborn and those who oppressed them? It would be given that the conflict would escalate into combat, given the game's mechanics. Why should there be objection to using such material? Oh, wait, not until it profits the company -- so thus the suggestion to put it somewhere that the company will own the material -- Dragon (or Dungeon) -- and leave the author with maybe a meager compensation, if any?
This is the sort of thing that, classically, I was talking about when I originally posted.
I find it a sorrow to my heart that nobody really takes my writing here seriously. I'd be an asset to you and your company, if I weren't busy standing outside of it and criticizing it. And I can't see any foreseeable improvements in the future. Someone updated the license, a little, with some new legal-ese, at least trying to explicate one or two of the sections, but nothing came of all that feedback I gave you.
It's been a year now, practically.
What has been done?
After reading your post I think you do not understand is that everything specific, including the pantheons, are the property of someone other than a potential third party writer. This material belongs to WotC as much as Star Wars belongs to George Lucas/Lucasarts and Starcraft belongs to Blizzard. I do not think you would argue that specifics from those settings should be taken and used freely, and if you are arguing that then this discussion has nothing to do with IP law and more to do with the philosophy of IP and copyright.
There are two legal choices available to a third party writer.
1: Use material in a way compatible with Fair Use and not use the D&D 4E game mechanics.
2: Sign the GSL and abide by the restrictions therein. Use the D&D 4E game mechanics without reproducing them, slap the D&D GSL logo on your product to increase your sales, and refrain from using the IP WotC has set aside as nonreproduceable and be happy they are offering the opportunity to use their IP at all.
I have no specific question about the GSL. I have questions as to where the black-white line or the grey area is on what constitutes the intellectual property that 'nobody should touch, evolve, or do anything with' and what room there is for variation without threat of legal repercussion.
If you want that simplified, "what can I and can't I do?" -- and the question is purposely phrased that way, because often enough, you'll only get an answer telling you one half (usually what you can't do). Now, when it becomes a question of "where is the fine line?", you notice nobody really offers clarity.
Would you like some citation from other posts here on the forums (the only visible places where Wizards receives -any- feedback on this issue)? I'll go back and comb through old posts, but I'm fairly certain that anyone with about 2 cents worth of intelligence can skim the first 2d4 pages of the forum and find the 'question', 'issue' and 'help with' topics wherein OTHERS who are definitely not me have questions that ultimately get vague or misinterpreted answers.
Clarity is clearly not in vogue on these matters.
As I stated in my topic header and forum post title, my problem with the system is the inaccessibility -- of much, at this point. There is no way to have reviewed your work -- because then you are either submitting it to the company, and failing non-bias, your ideas could then be 'borrowed' (like all great ideas) by someone at Wizards, or you would have given up the right to your originality by having to post wholesale your series of questions about your whole product line. Additionally, who would go through the trouble to do that, when the responses aren't actually promised.
So, when you're skirting the prospect of 'pushing the boundaries', remember that nobody -here- is going to help you. They're inaccessible. You can't actually get the advice that you need.
And, does someone in this world mean to tell me that practically every word and noun and compound word are already defined, strictly defined, not subject to change (even though the abilities change and vary within the core materials, which provides asynchronicity) -- and if you use ANY of them, whether or not it is the original ability or a variation, you either MUST put in a vague citation reference (inaccessible to users) or you MUST change your mechanics -- and if you do that, well, you're breaking the reference mechanic and its name (mind you, why copyright 'shifty' and 'trap sense' -- this is foolishness), and at that point, you can't use the name (inaccessible) because you are changing a defined term.
Do you notice that most of the monsters, in an effort to breed 'uniqueness' are only breeding compound word abuse? (what IS a runespiral-demon-netherflame, anyway? Not that I truly care, just citing a reference point.) I think that someone from Magic the Gathering decided this would be a good carry-over, too. While we're at it, the 'ki' power source was scrapped -- come on, I was going to use that for green mana! (MtG is also owned by Wizards -- there's a whole set of campaign settings right there.)
Yes, my argument is more over the philosophies behind the construction of a system that is designed to keep 'outsiders'... 'outside' -- not able to access the core materials or constructively use them. Because, in the past, someone thought to abuse or modify it, or because Hasbro has demanded WotC find a way to channel more money -- and the GSL is a reaction to the opposite polar extreme. So, instead of finding a balance in the middle, moderate and fair, they have 'practically' copyrighted and licensed every term in the game.
I'm not allowed to say 'd4' or enlighten anyone as to what it might do -- not like WotC owns the copyright on the 'd4' or 'd20' -- but if I dare explain it in material, they could turn around, declare me to be redefining, and my product is bashed. If they find one minor issue, guess what? I could have put a massive amount of time and hard work into creating something THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY MIGHT WANT, and all they need to do is find even one flaw with it. They aren't bound to tell me what the flaws might be -- but now they'd have a free product to review and 'borrow' ideas from. And those who are within the company (thus, 'insider') would have a chance to essentially claim any originality in the product -- it's human nature to be corrupt, and eventually someone reviewing it will decide they want to claim it for their own -- and because they have the umbrella of the corporation, they can create that content safely, without thinking twice about the person who put out the original thought. Since nobody is bound, beforehand, to review my product with non-bias, and nobody is bound to tell me where I -am- or -am not- crossing a line, how am I to know? Since all of this is either black-white, polar opposite, published-notpublished, lawsuit-nolawsuit... what motivation is there to properly release something that fits with all the sanctions? Especially when that set of ever-expanding core materials is like a fat woman getting fatter, taking up more and more terms and words that honest-to-God, you can't actually 'own'. This is inaccessible. It is ONLY safe for those within the structure, and nobody else, truly.
You know why there aren't any real problems with the books out there? Because everybody is either cowering in fear of the threat of stepping on the corporate giant's toes (and is either releasing a product that avoids the 3-quadrillion copyrighted words, or has to completely avoid any of the core materials), or none of the product are actually 'professionally' designed and marketed well enough to threaten the market dominance of the corporate entity.
The inaccessibility worked into this edition ensured that insiders have the strongest positions, and the drawing-up of an SRD that claims to 'own' every word known from here to kingdom come... this inaccessibility is the problem, created as a hyperbolic extreme counter-reaction to having been 'too open' in the past. If someone actually made something that competed, it would have to be either completely devoid of any connection to the core materials (and likely inaccessibly to players), it would have to contain vague references as outlined in the GSL (inaccessible, and a poorly-thought-out concept), or it would have to be as well-designed and mechanically sound as the core materials, but without actually utilizing any of them (inaccessible in that safety should not come from isolation -- see the flavor text to the MtG card "Strength of Isolation", Torment set).
Further, inaccessible to a simple person like me, is that I have no one to consult with, discuss intellectually with about the product(s) that *I* might wish to release. Because, when I go about creating something, I insist on doing it 'right' -- and I insist on making it accessible to the end-user. There is no provision for someone like me, an 'outsider' who is not 'inside' the company. There is -- but you have to do it all alone, yourself. I don't have the dollars to afford lawyers to have to sit down and re-interpret something that, if it were more accessible in its description, would not be a problem to someone within the corporation. Would someone like to lend me an expert on the GSL copyrights, so that I can make sure that my finished product just might meet the requirements, while ALSO being a clear and effective end-user consumer product?
My heckle is that I'm expected to have all of this figured out and by the time I'm ready to publish it, to have it solid enough that it does not break any of the GSL's rules -- yet the Core Content remains inaccessible, by those very rules, which say that my citation must come in the form of a vague chapter reference. And, Gods forbid, I'd like to not feel like I can't even talk about a d20 for fear of reprimand -- that even the tiniest flaw can be a reason to demand a recall. And, Gods forbid someone actually could make accessible a measure of either 'good faith' that says that if I start talking about dice, I'm not going to have my product recalled, and/or a measure of someone else's knowledge that could assist me in either utilizing /well/ the core materials (which, by needing to mention, implies directly their inaccessible nature) OR sage advice and wisdom which could ward me from any degree of pain by assisting me in making my product the better that it could be (also implying that accessibility comes through avoiding using supposedly "core" materials).
How the heck are you supposed to accessibly use the core materials, if the rules of the license, by their very nature, prove to be inaccessible? How can I provide accessibility to others, if someone says "no, all the accessibility you need has already been given to them in this material here, which you can't use to provide any, because they already have it"?
(Do you see the cyclic nature of this argument?)
EDIT: I do not want to get into an off-topic argument so I will take my comments about your post to your "Is inaccessibility really Hasbo's/WotC's goal?" thread, but I thought I should say that I have had little difficulty writing third party material for D&D4E. It is of course more difficult than writing material for WotC, such as Dragon and Dungeon magazines, but as a fiction author I find it is not more difficult than creating any derivative work that oversteps the bounds of Fair Use. I am not a lawyer and I am have no published D&D material, but if you have any questions about what you can and cannot do (not why it sucks you cannot do it) I am glad to answer them in private messages.
How can I safely use it?
If I am not going to use the given materials, how close is 'too close' to the original that I might be in threat of crossing legal boundaries?
If I am going to use the given materials, even as just inspiration, how far do I need to diverge in order to be safe from crossing legal boundaries?
The essence of the argument is something along the lines of "I want -my- product to be accessible, regardless of the mish-mash of pages and abstract references that would be suggested in the GSL/SRD, and if I want to 'borrow' or derive material from the originals, how can I do so without stepping on toes?" (since, classically, it wasn't a problem to include reminder text, explanatory text, or mechanical descriptions).
An example would be if I could provide a power with the ability "~ shifts one square", as an at-will, immediate reaction, when missed by a melee attack. Or, a power with the ability "~ shifts one square" as an at-will, minor action. Clearly, I'm not supposed to call them by their original names -- since those are directly forbidden -- I should instead replace all power text with "see book X, chapter Y, heading Z". If Wizards is copyrighting even that degree of text for any given powers, my monsters, for the sake of it, might as well never have attacks -- they've all been copyrighted. (Yes, this is fluffy to say, but it's the emotional content of my argument.) If I created my own derivative mechanic, say, without ever reading an issue of Dungeon, Dragon, or any books beyond the original core three, and it just -happened- to coincide that EITHER the power mechanic text or the power title was sharing a title with another power, and Wizards didn't spend the time to check if I've crossed boundaries, am I still going to have my product chewed out for that sort of minor flaw? For the sake of it, I might as well not include defenses, hit points, speed, movement modes, roles, or anything -- because those are also subject to copyright.
What if I want to -explain-? I'm terrified that WotC will find the grey area between the extension of an original idea, and an addition to a previously black-white defined idea. There are rules explicitly against most things. That freedom to move around is what encouraged people, in previous times, to create whatever inspired them. Now, with all this inaccessibility, Wizards must be very pleased with itself, having mostly a monopoly on the market, and having created a system that keeps them dominant, and everyone else underneath them in check.
I don't like even approaching this idea with all the fears that it'll just end up revoked and copied indirectly. I haven't got anything published, as I'm sure many others haven't -- because (1) I don't fully grasp exactly what I -can- and -cannot- do safely and without threat of legal repercussion, and (2) because the mechanics of the system as WotC has evolved it is relatively difficult to fathom and design, say, a core class for.
I understand the creation of difficulties, because things were 'too easy' before, but I hardly think that jumping ends of the spectrum towards 'too hard' to create material is the right direction, either.
What if I create something that is half-way between 3rd and 4th Edition -- something that references names or mechanic keywords that could be common between the editions? What if I create something that has no system mechanics whatsoever?
What if I sat down here, at home, and with my notebooks, drew up ideas that -might- partially mesh with the current system, but might entirely lack the 'format structure' as presented? If it's in my own scrawl, is it still copyright? What portion of it is going to be the part that causes someone's hackles to be raised?
I'm worried about minor things. Nothing major. And I'm not alone in this. Other people find the new system to be relatively proprietary, and lacking in ability to truly expand much. If you want to be original, you have to pretty much abandon the original material, but you have to maintain a conscious anti- bubble around it, because lord knows you could use 'Shifty' in the wrong context.
Are my questions a bit clearer, yet? Is someone in the upper echelons even listening, paying attention, considering 'maybe he does have a point'? Does someone out there even understand my pleas and cries? Does someone even care?