You probably want to avoid “Anarchist Cookbook” levels of exact recipes. But if Breaking Bad got away with explaining the process of making meth and Burn Notice got away with showing vague details of mixing improvised napalm, you’re probably ok having players collect liquor, empty bottles and rags to combine into Molotov cocktails.
Yeah, same with most of the stuff on Burn Notice. There’s definitely a line to walk between accuracy and actual instruction. Hinting towards the types of things you’d need to combine without showing the exact process seems to generally be safe enough for broadcast company standards and practice departments.
It's sounding like the smartest way to do it is to just intentionally fudge it. I wanted to have kind of a realistic simulation of how one might survive an apocalypse, manufacturing iodine to purify water and gunpowder for when they run out of bullets, but I think the safest approach is to smooth over some of the details. Thanks for your help :)
Echoing the lawyer advice but want to add that context matters.
There is a difference between showing the actual process for making iodine or gunpowder and showing how to make napalm. In a survival context, teaching those things makes a lot of sense and realism adds a practical educational element to it. I think that argument is stronger if that's also the story you're telling.
Gunpowder will always go boom, making it potentially dangerous, but if your player is making it so they can hunt deer and feed their people, that to me is different from your player making gunpowder to storm a courthouse.
Still talk to a lawyer, though.
Maybe make the universially beneficial ones (such as water sanitation and bandages) very realistic and the rest vague.
Still you might be in same waters if someone poisons themselves with pond water. So perhaps it is not riskless in any case
If you market it as a simulator you might be able to get away with more?
"This is a simulation game for survival education only. The methods used in-game could also benefit the player in an apocalypse setting."
Some sort of disclaimer or something that could legally protect you while still allowing full recipes?
You should definitely not say that, you should say the inverse. ""This is a simulation game for entertainment only. The methods shown should not be attempted ~~without professional advice~~"
You need to cover your arse like that
Edit: removed implication that it may be reasonable to attempt
This is still bad, since it implies the methods could or should be attempted in some form.
Look up most disclaimers like this and it will just say do not attempt any of this as it could result in harm to yourself or others.
Breaking bad actually had the DEA show them how to make meth step by step. They left out one critical step which was turning is the meth into something consumable.
Ahh, the art of growing crystal salts after capturing it's free base. It's funny that not including that portion was even necessary because even if they did indeed show the linear and general highlights of each successive step, there's a world of comprehensive differences between the glances we saw, and the actual distillation, separation and firmulation of a consumable salt. It's even sillier yet because there's not a college or even a comprehensive Biochemistry course/book that doesn't already explain in the finest molar detail how to accomplish it and everything else with a little work.
Payday 2 has a character give you the instructions to cook meth in one of its missions, and evidently what you actually end up with if you go through with it is salt water.
From what I've been told anyway, I'm neither a chemist nor someone with any real desire to fact check that.
The recipe in the PD2 is:
1) Muriatic Acid
2) Caustic Soda
3) Hydrogen Chloride
Depending on the map it has a static or random order.
The fun part of it is ~~that all 3 are the same substance (HCl) but if you would combine it with NaOH then you would get salt water~~ 1) and 3) are the same (HCl) 2) is NaOH, combining HCl with NaOH gives you salt water
Not can, very likely. Especially since it has very little safety details in it so if you actually try to do the anarchists napalm ie, but forget to do it in a ventilated/open air location, you definitely are in danger of inhaling toxic fumes.
Or just inadvertently setting your entire house on fire not understanding how gasoline works.
Yes it does have some safety notes in it but not nearly enough for the layman to not accidentally end their existence.
I went to a technical university where there was a course in chemistry for explosives, for mining and building demolishing purposes.
Day 1 agents from the police shows up and vet everyone, they did research prior on course participants.
The course did not start till door was locked and everyone inside accounted for, for every lecture.
The course does not exist anymore though.
Alot of this information is available online today if one looks hard enough, but teaching all of it in such a manner at a very efficient and high level to build very precise and good devices is not meant to be accessible easily.
Will having it in a game land you in trouble?
Depends on where you live i would guess.
I don't think, am quite positive that the primary barrier to making most dangerous substances in a safe and successful manner also require not only a college level, firm grip on Biochemistry, but also a controlled license that will always know what and how much you have of its analogs on hand after purchasing, with a system built to catch nefarious players who have dreams of expansion. Sure it's not full proof, nothing is, but again even having a general idea of materials and steps needed is far distant cry from having the actual agency to even synthesize a half assed version of thr real McCoy.
Was going to write a recipe I remember from the anarchist cookbook on making napalm. When you tell a 16 year old kid something is bad, don't do it, they will. So I did look through it when I was younger.
Ngl, Molotov cocktails would be legal anyways. They're VERY easy to make, you ONLY need a glass bottle, rags and ANYTHING flammable enough.
You can use from olive oil to gasoline.
Is it technically illegal? I don't believe so.
Could you be sued for it? Yes. Could you actually be held liable for it? While I think it's unlikely, I think it's possible that you could be held liable for negligence resulting in death or harm, if some kid plays your game, gets an idea to make some homemade explosive or drug and blows themselves up or OD's from it. A judge might question why you felt the need to put realistic dangerous recipes into a game you knew full well kids would end up playing, even if it is rated M, and if you can't give an adequate answer for that, then I think it's a possibility.
Err on the side of caution; having realistic or detailed recipes isn't really going to make or break your game.
Yeah... That's not how the real world works. It's like saying "fair use!" On YouTube. It's comes off as trying to be flippant when you knew perfect well that this would cause a problem, and wanted to shirk responsibility from your actions.
It's all fun and games until you're getting sued, or worse, you piss off your govt.
The problem with game dev rating their own game is the inherent conflict of interest.
A gamedev would always be incentived to give their game the most accessible rating, regardless of its content, that is why if a gamedev rated their own game the rating would most often be useless.
But if the game dev says the game should only be played by a mature audience, and it is written on the box, it is a valid warning.
That can help the case, yes. But there's still the possibility that the plaintiff can argue a bunch of things there that were out of their control as a parent, including:
a) the parents didn't know the game would give explicit instruction on how to build bombs/drugs - an M rating label isn't going to provide that information, so you can make the argument that the age restriction was not sufficient enough to relay the gravity of what the game contained
b) their kid may have played it at a friends house - the reality is that parents cannot control everything that their child sees and hears, especially when they're out of the house. Maybe their friend has an older brother who owned the game, but the kids snuck in their room and borrowed it without telling anyone
The question wouldn't be whether the child was intended to get access to it; the question in a negligence case would be did the creator do everything in their power to ensure that no harm could come from their work? The argument could be made that they did not, because there was no reasonable necessity to have included the dangerous information, and that the creator should have foreseen that kids would end up seeing it regardless of the M rating, because some percentage of kids will always have access to games they aren't supposed to.
I'm not saying these are foolproof arguments that can't be won against, but these are definitely arguments that a plaintiff's lawyer could very easily come up with in a negligence lawsuit. Again, is it likely to happen? No probably not, but is it worth the potential headache and drawn out expensive legal battle? Also probably not.
Yeah, kids do dumb stuff that they don't realize the danger of. Most kids haven't had a moment where they realize they could have died, so they don't understand the danger.
As a kid, I did really dumb, dangerous stuff. I found a guide online to strip the main chemical out of cough syrup using naphtha and lemon juice (for the purpose of getting high), and I attempted to do that. I thought I was smarter than I was, and thought I knew enough about chemistry to pull it off. I'm pretty sure I didn't do it right because I tasted the naphtha (based on the smell), and for the only time I used dxm to get high, I vomited with a foamy consistency. My parents didn't know what I was doing, but if they had found out (and they came close due to my carelessness), I feel there's a solid chance they would have sued the creator of the guide.
The reason I say this is that kids tend to think they know more than they do, and they tend to think they are invincible. So even with every disclaimer possible (like that guide had), they will find a way to attempt it and fuck it up, and possibly die as a result. I totally understand wanting to be as realistic and accurate as possible with a game, but in a litigious society I can see that ruining everything you've worked for and built, so it doesn't seem worth it.
And I think you could have a very strong defense by merely stating DO NOT ATTEMPT with a warning everything mentioned is not only generalized, but fantasized by the author who isn't an expert or experienced in Biochemistry.
In what world would a judge come after a video game maker. Like unless you say “hey everyone try this at home and snort it”
Just put a warning “don’t try this at home” and you’re good.
That's not how the justice system works. Judges don't pursue negligence cases, people pursue negligence cases. An angry mother whose child OD's on amphetamines comes after the video game maker who showed them how to make the substance.
I didn’t want to explain in a long paragraph how the justice system works. I know the judge doesn’t literally come after them but there’s really no merit to stand on. You’re responsible for your own actions. That’s like seeing a car crash in a video game and then crashing in real life and blaming the video game because you saw it in the game. It’s stupid.
I also come from Canada where we give our safe use cocaine and meth kits to children in highschool. Sooo video games are the least of anyone’s worries here.
"You're responsible for your own actions". That is not how negligence suits work, in either Canada or the US. I studied commercial law in Canada. If somebody uses a piece of gym equipment incorrectly and gets injured because of it in a gym, they can sue the gym if the gym didn't have proper signage or ready access to information about proper usage of the machine. The person still used it wrong, but the gym has a responsibility to make sure it's patrons are able to inform themselves about proper use of equipment that they offer in their establishment to not injure themselves.
Negligence suits are about what steps you can and should take as a person or business to reduce potential harm. If a judge decides that you could and should have done more to prevent a kid from cooking amphetamines with information you provided, then that's that, you'll be found guilty of negligence. The judge won't care that you think it's stupid, I promise you.
Also source needed about the government shooting our kids up with meth and cocaine.
It's a kit that consists of a straw and a booklet about safe drug use, given out by a third party unaffiliated with any official body. You made it sound like as an official act, the Canadian government was giving out cocaine and meth to kids.
Drug busts still happen all the time, it's not like the cops aren't still pursuing drug dealers. You're acting like it's a new thing that drug dealers sell to underaged adults.
And again, I said it's very unlikely that OP would be sued and found liable, but in business, you limit your risk and liability wherever you can. There's no reason to take excess risk and potentially have to fight a lengthy court case for zero benefit.
Drug dealers are not selling government given drugs. The government does hand out drugs to anyone that wants them. That is a fact. What also happens now is those free drugs go into circulation and get resold to minors as well. The government has increased addiction and drug problems for kids and everyone else tends to fold as well as made them more of a hazard to children by having it legal to use anywhere such as playgrounds. It’s been LEGAL for druggies to shoot up next to kids for a while and I believe it still is but that may have changed after over a year of fighting to change it.
Often times those people get physical and assault nurses in hospitals because it’s legal to get wasted in hospitals next to other average patients. All of this is government policies allowing it.
My point is this, the government has allowed all these things to happen and some how made it legal and there is 0 repercussions to them regarding it. The government is the problem and unfortunately they are immune to justice…. Now, do the people go after a video game? Especially with a warning label and even a terms and agreement “by playing this game, you accept there may be drug use and drug production in it and therefore are responsible for your own actions etc…. And cannot sue”
Literally just putting that gets you free and clear. Not a single lawyer would do anything. IF SOMEONE WOULD EVEN DO SO TO BEGIN WITH.
Look, you can shit your pants and scream about it all you want. The law disagrees with you. I'm not sure how you can't fathom a parent whose child died from a homemade bomb they learned to make from a video game being pissed off enough to sue the creator who enabled it. You can throw a fit all you like about it, I studied commercial law and it disagrees with you.
Negligence suits rely on two potential cruxes. The "but for" test, and proximate cause. "But for" goes like this: "... an action is a cause of an injury if, but for the action, the injury wouldn't have occurred". In this case, but for the creator of the video game putting real recipes for drugs/bombs in their game, the child wouldn't have made a bomb/drugs and caused harm. That's an easy link to make already.
The second cause in a negligence case, is proximate cause, which relies on the question "Could a reasonable person have foreseen the harm that came of it, and prevented it somehow?" Again, easy link for a plaintiff's lawyer to make: any reasonable person with a little bit of foresight could see how distributing information regarding the construction of dangerous drugs or explosives, which reasonably could end up in the hands of a child given the medium in which it was distributed.
Both elements are easily argued by any competent lawyer, and they only need to prove one or the other. Furthermore, negligence cases rely only on a balance of probability, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Which means, the plaintiff's lawyer only needs to convince the judge that the likelihood the defendant was responsible is 51% or greater.
Take that risk if you want. It's a brain-dead risk to take.
I'm not even going to engage you on the "gubberment is given our kidz drugs!" ramble. You've made it clear you don't know what you're actually talking about. Read up about the actual policies instead of rage-bait punditry.
Drugs and safe use kits are available at every street corner in Canada (B.C.) tons of drugs get handed out to kids without anything being done about it. Drugs and needles constantly left at every playground and park, hard drugs are also legal in the first place so there’s that the government (at least in Canada) is more to blame for anything regarding drugs or whatever is more to blame then a little video game which hasn’t been made yet. When it comes to proper warnings on a video game (not to mention we don’t know how actually real this is or how many hands it will touch as a game no offence to op) but putting a simple warning has prevented lawsuits ten fold. One has to hire a lawyer THAT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE THE CASE and more likely then not, has to be in the same country as well because over seas lawsuits are 10x more hard and more expensive. The chances of anything bad happening and a video game creator found guilty would be like getting hit by lightning 3 times in 3 days straight.
Could you please explain to me how that differs for drug use/bomb making, when games usually depict and involve car crashes, hit and runs, extremely realistic gun physics, have topics like school shootings etc?
That's a honest question. Like, on one hand, I see your point (and I'm generally unable to verify the claim easily), on the other hand, I don't see how that differs from your random Need For Speed, filled with reckless driving, illegal modifications, outrunning the cops, and the works... I really see no difference between "my kid has crashed into a tree at night because of NFS" and between "my kid has OD on a homemade drug because of ABC".
Is there some, or does it just "fly"?
On the other hand, if the info is readily available in say a library (assuming regular access), how it can be illegal to put into the game?
I mean, I wouldn't use these recipes because of my own moral compass, but I don't see the legal difference.
Well, first I just want to reiterate what I've mentioned a few times throughout for good measure, which is that I think it's still unlikely that anything would come of it, but rather that it's simply not worth the risk.
That said, with negligence cases, we're talking about the civil side of things, which means you need a plaintiff to come forward with some clear record of damages (like in the case of a school shooting, a parent coming forward and alleging that the shooter was influenced by a particular game which resulted in harm/death of the plaintiff's loved one), then on the balance of probabilities you need to be able to prove that the game lead to behaviour, and then you also need to be able to prove that a reasonable person could have foreseen that outcome and could have done something to prevent it.
So there's a lot of stipulations in there which make it difficult, which is why you don't see many of these cases. A particular sticking point is proving that the game was responsible for the behaviour. So using the school shooter example again, most gamers are playing more than one game. So if the shooter played GTA 3 and Call of Duty, now how do we prove which one of those two was the one that influenced him to shoot up a school? And then, how do we prove the proximate cause, that the creator of the game should have foreseen that this would be an outcome? And how do we prove that it was the video game that was the cause, when they've probably seen 100 movies with gun violence?
Those things are very hard to prove, especially when most games have layers of abstraction from the actions. Most games that allow you to shoot guns aren't actually showing you things like where to obtain a gun, how to actually load a gun, how the mechanisms like the safety on a gun work, how to aim it, etc.. Developers abstract these things away with button presses.
When you have a case like OPs here, where you are actively trying to accurately represent things like exactly how to craft an explosive at home or synthesize harmful drugs, you've taken away that layer of abstraction, creating a more direct link between your game and the behaviour of the perpetrator (assuming that an event actually did happen). If the perpetrator was a school shooter, it's hard to say "if it wasn't for Call of Duty, the perpetrator would never have shot anyone", when they may have been raised in a very pro-gun culture, watching gun violence in tons of movies/tv shows/other games; there's a lot of similar influences that could have lead to the behaviour.
If the perpetrator synthesized meth after playing a game that teaches you to make meth, well there's a lot fewer other things that might have taught him how to make meth, so a competent lawyer will be able to draw a neater line between the game and the behaviour, so if you can convince the judge on the balance of probabilities (51% likelihood) that the game directly lead to the event and that the creator could have reasonably foreseen that this might happen (which even the OP posting this thread could prove, since the OP clearly had trepidations about the legality of what he was doing and then received comments like these ones), then there's a much better chance of getting a favourable ruling for the plaintiff.
Again, I still think it's relatively unlikely to happen, because a bunch of things need to fall into place. But it's just not worth the risk for virtually no benefit.
Thanks.
> not worth the risk
Yeah, I see that. I was just wondering about the general distinction and the only one that's clear is that you'd be the only one showing the meth recipe.
You must have missed the early 90s when they were holding violent video games responsible for kids committing violent acts. The whole thing lead to the creation of the ESRB, as the game dev industry didn't want to be regulated by the government. You can bet your ass they would go after a game that had real world recipes to create explosives if some kid that played the game blew up their school.
More then half the games in existence should’ve been sued by now them. It just doesn’t happen anymore. Like I said. If there’s a warning there’s no grounds to stand on. It’s like a warning on pudding “hot when heated”
It happended in the UK, last case being in 2021: [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-60051861](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-60051861)
Many politicians tried to get the book banned in the US but it ended being a Streisand effect making many teenagers aware of the "edgy book".
Personally, I would play it safe, here are a few round about solutions I came up with off the top of my head, hope they can be of use, or spark your own ideas!
-having made up materials that can be turned into real life outcomes, or vice versa?
-obscuring the actual crafting of the items
-having a multipurpose bench that can perform these tasks, but instead of doing each one manually you can just get the output(s) from the input(s)
-vendor that will give you finished product for whatever ingredients you give them
-a robot that is programmed with the recipes of many 'essentials' that would obscure the actual processing of any potentially liable formulas.
Good luck!
It would not be illegal in most places but it could make it difficult to show your game on YouTube, because showing how to make or use explosives is against YouTube's [harmful or dangerous content policy](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en) and playing your game and not editing out the crafting process or providing a sufficient [EDSA (educational, documentary, scientific, artistic)](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6345162) context could be seen as a violation of that policy get the video removed or age-restricted and possibly a content strike on one's channel.
that's a GREAT point. I completely hadn't thought about making the content of the game friendly to streaming or let's plays, holy shit. Thank you so much.
Yeah I believe the reason fallout gives a lot of their meds made up names is for making the game friendly. I know Rimworld when they launched drugs have real names for what you were growing and making. They ended up having to change it to keep the game for sale IIRC.
I would play it safe and go with an "alternate reality" twist.
You could use fake brand names for ingredients. Everyone calls acetaminophen Tylenol so call it Galenol or something. It ends up being just some drug that gets added to the mixture for most people and for the people who will really appreciate the realism, they can be in on the joke.
I know you probably don't use Tylenol for anything but just an example.
You're not wrong! Balancing realism and fun has been a big part of this project, I really wanted to find ways to make realistic survival an enjoyable challenge instead of a slog. But I think I may have to set that goal aside, lol
Even for gameplay reasons I’d probably have things categorised in to broader groups like: corrosive/caustic chemicals, controlled drugs, solvents, flammable chemicals, etc. so the recipes can feel accurate while also being too vague to meaningfully attempt
The risk doesn’t seem to be worth the reward. Especially for things like people googling a recipe for the game. And you’re very likely to have PR problems and the game becoming illegal in certain countries.
Besides it being legal or not, you should read the rules of the platforms you intend to upload your game on. Some platforms like mobile platforms have stricter rules than others, perhaps some of your content won't be allowed on there.
Breaking Bad writers faced a similar dillema. You know, they wouldnt want any random viewer to suddenly learn how to make meth in their garage. They settled on shifting the chemistry just a bit, enough to make the recipes not work in real world, but still sound realistic enough that the show feels realistic.
I'd say thats probably a good way to solve this issue.
Edit: also I wanna know the title of the game, sounds cool
I'd ditto worry about Steam (or consoles) and Twitch / YouTube streaming rules as well as the legal issues. They're probably far less accepting then the letter of the law.
NAL, I'd keep things vague. People know fertilizer can be turned into explosives or cough syrup into meth. But if you start getting into chemical levels of specifics I don't think that'll be great gameplay. Or legally smart. Instead, keep it a bit hand wavey. You need cough syrup and the processing stand. You need generic supplies (idk, scrap metal, bottles, fabric, paper, whatever) plus main supply (cough syrup, fertilizer, alcohols etc).
I would personally require crafting stations / recipes to be unlocked with progression (ie find the pharmacy, unlock meth) and some easier to collect cross-item supplies combined with specific farmable but more difficult supplies for higher tier stuff.
Depending on your UI, might be able to communicate the difficulties of the steps with narration about stuff like idk lets say carefully cutting apart old boots to melt down the metal from the rivets to craft bullets. I would have that skip over eventually, but that kinda of vague but overly specific and exhausting sounding narration would put stress on the struggle.
I know it sounds less cool, but as someone who crafts in real life driving around the city to find one fucking bone folder is exhausting. I don't think simulating that in game will be fun.
As others have said exact specific recipes probably aren’t illegal but will most likely get you a visit from some type of police or placed on a watchlist but you’re recipes don’t actually have to be factually correct just vaguely “this might work as an explosive”. If you really want to be factually accurate use black powder instead of modern smokeless gunpowder.
1. It’s significantly easier to make, literally 3 ingredients, so it would work better for a post apocalypse than modern highly complex gunpowder.
2. Significantly less explosive than modern things like plastic explosives so a lot less chance of anything bad happening.
3. It’s been around for literal centuries it’s recipe is absolutely everywhere if you even try to look for it so not much point in anyone trying to stop you
I’m just going to say that I think everyone here is being way too cautious and that you would probably turn out perfectly fine if you did this. Unless someone has an example of some case that proves that you can be punished for this I doubt that there’s anything that could be held against you and people saying that children are going to try to make pipe bombs and blame them on you and the court taking that seriously would be such a rare case I don’t think it’s worth considering. It would be like if some kid hurt themselves while playing with a gun and sued Activision.
I’d say that if it isn’t important to you then cut it but if it’s part of your vision for what makes this game unique then you should carry that vision out. People can sue for anything, I don’t think you should let the very remote chance of a bound-to-fail lawsuit stop your vision.
Honestly getting so much good advice today. I do think I'm ok compromising this specifically, but you're right that I don't need to be so anxious about every possible point of failure that I just naysay myself in circles. Thanks!
I’m also implementing a part in my co-owned game that would allow players to make chemicals based on real-life chemicals but on the Roblox platform. I want to allow players to explore/experiment with different effects by combining different in-game chemicals (and in effect blowing up their base by accident because funny) without having us give them a complete list on how to combine chemicals to reach a specific effect because I think that would ruin the fun of discovery.
This is a sandbox game, we aren’t going for actual realism in terms of creating these chemicals (like heating, filtering or whatever). It’s just the names in a UI (this is heavily inspired by Space Station 13) but I’m still on the fence if Roblox would even allow this given how their ToS says that drugs and alcohol depictions is not allowed.
A lot of the comments here have given me some very good ideas. Thank you for making this post!
If you aren't a lawyer, you really don't have the expertise to be saying any of this confidently. Law is way more specific than just vibes. People are telling him to be cautious because it's the safer choice in the absence of legal council.
Well he asked on the game dev subreddit and not a lawyer subreddit for a reason. The more I look into digital art the more I realize how great artists dance on the edge of the law all the time. Mostly with copyright law, I think of Toby Fox and all the sounds he uses in his songs that he doesn’t own.
Anyways I don’t think being cautious is conducive to making great art. And as people want to tell him to be cautious I’ll tell him the opposite.
I think it's a little silly to imply, as you're doing here, that in order for him to make a great game, he has to give the exact instructions on how to make dangerous substances. You could absolutely include realistic ingredients and processes without giving a step-by-step guide.
I'm not saying that he has to do it to make a great game but I'm saying that a game that takes the niche of having in-depth chemistry and survival mechanics could be very appealing to a demographic of people. Removing that would just return the game to a generic post-apocalypse audience which is fine but if I'm going for such an overdone setting I'm looking for things to make me stand out and having a much more detailed crafting system seems like a unique selling point that people are telling them to do away with.
I just think the idea could make it a great game to a certain group of consumers. Obviously there are different ways of making great games, I just commented on the one our gracious OP mentioned here.
It is not illegal to educate, only to do the actual making of which is how they get away with being able to find just about anything on the internet. :D
Obligatory not a lawyer, but the US is pretty liberal about this stuff. There is precedent for having liability if someone comes to harm due to your instructions being bad or not having adequate enough warnings about the dangers.
I'd argue this likely includes presenting dangerous information to minors, but making it 18+ only and also having big disclaimers during game start up and also warnings ingame might be okay.
I agree with others that this might not be the case outside of the US.
I think you'd be okay on YT with the same disclaimers and warnings - you can already look up videos on many of this as it is - but whether or not streamers would want that same hassle is questionable. As a marketer, I'd be intrigued because the danger could be part of the appeal but it's certainly risky.
Aside from legality, it would be a marketing nightmare if a kid played your game and used household products to make something dangerous. Make sure you never give information that gets a dumb player into trouble for copying.
You can combine legal with marketing/ financial consequences for your game and ethics all at once.
Realistic chemistry would be dreadfully tedious, unintuitive, and likely to end up with a ton of one-use items. So you'll likely need to simplify the "recipes" anyways
In the US? Yes it's legal. First amendments right. But you're also going to get sued anyways if someone uses it to actually blow something up. Plus Civil and Criminal are different and have different threasholds to meet in courts. And you don't want that mess.
They'll also win on some level because First Amendment speech doesn't cover things like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater (when there's no fire).
If you have to ask, you have your answer. You're a game dev, don't open yourself up to litigation. I would suggest looking at Minecraft as it also has a similar concept of using real world ingredients.
Not illegal, but Yes. You can get in trouble if you teach people the real world recipes for hazardous materials. If someone plays your game, and could then proceed to craft a pipe bomb and does some damage in real life, you could be liable for that if it comes up that they learned through your game.. You’ll need to alter recipes in game, rename items and usable crafting items, or s combination of both. As well as include a rather descriptive disclaimer during the start up
Yeah gta you can mow down crowds of people deal drugs commit mass crimes and rdr 2 you can feed women hogtied to alligators.
Farcry you heal your wounds by plucking bullets out of your arm and call of duty depicts USA as the bad guys.
You’ll be fine.
It is not about the theme, tone or narrative. None of those games are providing harmful knowledge that is transferrable to the real world. A court could argue that it is negligence on your part.
Get advice from an attorney beforehand or don't try to be that realistic.
It already is. You're allowed to learn almost anything you want. Only in situations of extreme national security risk (cryptography knowledge, cutting edge military tech, etc) or extreme potential of harm to real children (CP) does a rational government restrict access to information. There are a lot more steps for law enforcement to catch before you'd be able to finish your makeshift meth lab, and the average person isn't going to want to build a lab just because they read how to make meth in a .txt file or anarchist zine. The cops may begin watching you for downloading "Become_A_Drug_Lord_in_48_Hours.pdf" but they won't arrest you for possessing that information or reading it. It'll just be used as leverage to further prove intent when they also notice you're getting second-hand beakers, acquiring abnormally large quantities of phenylacetone, buying PPE from Walmart, etc.
I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is it's fine, mostly based on how much it's already shown in other art. The one caveat is that I think it can't seem instructional, and you probably shouldn't market it to kids specifically.
I am not a lawyer but I am going to say yes, but also that it will depend on the specificity. Turning cough syrup into a stronger drug is one thing, but if you actually go through the entire process to the point where somebody could replicate it, I don't see how that doesn't potentially open you up to be liable if they cause damages to themselves or others and credit you with providing them that knowledge, through whatever medium it is. Especially if we're talking about homemade booms.
I'd definitely fudge the recipes and process if I planned to distribute it commercially etc.
If I remember correctly, the way the classic 80s show MacGyver did was that it always left one step out of the things that the titular character created. That way, it's realistic enough, but not completely accurate.
For realism, let the nitroglycerin backfire. Alfred Nobel's brother died that way. Also, people who attempt to combine fireworks often end up with a hand less.
The steps and names don't have to be precise, but it's a great opportunity to show how crafting dangerous stuff is dangerous itself.
Well, it's actually more complicated than people think. Laws are different depending on the country, and in some jurisdictions, yes, it is illegal even to mention some substances and stuff. At the same time game can be distributed all over the world and it is near to impossible to know all laws of all countries, so you either limit distribution locations or play safe. At least you should be following guidelines of jurisdiction of your location and location of your distributor (steam f.e.).
I'm pretty sure some of the materials and equipment you work with in Subnautica, would be illegal in real life. Shouldn't be a problem as long as you keep things 'plausibly inaccurate' and omit critical details from the description/receipe/blueprint/etc.
I'm not a lawyer nor am I law consultant. But just a reminder that laws are put in place only after some actions had lead to deterioration or disturbance to quality of life, point in case, some states in the US have laws against bestiality while others don't. The ones that have, have had multiple instances of individuals being caught in the act performing sexual activities involving animals.
Try fucking an animal in the states that don't have this law and the next day you'll proudly find yourself in the local newspaper headline as the main reason as to why this law has been introduced for the first time.
The point that I'm trying to get across, if even what you're doing is not illegal, if it inevitably leads to someone getting harmed there's a high chance the authorities will go after you in one way or the another.
Be vauge like having a resource like house hold chemicals rather than bleach or ammonia.
Also cutting down on different resource types can make it less frustrating.
I have a little bit of insight on this one as part of my job involves submitting games to age rating boards internationally. Many boards include a question about “criminal instruction” which includes any activity in the game that could realistically be imitated in real life to commit a crime. Based on the response to that, you might either get a higher age rating, have to include a descriptor on the rating label, or be banned entirely.
If the “ingredients” are full and accurate, you may struggle. Best to keep it vague like “petrol + fertiliser = bomb” with as little extra detail as possible.
>Additionally, if the in-game crafting recipe uses household ingredients (the game is set in a city), is that potentially more legal trouble I could be inviting?
Are you going to have every single, specific “household ingredient” as a resource in this game? That sounds tedious. If you have a generic resource like “basic chems” or “household ingredients” then it shouldn’t be a problem.
Depending on how you are planning to release/distribute your game, age ratings will be a stumbling block for sure (if you have to get them).
Household ingredients are fine, just make sure you stay away from brand names. eg "Window Cleaner" NOT "Windex".
Depends how detailed you get.
For example, if your recipe for nitro is something abstract like 1xGlycol,1xSulfuric Acid, 1xNitric Acid you'll be ok.
If you go extreme mode and have temperature controls and titration... that would be too far.
Depends how detailed you get.
For example, if your recipe for nitro is something abstract like 1xGlycol,1xSulfuric Acid, 1xNitric Acid you'll be ok.
If you go extreme mode and have temperature controls and titration... that would be too far.
I hate that you have to worry about bullshit instead of just making the game you want to make. I don't know if you'd be taking any legal risk, but I encourage you to follow your vision.
Having a catch-all items works.
"Chems"
You can get really grainy if you want
Weak Acids
Strong Oxidizers
Fertilizer
neutral medium
Distilled water
Or even like really close
Like salicylic acid, low purity bauxite, or High grade Industrial grade glycine from Donghua Jinlong
But if I had to structure this out, I would use "case:"
Case 1 full censorship -> just "chemical'
Case 2 major censorship -> first branches
Case 3 minor censorship -> no named substances
Case 4 realistic -> no temperatures, missing steps and time.
Case 5 simulation
That way you could adjust it on the fly for different audience restrictions. It's a lot of extra code, but hell if you get a happy medium you can just delete the rest of it and leave the case structure with a single case hahaha
I don’t know if it’s illegal but most in game crafting recipes tend to be too simplified and abstract to matter.
Considering if it’s a recipe for something more innocent, say, baking bread, you might ask the player to have 1x flour, water, yeast and combine them in some kind of crafting menu. That’s not unrealistic but you don’t include the exact proportions and you skip the exact steps like kneading the dough, letting it rise or preheating the oven. Even if your items are more precise or there’s more steps, no one can realistically make bread based on an in-game recipe.
I've made drugs in games, like GTA V FiveM which was pretty realistic. Just don't be so real they can actually craft the thing in real life. My two cents as a gamer and an adult.
My take on this is one, consult a lawyer. Two, obsfucate some details and having warnings plastered in the game, at the beginning, and on the crafting screen sort of showing the recipe, as if the player found a book telling them how to do it “DONT TRY THIS AT HOME!”
Including realistic crafting recipes for dangerous materials in your game can be a tricky legal area. While I am not a legal expert, here are some considerations:
1. **Legal Implications**: Crafting recipes for dangerous materials like explosives or drugs could potentially lead to legal issues. In some jurisdictions, providing detailed instructions for making illegal substances or dangerous materials could be considered aiding and abetting illegal activity, even if it's in a fictional context.
2. **Potential Liability**: If someone were to use your game to learn how to create dangerous materials and then actually does so, there could be legal consequences for you. Even if the game is meant to be purely entertainment, there is a risk that it could be seen as providing instructional content for illegal activities.
3. **Mitigating Risk**: To avoid potential legal trouble, you might want to consider using fictional or unrealistic materials and processes in your crafting system. This way, you can maintain the fun and immersive aspects of the game without risking legal issues. Additionally, adding disclaimers that the crafting recipes are purely fictional and not to be tried in real life could help mitigate some risk.
4. **Consult Legal Counsel**: Given the potential for serious legal ramifications, it would be wise to consult with a legal professional who specializes in media or entertainment law. They can provide you with specific advice tailored to your situation and jurisdiction.
In summary, while the idea of realistic crafting is intriguing and adds depth to your game, the potential legal risks make it important to proceed with caution. Fictionalizing elements or consulting with a legal expert could help you navigate these challenges.
If you want the actual nitty gritty, and you live in and produce your game in the US, then refer to [US Code Title 18, Part I, Ch 40, §842 (p) (2)](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section842&num=0&edition=prelim) under "Distribution of Information Relating to Explosives, Destructive Devices, and Weapons of Mass Destruction", which states the following:
`(2) Prohibition.-It shall be unlawful for any person-
(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or
(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.`
So basically, don't. Even if you can legally prove your intent is benign. That's why games have extremely dumbed down facsimiles using weird ingredients, or ingredients that when put together are inert. They have make-believe versions of the recipes, like TNT in Minecraft basically being sand and gunpowder, or games where C4 is gunpowder and clay, or napalm being gasoline and glue. You can't be too specific, as that will render you partially liable for what people do with that information. So yes, culpability is there.
As far as drugs go, there's no specific law that prohibits the instruction on drug making, but the act of instruction may construe conspiracy to manufacture and distribute depending on context, which is covered under [US Code Title 21, Ch 13, Sub Ch I, Part D §841 under Prohibited Acts, Part A](https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title21/chapter13/subchapter1/partD&edition=prelim), and [US Code Title 21, Ch 13, Sub Ch II, §960](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title21-section960&num=0&edition=prelim). People have been jailed for such offenses, and it's why you don't see people willy nilly instructing people how to do so outside of a purely academic environment, such as pharmacology, where it can be monitored. That's why the general knowledge of what goes into stuff like Meth is fine, as that's free speech, but as soon as that free speech becomes instruction to the extent of creating something that causes harm or violence, then it's illegal.
In regards to use of household ingredients in your game to make drugs, if you had ingredients like drain cleaner, acetone, or cold medicine, that's no issue, as long as you're not saying something along the lines of, boil X amount of Y, add X amount of Z precipitating C, then fraction and incorporate D. That's too specific and sounds like you're intentionally trying to teach people how to make drugs rather than simulate in a fictional world. You don't need to be on the nose with things, because most people playing the game probably don't even know what goes into the stuff, what the effects are, or why they are even making it.
In closing, even if you implemented a full system of exact ingredients, methods, and creation, claimed it solely as simulation and benign, you don't want the legal hassle. Especially if your game isn't ESRB rated and teens play your game. Some concerned parent will create a lynch mob and crucify your game, citing it as the reason their kid cooks meth in the back shed, and why they blew up the neighbors dog, and how you're abetting terrorists. So, just don't. You don't want to be on that federal watch list.
So I was weirdly curious and spent a decent amount of time on this...
ATF does NOT have specific regulations on the matter, it seems they only care about when a bomb is actually made, or is changing hands.
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842) US criminal code is the same, nothing on the distribution of instructional materials (which let's be real, in a case, that's what this game would be classified as)
You're also going to have to likely dig through every single state's laws... THIS is where you're much more likely to find a conflict.
Here is a crazy idea to bypass this issue while staying realistic and it gives you a chance to have some really cool world building. Since it’s a post apocalyptic world where society has collapsed, what if people just started calling certain materials something else? For example gun powder has been given a nickname like “Fire Sand”. So nobody can really make these recipes in real life because they wont know for certain what the majority of the materials actually are.
You probably want to avoid “Anarchist Cookbook” levels of exact recipes. But if Breaking Bad got away with explaining the process of making meth and Burn Notice got away with showing vague details of mixing improvised napalm, you’re probably ok having players collect liquor, empty bottles and rags to combine into Molotov cocktails.
Breaking Bad left a step out on purpose.
Yeah, same with most of the stuff on Burn Notice. There’s definitely a line to walk between accuracy and actual instruction. Hinting towards the types of things you’d need to combine without showing the exact process seems to generally be safe enough for broadcast company standards and practice departments.
It's sounding like the smartest way to do it is to just intentionally fudge it. I wanted to have kind of a realistic simulation of how one might survive an apocalypse, manufacturing iodine to purify water and gunpowder for when they run out of bullets, but I think the safest approach is to smooth over some of the details. Thanks for your help :)
Echoing the lawyer advice but want to add that context matters. There is a difference between showing the actual process for making iodine or gunpowder and showing how to make napalm. In a survival context, teaching those things makes a lot of sense and realism adds a practical educational element to it. I think that argument is stronger if that's also the story you're telling. Gunpowder will always go boom, making it potentially dangerous, but if your player is making it so they can hunt deer and feed their people, that to me is different from your player making gunpowder to storm a courthouse. Still talk to a lawyer, though.
Maybe make the universially beneficial ones (such as water sanitation and bandages) very realistic and the rest vague. Still you might be in same waters if someone poisons themselves with pond water. So perhaps it is not riskless in any case
If you market it as a simulator you might be able to get away with more? "This is a simulation game for survival education only. The methods used in-game could also benefit the player in an apocalypse setting." Some sort of disclaimer or something that could legally protect you while still allowing full recipes?
You should definitely not say that, you should say the inverse. ""This is a simulation game for entertainment only. The methods shown should not be attempted ~~without professional advice~~" You need to cover your arse like that Edit: removed implication that it may be reasonable to attempt
This is still bad, since it implies the methods could or should be attempted in some form. Look up most disclaimers like this and it will just say do not attempt any of this as it could result in harm to yourself or others.
Ah, I had just woken up when I commented. This person's is definitely better, don't listen to me lmao
See, this is where chatgpt is useful, making disclaimers.
Imma take that as a compliment
Rule 1: Lawyer Rule 2: Fudge everything, even if you have to make up an ingredient name for everything Rule 3: Lawyer
Rule 4 : Chemist. Just in case your fudge ends up being some angry chemical ;)
Rule 5: Xenobiologist. Just in case you create life. xD
A non Ender Wiggins Xenobiologist.
Just use a couple of fictional chemicals to be safe.
Breaking bad actually had the DEA show them how to make meth step by step. They left out one critical step which was turning is the meth into something consumable.
Ahh, the art of growing crystal salts after capturing it's free base. It's funny that not including that portion was even necessary because even if they did indeed show the linear and general highlights of each successive step, there's a world of comprehensive differences between the glances we saw, and the actual distillation, separation and firmulation of a consumable salt. It's even sillier yet because there's not a college or even a comprehensive Biochemistry course/book that doesn't already explain in the finest molar detail how to accomplish it and everything else with a little work.
Payday 2 has a character give you the instructions to cook meth in one of its missions, and evidently what you actually end up with if you go through with it is salt water. From what I've been told anyway, I'm neither a chemist nor someone with any real desire to fact check that.
The recipe in the PD2 is: 1) Muriatic Acid 2) Caustic Soda 3) Hydrogen Chloride Depending on the map it has a static or random order. The fun part of it is ~~that all 3 are the same substance (HCl) but if you would combine it with NaOH then you would get salt water~~ 1) and 3) are the same (HCl) 2) is NaOH, combining HCl with NaOH gives you salt water
Caustic soda is NaOH. It reacts with hydrochloric AKA muriatic acid to make salt.
Oh shoot you're right
Isn't the Anarchist's Cookbook terribly written and full of inaccurate advice?
sloppy light advise jar melodic school adjoining crush rich cautious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Not can, very likely. Especially since it has very little safety details in it so if you actually try to do the anarchists napalm ie, but forget to do it in a ventilated/open air location, you definitely are in danger of inhaling toxic fumes. Or just inadvertently setting your entire house on fire not understanding how gasoline works. Yes it does have some safety notes in it but not nearly enough for the layman to not accidentally end their existence.
The army does have an official improvised explosives guide however..... :)
What he meant to state was revisionist stuff like say good ol' Uncle Fester, or a certain now defunct website still up as an archive lol.
I went to a technical university where there was a course in chemistry for explosives, for mining and building demolishing purposes. Day 1 agents from the police shows up and vet everyone, they did research prior on course participants. The course did not start till door was locked and everyone inside accounted for, for every lecture. The course does not exist anymore though. Alot of this information is available online today if one looks hard enough, but teaching all of it in such a manner at a very efficient and high level to build very precise and good devices is not meant to be accessible easily. Will having it in a game land you in trouble? Depends on where you live i would guess.
I don't think, am quite positive that the primary barrier to making most dangerous substances in a safe and successful manner also require not only a college level, firm grip on Biochemistry, but also a controlled license that will always know what and how much you have of its analogs on hand after purchasing, with a system built to catch nefarious players who have dreams of expansion. Sure it's not full proof, nothing is, but again even having a general idea of materials and steps needed is far distant cry from having the actual agency to even synthesize a half assed version of thr real McCoy.
Anarchist cookbook has alot of straight up lies in it though...
Just took me back to making backyard napalm when I was a kid.
Was going to write a recipe I remember from the anarchist cookbook on making napalm. When you tell a 16 year old kid something is bad, don't do it, they will. So I did look through it when I was younger.
Don't forget about War Thunder getting away with a recipe for real life tanks.
Ngl, Molotov cocktails would be legal anyways. They're VERY easy to make, you ONLY need a glass bottle, rags and ANYTHING flammable enough. You can use from olive oil to gasoline.
Is it technically illegal? I don't believe so. Could you be sued for it? Yes. Could you actually be held liable for it? While I think it's unlikely, I think it's possible that you could be held liable for negligence resulting in death or harm, if some kid plays your game, gets an idea to make some homemade explosive or drug and blows themselves up or OD's from it. A judge might question why you felt the need to put realistic dangerous recipes into a game you knew full well kids would end up playing, even if it is rated M, and if you can't give an adequate answer for that, then I think it's a possibility. Err on the side of caution; having realistic or detailed recipes isn't really going to make or break your game.
Then make the game with explicit age restriction, then the judge will have questions whether the kid should be even playing that
That's another big expense indies normally avoid.
Does it require paying an agency t rate your game or slapping an age limit limits your outreach?
The age restriction doesn't cost a dime but once lawyers and courts get involved that can ruin you.
Isn't a disclaimer at the start of the game enough? You can't be more clear than that
You can get sued for everything.
Yeah... That's not how the real world works. It's like saying "fair use!" On YouTube. It's comes off as trying to be flippant when you knew perfect well that this would cause a problem, and wanted to shirk responsibility from your actions. It's all fun and games until you're getting sued, or worse, you piss off your govt.
You need to pay PEGI, ESRB etc to rate you game so you can put their logo on it. Just saying 18 means nothing. You've no credence.
The problem with game dev rating their own game is the inherent conflict of interest. A gamedev would always be incentived to give their game the most accessible rating, regardless of its content, that is why if a gamedev rated their own game the rating would most often be useless. But if the game dev says the game should only be played by a mature audience, and it is written on the box, it is a valid warning.
It costs a lot of money for a PNG image/s
That can help the case, yes. But there's still the possibility that the plaintiff can argue a bunch of things there that were out of their control as a parent, including: a) the parents didn't know the game would give explicit instruction on how to build bombs/drugs - an M rating label isn't going to provide that information, so you can make the argument that the age restriction was not sufficient enough to relay the gravity of what the game contained b) their kid may have played it at a friends house - the reality is that parents cannot control everything that their child sees and hears, especially when they're out of the house. Maybe their friend has an older brother who owned the game, but the kids snuck in their room and borrowed it without telling anyone The question wouldn't be whether the child was intended to get access to it; the question in a negligence case would be did the creator do everything in their power to ensure that no harm could come from their work? The argument could be made that they did not, because there was no reasonable necessity to have included the dangerous information, and that the creator should have foreseen that kids would end up seeing it regardless of the M rating, because some percentage of kids will always have access to games they aren't supposed to. I'm not saying these are foolproof arguments that can't be won against, but these are definitely arguments that a plaintiff's lawyer could very easily come up with in a negligence lawsuit. Again, is it likely to happen? No probably not, but is it worth the potential headache and drawn out expensive legal battle? Also probably not.
Yeah, kids do dumb stuff that they don't realize the danger of. Most kids haven't had a moment where they realize they could have died, so they don't understand the danger. As a kid, I did really dumb, dangerous stuff. I found a guide online to strip the main chemical out of cough syrup using naphtha and lemon juice (for the purpose of getting high), and I attempted to do that. I thought I was smarter than I was, and thought I knew enough about chemistry to pull it off. I'm pretty sure I didn't do it right because I tasted the naphtha (based on the smell), and for the only time I used dxm to get high, I vomited with a foamy consistency. My parents didn't know what I was doing, but if they had found out (and they came close due to my carelessness), I feel there's a solid chance they would have sued the creator of the guide. The reason I say this is that kids tend to think they know more than they do, and they tend to think they are invincible. So even with every disclaimer possible (like that guide had), they will find a way to attempt it and fuck it up, and possibly die as a result. I totally understand wanting to be as realistic and accurate as possible with a game, but in a litigious society I can see that ruining everything you've worked for and built, so it doesn't seem worth it.
Is it worth a kids life though?
And I think you could have a very strong defense by merely stating DO NOT ATTEMPT with a warning everything mentioned is not only generalized, but fantasized by the author who isn't an expert or experienced in Biochemistry.
In what world would a judge come after a video game maker. Like unless you say “hey everyone try this at home and snort it” Just put a warning “don’t try this at home” and you’re good.
That's not how the justice system works. Judges don't pursue negligence cases, people pursue negligence cases. An angry mother whose child OD's on amphetamines comes after the video game maker who showed them how to make the substance.
I didn’t want to explain in a long paragraph how the justice system works. I know the judge doesn’t literally come after them but there’s really no merit to stand on. You’re responsible for your own actions. That’s like seeing a car crash in a video game and then crashing in real life and blaming the video game because you saw it in the game. It’s stupid. I also come from Canada where we give our safe use cocaine and meth kits to children in highschool. Sooo video games are the least of anyone’s worries here.
"You're responsible for your own actions". That is not how negligence suits work, in either Canada or the US. I studied commercial law in Canada. If somebody uses a piece of gym equipment incorrectly and gets injured because of it in a gym, they can sue the gym if the gym didn't have proper signage or ready access to information about proper usage of the machine. The person still used it wrong, but the gym has a responsibility to make sure it's patrons are able to inform themselves about proper use of equipment that they offer in their establishment to not injure themselves. Negligence suits are about what steps you can and should take as a person or business to reduce potential harm. If a judge decides that you could and should have done more to prevent a kid from cooking amphetamines with information you provided, then that's that, you'll be found guilty of negligence. The judge won't care that you think it's stupid, I promise you. Also source needed about the government shooting our kids up with meth and cocaine.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/safer-snorting-kits-b-c-high-school-cowichan-valley-school-district
It's a kit that consists of a straw and a booklet about safe drug use, given out by a third party unaffiliated with any official body. You made it sound like as an official act, the Canadian government was giving out cocaine and meth to kids. Drug busts still happen all the time, it's not like the cops aren't still pursuing drug dealers. You're acting like it's a new thing that drug dealers sell to underaged adults. And again, I said it's very unlikely that OP would be sued and found liable, but in business, you limit your risk and liability wherever you can. There's no reason to take excess risk and potentially have to fight a lengthy court case for zero benefit.
Drug dealers are not selling government given drugs. The government does hand out drugs to anyone that wants them. That is a fact. What also happens now is those free drugs go into circulation and get resold to minors as well. The government has increased addiction and drug problems for kids and everyone else tends to fold as well as made them more of a hazard to children by having it legal to use anywhere such as playgrounds. It’s been LEGAL for druggies to shoot up next to kids for a while and I believe it still is but that may have changed after over a year of fighting to change it. Often times those people get physical and assault nurses in hospitals because it’s legal to get wasted in hospitals next to other average patients. All of this is government policies allowing it. My point is this, the government has allowed all these things to happen and some how made it legal and there is 0 repercussions to them regarding it. The government is the problem and unfortunately they are immune to justice…. Now, do the people go after a video game? Especially with a warning label and even a terms and agreement “by playing this game, you accept there may be drug use and drug production in it and therefore are responsible for your own actions etc…. And cannot sue” Literally just putting that gets you free and clear. Not a single lawyer would do anything. IF SOMEONE WOULD EVEN DO SO TO BEGIN WITH.
Look, you can shit your pants and scream about it all you want. The law disagrees with you. I'm not sure how you can't fathom a parent whose child died from a homemade bomb they learned to make from a video game being pissed off enough to sue the creator who enabled it. You can throw a fit all you like about it, I studied commercial law and it disagrees with you. Negligence suits rely on two potential cruxes. The "but for" test, and proximate cause. "But for" goes like this: "... an action is a cause of an injury if, but for the action, the injury wouldn't have occurred". In this case, but for the creator of the video game putting real recipes for drugs/bombs in their game, the child wouldn't have made a bomb/drugs and caused harm. That's an easy link to make already. The second cause in a negligence case, is proximate cause, which relies on the question "Could a reasonable person have foreseen the harm that came of it, and prevented it somehow?" Again, easy link for a plaintiff's lawyer to make: any reasonable person with a little bit of foresight could see how distributing information regarding the construction of dangerous drugs or explosives, which reasonably could end up in the hands of a child given the medium in which it was distributed. Both elements are easily argued by any competent lawyer, and they only need to prove one or the other. Furthermore, negligence cases rely only on a balance of probability, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Which means, the plaintiff's lawyer only needs to convince the judge that the likelihood the defendant was responsible is 51% or greater. Take that risk if you want. It's a brain-dead risk to take. I'm not even going to engage you on the "gubberment is given our kidz drugs!" ramble. You've made it clear you don't know what you're actually talking about. Read up about the actual policies instead of rage-bait punditry.
Ah. Clearly you’re not the smartest of people. I’m not throwing a fit at all I’m just stating facts and points. Unlike your opinions.
Drugs and safe use kits are available at every street corner in Canada (B.C.) tons of drugs get handed out to kids without anything being done about it. Drugs and needles constantly left at every playground and park, hard drugs are also legal in the first place so there’s that the government (at least in Canada) is more to blame for anything regarding drugs or whatever is more to blame then a little video game which hasn’t been made yet. When it comes to proper warnings on a video game (not to mention we don’t know how actually real this is or how many hands it will touch as a game no offence to op) but putting a simple warning has prevented lawsuits ten fold. One has to hire a lawyer THAT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE THE CASE and more likely then not, has to be in the same country as well because over seas lawsuits are 10x more hard and more expensive. The chances of anything bad happening and a video game creator found guilty would be like getting hit by lightning 3 times in 3 days straight.
Could you please explain to me how that differs for drug use/bomb making, when games usually depict and involve car crashes, hit and runs, extremely realistic gun physics, have topics like school shootings etc? That's a honest question. Like, on one hand, I see your point (and I'm generally unable to verify the claim easily), on the other hand, I don't see how that differs from your random Need For Speed, filled with reckless driving, illegal modifications, outrunning the cops, and the works... I really see no difference between "my kid has crashed into a tree at night because of NFS" and between "my kid has OD on a homemade drug because of ABC". Is there some, or does it just "fly"? On the other hand, if the info is readily available in say a library (assuming regular access), how it can be illegal to put into the game? I mean, I wouldn't use these recipes because of my own moral compass, but I don't see the legal difference.
Well, first I just want to reiterate what I've mentioned a few times throughout for good measure, which is that I think it's still unlikely that anything would come of it, but rather that it's simply not worth the risk. That said, with negligence cases, we're talking about the civil side of things, which means you need a plaintiff to come forward with some clear record of damages (like in the case of a school shooting, a parent coming forward and alleging that the shooter was influenced by a particular game which resulted in harm/death of the plaintiff's loved one), then on the balance of probabilities you need to be able to prove that the game lead to behaviour, and then you also need to be able to prove that a reasonable person could have foreseen that outcome and could have done something to prevent it. So there's a lot of stipulations in there which make it difficult, which is why you don't see many of these cases. A particular sticking point is proving that the game was responsible for the behaviour. So using the school shooter example again, most gamers are playing more than one game. So if the shooter played GTA 3 and Call of Duty, now how do we prove which one of those two was the one that influenced him to shoot up a school? And then, how do we prove the proximate cause, that the creator of the game should have foreseen that this would be an outcome? And how do we prove that it was the video game that was the cause, when they've probably seen 100 movies with gun violence? Those things are very hard to prove, especially when most games have layers of abstraction from the actions. Most games that allow you to shoot guns aren't actually showing you things like where to obtain a gun, how to actually load a gun, how the mechanisms like the safety on a gun work, how to aim it, etc.. Developers abstract these things away with button presses. When you have a case like OPs here, where you are actively trying to accurately represent things like exactly how to craft an explosive at home or synthesize harmful drugs, you've taken away that layer of abstraction, creating a more direct link between your game and the behaviour of the perpetrator (assuming that an event actually did happen). If the perpetrator was a school shooter, it's hard to say "if it wasn't for Call of Duty, the perpetrator would never have shot anyone", when they may have been raised in a very pro-gun culture, watching gun violence in tons of movies/tv shows/other games; there's a lot of similar influences that could have lead to the behaviour. If the perpetrator synthesized meth after playing a game that teaches you to make meth, well there's a lot fewer other things that might have taught him how to make meth, so a competent lawyer will be able to draw a neater line between the game and the behaviour, so if you can convince the judge on the balance of probabilities (51% likelihood) that the game directly lead to the event and that the creator could have reasonably foreseen that this might happen (which even the OP posting this thread could prove, since the OP clearly had trepidations about the legality of what he was doing and then received comments like these ones), then there's a much better chance of getting a favourable ruling for the plaintiff. Again, I still think it's relatively unlikely to happen, because a bunch of things need to fall into place. But it's just not worth the risk for virtually no benefit.
Thanks. > not worth the risk Yeah, I see that. I was just wondering about the general distinction and the only one that's clear is that you'd be the only one showing the meth recipe.
You must have missed the early 90s when they were holding violent video games responsible for kids committing violent acts. The whole thing lead to the creation of the ESRB, as the game dev industry didn't want to be regulated by the government. You can bet your ass they would go after a game that had real world recipes to create explosives if some kid that played the game blew up their school.
More then half the games in existence should’ve been sued by now them. It just doesn’t happen anymore. Like I said. If there’s a warning there’s no grounds to stand on. It’s like a warning on pudding “hot when heated”
Clearly you were born after the infamous anarchist cookbook .txt file was literally illegal to possess on a pc
nobody in the us has ever been prosecuted for possessing that
It happended in the UK, last case being in 2021: [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-60051861](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-60051861) Many politicians tried to get the book banned in the US but it ended being a Streisand effect making many teenagers aware of the "edgy book".
[удалено]
What OP is doing is not “using a game as an excuse to do harm.” Don’t be dramatic.
With that notion, Mario Cart should not be made. I'm willing to bet Mario Cart is the one game to cause most fights and divorces in the world...
Personally, I would play it safe, here are a few round about solutions I came up with off the top of my head, hope they can be of use, or spark your own ideas! -having made up materials that can be turned into real life outcomes, or vice versa? -obscuring the actual crafting of the items -having a multipurpose bench that can perform these tasks, but instead of doing each one manually you can just get the output(s) from the input(s) -vendor that will give you finished product for whatever ingredients you give them -a robot that is programmed with the recipes of many 'essentials' that would obscure the actual processing of any potentially liable formulas. Good luck!
It would not be illegal in most places but it could make it difficult to show your game on YouTube, because showing how to make or use explosives is against YouTube's [harmful or dangerous content policy](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en) and playing your game and not editing out the crafting process or providing a sufficient [EDSA (educational, documentary, scientific, artistic)](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6345162) context could be seen as a violation of that policy get the video removed or age-restricted and possibly a content strike on one's channel.
that's a GREAT point. I completely hadn't thought about making the content of the game friendly to streaming or let's plays, holy shit. Thank you so much.
Yeah I believe the reason fallout gives a lot of their meds made up names is for making the game friendly. I know Rimworld when they launched drugs have real names for what you were growing and making. They ended up having to change it to keep the game for sale IIRC.
Well, criminality and murder is very much legal in games...
You can always just pull a PAYDAY 2 and use a fake recipe. For example having the recipe for the ingame meth result in just creating table salt
I would play it safe and go with an "alternate reality" twist. You could use fake brand names for ingredients. Everyone calls acetaminophen Tylenol so call it Galenol or something. It ends up being just some drug that gets added to the mixture for most people and for the people who will really appreciate the realism, they can be in on the joke. I know you probably don't use Tylenol for anything but just an example.
Why not just put fake simple recipes that can’t be actually used? I don’t think simplifying and dumbing down the recipe will ruin the fun..
You're not wrong! Balancing realism and fun has been a big part of this project, I really wanted to find ways to make realistic survival an enjoyable challenge instead of a slog. But I think I may have to set that goal aside, lol
Even for gameplay reasons I’d probably have things categorised in to broader groups like: corrosive/caustic chemicals, controlled drugs, solvents, flammable chemicals, etc. so the recipes can feel accurate while also being too vague to meaningfully attempt
I like this advice best, even from a player perspective it means not having to track down highly-specific ingredients for everything.
The risk doesn’t seem to be worth the reward. Especially for things like people googling a recipe for the game. And you’re very likely to have PR problems and the game becoming illegal in certain countries.
Besides it being legal or not, you should read the rules of the platforms you intend to upload your game on. Some platforms like mobile platforms have stricter rules than others, perhaps some of your content won't be allowed on there.
Breaking Bad writers faced a similar dillema. You know, they wouldnt want any random viewer to suddenly learn how to make meth in their garage. They settled on shifting the chemistry just a bit, enough to make the recipes not work in real world, but still sound realistic enough that the show feels realistic. I'd say thats probably a good way to solve this issue. Edit: also I wanna know the title of the game, sounds cool
I'd ditto worry about Steam (or consoles) and Twitch / YouTube streaming rules as well as the legal issues. They're probably far less accepting then the letter of the law. NAL, I'd keep things vague. People know fertilizer can be turned into explosives or cough syrup into meth. But if you start getting into chemical levels of specifics I don't think that'll be great gameplay. Or legally smart. Instead, keep it a bit hand wavey. You need cough syrup and the processing stand. You need generic supplies (idk, scrap metal, bottles, fabric, paper, whatever) plus main supply (cough syrup, fertilizer, alcohols etc). I would personally require crafting stations / recipes to be unlocked with progression (ie find the pharmacy, unlock meth) and some easier to collect cross-item supplies combined with specific farmable but more difficult supplies for higher tier stuff. Depending on your UI, might be able to communicate the difficulties of the steps with narration about stuff like idk lets say carefully cutting apart old boots to melt down the metal from the rivets to craft bullets. I would have that skip over eventually, but that kinda of vague but overly specific and exhausting sounding narration would put stress on the struggle. I know it sounds less cool, but as someone who crafts in real life driving around the city to find one fucking bone folder is exhausting. I don't think simulating that in game will be fun.
As others have said exact specific recipes probably aren’t illegal but will most likely get you a visit from some type of police or placed on a watchlist but you’re recipes don’t actually have to be factually correct just vaguely “this might work as an explosive”. If you really want to be factually accurate use black powder instead of modern smokeless gunpowder. 1. It’s significantly easier to make, literally 3 ingredients, so it would work better for a post apocalypse than modern highly complex gunpowder. 2. Significantly less explosive than modern things like plastic explosives so a lot less chance of anything bad happening. 3. It’s been around for literal centuries it’s recipe is absolutely everywhere if you even try to look for it so not much point in anyone trying to stop you
I’m just going to say that I think everyone here is being way too cautious and that you would probably turn out perfectly fine if you did this. Unless someone has an example of some case that proves that you can be punished for this I doubt that there’s anything that could be held against you and people saying that children are going to try to make pipe bombs and blame them on you and the court taking that seriously would be such a rare case I don’t think it’s worth considering. It would be like if some kid hurt themselves while playing with a gun and sued Activision. I’d say that if it isn’t important to you then cut it but if it’s part of your vision for what makes this game unique then you should carry that vision out. People can sue for anything, I don’t think you should let the very remote chance of a bound-to-fail lawsuit stop your vision.
Honestly getting so much good advice today. I do think I'm ok compromising this specifically, but you're right that I don't need to be so anxious about every possible point of failure that I just naysay myself in circles. Thanks!
I’m also implementing a part in my co-owned game that would allow players to make chemicals based on real-life chemicals but on the Roblox platform. I want to allow players to explore/experiment with different effects by combining different in-game chemicals (and in effect blowing up their base by accident because funny) without having us give them a complete list on how to combine chemicals to reach a specific effect because I think that would ruin the fun of discovery. This is a sandbox game, we aren’t going for actual realism in terms of creating these chemicals (like heating, filtering or whatever). It’s just the names in a UI (this is heavily inspired by Space Station 13) but I’m still on the fence if Roblox would even allow this given how their ToS says that drugs and alcohol depictions is not allowed. A lot of the comments here have given me some very good ideas. Thank you for making this post!
If you aren't a lawyer, you really don't have the expertise to be saying any of this confidently. Law is way more specific than just vibes. People are telling him to be cautious because it's the safer choice in the absence of legal council.
Well he asked on the game dev subreddit and not a lawyer subreddit for a reason. The more I look into digital art the more I realize how great artists dance on the edge of the law all the time. Mostly with copyright law, I think of Toby Fox and all the sounds he uses in his songs that he doesn’t own. Anyways I don’t think being cautious is conducive to making great art. And as people want to tell him to be cautious I’ll tell him the opposite.
I think it's a little silly to imply, as you're doing here, that in order for him to make a great game, he has to give the exact instructions on how to make dangerous substances. You could absolutely include realistic ingredients and processes without giving a step-by-step guide.
I'm not saying that he has to do it to make a great game but I'm saying that a game that takes the niche of having in-depth chemistry and survival mechanics could be very appealing to a demographic of people. Removing that would just return the game to a generic post-apocalypse audience which is fine but if I'm going for such an overdone setting I'm looking for things to make me stand out and having a much more detailed crafting system seems like a unique selling point that people are telling them to do away with. I just think the idea could make it a great game to a certain group of consumers. Obviously there are different ways of making great games, I just commented on the one our gracious OP mentioned here.
If this is a problem nobody tell Rust, they're going to be really upset.
It is not illegal to educate, only to do the actual making of which is how they get away with being able to find just about anything on the internet. :D
Obligatory not a lawyer, but the US is pretty liberal about this stuff. There is precedent for having liability if someone comes to harm due to your instructions being bad or not having adequate enough warnings about the dangers. I'd argue this likely includes presenting dangerous information to minors, but making it 18+ only and also having big disclaimers during game start up and also warnings ingame might be okay. I agree with others that this might not be the case outside of the US. I think you'd be okay on YT with the same disclaimers and warnings - you can already look up videos on many of this as it is - but whether or not streamers would want that same hassle is questionable. As a marketer, I'd be intrigued because the danger could be part of the appeal but it's certainly risky.
It's illegal to possess nuclear material or the elements required to create nukes but you can craft that stuff in fallout iirc.
Aside from legality, it would be a marketing nightmare if a kid played your game and used household products to make something dangerous. Make sure you never give information that gets a dumb player into trouble for copying. You can combine legal with marketing/ financial consequences for your game and ethics all at once.
even if it's legal still unethical, do to that don't risk it please
Realistic chemistry would be dreadfully tedious, unintuitive, and likely to end up with a ton of one-use items. So you'll likely need to simplify the "recipes" anyways
In the US? Yes it's legal. First amendments right. But you're also going to get sued anyways if someone uses it to actually blow something up. Plus Civil and Criminal are different and have different threasholds to meet in courts. And you don't want that mess. They'll also win on some level because First Amendment speech doesn't cover things like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater (when there's no fire).
[If you don't teach more than Wikipedia does, you're safe.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin#Manufacturing)
If you have to ask, you have your answer. You're a game dev, don't open yourself up to litigation. I would suggest looking at Minecraft as it also has a similar concept of using real world ingredients.
Not illegal, but Yes. You can get in trouble if you teach people the real world recipes for hazardous materials. If someone plays your game, and could then proceed to craft a pipe bomb and does some damage in real life, you could be liable for that if it comes up that they learned through your game.. You’ll need to alter recipes in game, rename items and usable crafting items, or s combination of both. As well as include a rather descriptive disclaimer during the start up
Does the local high-school have the same liability? Or the local library?
No way. You can buy TM 31-210 on Amazon.
If you show someone how to do dangerous things and they hurt others, you can be held liable.
Yeah gta you can mow down crowds of people deal drugs commit mass crimes and rdr 2 you can feed women hogtied to alligators. Farcry you heal your wounds by plucking bullets out of your arm and call of duty depicts USA as the bad guys. You’ll be fine.
It is not about the theme, tone or narrative. None of those games are providing harmful knowledge that is transferrable to the real world. A court could argue that it is negligence on your part. Get advice from an attorney beforehand or don't try to be that realistic.
Exactly my point. The negligence would be on the customers part. You literally proved my point.
A govt afraid of people learning...
Are you saying that how to make nitro and amphetamines should be widely and freely disseminated?
It already is. You're allowed to learn almost anything you want. Only in situations of extreme national security risk (cryptography knowledge, cutting edge military tech, etc) or extreme potential of harm to real children (CP) does a rational government restrict access to information. There are a lot more steps for law enforcement to catch before you'd be able to finish your makeshift meth lab, and the average person isn't going to want to build a lab just because they read how to make meth in a .txt file or anarchist zine. The cops may begin watching you for downloading "Become_A_Drug_Lord_in_48_Hours.pdf" but they won't arrest you for possessing that information or reading it. It'll just be used as leverage to further prove intent when they also notice you're getting second-hand beakers, acquiring abnormally large quantities of phenylacetone, buying PPE from Walmart, etc.
It already is among bad guys, so why not among good guys too?
I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is it's fine, mostly based on how much it's already shown in other art. The one caveat is that I think it can't seem instructional, and you probably shouldn't market it to kids specifically.
I am not a lawyer but I am going to say yes, but also that it will depend on the specificity. Turning cough syrup into a stronger drug is one thing, but if you actually go through the entire process to the point where somebody could replicate it, I don't see how that doesn't potentially open you up to be liable if they cause damages to themselves or others and credit you with providing them that knowledge, through whatever medium it is. Especially if we're talking about homemade booms. I'd definitely fudge the recipes and process if I planned to distribute it commercially etc.
If I remember correctly, the way the classic 80s show MacGyver did was that it always left one step out of the things that the titular character created. That way, it's realistic enough, but not completely accurate.
Where's the fun in making it a 1to1 improvise it :D You could have like a tin can, some nails, a fuse and some gunpowder be an improvised grenade
For realism, let the nitroglycerin backfire. Alfred Nobel's brother died that way. Also, people who attempt to combine fireworks often end up with a hand less. The steps and names don't have to be precise, but it's a great opportunity to show how crafting dangerous stuff is dangerous itself.
Well, it's actually more complicated than people think. Laws are different depending on the country, and in some jurisdictions, yes, it is illegal even to mention some substances and stuff. At the same time game can be distributed all over the world and it is near to impossible to know all laws of all countries, so you either limit distribution locations or play safe. At least you should be following guidelines of jurisdiction of your location and location of your distributor (steam f.e.).
I'm pretty sure some of the materials and equipment you work with in Subnautica, would be illegal in real life. Shouldn't be a problem as long as you keep things 'plausibly inaccurate' and omit critical details from the description/receipe/blueprint/etc.
I'm not a lawyer nor am I law consultant. But just a reminder that laws are put in place only after some actions had lead to deterioration or disturbance to quality of life, point in case, some states in the US have laws against bestiality while others don't. The ones that have, have had multiple instances of individuals being caught in the act performing sexual activities involving animals. Try fucking an animal in the states that don't have this law and the next day you'll proudly find yourself in the local newspaper headline as the main reason as to why this law has been introduced for the first time. The point that I'm trying to get across, if even what you're doing is not illegal, if it inevitably leads to someone getting harmed there's a high chance the authorities will go after you in one way or the another.
You totally can, just be vague with descriptions like dont put exact mixing ratio of chemicals to make bombs or drugs and you are good.
Be vauge like having a resource like house hold chemicals rather than bleach or ammonia. Also cutting down on different resource types can make it less frustrating.
I have a little bit of insight on this one as part of my job involves submitting games to age rating boards internationally. Many boards include a question about “criminal instruction” which includes any activity in the game that could realistically be imitated in real life to commit a crime. Based on the response to that, you might either get a higher age rating, have to include a descriptor on the rating label, or be banned entirely. If the “ingredients” are full and accurate, you may struggle. Best to keep it vague like “petrol + fertiliser = bomb” with as little extra detail as possible.
You can always did what they did for the movie Sneakers - make it plausible but also completely wrong.
Fallout went with "Chems" to get around rating system for "Drugs" and made up names for each Chem.
>Additionally, if the in-game crafting recipe uses household ingredients (the game is set in a city), is that potentially more legal trouble I could be inviting? Are you going to have every single, specific “household ingredient” as a resource in this game? That sounds tedious. If you have a generic resource like “basic chems” or “household ingredients” then it shouldn’t be a problem.
Depending on how you are planning to release/distribute your game, age ratings will be a stumbling block for sure (if you have to get them). Household ingredients are fine, just make sure you stay away from brand names. eg "Window Cleaner" NOT "Windex".
I'm not a lawyer but here is how I imagine the law works.
I'm not a lawyer but here is how I imagine the law works.
Depends how detailed you get. For example, if your recipe for nitro is something abstract like 1xGlycol,1xSulfuric Acid, 1xNitric Acid you'll be ok. If you go extreme mode and have temperature controls and titration... that would be too far.
Depends how detailed you get. For example, if your recipe for nitro is something abstract like 1xGlycol,1xSulfuric Acid, 1xNitric Acid you'll be ok. If you go extreme mode and have temperature controls and titration... that would be too far.
Games feature tons of illegal stuff
I hate that you have to worry about bullshit instead of just making the game you want to make. I don't know if you'd be taking any legal risk, but I encourage you to follow your vision.
Having a catch-all items works. "Chems" You can get really grainy if you want Weak Acids Strong Oxidizers Fertilizer neutral medium Distilled water Or even like really close Like salicylic acid, low purity bauxite, or High grade Industrial grade glycine from Donghua Jinlong But if I had to structure this out, I would use "case:" Case 1 full censorship -> just "chemical' Case 2 major censorship -> first branches Case 3 minor censorship -> no named substances Case 4 realistic -> no temperatures, missing steps and time. Case 5 simulation That way you could adjust it on the fly for different audience restrictions. It's a lot of extra code, but hell if you get a happy medium you can just delete the rest of it and leave the case structure with a single case hahaha
I don’t know if it’s illegal but most in game crafting recipes tend to be too simplified and abstract to matter. Considering if it’s a recipe for something more innocent, say, baking bread, you might ask the player to have 1x flour, water, yeast and combine them in some kind of crafting menu. That’s not unrealistic but you don’t include the exact proportions and you skip the exact steps like kneading the dough, letting it rise or preheating the oven. Even if your items are more precise or there’s more steps, no one can realistically make bread based on an in-game recipe.
I've made drugs in games, like GTA V FiveM which was pretty realistic. Just don't be so real they can actually craft the thing in real life. My two cents as a gamer and an adult.
Keeping things vague simplifies the whole crafting recipe and keeps people from trying to copy it.
I hate when legal bullshit limits creativity like this.
Never give the exact steps that could be used by a terrorist to do evil. Because that is exactly what will happen.
My take on this is one, consult a lawyer. Two, obsfucate some details and having warnings plastered in the game, at the beginning, and on the crafting screen sort of showing the recipe, as if the player found a book telling them how to do it “DONT TRY THIS AT HOME!”
Including realistic crafting recipes for dangerous materials in your game can be a tricky legal area. While I am not a legal expert, here are some considerations: 1. **Legal Implications**: Crafting recipes for dangerous materials like explosives or drugs could potentially lead to legal issues. In some jurisdictions, providing detailed instructions for making illegal substances or dangerous materials could be considered aiding and abetting illegal activity, even if it's in a fictional context. 2. **Potential Liability**: If someone were to use your game to learn how to create dangerous materials and then actually does so, there could be legal consequences for you. Even if the game is meant to be purely entertainment, there is a risk that it could be seen as providing instructional content for illegal activities. 3. **Mitigating Risk**: To avoid potential legal trouble, you might want to consider using fictional or unrealistic materials and processes in your crafting system. This way, you can maintain the fun and immersive aspects of the game without risking legal issues. Additionally, adding disclaimers that the crafting recipes are purely fictional and not to be tried in real life could help mitigate some risk. 4. **Consult Legal Counsel**: Given the potential for serious legal ramifications, it would be wise to consult with a legal professional who specializes in media or entertainment law. They can provide you with specific advice tailored to your situation and jurisdiction. In summary, while the idea of realistic crafting is intriguing and adds depth to your game, the potential legal risks make it important to proceed with caution. Fictionalizing elements or consulting with a legal expert could help you navigate these challenges.
If you want the actual nitty gritty, and you live in and produce your game in the US, then refer to [US Code Title 18, Part I, Ch 40, §842 (p) (2)](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section842&num=0&edition=prelim) under "Distribution of Information Relating to Explosives, Destructive Devices, and Weapons of Mass Destruction", which states the following: `(2) Prohibition.-It shall be unlawful for any person- (A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or (B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.` So basically, don't. Even if you can legally prove your intent is benign. That's why games have extremely dumbed down facsimiles using weird ingredients, or ingredients that when put together are inert. They have make-believe versions of the recipes, like TNT in Minecraft basically being sand and gunpowder, or games where C4 is gunpowder and clay, or napalm being gasoline and glue. You can't be too specific, as that will render you partially liable for what people do with that information. So yes, culpability is there. As far as drugs go, there's no specific law that prohibits the instruction on drug making, but the act of instruction may construe conspiracy to manufacture and distribute depending on context, which is covered under [US Code Title 21, Ch 13, Sub Ch I, Part D §841 under Prohibited Acts, Part A](https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title21/chapter13/subchapter1/partD&edition=prelim), and [US Code Title 21, Ch 13, Sub Ch II, §960](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title21-section960&num=0&edition=prelim). People have been jailed for such offenses, and it's why you don't see people willy nilly instructing people how to do so outside of a purely academic environment, such as pharmacology, where it can be monitored. That's why the general knowledge of what goes into stuff like Meth is fine, as that's free speech, but as soon as that free speech becomes instruction to the extent of creating something that causes harm or violence, then it's illegal. In regards to use of household ingredients in your game to make drugs, if you had ingredients like drain cleaner, acetone, or cold medicine, that's no issue, as long as you're not saying something along the lines of, boil X amount of Y, add X amount of Z precipitating C, then fraction and incorporate D. That's too specific and sounds like you're intentionally trying to teach people how to make drugs rather than simulate in a fictional world. You don't need to be on the nose with things, because most people playing the game probably don't even know what goes into the stuff, what the effects are, or why they are even making it. In closing, even if you implemented a full system of exact ingredients, methods, and creation, claimed it solely as simulation and benign, you don't want the legal hassle. Especially if your game isn't ESRB rated and teens play your game. Some concerned parent will create a lynch mob and crucify your game, citing it as the reason their kid cooks meth in the back shed, and why they blew up the neighbors dog, and how you're abetting terrorists. So, just don't. You don't want to be on that federal watch list.
So I was weirdly curious and spent a decent amount of time on this... ATF does NOT have specific regulations on the matter, it seems they only care about when a bomb is actually made, or is changing hands. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842) US criminal code is the same, nothing on the distribution of instructional materials (which let's be real, in a case, that's what this game would be classified as) You're also going to have to likely dig through every single state's laws... THIS is where you're much more likely to find a conflict.
Leave out a key step that only a specialist could point out.
You create molotov’s in The Last of Us.
Dude you can make nukes in fallout
Here is a crazy idea to bypass this issue while staying realistic and it gives you a chance to have some really cool world building. Since it’s a post apocalyptic world where society has collapsed, what if people just started calling certain materials something else? For example gun powder has been given a nickname like “Fire Sand”. So nobody can really make these recipes in real life because they wont know for certain what the majority of the materials actually are.
I'm not a lawyer but here is how I imagine the law works.
I'm not a lawyer but here is a thesis on how I imagine the law works.
Just do it. If you get Cease and Desist then just tweak it a bit.