GSL GSL: No kobolds?

[loseth]

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?

[The Little Raven]

Originally Posted by loseth

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).

[MatthewJHanson]

What your not allowed to do is change the basic nature of a kobold, such as by saying they are now giant spiders.

[Brown Jenkin]

Or little dog people like in 1e.

[Haffrung Helleyes]

damn, I loved those little dog people!

Ken

[Lizard]

It's a bit confusing.

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.

[webrunner]

Originally Posted by Lizard

It's a bit confusing.

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"

[see]

Originally Posted by Brown Jenkin

Or little dog people like in 1e.

They were never little dog people. They were egg-laying, scaly lizards.

1). Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual, 1977, p.57.

"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.)

2). Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, 1981 (Moldvay), p.B37

"They have scaly rust-brown skin and no hair."

3). Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, 1983 (Mentzer), Dungeon Masters Rulebook, p.32

"They have scaly, rust-brown skin and no hair."

4). Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monstrous Compendium Volume 1, Kobold page

"Barely clearing three feet in height, kobolds have scaly hides that range from very dark rusty brown to a rusty black."

"In a lair there will be 5-20 (5d4) bodyguards, females equal to 50% of the males, young equal to 10% of the males and 30-300 (3d10x10) eggs."

5). Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia, p.187

"They have scaly, rust-brown skin no hair."

6). Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monstrous Manual, p.214

"Barely clearing three feet in height, kobolds have scaly hides that range from very dark rusty brown to a rusty black."

"In a lair there will be 5-20 (5d4) bodyguards, females equal to 50% of the males, young equal to 10% of the males and 30-300 (3d10x10) eggs."

[Brown Jenkin]

I could have sworn the 1e illustration looked more doglike. Anyway there are dog kobolds out there.

[Alcamtar]

Originally Posted by see

They were never little dog people. They were egg-laying, scaly lizards.

2). Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, 1981 (Moldvay), p.B37
"They have scaly rust-brown skin and no hair."

5). Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia, p.187
"They have scaly, rust-brown skin no hair."

Moldvay B37 also says "...this small evil dog-like men..."

RC says "...small, evil doglike humanoids..."

So they are small, evil, brown, scaly, doglike humanoids.

[cdrcjsn]

You can totally redefine Kobolds as dog faced rat men if you like...you just got to call them Khobolds or Kohbolds or Kobalds or ...

[HeavenShallBurn]

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.

[mxyzplk]

Originally Posted by Lizard

It's a bit confusing.

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.

[pemerton]

Originally Posted by mxyzplk

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?

[pemerton]

Deleted double post.

[Nellisir]

Originally Posted by HeavenShallBurn

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.

[Lizard]

Originally Posted by pemerton

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.

[HeavenShallBurn]

Originally Posted by Nellisir

I'm really starting to want this game. It should go to 31 levels.

It would be perfect as a Munchkin type product.

[pemerton]

Originally Posted by Lizard

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.

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.

[mxyzplk]

Originally Posted by pemerton

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.