The SRD and Monsters Not in it?

Now, I know there are certain monsters not in the SRD...

Beholder, Mind Flayer, Carrion Crawler, to name a few...

But I'm wondering why? Other then they aren't OGC... What's so special about those monsters?

Also, under the whole, can't copyrite a rule thing... Could you reproduce the stats for a beholder and just call it the Great Googaly Moogaly Monster, and be ok?

My Totally NON-Lawyered opinion:

Said monsters are not in the SRD because they are unique enough to be considered WotC/Hasbro/TSR property. Therefore, they're part of what makes D&D, D&D, and so are reserved for WotC unless you have some kind of special permission. To spell this out, they did it on purpose.

You could reproduce stats in the manner you describe, with the following caveats:

1) You could not describe it in the same or derivative manner of the monster (no "orb monster" that has exactly ten eyes with the incidental powers of a beholder who hates its kin.)

2) You could not do this under the Open Gaming License without likely getting a cease and desist from WotC.

3) It's no guarantee that it's not sue-able in court, because there are only one or two court precedents that have ever been tried, and even then those precedents are only related in the field, not in the RPG field. So you need to prepare to take it down if necessary, or fight in court.

THat's the extent of my lay-knowledge on the subject.

Henry said:

My Totally NON-Lawyered opinion:

Said monsters are not in the SRD because they are unique enough to be considered WotC/Hasbro/TSR property. Therefore, they're part of what makes D&D, D&D, and so are reserved for WotC unless you have some kind of special permission. To spell this out, they did it on purpose.

You could reproduce stats in the manner you describe, with the following caveats:

1) You could not describe it in the same or derivative manner of the monster (no "orb monster" that has exactly ten eyes with the incidental powers of a beholder who hates its kin.)

2) You could not do this under the Open Gaming License without likely getting a cease and desist from WotC.

3) It's no guarantee that it's not sue-able in court, because there are only one or two court precedents that have ever been tried, and even then those precedents are only related in the field, not in the RPG field. So you need to prepare to take it down if necessary, or fight in court.

THat's the extent of my lay-knowledge on the subject.

Click to expand...

I mean, yeah, I'm assuming they did it on purpose... But why those guys? Because they're the only ones that really never existed anywhere aside from D&D?

Lay-knowledge works for me, because, I'm not actually planning on releasing stats for the GooGaly Moogaly anytime soon... Just curious.

What if I described it as a large floating square with mouths instead of eyes? But otherwise it had the same stats/effects?

Scribble said:

I mean, yeah, I'm assuming they did it on purpose... But why those guys? Because they're the only ones that really never existed anywhere aside from D&D?

Click to expand...

Not the only ones, but probably the ones that WOTC felt had the most value in terms of IP. If you assume there's a monetary reason for anything a company does, you probably won't go very far wrong.

IIRC, somebody published a PDF of replacement critters that were open content, but I don't remember the title. Don't know if they ever caught on with other publishers.

Scribble said:

I mean, yeah, I'm assuming they did it on purpose... But why those guys? Because they're the only ones that really never existed anywhere aside from D&D?

Click to expand...

It's for WotC to play with. They may have been inspired from external sources, but WotC will make their monster for their own signature, just as Disney do for Donald Duck, and WB do for Daffy Duck.

There has already been at least one product that attempted to replace the missing monsters in such a way as to not be legally actionable:

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=4546&

Scribble said:

Now, I know there are certain monsters not in the SRD...

Beholder, Mind Flayer, Carrion Crawler, to name a few...

But I'm wondering why? Other then they aren't OGC... What's so special about those monsters?

Also, under the whole, can't copyrite a rule thing... Could you reproduce the stats for a beholder and just call it the Great Googaly Moogaly Monster, and be ok?

Click to expand...

They would've probably added MORE monsters to that list, but:

1.) Most of the "Iconic" monsters of D&D have origins in myth or literature (orcs, goblins, drow, dragons, giants, undead) and thus WotC doesn't "own" a copyright per se on the idea. (and even if they did, they would have such a hard time "proving" Green Ronin's version of a dragon is an infringment on theirs rather than a reinterpeting of the mythos)

2.) Many "unique" D&D monsters aren't that unique: You couldn't justify a rust monster or bullete as a wholly TSR/WotC invention knowing thier origin.

3.) Other monster that are "unique" aren't that profitable: Beholders sell sourcebooks; Thoquaa's don't make it in most dungeons.

4.) It keeps the SRD more-or-less complete: there aren't 15 different envisionments of orcs, goblins, or dragon (beyond subrace-types) to compete, and it doesn't fragment the market (I'm using Green Ronin's MM, for example).

5.) As for the select few: I can only guess on them. Slaad seem pretty D&D specific and profitable, the giths are classically D&D, Mind Flayers and Beholders are pretty iconic and profitable, the idea of Yuan-Ti is not D&D specifc, but the caste/distinctions are, and I have NO idea why displacers and carion crawlers are on that list.

Now, I can't PROVE any of that, but I'd wager all of that went into the thoughts behind it.

Remathilis said:

They would've probably added MORE monsters to that list, but:

1.) Most of the "Iconic" monsters of D&D have origins in myth or literature (orcs, goblins, drow, dragons, giants, undead) and thus WotC doesn't "own" a copyright per se on the idea. (and even if they did, they would have such a hard time "proving" Green Ronin's version of a dragon is an infringment on theirs rather than a reinterpeting of the mythos)

Click to expand...

Not the idea that cannot be copyrighted or trademarked, but their own version expressed in texts.

Remathilis said:

2.) Many "unique" D&D monsters aren't that unique: You couldn't justify a rust monster or bullete as a wholly TSR/WotC invention knowing thier origin.

Click to expand...

And what origins are they?

Besides, what does the standard copyright/IP law say about "derivative material"?

Rust monsters and Bullette were wierd "dinosaurs" that came in packages of cheapo plastic toys marketed as "land of the lost" toys sold at Ben Franklins Five and Dime stores back in the early 70's. The old boys wrote up stats for the plastic figs and used them in their original D&D games. Nuff Said.

Case

I remember owning a plastic rust monster and bulette toy when I was a wee lad in suburban 70s Wisconsin.