Erotic Adventures, "Third party sexy adventure rules for 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons," now on Kickstarter!

[Alzrius]

So the other day I stumbled across the Kickstarter for this (warning, link is NSFW), and wanted to help spread the word. From the main page:

Quote:

The Book of Erotic Fantasy is one of the most infamous books in 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons. In fact, there are several third party books made with sex in mind for 3rd edition. Thus far, however, there has not been a sexy rule book for 5th edition. Until now.

The Erotic Adventures book will feature the sexual attraction system, fetish rules, new spells, new items, new feats, new races, new monsters, new gods, and a new specialty for each class in the Player's Handbook. Play a barbarian maenad and use sex to recharge your rage. Play a rogue paramour and manipulate others using seduction. Cast a spell to enlarge your breasts, or gain an additional penis. Fight a gender bending semen ooze. And much, much more...

The goal is 1000 dollars, but, for each additional 100 dollars I raise, I will add a picture to the book. If we reach 2000 dollars, I will make an android app based on the book and put it for sale on SlideMe.

So back this project, and be one of the first to bring sex into the world of Dungeons and Dragons!

It's currently 95% funded with twenty-two days to go!

(Note: I am not affiliated with this Kickstarter in any way; I'm simply helping to raise awareness.)

[Dale McCoy Jr]

Quote:

The Book of Erotic Fantasy is one of the most infamous books in 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons.

*Groan* Infamous? Yea that it definitely was. It was so infamous that Wizards made them take the d20 logo off the book and provided enough ammunition to those within WotC to not have an OGL for 4e.

[Alzrius]

And with just over twenty days to go, the book is currently sitting at 116% funding! Woot!

Several new add-ons have been unveiled (mostly options to buy additional books), and backers can now get a glimpse of the new deities that will be in the book. Given that every additional $100 above the $1,000 goal equates to another illustration, let's hope that the total keeps climbing!

[Marc Radle]

Does the the Wizards OGL even allow this sort of thing?

My understanding is that, in order to use the words Dungeons & Dragons etc as this Kickstarter is doing, the book must be published under the OGL, and I'm pretty sure the content is not permissible under the OGL ...

[Alzrius]

Marc Radle wrote:

Does the the Wizards OGL even allow this sort of thing?

My understanding is that, in order to use the words Dungeons & Dragons etc as this Kickstarter is doing, the book must be published under the OGL, and I'm pretty sure the content is not permissible under the OGL ...

Your understanding is wrong. If the Open Game License didn't allow for things like this, then how was the Book of Erotic Fantasy published under it?

I think what you're trying to indicate is a possible breach of Section 7 of the OGL, since it mentions D&D directly (emphasis mine):

Quote:

7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.

Presuming that the author doesn't have an independent agreement to talk about D&D directly in conjunction with this book, well, that's something that Section 14 gives her thirty (30) days to fix once becoming aware of it.

And that's only if this is published under the OGL; it's entirely plausible that the book is being published without it, since American copyright law holds that "Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles." That's why the makers of Socialism: The Game can flat-out describe it as "an unofficial expansion of the official Hasbro Monopoly game" and sell it for profit, even when it says it requires that you have a copy of Monopoly.

[David knott 242]

Marc Radle wrote:

Does the the Wizards OGL even allow this sort of thing?

My understanding is that, in order to use the words Dungeons & Dragons etc as this Kickstarter is doing, the book must be published under the OGL, and I'm pretty sure the content is not permissible under the OGL ...

Content restrictions of that sort were in the d20 STL, which is the license that formerly let 3rd party publishers declare compatibility with D&D 3.5. But since nobody can use that license any more (as it was yanked away around the time that D&D 4E came out), it doesn't really matter.

As I recall, there are similar compatibility licenses for Pathfinder and Starfinder, so this product will almost certainly have to be published under the OGL only with no compatibility license for whatever game it best works for.

[Marc Radle]

David knott 242 wrote:

Marc Radle wrote:

Does the the Wizards OGL even allow this sort of thing?

My understanding is that, in order to use the words Dungeons & Dragons etc as this Kickstarter is doing, the book must be published under the OGL, and I'm pretty sure the content is not permissible under the OGL ...

Content restrictions of that sort were in the d20 STL, which is the license that formerly let 3rd party publishers declare compatibility with D&D 3.5. But since nobody can use that license any more (as it was yanked away around the time that D&D 4E came out), it doesn't really matter.

As I recall, there are similar compatibility licenses for Pathfinder and Starfinder, so this product will almost certainly have to be published under the OGL only with no compatibility license for whatever game it best works for.

Yep, that's what I was thinking of!

Thanks!

[David knott 242]

I think the specific mention of Dungeons and Dragons on the Kickstarter page could be a gray area (as it does not itself use or reference the OGL). The OGL on its own definitely does not allow them to mention Dungeons and Dragons in the product itself.

[Dale McCoy Jr]

Marc Radle wrote:

Does the the Wizards OGL even allow this sort of thing?

My understanding is that, in order to use the words Dungeons & Dragons etc as this Kickstarter is doing, the book must be published under the OGL, and I'm pretty sure the content is not permissible under the OGL ...

David knott 242 wrote:

Content restrictions of that sort were in the d20 STL, which is the license that formerly let 3rd party publishers declare compatibility with D&D 3.5. But since nobody can use that license any more (as it was yanked away around the time that D&D 4E came out), it doesn't really matter.

As I recall, there are similar compatibility licenses for Pathfinder and Starfinder, so this product will almost certainly have to be published under the OGL only with no compatibility license for whatever game it best works for.

What David said. No topic is unallowable under the Open Game License. But that doesn't mean every topic should be done either.

Mentioning D&D, however, is NOT allowed under the OGL. There's a reason I say "Fifth Edition of the World's Oldest Fantasy Roleplaying Game" on my books. But its Wizards' job to correct them, not mine.

[Alzrius]

In the last day or so, total funding has jumped to just over 150%! That's five additional illustrations, and we're closing in on having an Android app made as well! All with nineteen days left to go!

[Alzrius]

The latest update confirms that the number of additional images per $100 above the $1,000 goal is capped at $1,500, which means that there are no more to be unlocked. :( But the book's author is currently taking suggestions for what the illustrations should depict, as well as what the framing fiction for the book's chapters should be about!

Likewise, further contributions will contribute to the forthcoming Android app, so that's not nothing!

[Haladir]

Alzirus wrote:

Erotic Adventures for 5E Kickstarter wrote:

The Book of Erotic Fantasy is one of the most infamous books in 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons

Not a backer.

Honestly, my hopes are not high for the quality of this project. The whole attitude of this KS seems rather juvenile.

I do, however, want to defend the Book of Erotic Fantasy. It took a lot of flak for the art, which consiisted entirely of digitally manipulated photographs, and was just... not very good. Art aside, the rules themselves were presented with a a decent amount of maturity and respect, and seemed to be pretty workable for games where the subject matter was appropriate.

That said, while I do have a copy of The Book of Erotic Fantasy, I have rarely (if ever) used it in play. Honestly, I find that when sex comes up in a game that I'm GMing, I prefer to handle it narratively and without game mechanics. I also tend to do a "fade to black" and keep such scenes off-camera.

[Gorbacz]

Man, I wish I was working at Hasbro's legal deparment and had to handle cases like this one.

[Alzrius]

Gorbacz wrote:

Man, I wish I was working at Hasbro's legal deparment and had to handle cases like this one.

What, specifically, makes you think that this is a "case" at all? Simply indicating compatibility isn't a copyright violation, as I noted before, and so far we don't even know if this book is being published under the OGL to begin with, which makes it rather awkward to try and indict it for violating that. So in all honesty, there doesn't seem to be any cause for Hasbro to intervene.

[Gorbacz]

Alzrius wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Man, I wish I was working at Hasbro's legal deparment and had to handle cases like this one.

What makes you think that this is a "case" at all? Simply indicating compatibility isn't a copyright violation, as I noted before, and so far we don't even know if this book is being published under the OGL to begin with, which makes it rather awkward to try and indict it for violating that. So in all honesty, there doesn't seem to be any cause for Hasbro to intervene.

It's not about the OGL. The OGL expressively does not allow you to refer to something as D&D compatible.

As for WotC I doubt there's any way of getting a compatible product outside the WotC-sanctioned D&D Adventure Guild which is IIRC adventures only and is vetted by WotC which means this is also a pickle.

Sure, at this point indicating that something is going to be compatible with somebody's else IP is likely fine, because the author of this book is certainly pursuing arrangements which will ensure that WotC won't go cease and desist all over her once the product comes out and proclaims compatibility with D&D.

Right? Right! She's certainly handling this right now. Because if she isn't, the book comes out, legal matters aren't cleared and a Texan minor gets hit (or more precisely: her legal guardians get hit) by a C&D from a global megacorp, there will be pain.

Matter of fact, I was kind enough to flag this thread so that perhaps Vic or whoever will look at it and help the kid out before she gets into any major trouble.

Releasing this as an OGL product that doesn't mention D&D is probably the way to go. But you really need to sanitise all mentions of anything that is WotC Product Identity.

[captain yesterday]

But then we won't know what benefits an extra penis will bring!

[Gorbacz]

It brings friends with benefits, duh.

[Alzrius]

Gorbacz wrote:

It's not about copyrights, it's about trademarks, for starters.

It's really not, since compatibility assurances are considered to be fair use of another entity's trademarks without their explicit authorization.

Quote:

And it's not about the OGL. The OGL expressively does not allow you to refer to something as D&D or Pathfinder compatible.

And as noted before, there's no indication that this product is using the Open Game License.

Quote:

Pathfinder Compatibility License by Paizo handles that. Buuuut it also prohibits using it with "adult material" so there's that.

Which this product is definitely not using, as this isn't a Pathfinder-compatible product anyway.

Quote:

As for WotC I doubt there's any way of getting a compatible product outside the WotC-sanctioned D&D Adventure Guild which is IIRC adventures only and is vetted by WotC which means this is also a pickle.

There's no pickle. It's entirely legal to create and sell a D&D-compatible product, so long as you adhere to the allowable uses of copyright and trademark. So far, you have given no indication that this product is not doing so.

(Also, it's called the DMs Guild, and it's not adventures only.)

Quote:

Sure, at this point indicating that something is going to be compatible with somebody's else IP is fine, because the author of this book is certainly pursuing arrangements which will ensure that WotC and Paizo won't go cease and desist all over her once the product comes out and proclaims compatibility with D&D and Pathfinder.

I'm beginning to realize that you haven't even read the Kickstarter page, as you don't seem to realize that it's not being made for Pathfinder in any way, shape, or form.

Quote:

Right? Right!

Right.

Quote:

She's certainly handling this right now. Because if she isn't, the book comes out, legal matters aren't cleared and a Texan minor gets hit (or more precisely: her legal guardians get hit) by a C&D from one global megacorp and one medium-sized cave of raptors from Seattle, there will be pain.

What specific legal matters do you think haven't been cleared? So far you've been very evasive about that.

Quote:

Matter of fact, I was kind enough to flag this thread so that Vic or whoever will look at it and help the kid out before she gets into any major trouble.

Given that you honestly don't seem to know what this "trouble" would be, since you're unable to articulate any specific issues beyond a vague insinuation that there's a trademark violation somewhere (and, rather oddly, a Pathfinder Compatibility License violation), I don't think that's going to be a problem.

But it's cool that you let Vic know about the Kickstarter. More exposure always helps. ;)

[Gorbacz]

(I've adjusted the original post to account for the fact that this isn't about a PF compatible product)

Okay, let me leave you with one question:

If using somebody's else trademark without authorisation is kosher, why does Paizo state that their products are compatible with "the 3.5 edition of the world’s oldest fantasy roleplaying game." instead of just stating that they're compatible with D&D?

[Alzrius]

Gorbacz wrote:

(I've adjusted the original post to account for the fact that this isn't about a PF compatible product)

Thanks for that.

Quote:

Okay, let me leave you with a question, since you're obviously better at IP law than I am:

Okey-dokey.

Quote:

If using somebody's else trademark without authorisation is kosher, why does Paizo state that their products are compatible with "the 3.5 edition of the world’s oldest fantasy roleplaying game." instead of just stating that they're compatible with D&D?

Because Paizo publishes their materials under the Open Game License, which specifically disallows that very thing (Section 7). In other words, they don't do that because the OGL (which they use) expressly forbids it, not because it's not legal.

[Gorbacz]

Alzrius wrote:

Because Paizo publishes their materials under the Open Game License, which specifically disallows that very thing (Section 7). In other words, they don't do that because the OGL (which they use) expressly forbids it, not because it's not legal.

Great! Now how do you go about getting out a D&D compatible product that states that it's D&D compatible without using OGL? Bonus question: if it's possible, why didn't anybody do that by now?

[Alzrius]

Gorbacz wrote:

Great! Now how do you go about getting out a D&D compatible product that states that it's D&D compatible AND doesn't use OGL?

I'm honestly not sure what you're asking, here. "How" do you make a D&D-compatible product that 1) indicates compatibility, and 2) doesn't use the OGL? That's easy, just:

1) Indicate the compatible nature of the work, and,

2) Don't use the OGL.

Quote:

Bonus question: if it's possible, why didn't anybody do that by now?

What makes you think it hasn't been done before?

[Gorbacz]

Alzrius wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Great! Now how do you go about getting out a D&D compatible product that states that it's D&D compatible AND doesn't use OGL?

I'm honestly not sure what you're asking, here. "How" do you make a D&D-compatible product that 1) indicates compatibility, and 2) doesn't use the OGL? That's easy, just:

1) Indicate the compatible nature of the work, and,

2) Don't use the OGL.

Quote:

Bonus question: if it's possible, why didn't anybody do that by now?

What makes you think it hasn't been done before?

Cool! I mean great, Paizo can now ditch the OGL, proclaim D&D compatibility of all Pathfinder products and have all 3PP do the same. Jesus, why was everybody going the length to use the OGL anyway?

As for KoK 4E, we have no idea what was the agreement between WotC and KenzerCo when they lost the 3E license. It might as well been that they retained at some point the right to publish select material for 4E but since that's all trade secret, we'll never know either way.

[Alzrius]

Gorbacz wrote:

Cool! I mean great, Paizo can now ditch the OGL, proclaim D&D compatibility of all Pathfinder products and have all 3PP do the same. Jesus, why was everybody going the length to use the OGL anyway?

A very good question. ;)

The answer is that most people are like you, with absolutely no idea how intellectual property laws work. To that end, it's easy to make an innocent mistake and cross the line between what is and isn't legally allowable, particularly in an instance where something might fall into a gray area. The OGL is designed to make it very clear what materials don't transgress that boundary, and in return outlines some additional restrictions with regards to its use, creating what's often been called a "safe harbor" (see the eighth question on that page).

Quote:

As for KoK 4E, we have no idea what was the agreement between WotC and KenzerCo when they lost the 3E license. It might as well been that they retain the right to publish select material for 4E but since that's all trade secret, we'll never know either way.

We already know, because David S. Kenzer has told us:

David S. Kenzer wrote:

Correct, we no longer have an agreement with Wizards. Why? Is there some "magic" restriction in IP law that restricts people from making new creative material that doesn't use any TMs, patents or copyrights of another company?

Oh, perhaps it's the magical FUD rule that you're referring to?

By-the-by, KoK first appeared in 1994 and we had no formal relationship with TSR.

EDIT: For those wondering, the "magical FUD rule" that Mr. Kenzer is referring to means fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

[David knott 242]

I think the issue here is that we are looking at two different documents:

1) The Kickstarter Web page, which does not use the OGL and thus any disputes over its IP references would be covered by standard IP laws (and no licenses at all), and

2) The yet to be published work, which probably will use the OGL. The OGL takes away certain "fair use" rights in return for granting permission to use otherwise copyrighted material such as the d20 SRD.

Each of these documents would be following different rules, so the author needs to be very sure to keep the different rules/laws straight.

[Rysky]

Alzrius wrote:

The answer is that most people are like you, with absolutely no idea how intellectual property laws work. To that end, it's easy to make an innocent mistake and cross the line between what is and isn't legally allowable, particularly in an instance where something might fall into a gray area.

They says to the lawyer...

[Gorbacz]

Oh, I do know a bit or two about US IP laws. More precisely, I know that you might be totally right, you might even lead to a landmark precedent, but you find that out only after you've bankrupted your company by legal fees from a lawsuit which you, ultimately, have won, but also lost. And since what your opponent was after is not being right, but kicking you out of the business...well, that's how the most litigious country on the planet works.

Which is why everybody is playing safe, using the OGL and making sure there's absolutely nothing that Hasbro could use to bring their house down. By the way, Paizo is using the term "world's oldest" not just in their products, but also on the website and in promotional materials.

I'm pretty sure Paizo is doing all that thanks to having some ace attorney at their side AND having long experience with D&D, OGL and IP laws in gaming. I'm also quite sure that a Texan school-goer doesn't, and chances are she'll get over her head much easier. Also, since in the US the courts require you to actively defend your trademarks by slapping C&Ds around every now and then, chances are that some moderately easily averted drama might happen. I've tried to contact the KS author to let her know that she really should see a lawyer about this.

[Alzrius]

Rysky wrote:

They says to the lawyer...

Hence why most people use the OGL. But that certainly doesn't mean that you're required to do so.

[Gorbacz]

David knott 242 wrote:

I think the issue here is that we are looking at two different documents:

1) The Kickstarter Web page, which does not use the OGL and thus any disputes over its IP references would be covered by standard IP laws (and no licenses at all), and

2) The yet to be published work, which probably will use the OGL. The OGL takes away certain "fair use" rights in return for granting permission to use otherwise copyrighted material such as the d20 SRD.

Each of these documents would be following different rules, so the author needs to be very sure to keep the different rules/laws straight.

That's precisely the kind of nuance that requires you to see a lawyer before you set off on getting a commercial, for-profit product out. If that was fan-made free online content, I wouldn't moan about it.

[Alzrius]

Gorbacz wrote:

Oh, I do know a bit or two about US IP laws. More precisely, I know that you might be totally right, you might even lead to a landmark precedent, but you find that out only after you've bankrupted your company by legal fees from a lawsuit which you, ultimately, have won, but also lost. And since what your opponent was after is not being right, but kicking you out of the business...well, that's how the most litigious country on the planet works.

So you're admitting here that the product in question is not actually doing anything wrong that you're aware of, and are simply appealing to the aforementioned fear, uncertainty, and doubt? That's certainly a realistic grasp of how most people look at the publishing landscape, but it doesn't mean that there's any particular reason for this book not to be written and released for sale. If the author is comfortable assuming the risk that someone else might file groundless litigation against them and simply hope that they can't keep up the court costs, that's entirely their own judgment to make.

Quote:

Which is why everybody is playing safe, using the OGL and making sure there's absolutely nothing that Hasbro could use to bring their house down.

Again, not everybody (re: Kenzer). Likewise, there's certainly no guarantee that there's "absolutely nothing that Hasbro could use" against someone, as they can cite a breach of OGL terms and then bring you to court when you argue that you in no way violated the outlined terms and agreement. It's just in this case, it's an issue of contract law rather than intellectual property, and given the relative brevity of the contract would hopefully be easier to resolve, rather than dragging out...hopefully.

Quote:

By the way, Paizo is using the term "world's oldest" not just in their products, but also on the website and in promotional materials.

I suspect that's because there's an understanding that the Section 7 restrictions on indicating compatibility might extend to cover promotional materials, rather than limited to the work itself. That's not unreasonable, and could very well be interpreted that way if it went to court (hence what I just said).

Quote:

I'm pretty sure Paizo is doing all that thanks to having some ace attorney at their side AND having long experience with D&D, OGL and IP laws in gaming.

I've little doubt that the OGL is the less-risky way to go. That doesn't mean that it's the only way to go. As I've noted earlier, there have been other people who published compatible materials - and said they were compatible - and were fine for it.

Quote:

I'm also quite sure that a Texan school-goer doesn't, and chances are she'll get over her head much easier.

It's nice of you to worry about the book and its author, particularly in light of your tacit admission that the book isn't doing anything wrong that you're aware of, and that the only threat to it as this point would be baseless litigation being brought against it.

Quote:

Also, since in the US the courts require you to actively defend your trademarks by slapping C&Ds around every now and then, chances are that some moderately easily averted drama might happen.

This is a rather gross mischaracterization of what it means to protect your trademark rights. I suggest familiarizing yourself with the basic information found in the US Patent and Trademark Office's Protecting Your Trademark document.

Quote:

I've tried to contact the KS author to let her know that she really should see a lawyer about this.

I'm glad you've become more supportive of her efforts to see this book safely made and put up for sale. :)

[cmastah]

A thread about an erotic DnD book, filled with litigation gobbledygook.

Yep, this is the internet.

[Gorbacz]

The fact that "you were fine for it" does not make anything legal. Final Fantasy using Mind Flayers was certainly a violation of WotC copyright, it just never happen to be brought before the court. Most likely due to the fact that both the creator and publisher were Japanese entities, making litigation a pain with little possible gain.

As for active defense and use of trademarks, since Lanham Act requires you to use it or lose it, the best way to show that you actually commercially pursue a trademark is to kick some people around for infringement. Last thing you want is that Spelljammer or Ravenloft is no longer protected because you didn't move around any product with the logo recently, and since you're not doing that, indicating that your actively protecting your (TM) or (R) is your best bet in case somebody brings up the "use it or lose it" rule.

[Marc Radle]

Alzrius wrote:

The answer is that most people are like you, with absolutely no idea how intellectual property laws work.

You know he's a lawyer, right?

[Alzrius]

Gorbacz wrote:

The fact that "you were fine for it" does not make anything legal.

So you're suggesting that the Kingdoms of Kalamar 4th Edition use of D&D 4E rules and saying that it's compatible with Dungeons & Dragons is illegal, but simply hasn't been taken to court for it? On what specific basis do you maintain that it violated any particular copyright or trademark laws?

Quote:

Final Fantasy using Mind Flayers was certainly a violation of WotC copyright, it just never happen to be brought before the court. Most likely due to the fact that both the creator and publisher were Japanese entities, making litigation a pain with little possible gain.

What does that have to do with this particular book using D&D 5th Edition rules and citing its compatibility with said rules? Do you feel that there's anything particular to that circumstance that is applicable here, with regards to the legalities involved?

Quote:

As for active defense and use of trademarks, since Lanham Act requires you to use it or lose it, the best way to show that you actually commercially pursue a trademark is to kick some people around for infringement.

Again, this is a gross mischaracterization of what the "use it or lose it" provision means:

Quote:

Federal law, specifically the Lanham Act, governs the law of trademarks and service marks, and it requires a business to actually use in commerce its registered marks in order to keep them protected. Under the Lanham Act, “use” has a specialized meaning: businesses must engage in bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not use which is made merely to reserve a right in a mark. 15 U.S.C. §1127.

You'll notice that there's no language in there regarding the necessity of engaging in litigation when a potential infringement occurs; rather, the only requirement is that you use it in the legitimate course of business.

That's not an oversight. Although a ruling of abandonment is certainly possible, Wallpaper Mfrs., Ltd. v. Crown Wallcovering Corp., 680 F.2d 755, 766 (C.C.P.A. 1982) noted that "an owner is not required to act immediately against every possibly infringing use to avoid a holding of abandonment."

Of course, this is a moot point anyway, as the aforementioned fair use exception would still apply here, in all likelihood.

Quote:

Last thing you want is that Spelljammer or Ravenloft is no longer protected because you didn't move around any product with the logo recently, and since you're not doing that, indicating that your actively protecting your (TM) or (R) is your best bet in case somebody brings up the "use it or lose it" rule.

Again, this doesn't hold up, either in a strict reading of the Lanham Act itself, nor with regards to subsequent precedent regarding relevant cases. Hence why, in one of the more famous decisions regarding a potential infringement case, a judge notably said that "The parties are advised to chill."

EDIT: Fun fact, there are several applications of the trademarks for Ravenloft and Spelljammer that are dead (though not the ones for use in tabletop RPGs).

[Cyrad]

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Quote:

The Book of Erotic Fantasy is one of the most infamous books in 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons.

*Groan* Infamous? Yea that it definitely was. It was so infamous that Wizards made them take the d20 logo off the book and provided enough ammunition to those within WotC to not have an OGL for 4e.

The mere thought that the Book of Erotic Fantasy contributed to the events leading up to the creation of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game just blows my mind right now.

[captain yesterday]

This. Is. Awesome!!!

[Alzrius]

Marc Radle wrote:

Alzrius wrote:

The answer is that most people are like you, with absolutely no idea how intellectual property laws work.

You know he's a lawyer, right?

You mean Gorbacz? I find that very difficult to believe, as he's already admitted I'm "better at IP law" than he is.

[Ed, Pointless Argument Admissions Clerk]

Gather round to watch as these two legalese titans battle it out!

What are they saying!?!

Who cares! It's pro bono!!!

[TriOmegaZero]

Alzrius wrote:

You mean Gorbacz? I find that very difficult to believe, as he's already admitted I'm "better at IP law" than he is.

When you practice in Europe, you don't have to be as familiar with US law.

[Alzrius]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Alzrius wrote:

You mean Gorbacz? I find that very difficult to believe, as he's already admitted I'm "better at IP law" than he is.

When you practice in Europe, you don't have to be as familiar with US law.

No, but for having a discussion about it, that tends to help.

[captain yesterday]

Alzrius wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Alzrius wrote:

You mean Gorbacz? I find that very difficult to believe, as he's already admitted I'm "better at IP law" than he is.

When you practice in Europe, you don't have to be as familiar with US law.

No, but for having a discussion about it, that tends to help.

So does not being a jerk by insulting a fellow lawyer by calling his credentials into question.

[Alzrius]

captain yesterday wrote:

Alzrius wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Alzrius wrote:

You mean Gorbacz? I find that very difficult to believe, as he's already admitted I'm "better at IP law" than he is.

When you practice in Europe, you don't have to be as familiar with US law.

No, but for having a discussion about it, that tends to help.

So does not being a jerk by insulting a fellow lawyer by calling his credentials into question.

That wasn't my intention, and I certainly apologize if I gave any offense.

Also, I am not a lawyer.

[captain yesterday]

Fair enough. :-)

[Terquem]

Makes me soooo glad Milton Bradley still has the trademark rights to HeroQuest...

*Goggle*

What the helicopter!

[Berik]

I don't claim any legal knowledge myself, but I will say that the kenzerco situation isn't necessarily the best comparison to this. Chiefly because Dave Kenzer himself is an experienced lawyer with a background in intellectual property. I'm sure that he's dotted the i's and crossed the t's and knows his stuff to the extent that WotC would be pretty reluctant to send their legal department after his company.

I have no idea how likely WotC are to care about this project, but I think the creator would be sensible to have some legal advice on just where they stand in certain scenarios.

[Alzrius]

Moving past that needless bit of drama, the funding is now at $1,990! Just ten more dollars to the Android app being funded!

There'll need to be some new stretch goals added at this rate.

[TOZ]

Latest Update:

"So, apparently I didn't research the legalities of this well enough. I am not allowed to mention copyrighted names while advertising my products, and I need to attach this:

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html

to every copy of my book. Text has now been amended to avoid mentioning the particular tabletop game this book is compatible with, because the name itself is copyrighted. Whoops. So, yeah. I'm an idiot."

[Gorbacz]

It's high noon, somewhere.

[Sissyl]

Someone tries to make a game about erotic fantasy, and the same things happen. People complain about the maturity of it, people say it shouldn't be done, people claim it is bad, often while their arguments clearly show they haven't even read it. Every such product is immediately likened to FATAL. The reviews go overboard with calling it "creepy". "Why would you play that game with your friends when you can have an orgy with them?" "It's not necessary!" "All that can be handwaved!" And so on. The misery never ends.

It is an American culture thing, and it bores me.

So long as the product is clear on what it is and does, I don't see the problem.

Erotic fantasy has a long history, steamy romance novels have sold well for ages (read mostly by women). Reading such a book doesn't mean you would prefer having sex.

We have been tromping around the countryside murdering stuff in our imagination since the seventies. Isn't it about time we accepted relationships and principles for dealing with them as well as killing people? Why is it not a sensible approach to say that "Combat is not necessary! If you want that, you can just handwave it! And if you want to play a game about murdering people with your friends, why wouldn't you go on a killing-spree with them instead?"

My suggestion is simply to live and let live. If you don't like a product, don't buy it.

[Vidmaster7]

Sissyl wrote:

Someone tries to make a game about erotic fantasy, and the same things happen. People complain about the maturity of it, people say it shouldn't be done, people claim it is bad, often while their arguments clearly show they haven't even read it. Every such product is immediately likened to FATAL. The reviews go overboard with calling it "creepy". "Why would you play that game with your friends when you can have an orgy with them?" "It's not necessary!" "All that can be handwaved!" And so on. The misery never ends.

It is an American culture thing, and it bores me.

So long as the product is clear on what it is and does, I don't see the problem.

Erotic fantasy has a long history, steamy romance novels have sold well for ages (read mostly by women). Reading such a book doesn't mean you would prefer having sex.

We have been tromping around the countryside murdering stuff in our imagination since the seventies. Isn't it about time we accepted relationships and principles for dealing with them as well as killing people? Why is it not a sensible approach to say that "Combat is not necessary! If you want that, you can just handwave it! And if you want to play a game about murdering people with your friends, why wouldn't you go on a killing-spree with them instead?"

My suggestion is simply to live and let live. If you don't like a product, don't buy it.

PREACH IT SISTER!