The CGL situation p3 Options

[Dr.Rockso]

We didnt test the question to much it was scary enough when I grabbed him by the shoulder and made him shift into a little pink piggy.

On a brighter note he is currently working on a tshirt with the dragon pig on. The design is abit rough at the moment but its across between a easten dragon and a pig, curly tail and all.


He can fry his own bacon

Dragon Pig, Dragon Pig
Does whatever a Dragon Pig does
Can he cast, draconic spells?
No he can't; he's a pig
Look out....here comes the Dragon Pig

[Lansdren]

Dragon Pig, Dragon Pig
Does whatever a Dragon Pig does
Can he cast, draconic spells?
No he can't; he's a pig
Look out....here comes the Dragon Pig

You have no idea how close that is to the version I have been having sung at me off and on for the last week.



I am very sorry for the poor form and going off topic, but you know how it is your stuck in a room and its all tense someone has to crack and tell a joke just to lighten the mood.

[crizh]

As I understand it, copyright in no way respects the amount of work one had to do to develop a product, rather copyright protects originality of expression.

I never for a moment suggested otherwise.

PACKS is more akin to computer code than literary expression.

You can't just change the remarks and the odd variable name or swap a few of the functional blocks around, you have to rewrite the entire code-base from scratch and be careful not 'include' clever solutions that are clearly derivative of the original.

It wouldn't take an hour to re-do 500 words of Seattle 2072 to not be infringing but still say the same thing. With PACKS you're probably looking at 6 to 10 hours and the end result still won't say quite the same thing. The rules and fluff will be easy enough to bash out a replacement, the crunch? Not so much.

To give another example, that is more metaphor than model, it's pretty easy to condense something like War and Peace or LOTR into Readers Digest form.

The Book of Five Rings or a collection of Haiku? Not possible.

[Dr.Rockso]

You have no idea how close that is to the version I have been having sung at me off and on for the last week.



I am very sorry for the poor form and going off topic, but you know how it is your stuck in a room and its all tense someone has to crack and tell a joke just to lighten the mood.

To be honest, I think everything that can be said at this juncture has been said. Dragon pigs are a much better topic then arguing the semantics of the term "forced out". So, until the next leak, official statement or celebrity boxing match...how bout' that urban brawl? I hear the Seattle Dragon Pigs are doing great this year....

[TheDude]

None of this is the least bit surprising to anyone who has been around this game 20 years.

[Stahlseele]

Metaphorically speaking. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) But if you want more literal, then pencil in 'Shedim'....which as an addition itself I suppose is more poetic. EDIT: Better yet a Shedim inhabiting a ghoul corpse...so yes, you can have undead ghouls. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

But . . but . . that's cheating ._.

[darthmord]

You know, one of the more painful things about reading these posts is hearing about all the cool things that could have been.

Yep. That's the painful truth.

[Larsine]

Mark Dynna did good proofing work, because we talked about the design philosophy and his changes were always in-line with how I built the profiles, aiming always for certain design parameters. Others, not so much.

How do you know which proofers suggested which corrections. Most of the suggested correction are not noted with the proofers name or initials, so you would have no way of knowing which part Mark, I or anybody else did.

Lars

[Ancient History]

Because 1) I talked with Mark during the process and we went over some of the problems together, 2) believe it or not, you can differentiate between proofers because they tend to have characteristic writing styles and repeat their own mistakes, just like everyone else, 3) Mark and I went over the final proof comments together at one point after I had corrected some of the proofer's changes and he was double-checking my math.

So yeah, while I cannot say that every proofer made a mistake or that I could tell you blind which proofer made which suggestion, I can point out the ones that Mark and I went over together.

[Ol' Scratch]

It wouldn't take an hour to re-do 500 words of Seattle 2072 to not be infringing but still say the same thing. With PACKS you're probably looking at 6 to 10 hours and the end result still won't say quite the same thing. The rules and fluff will be easy enough to bash out a replacement, the crunch? Not so much.

What? o.O

The "crunch" is the easiest part because you don't have to worry about redoing it. All you have to do is explain it in your own words, even if some of those words are similar. The "crunch" is the idea you're expressing and is no more in possession of the copyright owner than using 3d6 (or any of the alternatives) to determine your attributes belongs to D&D's owners. And it certainly doesn't take an excessive amount of time to describe that sort of thing. The only thing you might have to worry about is inadvertently using terms that may have been trademarked or something, but that's just as easy to get around. For example, using "design points" instead of "build points."

Honestly, I dunno where some of you are getting the idea that game mechanics are so heavily protected. If they were, this game wouldn't be allowed to use attributes, skills, hit points (a.k.a., condition monitors), or any of the other crunchy bits because some other game, in one form or another, has used them, too. Some -- such as the old White Wolf games -- were all but identical for the most part, too.

[TheDude]

Honestly, I dunno where some of you are getting the idea that game mechanics are so heavily protected. If they were, this game wouldn't be allowed to use attributes, skills, hit points (a.k.a., condition monitors), or any of the other crunchy bits because some other game, in one form or another, has used them, too. Some -- such as the old White Wolf games -- were all but identical for the most part, too.

Fantasy is cannibalism, in fiction and gaming. It's virtually impossible to protect the core mechanics of any game. I'm not even sure why you want to as a designer anyway, because if you have an innovative design that others adapt, it speaks to your competency as a designer.

[crizh]

All you have to do is explain it in your own words, even if some of those words are similar.

How do you paraphrase a Haiku?

I can only assume that you haven't read PACKS and you're spoiling for a fight.

[knasser]

To give another example, that is more metaphor than model, it's pretty easy to condense something like War and Peace or LOTR into Readers Digest form.

The Book of Five Rings or a collection of Haiku? Not possible.

That. is a very well chosen and imaginative analogy. I am impressed.

Dr. Funkenstein: It's not about whether game mechanics are copywritable, they aren't so far as I'm aware. It's about the specific instances that are created with them. What crizh is saying is something like the following two examples:

Rewrite a bit from Seattle 2072
Original: "Traveling to Seattle
Seattle is the largest non-contiguous part of the UCAS, so travel to
the metroplex can be more involved than visiting other parts of the
country, even for UCAS citizens. For citizens of other nations, visiting
Seattle is much like travel to the UCAS proper...
"

Re-written: "Seattle is the biggest part of UCAS that doesn't have a connection
to the rest of the country, so getting in and out of the place can get quite complicated,
even if you actually are a UCAS citizen.
For the rest it's no different to visiting the main part of UCAS..."

Took me a minute to do and the meaning's close enough.

Now try something mechanical:

Gear Package 1: Barret Sniper Rifle, APDS Ammo, Smartlink, folding stock,
Armour Jacket w. Helmet, integrated commlink (Response 4, Signal 5, System 4,
Firewall 4. - Cost: 18,000¥

Re-written:

Gear Package 1: Ares Desert Strike, APDS Ammo, Smart Link, Gas Vent II,
Armour Jacket, external commlink (Response 3, Signal 5, System 3, Firewall 3)
- Cost 16,000¥

See, to do the second job, I have to find different but similar things, do arithmetic calculate the new costs. It took longer to do the second example than it did the first and I didn't actually work anything out, I just opened Arsenal to find the name of a different sniper rifle, let alone start adding up costs. And to top it all, the result is actually something different to the original which I had to avoid just copying, whereas the fluff conveys the same information pretty much. Try doing this with cyber and bioware packages, or adept powers, etc., and skills and powers where you have to re-calculate karma and BP costs, etc. and it becomes worse.

So that's the issue. Re-doing the mechanical stuff actually is more time consuming than the fluff (though good fluff is no easier to write).

K.

[Synner667]

That. is a very well chosen and imaginative analogy. I am impressed.

Dr. Funkenstein: It's not about whether game mechanics are copywritable, they aren't so far as I'm aware. It's about the specific instances that are created with them. What crizh is saying is something like the following two examples:

Rewrite a bit from Seattle 2072
Original: "Traveling to Seattle
Seattle is the largest non-contiguous part of the UCAS, so travel to
the metroplex can be more involved than visiting other parts of the
country, even for UCAS citizens. For citizens of other nations, visiting
Seattle is much like travel to the UCAS proper...
"

Re-written: "Seattle is the biggest part of UCAS that doesn't have a connection
to the rest of the country, so getting in and out of the place can get quite complicated,
even if you actually are a UCAS citizen.
For the rest it's no different to visiting the main part of UCAS..."

Took me a minute to do and the meaning's close enough.

Now try something mechanical:

Gear Package 1: Barret Sniper Rifle, APDS Ammo, Smartlink, folding stock,
Armour Jacket w. Helmet, integrated commlink (Response 4, Signal 5, System 4,
Firewall 4. - Cost: 18,000¥

Re-written:

Gear Package 1: Ares Desert Strike, APDS Ammo, Smart Link, Gas Vent II,
Armour Jacket, external commlink (Response 3, Signal 5, System 3, Firewall 3)
- Cost 16,000¥

See, to do the second job, I have to find different but similar things, do arithmetic calculate the new costs. It took longer to do the second example than it did the first and I didn't actually work anything out, I just opened Arsenal to find the name of a different sniper rifle, let alone start adding up costs. And to top it all, the result is actually something different to the original which I had to avoid just copying, whereas the fluff conveys the same information pretty much. Try doing this with cyber and bioware packages, or adept powers, etc., and skills and powers where you have to re-calculate karma and BP costs, etc. and it becomes worse.

So that's the issue. Re-doing the mechanical stuff actually is more time consuming than the fluff (though good fluff is no easier to write).

K.

I'm not sure you're completely right...
...Because there are many cyber/bio/magic games and sourcebooks available, and much of the related info is quite "standard".

For instance, smartlink, cybernetics, muscle replacement, boosted reflexes, rigger, etc.

Short of actively renaming everything, there's always going to be overlapping names/devices/etc.

[knasser]

I'm not sure you're completely right...
...Because there are many cyber/bio/magic games and sourcebooks available, and much of the related info is quite "standard".

For instance, smartlink, cybernetics, muscle replacement, boosted reflexes, rigger, etc.

Short of actively renaming everything, there's always going to be overlapping names/devices/etc.

Yes, but the point is that with something like the PACKs, you're forced to start more or less from scratch. Everything you change means re-calculation, looking things up... With fluff, it's a case of here's a paragraph, say the same thing in a different way. Saying something in a different way is less effort than "make an equivalent package of cyber and bio and re-calculate everything and check all the names).

Re-writing Seattle 2072 would still take a long time, but less time than it took for the original (though editing and proofing would have to be repeated all over again). Re-writing the PACKs would pretty much taken an equivalent amount of time to the original. Possibly more because (a) you have to check you're not too close to the originals all the time and (b) you have to find someone who knows their stuff as well as the original writer. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

K.

[Ol' Scratch]

I can only assume that you haven't read PACKS and you're spoiling for a fight.

All I know about it is that it's some kind of an alternative "modular" character creation system. I don't see what that has to do with a fucking haiku. That aside, it's just as easy to paraphrase a haiku as anything else. The paraphrase doesn't have to be a haiku itself, or even poetic, in order to describe it. As for starting a fight, you're the only one getting their feathers ruffled at being rebuked. Unless you want to quote something to somehow prove your point (which, incidently, is allowable under the copyright laws), maybe you should settle down some?

[Synner]

Before people get more confused, PACKS is/was not a "modular character creation system", neither is it really a full blown "template" chargen system (that Cain once proposed). In fact it is/was only a plug-and-play modular complement to the standard BP and Karma build system (ie. it can't really be used independently of the core chargen system). And yes, it was rather brilliant in conception and execution (all kudos to Bobby) and one of things I was happiest about having done during my run as Shadowrun Line Developer.

[Saint Sithney]

Man, I can't wait for this thread to get shutdown so that I can go to the 4th iteration and complain that we should switch back to "The CGL Situation 3rd Edition" because it was better.

[Demonseed Elite]

Man, I can't wait for this thread to get shutdown so that I can go to the 4th iteration and complain that we should switch back to "The CGL Situation 3rd Edition" because it was better.

Haha, okay, that post made me laugh. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[emouse]

You've just described being forced out for ethical reasons. Now, we don't know if more pressure was applied to the three or not; but at the very minimum, they chose their own personal ethics over a game they love. That indicates that the ethical conflict must have been *extreme*.

Again, a lot of people see being forced out as when someone actively pursues a course of action for the specific reason of getting someone else to resign.

Any decisions made by CGL management, as far as we know, were not done specifically for the purpose of getting Jen to resign.

As has been stated in this thread, Jen was not just a CGL employee, but also a freelancer who was owed money. She may have felt that being in the position of overseeing collection of money, and being one of the people owed that money was a conflict of interest.

She has also been cited as one of the authors, or the author to pull copyright permission until paid. She may have resigned in order to again avoid an uncomfortable situation where she would be both working for and pursuing legal action against the same entity.

Neither situation, in my mind, or the minds of others, are examples of someone being 'forced out', but are a situation where personal ethics could play a role in their decision to leave.

[crizh]

rebuked.

Eek, I've been rebuked have I?

I think I and others have made my case, some far more persuasively than I have. If you don't agree that is entirely your prerogative, I don't give a frak either way.

Rebuked? Snort.

Have you any idea how self-important that makes you sound?

[Ol' Scratch]

Have you any idea how self-important that makes you sound?

No more than your post. Especially since you think anything anyone's said ahead of you has done anything to prove your asinine haiku analogy.

And considering you don't apparently even know what the word "rebuke" means, well, I find it even more difficult to believe you have any inkling what the Hell you're talking about.

[knasser]

No more than your post. Especially since you think anything anyone's said ahead of you has done anything to prove your asinine haiku analogy.

Hey, peace people. Peace! We all like Shadowrun here, right?

The haiku example was to show that the important part of a haiku is the precise form it takes, whilst the important part of a piece of description, is the information it conveys. PACKs is closer to the haiku, whilst the fluff is closer to conveying information. Two different descriptions of Seattle's relationship with the rest of UCAS can both relate the same information to the reader even though they use different words. Two different sets of bio/cyberware cannot convey the same thing to the reader because they are actually different. The former is easier to reproduce, the latter much harder because you have to start from scratch, essentially and you can never exactly reproduce the content of the original whilst with fluff, you can reproduce the same information phrased differently. PACKs, like a haiku, is inseparable from the form of itself.

Haiku's are easy.
But sometimes they make no sense.
Refrigerator.

K.

[Stahlseele]

Hey, peace people. Peace! We all like Shadowrun here, right?

How did someone on one of the german boards i frequent put it so eloquently?

just because we are both playing shadowrun, it does not mean that we are playing the same game.

[Ol' Scratch]

The haiku example was to show that the important part of a haiku is the precise form it takes, whilst the important part of a piece of description, is the information it conveys. PACKs is closer to the haiku, whilst the fluff is closer to conveying information. Two different descriptions of Seattle's relationship with the rest of UCAS can both relate the same information to the reader even though they use different words. Two different sets of bio/cyberware cannot convey the same thing to the reader because they are actually different. The former is easier to reproduce, the latter much harder because you have to start from scratch, essentially and you can never exactly reproduce the content of the original whilst with fluff, you can reproduce the same information phrased differently. PACKs, like a haiku, is inseparable from the form of itself.

Using an example you gave earlier:

"Gear Package 1: Barret Sniper Rifle, APDS Ammo, Smartlink, folding stock,
Armour Jacket w. Helmet, integrated commlink (Response 4, Signal 5, System 4,
Firewall 4. - Cost: 18,000¥"

To rewrite that and completely avoid any copyright issues is as simple as:

"Sniper Equipment Bundle [18,000¥]
This bundle includes: Barret Sniper Rifle (with Folding Stock and Smartlink),
APDS (50 rounds), and an Armor Jacket (with Integrated Commlink [Response 4,
Signal 5, System 4, and Firewall 4]).

The specific items are all integral to the game itself and has absolutely nothing to do with the writer. The only thing that might be in question about the rewrite is trade packaging, but that only applies to the actual packaging of a product, and even then it has to do more with fonts, colors, and layout than simply following a similar textual format. Amount of time it took? Less than a minute, and most of that was the actual typing of the words.