4 ms·

This is my view as well. I guess they have a point with sourcebooks that provide subclasses for existing official classes, but those were never of much interest

by mcv 4y ago

This is my view as well. I guess they have a point with sourcebooks that provide subclasses for existing official classes, but those were never of much interest to me. What I'm interested in is a new campaign setting for use with a specific ruleset. I understand setting an adventure in Faerun would be a derivative work, but surely it wouldn't if it's in a completely new setting? And repeating stat blocks from the Monster Manual is clearly a violation, but it seems to me I should be able to refer to the Monster Manual, as well as include my own custom stats for original creatures not from the Monster Manual, or even stats that I need to be different from those in the MM. The fact that something competes is not enough; I can write a novel with wizards and dragons, and as long as I don't include characters or places from Tolkien or Harry Potter, it's not derivative, no matter how many themes and ideas are similar. Referring to classes and spells from the Player's Handbook shouldn't be a problem, because the Harry Potter Encyclopedia can refer to everything from the Harry Potter book. Am interesting aspect with publishing an adventure is of course that WotC also publishes adventures for D&D, but my adventure would not be derivative of those adventures; it exists entirely independent from them. It does not exist independently from the core rules (PHB, DMF and MM), but it doesn't compete with those. If that would still count as a copyright violation, then the Harry Potter Encyclopedia would also be a copyright violation the moment Rowling publishes her own encyclopedia. I think that would be rather weird. Shouldn't a violation be a violation of a specific work, rather than the context around it?

trynewideas 4y ago
> I understand setting an adventure in Faerun would be a derivative work, but surely it wouldn't if it's in a completely new setting? Anyone can write a setting book. A setting book that references specific copyrighted text — like the contents of the SRD, including classes, spells, creatures, magic items, and certain non-mechanical terms — runs into OGL space. If you create an entirely new set of terms and mechanics, you haven't created a derivative work, but you also haven't necessarily created a compatible work, and you certainly haven't created one as directly compatible as a potential competitor's OGL-compliant work. If you aren't writing for distribution, then none of this matters anyway. > And repeating stat blocks from the Monster Manual is clearly a violation With the exception of some copyrighted monster names, it's explicitly not a violation under the OGL, and the ability to do so is a large part of the point of the OGL. > but it seems to me I should be able to refer to the Monster Manual You can't by name without a separate compatibility license, typically by way of publishing to the Dungeon Master's Guild, which is laden with a lot of other intellectual ownership gotchas. > as well as include my own custom stats for original creatures not from the Monster Manual, or even stats that I need to be different from those in the MM. If you can describe what "neutral good" or an "Armor Class" represents mechanically without resorting to a literal mechanical description in the SRD or covered by the OGL, go for it. The broader point of the OGL was not having to reinvent those wheels in every product a publisher created.
- krisoft 4y ago
  > You can't by name without a separate compatibility license I understand that this is what they want you to believe. I don’t understand how it would be trademark or copyright infringement saying “go buy those people’s book and look up information there”. > If you can describe what "neutral good" or an "Armor Class" represents mechanically without resorting to a literal mechanical description But source books don’t do that. They say “so and so, neutral good, ac: 12” It is expected from the DM reading them that they already know what this kind of shorthand mean.
  - trynewideas 4y ago
    > I don’t understand how it would be trademark or copyright infringement saying “go buy those people’s book and look up information there”. It's a violation of the OGL. So you can opt out of the OGL (and opt out of reprinting verbatim rules), try it, sell it, and see what happens: > Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. ... > The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, ... This is why so many OGL works contain phrases like "core rule books of the 5th edition of the world's most popular pen and paper RPG" instead of "Monster Manual p. 132". > Source books don’t do that. They say “so and so, neutral good, ac: 12” It is expected from the DM reading them that they already know what this kind of shorthand mean. You're right, those are too generic of examples. Here are some real-world ones I've had to deal with as an OGL author: - What are the mechanical ramifications of a sentient magic item with the Crusader special purpose that's engaging in a Conflict with its wielder? - A creature has Burrow. Can they burrow through stone? - "Eldritch Blast". Is it PI because of "Eldritch"? Is it OGL because one version of the SRD named it but omitted its mechanics? - How do you sustain the spell effect of a Crown of Madness? Is that OGL because one version of the SRD omitted that paragraph? - A dwarf has Dwarven Combat Training. What kind of hammer can they throw? - Does the Grappler feat grant two or three benefits? If it's two, but your DMs' copy of the source text has three, which benefit was removed via errata? Do you assume your players/DMs even have the errata? What you reference isn't always a detail you can assume the DM (sorry, GM) has available. The official SRD also isn't entirely OGL, and the contents of the SRD don't always match the text of their source works. So when something you add to your setting, or to a creature or item, relies on the details an OGL/SRD wrinkle, do you play it safe and stick to what's covered by the OGL? Find something else? Ditch the OGL, rewrite all of the complicated interactions from scratch, and wind up creating a new game? If you're a third-party publisher making three figures and paying freelancers by the word, do you tell the writer, "Sure, go ahead and rewrite all of the related rules from scratch", or do you tell them to stick to what's most clearly covered by the OGL?

by mcv 4y ago

trynewideas 4y ago

> I understand setting an adventure in Faerun would be a derivative work, but surely it wouldn't if it's in a completely new setting? Anyone can write a setting book. A setting book that references specific copyrighted text — like the contents of the SRD, including classes, spells, creatures, magic items, and certain non-mechanical terms — runs into OGL space. If you create an entirely new set of terms and mechanics, you haven't created a derivative work, but you also haven't necessarily created a compatible work, and you certainly haven't created one as directly compatible as a potential competitor's OGL-compliant work. If you aren't writing for distribution, then none of this matters anyway. > And repeating stat blocks from the Monster Manual is clearly a violation With the exception of some copyrighted monster names, it's explicitly not a violation under the OGL, and the ability to do so is a large part of the point of the OGL. > but it seems to me I should be able to refer to the Monster Manual You can't by name without a separate compatibility license, typically by way of publishing to the Dungeon Master's Guild, which is laden with a lot of other intellectual ownership gotchas. > as well as include my own custom stats for original creatures not from the Monster Manual, or even stats that I need to be different from those in the MM. If you can describe what "neutral good" or an "Armor Class" represents mechanically without resorting to a literal mechanical description in the SRD or covered by the OGL, go for it. The broader point of the OGL was not having to reinvent those wheels in every product a publisher created.

krisoft 4y ago
> You can't by name without a separate compatibility license I understand that this is what they want you to believe. I don’t understand how it would be trademark or copyright infringement saying “go buy those people’s book and look up information there”. > If you can describe what "neutral good" or an "Armor Class" represents mechanically without resorting to a literal mechanical description But source books don’t do that. They say “so and so, neutral good, ac: 12” It is expected from the DM reading them that they already know what this kind of shorthand mean.
- trynewideas 4y ago
  > I don’t understand how it would be trademark or copyright infringement saying “go buy those people’s book and look up information there”. It's a violation of the OGL. So you can opt out of the OGL (and opt out of reprinting verbatim rules), try it, sell it, and see what happens: > Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. ... > The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, ... This is why so many OGL works contain phrases like "core rule books of the 5th edition of the world's most popular pen and paper RPG" instead of "Monster Manual p. 132". > Source books don’t do that. They say “so and so, neutral good, ac: 12” It is expected from the DM reading them that they already know what this kind of shorthand mean. You're right, those are too generic of examples. Here are some real-world ones I've had to deal with as an OGL author: - What are the mechanical ramifications of a sentient magic item with the Crusader special purpose that's engaging in a Conflict with its wielder? - A creature has Burrow. Can they burrow through stone? - "Eldritch Blast". Is it PI because of "Eldritch"? Is it OGL because one version of the SRD named it but omitted its mechanics? - How do you sustain the spell effect of a Crown of Madness? Is that OGL because one version of the SRD omitted that paragraph? - A dwarf has Dwarven Combat Training. What kind of hammer can they throw? - Does the Grappler feat grant two or three benefits? If it's two, but your DMs' copy of the source text has three, which benefit was removed via errata? Do you assume your players/DMs even have the errata? What you reference isn't always a detail you can assume the DM (sorry, GM) has available. The official SRD also isn't entirely OGL, and the contents of the SRD don't always match the text of their source works. So when something you add to your setting, or to a creature or item, relies on the details an OGL/SRD wrinkle, do you play it safe and stick to what's covered by the OGL? Find something else? Ditch the OGL, rewrite all of the complicated interactions from scratch, and wind up creating a new game? If you're a third-party publisher making three figures and paying freelancers by the word, do you tell the writer, "Sure, go ahead and rewrite all of the related rules from scratch", or do you tell them to stick to what's most clearly covered by the OGL?