is the roll and keep system copyrighted?

[Zaukrie]

Whether it's legally actionable or not, you might also consider how perceptions of plagiarism could influence how your work is received in the marketplace.

It's not plagiarism to use similar rules, or we'd have so few games..... Or cookbooks.... or music, since there only so many chord progressions.

 

[kenada]

I think what @kenada is pointing out is that copyright is far from the only IP potentially at issue. There are patents, design patents, trade dress, etc. that can be at issue when discussing something like a game. IMHO this kind of thing is unlikely to be a problem, but I am no more a lawyer than anyone else here. A lot of these things have also probably lapsed for older games, assuming they were ever asserted at all.

It’s more basic than that. I was just pointing out that WotC did in fact have protection for Magic. I don’t know how aggressively they enforced their rights, but they did sue Cryptozoic over Hex: Shards of Fate.

 

[DEFCON 1]

"Explode" certainly isn't copyrighted. It is common parlance for "if you roll the highest value on the die, you keep rolling."

Yep, I'm not sure who it was that first came up with the term, only that AEG used it extensively in their systems. So someone may own the copywrite to it perhaps, or maybe it indeed is open for use. 'Roll & Keep' might be the stickier situation.

 

[aramis erak]

ive been thinking of using that system as part of my rpg system. would using it be plagiarism?

Plagiarism, Copyright, and game design are three very different things.

Plagiarism is using someone else's work as your own. It's not a crime, unless you do so to commit fraud, in many nations. Paraphrasing the wizard of Oz doesn't make it any less plagiarism...

Copyright is a system of protection of text, and in some nations, certain key characters and plots. Completely paraphrase AGOT, and it might not be copyright infringement, but it's still plagiarism.

Game design, at least under the theory in use by the US Copyright & Trademark office, is a case where best practices includes pulling mechanics from others works into novel combinations... which is part of why games' mechanics are unprotectable via copyright in the US.

For that matter, the four forms of "intellectual property" are all different...
Copyright protects the words, but not the ideas. It also can protect look and feel to some degree.
Patent is processes and devices... the how. It's short lived in the US.
Trade Mark is a protection of names, logos, and product identity. It can overlap with character protections under US Copyright - Mickey may not be under Copyright protection anymore, but he's still a trademark of WEDCo...
Trade Secret usually is either some formula or some process; it's protected by several states' laws in the US, but only by contract under Federal law... I don't know jack about how it exists in the rest of the Anglophone world.

I do know that Creators' Rights in France and Germany are quite different from US copyright, trademark, and patent...

The Roll & Keep mechanic was originally published in the US, where it legally cannot be protected by copyright. (blackletter in the law exclusion.)

It could possibly have been protected by Patent, as it's a process, but John Wick didn't do so. And several other game engines use variations on it, some of which (4d6k3 for attributes, at least as far back as AD&D 1e DMG) predate Wick's L5R 1e... for certain purposes. And given the nearly 30 years since, any such patent would have expired already.

 

[Reynard]

We sould be careful getting too deep in the weeds on IP law. We have had multiple threads closed for non lawyers going on and on about law.

Suffice it to say, if you really want to push the boundary here, get legal advice.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

Processes and procedures are not protected by copyright, and there is no current patent or trademark on 'roll and keep'. This is about as safe as you're going to get with anything in this design space.

The dice mechanic I am constantly thinking of stealing is the Ironsworn/Starforged one. Your roll is d6+a small mod. The target numbers are generated by rolling 2d10s alongside your roll. Beat both: full success. Beat 1: success at cost. Beat neither: suffer the consequences. I love its simplicity and versatility.

Could be even simpler if you remove the d6 and simply roll 2d10 under your trait. Conversely you could roll a single die under two traits, though that leads to cases where success at cost is off the table.

You can't copywrite mechanics,

While the mechanic itself isn't copywriteable,

Copyright. Because it's the right to make copies. And copies include derivative works, but not transformative ones.

Whether it's legally actionable or not, you might also consider how perceptions of plagiarism could influence how your work is received in the marketplace.

What's the worst that could happen?

 

[Reynard]

Could be even simpler if you remove the d6 and simply roll 2d10 under your trait.

I like the variability that comes with the 3 different dice.

Conversely you could roll a single die under two traits, though that leads to cases where success at cost is off the table.

Which completely defeats the purpose.

 

[Umbran]

Not to mention the term 'explode' when you roll a '0' on the d10.

"Exploding" dice have been called such for years in various systems. It is not unique.

 

[kenada]

Processes and procedures are not protected by copyright, and there is no current patent or trademark on 'roll and keep'. This is about as safe as you're going to get with anything in this design space.

That’s not exactly true. In the OGL discussions last year, it was pointed out there have been a few cases where courts have found that some game mechanics cross a line to being expressive (and protected). However, where that line is for tabletop RPGs has not been established, and no one seems interested in taking a case all the way to find out. I doubt roll-and-keep would be (but IANAL), but other things might be (such as what traits an elf has).

 

[Umbran]

Game design, at least under the theory in use by the US Copyright & Trademark office, is a case where best practices includes pulling mechanics from others works into novel combinations... which is part of why games' mechanics are unprotectable via copyright in the US.

No, that's not why game mechanics cannot be covered by copyright. Mechanics are simply a different kind of IP - systems, processes, and mechanics are covered by patent law, not copyright.

Copyright covers, "I said a cool new thing".
Trademark covers, "This means ME for business purposes."
Patent covers, "I came up with a new way to do something."