--- Brad Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Neal Rogers
> >
> > If, for some reason,
> > WOTC decided not to put Flame Strike into the SRD,
> > then any SRD add-ons produced under the OGL could
> not
> > use any spell called Flame Strike, regardless of
> how
> > it worked, and could not use any spell that worked
> > like Flame Strike but used a different name?
>
> Depends on how closely it resembled flame strike.
> There is nothing
> particularly original about a bolt of fire coming
> down from the heavens to
> smite one's foes.
I think treating a spell in a roleplaying game like a
work of fiction is a big mistake and that its a losing
proposition for anyone who wants to defend it as such.
It's also a pain in the ass, and a potentially
expensive one, for anybody who happens to run afoul of
someone who thinks that way. With fiction, the
stories have to be pretty darn close for there to be
any legs to a lawsuit and I don't think there's enough
to latch onto in a basic spell description. If the
spell involves a prominent character who's detailed
elsewhere in the author's work then that's another
ballgame, but if we're talking just generic fantasy
magical effects here, I don't think there's any
benefit to defending it, other than as an attempt to
intimidate potential competitors and restrain trade.
Speaking of magic systems and spells, anybody see that
new RPG sanctioned by and based on the works of Jack
Vance? If we're talking about spell functionality and
magic system mechanics being protected by copyright,
then Mr. Vance would definitely have something to
complain about regarding the fantasy RPGs that have
sprung up since the 70's.
Neal
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
