It allows you to search the
messageboards, send and receive private messages, give yourself a
custom usertitle, turn ads on or off, create a custom style for your
profile, get a nifty badge under your username, and gives you a special
warm glowy feeling! Oh, and it gets rid of this annoying message, too!
RPG Legalities: OGF/4eGSL/d20STLDiscussions about the Open Gaming Movement, the Open Gaming License, along with WotC's GSL. This is the new home of the OGF-L and d20-L listserver discussions.
I'm not a legal type, so I'll ask for clarification here. 'Kobold' is a defined 4e reference, and it's my understanding that as a third party publisher, I'm not allowed to extend the definition of 4e references. Does that mean that I'm not allowed to publish a stat block for a new type of kobold, say, a Kobold Brainbasher? Does it mean that I can't publish a product that expands on Kobold culture?
I'm not a legal type, so I'll ask for clarification here. 'Kobold' is a defined 4e reference, and it's my understanding that as a third party publisher, I'm not allowed to extend the definition of 4e references. Does that mean that I'm not allowed to publish a stat block for a new type of kobold, say, a Kobold Brainbasher? Does it mean that I can't publish a product that expands on Kobold culture?
You can add to, but you cannot redefine. So, adding a Kobold Brainbasher is adding to, as is a supplement on Kobold culture (so long as it doesn't contradict anything).
__________________ Formerly known as Mourn...
Spoiler:
This sounds like a Fantasy Heartbreaker, slouching towards Bethlehem, waiting to be still-born. - Particle Man
Spoiler:
Every edition moves us closer to a better game, in my view. And guess what, 4E will screw some stuff up, just like 3E made monster design a horrific, creativity squashing nightmare (ok, I'm overstating it, yes, you could still make real cool monsters, but it became more of a rules lawyer-y cookie cutter solution which I don't favor). 4E will do things wrong. Maybe it will be that 1st level characters will be too powerful. I don't know. But experimenting is the way to do it--and, as it so happens, it is the TRADITION of D&D. Gary, god rest his soul, didn't stop with the white box. He did Greyhawk. Blackmoor. He added new classes. Psionics. New monsters. Eldritch Wizardry. Then he tried to unify it all with AD&D. If D&D has a tradition, its change, growth and expansion. If it didn't, we'd all just have STR INT and WIS. - Orcus
What your not allowed to do is change the basic nature of a kobold, such as by saying they are now giant spiders.
__________________ Can your players save their favorite tavern from vile cultists and prevent A Dreadful Dawn? (A Bleeding Edge Adventure)
Or perhaps they'd rather steal The Star of Olindor (A 1 on 1 Adventure) www.matthewjhanson.com
__________________ Brain: Come Pinky! We must prepare for tomorrow night.
Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?
Brain: The same thing we do every night....TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
First, it seems clear that one can create new types of kobolds, devils, demons, and so on. However, as I asked in my Devil&Demon thread (and still want an official response on), there seems to be some issue over what "redefining" means, and whether it applies to fluff. It seems that the most restrictive reading of the GSL/SRD is that I can neither create my own culture for kobolds (this would 'redefine' the term), nor can I take the fluff text for kobolds in the MM and build upon it (as that would be referencing non-open content).
I'd like this clarified, as books of race/culture fluff are one of the things I most want to see coming out of the GSL. I'm concerned because it seems as if making sure all GSL products fit into the "assumed world" of D&D is one of the functions of the GSL, and that would be Seriously Depressing.
First, it seems clear that one can create new types of kobolds, devils, demons, and so on. However, as I asked in my Devil&Demon thread (and still want an official response on), there seems to be some issue over what "redefining" means, and whether it applies to fluff. It seems that the most restrictive reading of the GSL/SRD is that I can neither create my own culture for kobolds (this would 'redefine' the term), nor can I take the fluff text for kobolds in the MM and build upon it (as that would be referencing non-open content).
I'd like this clarified, as books of race/culture fluff are one of the things I most want to see coming out of the GSL. I'm concerned because it seems as if making sure all GSL products fit into the "assumed world" of D&D is one of the functions of the GSL, and that would be Seriously Depressing.
You can't 'take' the fluff text for kobolds, but you can reference it, saying something like "the kobolds are as in the monster manual, they also have a patriarchal society etc etc etc"
"If 200 or more kobolds are encountered in their lair there will be the following additional creatures there: 5-20 guards (as bodyguards above), females equal to 50% of the total number, young equal to 10% of the total number, and 30-300 eggs."
"The hide of kobolds runs from very dark rusty brown to a rusty black. They have no hair."
(Also see the kobold artwork on pp. 57 & 58, which clearly shows scales.)
I could have sworn the 1e illustration looked more doglike. Anyway there are dog kobolds out there.
__________________ Brain: Come Pinky! We must prepare for tomorrow night.
Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?
Brain: The same thing we do every night....TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
It could be pretty funny to see all the various SRD monsters and races redefined in a satirical way with horribly misspelled names. Riffing off another thread you could have dorrf fhiters and harfink teeves fighting khobalds and dargons alongside neefling worlucks. And other such inanities.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanzuo
We had memorable characters; especially Kregous the half-orc who became a legendary warrior/druid/woodcarver with odious personal habits/hygiene and a charming flying booger companion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack of Shadows
I think we have a new definition for Monte Haulism.
First, it seems clear that one can create new types of kobolds, devils, demons, and so on. However, as I asked in my Devil&Demon thread (and still want an official response on), there seems to be some issue over what "redefining" means, and whether it applies to fluff. It seems that the most restrictive reading of the GSL/SRD is that I can neither create my own culture for kobolds (this would 'redefine' the term), nor can I take the fluff text for kobolds in the MM and build upon it (as that would be referencing non-open content).
I'd like this clarified, as books of race/culture fluff are one of the things I most want to see coming out of the GSL. I'm concerned because it seems as if making sure all GSL products fit into the "assumed world" of D&D is one of the functions of the GSL, and that would be Seriously Depressing.
I think there's not too much concern, because for good or ill (hint: ill) there is just about zero fluff in the new Monster Manual. They don't even have physical descriptions of most of them, relying solely on the art... Although that has its own concern, because any derivation of the art is restricted by the GSL, so you could interpret describing e.g. gnolls as hyena-like humanoids as forbidden.
any derivation of the art is restricted by the GSL, so you could interpret describing e.g. gnolls as hyena-like humanoids as forbidden.
The actual text of the GSL is "Licensee expressly agrees it will not use, publish or reprint any such imagery or artwork, including without limitation any derivatives thereof, without Wizards’ written permission."
The word "derivative" has a technical meaning in US copyright law. Are you suggesting that, consistent with that meaning, a verbal description of an image can constitute a work that is derivative of that image?
It could be pretty funny to see all the various SRD monsters and races redefined in a satirical way with horribly misspelled names. Riffing off another thread you could have dorrf fhiters and harfink teeves fighting khobalds and dargons alongside neefling worlucks. And other such inanities.
I'm really starting to want this game. It should go to 31 levels.
The actual text of the GSL is "Licensee expressly agrees it will not use, publish or reprint any such imagery or artwork, including without limitation any derivatives thereof, without Wizards’ written permission."
The word "derivative" has a technical meaning in US copyright law. Are you suggesting that, consistent with that meaning, a verbal description of an image can constitute a work that is derivative of that image?
I'm not sure how to interpret that, legally, but I *do* know that in the OGL days, some people at WOTC were annoyed that they had spent a lot of time/effort creating new, distinctive, visual looks for monsters (like bugbears or kobolds) and that other companies mimicked the new looks -- not directly copied the works, that would be blatantly illegal under any terms -- but used the MM art as a guideline, i.e, "That's a kobold. Paint us some kobolds for our cover."
Of course, this drives us write into the basci schizoprenia of the GSL -- they don't want people going too far afield from "core" D&D, whatever that is....BUT...they don't want people directly referencing anything from the core books, either. So you can't "redefine" kobolds in any meaningful way, but you also can't draw/depict them as looking too much like the kobolds in the MM, so...
It's really, really, hard not to keep coming round to "WOTC felt somehow obliged to produce a license, but really doesn't know what they want from third parties". Dancey's vision was clear: He wanted D20 Uber Alles. He wanted to encourage every company to buy into the D20 system and spread it throughout gaming. One die to rule them all. The OGC/PI split was there to encourage companies to produce valuable IP (settings, backgrounds, fluff) without fear of it being "stolen", while keeping all mechanics open so that they system could grow. It might not have worked out perfectly, but the "vision" was clear. I don't know what WOTCs "vision" is for the GSL. I think I'll start a new thread.
I'm really starting to want this game. It should go to 31 levels.
It would be perfect as a Munchkin type product.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanzuo
We had memorable characters; especially Kregous the half-orc who became a legendary warrior/druid/woodcarver with odious personal habits/hygiene and a charming flying booger companion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack of Shadows
I think we have a new definition for Monte Haulism.
I'm not sure how to interpret that, legally, but I *do* know that in the OGL days, some people at WOTC were annoyed that they had spent a lot of time/effort creating new, distinctive, visual looks for monsters (like bugbears or kobolds) and that other companies mimicked the new looks -- not directly copied the works, that would be blatantly illegal under any terms -- but used the MM art as a guideline, i.e, "That's a kobold. Paint us some kobolds for our cover."
Sure, but that doesn't suggest that verbal descriptions are precluded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizard
It's really, really, hard not to keep coming round to "WOTC felt somehow obliged to produce a license, but really doesn't know what they want from third parties".
I don't know that it's quite as bad as you're suggesting, but it's certainly different from the OGL.
The actual text of the GSL is "Licensee expressly agrees it will not use, publish or reprint any such imagery or artwork, including without limitation any derivatives thereof, without Wizards’ written permission."
The word "derivative" has a technical meaning in US copyright law. Are you suggesting that, consistent with that meaning, a verbal description of an image can constitute a work that is derivative of that image?
Yeah, I don't know what the technical definition is, so by the untutored reading-words interpretation, it could. If you have specific info, feel free and share.
Linear Mode
