They're trying to kill Paizo for being too based. Allowing the first unions in our TTRPG market? No fucking way! Don't buy from Wizards ever again you hogs
They're trying to kill Paizo for being too based. Allowing the first unions in our TTRPG market? No fucking way! Don't buy from Wizards ever again you hogs
Let's say, hypothetically, in my creative work that does not claim any association (implicitly or otherwise) with the D&D property. Let's say, as an example, I am totally using the idea of Mind Flayers but not using D&D words/images for them.
In in the rare not-gonna-happen scenario that I make big buxs, are they likely to try to come after me?
There are very few original concepts in D&D. I think their only actually original monster is the Beholder.
Gotta real talk. Pathfinder is way cooler with monsters because they go and interview people from different cultures or even hire them (one dev is an Alaskan Native) to build a more diverse cast of stories and folktales. I was clamoring to get Strength of Thousands because it is such a breath of fresh of air to get a non-Western fantasy setting published for once.
The Mosquito Witch, for example, was heavily influenced by Native American and African folklore such as the Adze and Soucouyant
YES! SoT/Mwangi Expanse book was great for that, and there's a ton in various other books since then. Have you read Impossible Lands yet? Tons of good stuff there too! Breath of fresh air!
Displacer beasts, flumphs, a few others here and there.
I think you're right about Flumphs, though. WOTC/Hasbro owns the copyrighted names of these things, but they're generally folklore, based heavily on someone else's IP whose estate hasn't enforced copyright, or too generic. So, they go the Games Workshop route of using original copyrightable names (like Space Marines vs Adeptus Astartes, it's Displacer Beast instead of Coeurl), so other companies can call them something different and execute their abilities different enough and probably be okay (if they can afford to fight it in court).
Flumphs are actually in PF2E, so I'm pretty sure it was covered by OGL, but Beholders obviously arent
Mind flayers pre-date D&D as a concept, used in Lovecraftian fiction but not with that specific name. Gygax came up with the term “mind flayer” as a specific creature, but the book “The Burrowers Beneath” by Brian Lumley and its art inspired his creation heavily in his own words. Plus Lovecraft came up with Cthulhu from his own nightmares.
Chthonians from the burrowers beneath are large squidlike creatures that can psychically dominate and control lesser creatures, and reproduce by parasites in host bodies of other creatures. Not to mention Cthulhu himself who was created before Mind Flayers and is the obvious inspiration as he is a large, soul-eating betentacled humanoid
So I guess it depends on if you use the term “mind flayer” specifically or just pull from the Cthulhu and Lovecraftian mythos more generally
I think I'm ripping off mostly vibes and aesthetics but making up my own lore as I go.
The only published content I'm aware of is that GURPS' D&D knockoff line calls them "Mindwarpers", and they have yet to be sued.
They most certainly will come after you!
“They Sue Regularly” The Many Lawsuits Of TSR – Prime
"In 1992, Gary Gygax created another fantasy RPG called Dangerous Dimensions for GDW, the company that publishes Traveller. However, TSR was there again with a suit that would be laughed out of court today. They hadn’t yet learned the lessons Games Workshop would learn about copyright and mechanics–their initial complaint was that Dangerous Dimensions (which had since been changed to Dangerous Journeys: Mythus) was too derivative of AD&D.
A look at their complaint reveals… a lot of creative interpretation of the word “derivative.”
(2) The Heroic Persona Attractiveness rules in MYTHUS (pages 18, 102 and 391) are derived from the Comeliness rules in the AD&D UA (pages 6-7); TSR’s DRAGON Magazine, issue #67 (pages 61-62); and the WORLD OF GREYHAWK boxed set’s Glossography (pages 33-34).
(4) The concept of adjusting a character’s abilities corresponding to its age found in MYTHUS (pages 104-105) is derived from the similar concept in the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (page 13).
Here’s a couple of choice examples. Heaven forbid you have age adjust a character’s abilities. And as we all know, famously, AD&D invented Elves and Dwarves and was never sued by the Tolkien estate, not even once (they totally were):
(6) In MYTHUS (pages 94-95), the non-human player races, including gnomes, dwarves, alfar (elves) and alfen, are derived from similar non-human player races, including gnomes, dwarves, elves and halflings, in the AD&D DEITIES AND DEMIGODS book (pages 106-110); the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (pages 15-17); the AD&D UA (pages 8-12); and the AD&D LL (pages 91-95).
And the mentioning of Deities and Demigods is a particular overdose of irony, considering that particular book is full of figures derived from myths. Other popular things that TSR wanted to sue over include the idea of a character class or job or vocation:
(7) The MYTHUS concept of character vocations in MYTHUS (pages 13 and 70-71) is derived from the character class concept in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (pages 18-33); the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 16-21); and the AD&D UA (pages 12-25 and 74-75).
Or generating stats…
(8) In MYTHUS (page 67), the concept of and the method by which the game characters’ attributes are defined by randomly-generated numbers, and the players’ choices of vocations precede and alter such attribute generation, are derived from a similar concept and method in the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 11-12) and the AD&D UA (page 74). Advertisement
The list goes on, taking issue with almost every single point of the game’s rules, painting with a broad enough brush that TSR could then theoretically sue any and all other RPG companies out there for “using dice to determine the outcome of an action.” Let me leave you with this:
“(36) The “First Aid” skill in MYTHUS (pages 28 and 165) is derived from the AD&D “Cure Light Wounds” spell in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (page 43) and the AD&D OA (page 57).”