License?!

[razielis]

Hello, very please, I searching answer lot of times, but... Please, is Deathtrap Dungeon (or full Fighting Fantasy) public domain? I creating fan videogame about Deathtrap Dungeon, i want to make this game free, but i don't know how is it with licensing and copyright with DD. I love Ian Livingstone books, Thanks.

[slloyd14]

Rules for UK copyright on books is that they don't become public domain until 70 years after the author's death. Since Ian Livingstone is very much alive, it is going to be a while.

[pip]

It's not public domain, so you are not legally allowed to release this game, even if it's free.

If your game is merely loosely inspired by DD, i.e. if you make it sufficiently different that it's unrecognizable, then it's a different story, but you definitely must steer clear of lifting anything directly from DD.

[slloyd14]

Aug 2, 2023 18:25:23 GMT pip said:

It's not public domain, so you are not legally allowed to release this game, even if it's free.

If your game is merely loosely inspired by DD, i.e. if you make it sufficiently different that it's unrecognizable, then it's a different story, but you definitely must steer clear of lifting anything directly from DD.

Agreed. It would be easy to generate a random dungeon map and some encounters from various places then change them to suit your tastes. Anything that isn't explicitly FF can be used. It could be an opportunity to create your own monsters.

[slloyd14]

Aug 2, 2023 18:25:23 GMT pip said:

It's not public domain, so you are not legally allowed to release this game, even if it's free.

If your game is merely loosely inspired by DD, i.e. if you make it sufficiently different that it's unrecognizable, then it's a different story, but you definitely must steer clear of lifting anything directly from DD.

Agreed. It would be easy to generate a random dungeon map and some encounters from various places then change them to suit your tastes. Anything that isn't explicitly FF can be used. It could be an opportunity to create your own monsters.

[a moderator]

Aug 2, 2023 16:48:00 GMT slloyd14 said:

Rules for UK copyright on books is that they don't become public domain until 70 years after the author's death.

I wonder how 'death' is defined in the relevant laws.

20 years ago or thereabouts, the author David A. McIntee (who included a subtle FF reference in his first published novel) was in an car crash, as a result of which he was briefly clinically dead, though he was revived shortly afterwards, and (as far as I know) remains healthy to this day. If he's still alive 50-odd years from now, will he still have the rights to the books he wrote before the accident?

[CharlesX]

Aug 2, 2023 19:30:50 GMT a moderator said:

Aug 2, 2023 16:48:00 GMT slloyd14 said:

Rules for UK copyright on books is that they don't become public domain until 70 years after the author's death.

I wonder how 'death' is defined in the relevant laws.

20 years ago or thereabouts, the author David A. McIntee (who included a subtle FF reference in his first published novel) was in an car crash, as a result of which he was briefly clinically dead, though he was revived shortly afterwards, and (as far as I know) remains healthy to this day. If he's still alive 50-odd years from now, will he still have the rights to the books he wrote before the accident?

I suspect Greenspine is being extremely facetious but you don't need a lawyer to tell you that defence wouldn't last a second in any actual court. Several decades before he died for real well-developed conman L. Ron Hubbard was clinically dead for 8 minutes during an operation - I suppose that would have meant all his terrible fiction and even worse religion could have been printed for free, or is it perhaps more likely Scientologists would have thrown the book at anyone who did do that?

[slloyd14]

Aug 2, 2023 19:39:34 GMT CharlesX said:

Aug 2, 2023 19:30:50 GMT a moderator said:

I wonder how 'death' is defined in the relevant laws.

20 years ago or thereabouts, the author David A. McIntee (who included a subtle FF reference in his first published novel) was in an car crash, as a result of which he was briefly clinically dead, though he was revived shortly afterwards, and (as far as I know) remains healthy to this day. If he's still alive 50-odd years from now, will he still have the rights to the books he wrote before the accident?

I suspect Greenspine is being extremely facetious but you don't need a lawyer to tell you that defence wouldn't last a second in any actual court. Several decades before he died for real well-developed conman L. Ron Hubbard was clinically dead for 8 minutes during an operation - I suppose that would have meant all his terrible fiction and even worse religion could have been printed for free, or is it perhaps more likely Scientologists would have thrown the book at anyone who did do that?

The first Watchers needed an lawyer. When Buffy was dead for a minute, another slayer was activated. Thankfully, IP law is a little more sophisticated than that.

[schlendrian]

Aug 2, 2023 19:30:50 GMT a moderator said:

I wonder how 'death' is defined in the relevant laws.

20 years ago or thereabouts, the author David A. McIntee (who included a subtle FF reference in his first published novel) was in an car crash, as a result of which he was briefly clinically dead, though he was revived shortly afterwards, and (as far as I know) remains healthy to this day. If he's still alive 50-odd years from now, will he still have the rights to the books he wrote before the accident?

Might be different depending on the country, but from a legal point of view, you are dead when you are declared dead and entered as such in the central registry of persons (that's what it's called in Austria, Zentrales Personenregister, don't know its UK pendant). In the case of a brief clinical death, the doctor would have the duty to assess, whether to report the death and as this most likely didn't happen in the case of McIntee, I'm confident he'll retain his rights

[CharlesX]

Aug 2, 2023 19:17:11 GMT slloyd14 said:

Aug 2, 2023 18:25:23 GMT pip said:

It's not public domain, so you are not legally allowed to release this game, even if it's free.

If your game is merely loosely inspired by DD, i.e. if you make it sufficiently different that it's unrecognizable, then it's a different story, but you definitely must steer clear of lifting anything directly from DD.

Agreed. It would be easy to generate a random dungeon map and some encounters from various places then change them to suit your tastes. Anything that isn't explicitly FF can be used. It could be an opportunity to create your own monsters.

So, mentioning a years-old conversation about whether one could create an AI Dungeon based around FF (originating from saying Eye Of The Dragon is comparable to a below-average AI rendition of FF), where would this become inadmissable? For example, could it appear on net forums, so long as it were free? What is the definition of "explicitly" FF, because my understanding is unless you are putting your FF tribute in a negative\defamatory light, or heavily copying, most things would fall under fair use, the number of people being immaterial where they're free. You could certainly introduce someone such as Yaztromo, right?  

[slloyd14]

Aug 5, 2023 14:56:47 GMT CharlesX said:

Aug 2, 2023 19:17:11 GMT slloyd14 said:

Agreed. It would be easy to generate a random dungeon map and some encounters from various places then change them to suit your tastes. Anything that isn't explicitly FF can be used. It could be an opportunity to create your own monsters.

So, mentioning a years-old conversation about whether one could create an AI Dungeon based around FF (originating from saying Eye Of The Dragon is comparable to a below-average AI rendition of FF), where would this become inadmissable? For example, could it appear on net forums, so long as it were free? What is the definition of "explicitly" FF, because my understanding is unless you are putting your FF tribute in a negative\defamatory light, or heavily copying, most things would fall under fair use, the number of people being immaterial where they're free. You could certainly introduce someone such as Yaztromo, right?  

That would be up to an IP lawyer. Specifically about Yaztromo, there is a hug number of wise old wizards who help you on your quest. If you have an old wizard who sells magic items in a gamebook, you would be ok as long as the names and places are your own.

AI is an issue on its own.

In this case you wouldn't even need AI, just half a dozen dungeon/adventure generator books. You could roll up some vague ideas from them and then add your own specific details. Then you could generate a random map, either with an online generator or with some dice rolling generator, give it your own name and it would be fine.

As for AI, Ian Livingstone books could totally be fed into a large language model and I bet it could spit out a very Ian Livingstone-ish book because most of Ian Livingstone's books (barring Freeway Fighter and Blood of the Zombies) are very formulaic.

So what I'm saying is that our friend's game can totally be a dungeon crawl competition with crazy monsters and traps but it can't use the name Deathtrap Dungeon or any of the named people and places in Deathtrap Dungeon or any monsters that Ian Livingstone would have created (such as the bloodbeast. He could probably keep the pit fiend as longa a he called it a T-rex which is what it actually is). I expect the closest link to Deathtrap Dungeon he could use is saying that people who likes Deathtrap Dungeon would like it.

[pip]

I'm also not an IP lawyer, but from what I understand:

Generic fantasy creatures like orcs, goblins, etc. are examples of things that are not "explicitly FF" because they have already appeared elsewhere. Goblins were first mentioned centuries ago so they are definitely ok to use. Orcs, according to Wikipedia, were invented by Tolkien, who died less than 70 years ago, but they have already been used all over the place and Tolkien's estate has never made a move against that, so surely that'll also be ok, or we would have heard about it by now (I guess orcs have become "public domain" by default/lack of reaction). However, if you have a creature named the Bloodbeast, and it's a creature with a bunch of decoy eyes sitting in a bucket, etc. then that's something explicitly FF.

Having Yaztromo would not be ok, because he only appears in FF. But if you have a Yaztromo kind of character who just has a different name, then it'll be ok, because his character is an old archetype anyway (basically, he's Gandalf with a different name, but there is no copyright on old wizards with long beards).

Whether your work is published for free or to make money makes no difference when it comes to the law. If it's published for free and remains sufficiently confidential, then the IP owners may not even notice, or turn a blind eye, but they would still be within their right to make you stop. If you're not making money from it, they would be more likely to just send you a cease and desist letter, while if you are making money from it, they would be a lot more likely to sue you. Either way it's illegal to do so, so don't do it

None of this is professional legal advice, and the OP or anyone else should take it for what it is (one guy's unprofessional understanding of copyright laws) and not an encouragement to do anything, so err on the side of caution.

[Wizard Slayer]

Aug 5, 2023 14:56:47 GMT CharlesX said:

...because my understanding is unless you are putting your FF tribute in a negative\defamatory light, or heavily copying, most things would fall under fair use, the number of people being immaterial where they're free. You could certainly introduce someone such as Yaztromo, right?

Fair use is basically about you being able to use a reasonably necessary amount of a copyrighted work for research or comment. 

It means that, for instance, we can discuss the books here with quotes and so on without being in breach of the copyright. Loss of revenue only comes into it if you're claiming research/comment, but your use turns out to potentially cost the holder revenue. e.g. you can't include an entire copy of a book as an appendix to your criticism of it.

Having Yaztromo as a character in a book or game would (edit: almost*) never be free use, regardless of paid, free, for charity, as a tribute or whatever.

Edit: see also this link in relation to fan fiction. It's basically on shaky ground, tolerated by many or seen as an engagement boon, but not exactly a legally protected form of expression.

* I wrote never thinking in terms of gamebooks etc, but I think it might be acceptable in e.g. a novel set in the modern day where Yaztromo turns out to be a real person, for example. But given that computer games of FF exist, as well as the gamebooks, FF-set novels, board/card games and so on, I think trying to use Yaztromo as a non-satirical wizard game character in any kind of medium wouldn't fall under fair use.

[CharlesX]

Aug 22, 2023 12:15:59 GMT Wizard Slayer said:

Aug 5, 2023 14:56:47 GMT CharlesX said:

...because my understanding is unless you are putting your FF tribute in a negative\defamatory light, or heavily copying, most things would fall under fair use, the number of people being immaterial where they're free. You could certainly introduce someone such as Yaztromo, right?

Fair use is basically about you being able to use a reasonably necessary amount of a copyrighted work for research or comment. 

It means that, for instance, we can discuss the books here with quotes and so on without being in breach of the copyright. Loss of revenue only comes into it if you're claiming research/comment, but your use turns out to potentially cost the holder revenue. e.g. you can't include an entire copy of a book as an appendix to your criticism of it.

Having Yaztromo as a character in a book or game would never be free use, regardless of paid, free, for charity, as a tribute or whatever.

Taken. My point is I've seen commercial video games which aren't from the Tolkien universe and have a Wizard named Gandalf (I'm specifically thinking of Spellbound for 8-bit computers, whether there are other examples I don't know). So you're saying that's in breach of fair use? If it weren't, I guess you could include a wizard called Yaztromo, or one called Dumbledore for that matter.

[Wizard Slayer]

I've edited by post to add a bit more clarity. On the above, I never played Spellbound but I played Knight Tyme, so I'd guess the Gandalf there was more of a satirical character than the actual one from Tolkien.

I mean, you could maybe write a gamebook and have a wizard in it called Yaztromo who after introducing himself says "No, not that one!" A sort of satirical in-joke kind of thing. But if your whole game thing reads like it's Fighting Fantasy you'll be onto a loser.

Going back to the original OP, if it was very loosely themed on the Deathtrap concept, it might be fine, but then it would hardly be a fan videogame.

[kieran]

Aug 22, 2023 12:20:22 GMT CharlesX said:

My point is I've seen commercial video games which aren't from the Tolkien universe and have a Wizard named Gandalf

I think names have to be separately trademarked otherwise they're fair game. At any rate, Tolkien didn't invent the name Gandalf, it was the name of a dwarf in an Old Norse poem.

[CharlesX]

After refreshing my memory of Spellbound via Youtube it doesn't have a Wizard called Gandalf. It has a Wizard called Gimbal, so I think the same initial letter and other similarities must have meant I remembered it wrong.

   That was probably their trick all along. A wizard 'Iztramo' might be acceptable for a minor commercial work, where 'a wizard 'Yaztromo' wouldn't.

[fertobardi]

I was looking for a thread about license and i think i will add my doubt at this one already because i think its very related.

Otherwise i can open a new one just in case some one advises me.

Im developing a RPG mini-system that is a FF derivative. But my doubt about the license thing is:

Im not using the name or type of any specific FF creature, location or character of any FF book.

But im using to generate characters the stats: skill/stamina and mental. Should i have to change the names of skill or stamina?

The combat system mechanics is actually the same: skill+ modifiers+ 2d6: attack strenght.

But the way of deal damage and everything from there is different.

Is that having any chance of license issues? Because im already stating the system is a FF derivative like i see loads of RPG indies D&D derivatives and practically none of FF (at least here in Brazil). I have seen one called GNAT of a guy from here, forgot the name now, that i believe that i could call it FF derivative.

Manny thanks in advance.

[Wizard Slayer]

If literally the only direct usage is the use of Stamina, and the use of Skill + 2d6 = Attack Strength then it's hard to see like it's enough. Copyright doesn't apply to names or short phrases. For example, there are only so many alternatives to the word Stamina, so otherwise every RPG system could lay claim to sole usage of one of those words to denote some kind of health stat.

Scale also makes a difference. A hobbyist RPG enjoyed by a few hundred or thousand people for free probably attracts less attention than a multinational venture making millions per year. Copyright is different to trademarks: big multinationals chase little neighbourhood shops over possible trademark infringement (made-up example, PepsiCo inc. going after a little independent shop called Pepsi) because if you don't enforce a trademark you can lose it. The owners of FF copyright wouldn't be stopped from chasing a serious infringer if they let you 'get away with it' so they'll usually be less zealous.

[tyrion]

There are lots of gamebooks that use 2d6 or 1d6 + skill (or combat, or some other score) for combat resolution, and even more that use stamina (or life force, or vigour etc) to track health/wounds. Even Jon Green uses the same system (although as FF gatekeeper he's hardly likely to sue himself). So I wouldn't worry about it. Maybe just change the names.

GNAT isn't FF derivative, it's completely different, but it is freely available for anyone to use.

[fertobardi]

Thanks guys for the hints and clarifications.

Maybe on that case a little of semantics will do.

skill +2d6 + weapon bonus: "attack chance"

[thealmightymudworm]

Mar 4, 2024 19:25:39 GMT fertobardi said:

I was looking for a thread about license and i think i will add my doubt at this one already because i think its very related.

Otherwise i can open a new one just in case some one advises me.

Im developing a RPG mini-system that is a FF derivative. But my doubt about the license thing is:

Im not using the name or type of any specific FF creature, location or character of any FF book.

But im using to generate characters the stats: skill/stamina and mental. Should i have to change the names of skill or stamina?

The combat system mechanics is actually the same: skill+ modifiers+ 2d6: attack strength.

But the way of deal damage and everything from there is different.

Is that having any chance of license issues? Because im already stating the system is a FF derivative like i see loads of RPG indies D&D derivatives and practically none of FF (at least here in Brazil). I have seen one called GNAT of a guy from here, forgot the name now, that i believe that i could call it FF derivative.

Manny thanks in advance.

Yes, just to add my two pence, I'd say you should. Using an obviously FF-derived system and keeping 'Skill', 'Stamina' and 'Attack Strength' is just asking for trouble. In particular 'Attack Strength' is quite specific to FF – it's not a stat that all RPGs have an equivalent for – and in general they are somewhat signature terms.

For example: when there was a radio programme about FF it was called Skill, Stamina & Luck because that uniquely identifies the series.

Personally I'd avoid using all three, but using 'Skill' alone is very unlikely to cause any trouble. I'm not sure about 'Stamina'. "May your Stamina never fail" is strongly associated with FF.

[Per]

Puffin used to put a "concept copyright" line in their books, but Wizard and Scholastic have both dropped this. Does anyone know if that makes any difference whatsoever? It wouldn't surprise me if it never had much of a practical significance.

[tyrion]

Game mechanics can't be copyrighted, but the wording can. It's impossible to copyright 'rolling two dice and adding numbers to them', but the wording 'roll two dice and add your skill score' can be copyrighted. Just change the names and you'll be fine.

[fertobardi]

Mar 6, 2024 18:16:51 GMT tyrion said:

Game mechanics can't be copyrighted, but the wording can. It's impossible to copyright 'rolling two dice and adding numbers to them', but the wording 'roll two dice and add your skill score' can be copyrighted. Just change the names and you'll be fine.

Thanks really a lot guys.

Lets say i did the skill to dexterity and stamina to vigour or life thing but i keep saying that my system is a FF derivative because it really is.

Is there any risks still in doing this?

[Wizard Slayer]

Mar 6, 2024 12:48:21 GMT thealmightymudworm said:

I'm not sure about 'Stamina'. "May your Stamina never fail" is strongly associated with FF.

Mar 6, 2024 18:16:51 GMT tyrion said:

Game mechanics can't be copyrighted, but the wording can. It's impossible to copyright 'rolling two dice and adding numbers to them', but the wording 'roll two dice and add your skill score' can be copyrighted. Just change the names and you'll be fine.

Mar 8, 2024 2:09:00 GMT fertobardi said:

Lets say i did the skill to dexterity and stamina to vigour or life thing but i keep saying that my system is a FF derivative because it really is.

Is there any risks still in doing this?

One of the fundamental things about copyright is that you can't use it to protect ideas:

Copyright laws disfavor protection for short phrases. Such claims are viewed with suspicion by the Copyright Office, whose circulars state that, “… slogans, and other short phrases or expressions cannot be copyrighted.” These rules are premised on two tenets of copyright law. First, copyright will not protect an idea. Phrases conveying an idea are typically expressed in a limited number of ways and, therefore, are not subject to copyright protection. Second, phrases are considered as common idioms of the English language and are therefore free to all. Granting a monopoly would eventually “checkmate the public” and the purpose of a copyright clause to encourage creativity-would be defeated.

So how many words do you have to string together before you get copyright protection? 10? 20? 100? It’s not a matter of numbers. Whether you can stop someone else from using your literary phrases is dependent upon the uniqueness and value of the phrases as well as the way in which you (and the borrower) use them.

This article is long but extremely relevant. It makes the point (which I wasn't 100% sure of) that game rules cannot be subject to copyright. The expression of game rules could be: for example, a complicated combat system might be impossible to explain without writing out a paragraph or two that is substantially similar to the copyrighted work. Fighting Fantasy's combat system, with its multiple steps, talk of testing luck and so on, couldn't be replicated without arguable copyright infringement. If fertobardi is doing what they seem to be saying, Skill + modifier + 2d6 = Attack Strength but then with totally different approaches to the rest of combat, it likely doesn't infringe. 

People are focusing on the wrong aspect. Put another way, FF20 says "1. Roll both dice once for your opponent. Add its Skill score. This total is your opponent's Attack Strength." They can't use that to claim copyright over anything that tries to say in so many words "Roll two six-sided dice and add the total to your enemy's Skill plus modifier to give their Attack Strength." because then they're trying to copyright a game mechanic and/or single words/short phrases. If the next six stages were also written very similar to the text, though, then it becomes more likely to be a copyright infringement. And if it is, changing the names to e.g. Fight, Health, Fortune wouldn't make a blind bit of difference, any more than a novel of schoolboy wizard Barry Trotter at Boggleblurts would be acceptable if it was otherwise a substantial copy of the original.

As the article makes clear, you cannot claim copyright of a single normal word to identify an attribute. If FF could claim copyright of Stamina, RPG-a would have to use Endurance and claim copyright of that. RPG-b has to use Constitution, which means RPG-c has to use Resistance, and so on until the words run out. "When one person writes a few sentences explaining the concept of neutrality, then the specific way that paragraph is written may be protectable. Simply saying “neutral” isn’t."

Basically, FF cannot claim copyright of the terms Skill and Stamina. Nor can they copyright the idea of rolling two six-sided dice and adding them to a character attribute via a short phrase. But fertobardi has asked the wrong question: using Skill and Stamina won't determine if they're infringing, and using different words won't guarantee that they aren't. They would have to post up the full text of their proposed RPG rules for an opinion on that.

[fertobardi]

Wizard Slayer

Thanks a lot sir. I will try my best to give an overall overview to know your opinion. Some grammatical errors may be included because im trowing on the google translator extracting from the text that is in Portuguese to English.

Theres a short explanation first about how the melee combat works:

"In Minimal Quest's game system, melee combat is simultaneous. In combat turns, also called rounds or attack rounds, both players and enemies will have a chance to attack regardless of whose turn it is. This happens because, just like in real life, whoever defends the attack also has the chance to launch a counterattack almost at the same moment or shortly after. And in real combat, attacks from both sides often occur in quick succession at virtually the same time. So, for combats with weapons at short distances, regardless of whether it is the players' or the enemies' turn, the total attack values ​​are calculated and compared so that both can see who hit and who will take the damage. There are exceptional situations where a player may choose to play defensively, where even if they have a higher attack total than their opponent, they choose not to deal damage. It could be that a wizard mentally controlled his adventure friend to attack him, or some NPC that cannot be attacked for some reason. This mechanic adds dynamism and variability compared to other systems when it comes to combat. Not to mention that playing this way, as if the fight were happening almost in real time, adds a layer of depth and fun that makes threatening encounters and combats with enemies and creatures fun rather than boring."

Now to the main thing:

1. Roll 2d6, add to this value your current Dexterity value plus your weapon specialization value, if you are carrying that weapon in this combat. Make note of this total value, as this is your Attack Chance. Also take note of the result of rolling the 2d6, as this value will tell you how much damage you will cause if your attack is successful.

2. The GM will do the same step to check your opponent's Attack Chance and also taking note of the result of the 2d6 roll.

3. Now compare the values ​​of each Attack Chance. The highest Attack Chance will hit and deal damage for the round. If both values ​​are equal, this means that both blades parried each other's attacks and no damage was caused on either side.

4. The winner of the round will now check how much damage their attack caused. Weapon damage may vary due to their weight. If the winner of the round is using a normal sword that does 2 damage normally, you should check the value on your 2d6 roll. If this value is equal to or greater than 9, you add 1 more point of damage as it was considered a strong blow in a vital area, and will now cause 3 points of damage in total.

5. Repeat the process described in steps 1 to 4 until one fighter's Energy reaches zero or below.

6. If someone on a 2d6 roll rolls a double six, they immediately win the round. Even if the opponent's Attack Chance value was higher, such was the power of that strike. The double six automatically deals critical damage in which the highest damage, which in the case of the medium sword is 3 damage, is doubled to 6. If there is a double 6 from both attackers, no one deals damage and the weapons break each other, except if someone is carrying heavy weapons such as maces, war hammers, long swords and battle axes that do not break. If the confrontation takes place between two medium-weight weapons, such as normal swords, both will break. Light weapons such as daggers and batons will always break before a double 6 received by a medium or heavy weapon.

[Wizard Slayer]

Like I said, changing Skill -> Dexterity etc. won't change an infringing work into non-infringing*, so I've redone your rules below with Skill etc, because if they read as infringing there, they'd infringe even with those one-word changes.

1. Roll 2d6, add to this value your current Skill value plus your weapon specialization value, if you are carrying that weapon in this combat. Make note of this total value, as this is your Attack Strength. Also take note of the result of rolling the 2d6, as this value will tell you how much damage you will cause if your attack is successful.

2. The GM will do the same step to check your opponent's Attack Strength and also taking note of the result of the 2d6 roll.

3. Now compare the values ​​of each Attack Strength. The highest Attack Strength will hit and deal damage for the round. If both values ​​are equal, this means that both blades parried each other's attacks and no damage was caused on either side.

4. The winner of the round will now check how much damage their attack caused. Weapon damage may vary due to their weight. If the winner of the round is using a normal sword that does 2 damage normally, you should check the value on your 2d6 roll. If this value is equal to or greater than 9, you add 1 more point of damage as it was considered a strong blow in a vital area, and will now cause 3 points of damage in total.

5. Repeat the process described in steps 1 to 4 until one fighter's Stamina reaches zero or below.

6. If someone on a 2d6 roll rolls a double six, they immediately win the round. Even if the opponent's Attack Strength value was higher, such was the power of that strike. The double six automatically deals critical damage in which the highest damage, which in the case of the medium sword is 3 damage, is doubled to 6. If there is a double 6 from both attackers, no one deals damage and the weapons break each other, except if someone is carrying heavy weapons such as maces, war hammers, long swords and battle axes that do not break. If the confrontation takes place between two medium-weight weapons, such as normal swords, both will break. Light weapons such as daggers and batons will always break before a double 6 received by a medium or heavy weapon.

So, it clearly reads as the FF combat system with some tweaks to damage, but they can't claim copyright over the combat system.

I, personally, don't see any where the text can be claimed to be copied enough to infringe. I mean, take for example

5. Repeat the process described in steps 1 to 4 until one fighter's Stamina reaches zero or below.

compared to

7. Begin the next Attack Round by repeating steps 1-6. This sequence continues until the Stamina of either you or the opponent has been reduced to zero death).

I can imagine some people claiming that's a copy, but the point is you can't claim such extensive copyright over all variations of short phrases. Claiming your (5) infringes on their (7) would be to claim that almost any variation on "repeat steps 1 to N until this attribute reaches zero" is an infringement, which is to try and claim copyright over a game rule, which they can't do.

Another informative link. (Note that this is US copyright law - I'm UK, and I don't know what the law is in Brazil. But generally the concepts remain the same, globally.)


*One slight caveat is that your use of Skill, Stamina and Attack Strength might, might altogether be enough to be considered a copyrightable expression of an idea (that of a character engaging in combat), but it really would be the bare minimum and a bit of a reach, in my opinion. To keep reiterating the point, they can't copyright the game rules or the functional aspects, they can't claim copyright over single words like Stamina, but they might be able to claim that representing a fight between two characters with the attributes Skill and Stamina and calculating Attack Strength is a copyrightable expression of the idea (and this then would be true even if you e.g. used 3d6 or 1d20 or whatever to calculate Attack Strength).

But again it still seems far too limiting, because consider this: let's say Skill/Stamina/Attack Strength are considered copyrightable so you go with Dexterity/Energy/Attack Chance. By the same logic they're now copyright. It probably didn't take you long to come up with those terms did it? So it's not far-fetched to believe somebody else might have come up with those terms themselves already in something they maybe published the way you're talking about publishing, in which case boom, you're infringing on their copyright instead! See where it goes? All too soon all the combinations of trying to express these three combat mechanics run out, which isn't what copyright is there to do.



Ultimately only a (Brazilian) copyright lawyer will give you a proper answer, and even that might depend on whether you ask them to argue for or against. My rule of thumb is: the more you feel like you're copying something instead of deriving from it, the more likely you are to be infringing on copyright.

Fun fact to end on: apparently Skill and Stamina were Steve's idea while Ian favoured something like Strength and Endurance, so they played snooker to decide!