While running around on another mud (DSL) I was attacked by an "armsmen" class. He then proceded to entwine, eyejab, and strip me. Deja Vous! I then checked out the helpfiles and realized that armsmen are an exact rip-off of carrionfields warriors! Every skill they have is "borrowed" from your warrior specialties. When I raised the issue, the owner said, "I used a D&D book" and then sitebanned me.

I won't post the (DSL)'s address out of respect for y'all, but I will say this isn't the first material that's been stolen. I posted here to let y'all know that other muds are blatantly copying you. Keep up the good work, and if anyone would like some more information on how to harass the offensive mud.. My email is dfraser10185@gmail.com

One thing i've learned is that fantasy is way too popular. Very little is actualy original these days. Everybody is stealing from everybody else. Carrion fields didn't make up svirfnebli or duergar or necromancers and some of the place names are directly stolen from dungeons and dragons etc. Everybody is ripping off everybody else pretty much. I stopped caring ages ago.

You probably are right.

cf is somewhat of a standard. Also, numerous past cf players are very opinionated, and set in their ways.

they liked cf how it was, and disagreed with changes, so decided to make their own version "how they wanted it"





that being said....

Many things that cf has implemented over the last 5-7 years have not been "original" ideas. Some might have been thought up independantly by cf staff, I have no doubt, but still aren't original because VERY similar ideas had been thought up by others in the "Rom" and "Diku" mud realm.

For instance. I starting twiddling about on a mud of my own a number of years ago. nothing ever really realistically intended to go public, just some ideas and learning code and playing around with C and C++ etc. Sure, I used most of the cf warrior spec skills (in name, and guessed-at effects) and coded them up.....but I decided to switch it up a bit, and had warriors in a system very similar to what (6 months after I finished coding it) happened to be almost exactly the thief-points revamp.


I also had an idea, based on something I had seen on a completely different mud, for invokers with elemental and other protections...and came up with a system of "shields" (although I called them something different) that, while the mechanics is different, was coded about a year before CF invokers got elemental shields.


heck, I even made dual wield very user friendly, back in maybe 2000-2001 and the system I had works somewhat similarly to the recent dual wield changes in cf.


I'm not tooting my own horn. I'm saying, I have first hand experience that many great ideas in the DIKU mud world are often arrived at independently (some not so independently)...and while CF is still the gold standard of DIKU muds, it doesn't mean everything you see implemented in CF is "original" to cf.

Heck, I played another mud that had gold/silver/copper years before Cf made the change, and I'm sure if I dig through my "Romlist" (an email list where mud coders and implementors help each other with code problems) I could find a dozen things posted on that List, that *LATER* showed up in either minor or major changes in some form on CF.


but yeah, that mud probably "borrowed" warrior skills (probably not the direct code, but the names and somewhat usefulness) from cf. Soemtimes that's the price you pay for being so pimp....

What is it they say about mimicry?

Unless you really didn't know that e-mail address existed, posting that on the boards was a questionable benefit at best. At least with the e-mail you could give the address, a log, and then wipe your hands clean.

I won't speak here about the specifics of this matter.

In general, however, there is a legal and ethical distinction between convergent thinking and plagiarism. To use your example regarding a point-based system of warrior skills, Carrion Fields would make the case that:

1) The concept of a point-based system of purchase is obvious to a skilled tradesman. It is believable that two people working completely independently of one another would both come up with this idea. This is often called 'convergent thinking', and is especially applicable in systems where there are a limited number of optimal ways to solve a problem.

2) We had no way to be aware of your particular implementation. Ours is likely quite different in the details as well, including things like tying skill trees to specific guilds, etc.

3) Our own implementation may share a loose concept, but the bulk of the creative work is in selecting the skills, writing code to allow choice, and establishing rules of eligibility (in our case guilds, levels, prerequisites, etc.). We did not copy any exact text or structure, and I'm confident we would pass any audit of this if there was the basis for legal action.

4) The concept of a points-based system within a roleplaying game is not original to you. Countless pen-and-paper games use something along these lines (GURPS, etc.), and other MUDs have used something like this for years before we did, often as the basis for the entire skill system. In fact, points-and-prerequisites the is most common implementation in a classless environment.

In short, we can claim the similarities to be coincidental, and a reasonable arbiter would in all likelihood agree. I'm sure if you contrast the above with other cases you can think of, you can see the clear difference between convergence and copying. Carrion Fields has always taken the intellectual property of others seriously, and it shows in our creative process and published content.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I think he was pretty much saying that 'convergent thinking' is fairly common in this type of environment. I don't think he was accusing you of copying his idea.

I tend to agree. Much like I believe the concept of "jab" and "entwine", assuming the text or source wasn't copied verbatim, is too common and simple of a concept to claim intellectual property of.

Being that a fantasy world holds its believability by intersecting or exaggerating aspects of the real world, you're going to have a lot of convergent concepts in a fantasy setting, especially since the bulk of gameplay has been influenced by a small number of sources.

I tend to agree. Much like I believe the concept of "jab" and "entwine", assuming the text or source wasn't copied verbatim, is too common and simple of a concept to claim intellectual property of.

Yup. I'd expect an otherwise original system to have some overlap in function or appearance. Maybe they have a Jab skill, but it's hand-to-hand, or usable with any light weapon, or is a sword skill with a notably different implementation. Maybe they have a skill with an entirely different name that involves a quick, damaging strike which can't be parried. Etc.

As another example, when we came up with the Ooze path for invokers, some lunkhead claimed we lifted the whole thing out of some D&D supplement that I've never owned. The process instead went like so:

1) Well, Quicksand and Silt Screen should move over there.
2) What else? Slippery stuff? (Grease) Sticky stuff? (Adhesive Web) Gloppy stuff? (Gel)
3) We want another 'touch' spell. Acid is an existing damage type. Might make sense here. (Acidic Secretion) Maybe toss acid under this domain and throw in some kind of unique acid spell, less 'duh' than Acid Blast. (Vitriolic Stream) This covers the 'damage' niche that the path otherwise lacks.
4) Freebies. Toss in the two shields. Cover some stuff that existing shields are terrible at.

Is any of that plagiarism? Doubtful. If our helpfiles were word-for-word copies from some other source? Different story. If the entire set of spells and their effects was lifted from a source? Different story. If another MUD came along and took legal action, I can guarantee that the code would pass any audit as original work. (I wrote most of it, and it was early enough in my MUD-coding career that my style was, uh, 'original' in that it probably occupies a lot more lines and kludgy fixes than it would if I re-did it today.)

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

.

While I know it is all the rage nowadays intellectual property is such a broad term (and terrible description) that I wish people wouldn't use it. In this case, you are probably talking specifically about copyright infringement. Why? Because there isn't a trademark, and the chances of CF having patents seem low. In the case of copyright infringement, well unless it is verbatim copying of game text or game code, it probably doesn't apply. As a matter of professional courtesy and the desire to be unique/differentiate themselves, CF's staff has opted not to adapt ideas from other MUDs.

However just because they take this stance doesn't mean others have to. In the case of DSL or whatever, the guy some some skills he thought were cool and copied the idea of them, much the same way someone would take the idea of "rap" and make their own song. They had to recode (rewrite) the skill (song notes), and they had to add helpfiles and messages (lyrics). While I certainly think copying the entire warriors + spec idea and making that a new class is a little bunk, it doesn't mean anything illegal went on. Unethical maybe, but that depends on your viewpoint.

I'm not sure why I brought anything up other than to say, A) Intellectual property is a bogus term that is used by people who want to claim things beyond the realm of patents, copyrights, and trademarks can be owned, and that B) While this MUD is questionable ethically, I think is unlikely any legal action could be taken.

Of course I'm not a lawyer, and non of this is legal advice and all that jazz, but the term "IP" does bother me because it is unnecessarily vague.

I was trying to explain the whole convergent thing, without using that exact words.

I wasn't saying my ideas were original in the world, or even the basis in ANY way for anything that has been put in cf. I was using an example where people in the rom/diku family can arrive at solutions that on the outside look very similar.


I don't think you got that out of my post, I think you thought I was going a whole different way with it.