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.
Okay, so even after all these years, I'm still a bit confused by how the OGL works exactly. Here's the thing I'm unclear about: I have the Monsternomicon from Privateer Press. The Monsternomicon features a creature I really like called Cephalyx. They're clearly a substitute for the not-OGL Mind Flayers, but they're waaaaaaay awesome.
The Monsternomicon is OGL. Thus the Cephalyx is OGL. But the OGL document at the end says that the "product identity" includes the creatures and names of creatures, as well as "magical or supernatural abilities or effects". The Cephalyx has a supernatural ability called Chirugery that allows them to create Drudges.
So I'm confused. Can I publish my own adventure with Cephalyx that has nothing to do with the Iron Kingdoms? Can I reprint the statistics for the Cephalyx, including the text that explains what the Chirugery (Su) is?
Isn't the name of the creature part of the game statistics of the creature? It seems that it's necessary to include the name as part of the stat block, and it seems it would be necessary to reprint the description of what chirugery does (especially since the Monsternomicon will be out of print and unsellable by the end of the year, thanks to the revocation of the d20 license).
What about the basic concept of the monster? The description in the Monsternomicon is written in that annoying "in game" voice, and is clearly "product identity," as is the drawing in the book, but I could do my own write-up of the Cephalyx fluff and my own art, but I'd want to keep the basic concept (underdark mastermind with mechanical arms that uses drudge slaves) and appearance.
A lot of 3PP seem to do this, try to claim the name of the monster and everything about it that isn't the game stats as "product identity," but so much of the "product identity" blurs with the game statistics. Like the Cephalyx's game stats list four prosthetic blades as it's full attack, and studded leather as it's armor, so if you drew one in studded leather with four bladed arms you would be reflecting the game stats...and creating a creature that looked pretty much like the Cephalyx.
I'm mostly asking because I'm writing my own adventures with an eye towards publishing, and I'm wondering how much I can use of OGL material. Anyone got a clear guide to this stuff or know what I'm talking about?
This is going to become more important to 3.5/Pathfinder players as time goes by, and creatures need to be updated for Pathfinder, and books like the Monsternomicon go out of print.
As a 3PP, I can tell you that proper names of any kind (monsters [Cephalyx], spells [Withering Hand of Lux], NPCs [John Gould], countries [Qwal], magic items [Hand of Vecna], etc.) are product identity. But names that are into the everyday world is not (dragon, magic wand, loch ness monster, a feat called run, or a spell called fireball).
Now, under the OGL, companies could allow you to use their names and some did - that is dictatated in the OGL and Open Game Content of the product.
As to the monsternomicon, you can use the stats, but not the name. As for Chirugery (Su)(you must change the name since they made that name up), I would do one of two things: keep the ability as is (drudge is fairly common name that might be used as a monster) BUT make a drudge with different stats and abilities; Secondly, keep the ability, use a different monster name in place of drudge and use the replaced name on a drudge statistics block.
I am not a lawyer, but if you are still confused, I would simply contact Privateer Press.
__________________ Any Edition and Feudal Lords Products Are Now Available From Alea Publishing Group
A lot of 3PP seem to do this, try to claim the name of the monster and everything about it that isn't the game stats as "product identity," but so much of the "product identity" blurs with the game statistics. Like the Cephalyx's game stats list four prosthetic blades as it's full attack, and studded leather as it's armor, so if you drew one in studded leather with four bladed arms you would be reflecting the game stats...and creating a creature that looked pretty much like the Cephalyx.
There is nothing wrong with stuff looking similiar, but Product Identity certainly does not blur with game statistics. There is nothing wrong with doing something (and I stress this) similar - there are many similarities between a Cephalyx and Warhammer 40k's Fabius Bile - but the entire look is not copied as well as their game mechanics.
But, if you draw a creature with four prosthetic arms, the same looking studded leather armor, coupled with the same mask -you are treading on product identity (especially if you use the same stats).
There's nothing wrong being inspired by another creation, but if you want to adopt it as your own creation you really have to change it up.
Again, not a lawyer speaking.
__________________ Any Edition and Feudal Lords Products Are Now Available From Alea Publishing Group
This is legitimately sort of tricky, and often trickier than it needs to be.
Here's the thing: Not everything in an Open Game License product is necessarily Open Game Content.
Indeed, the OGC can be as little as 5% of the product.
A publisher is required to clearly identify which parts of the product are Product Identity and not OGC, but they often don't do a very good job of it.
It's perfectly keeping within the letter of the OGL, if not the spirit, to publish a monster and say the name and its powers are not OGC, but the rest of it is.
All that being said, I agree that in your particular case, it wouldn't hurt to drop the publishers an email and ask if it'd be okay if you do what you plan to do. There's a reasonably good chance they'll say it's fine.
If not, you might need to create your own cool monster.
There's nothing wrong being inspired by another creation, but if you want to adopt it as your own creation you really have to change it up.
See though, that's the thing. I don't want to adopt it as my own creation. I just want to use it as open game content.
If I have to change it, how is it exactly that I'm using the open game content? Why do I have to add my own content (renaming it for example) to use it? That just seems very...nonsensical.
Please look at the spelling at little closer "chirurgy, chirurgery" vs. "chirugery" - there is no "r" before the "g". Though I am not up on my archaic french, this is a common practice that even I use to create PI from an old word - intentionally mispelling words to come up with a whole new word.
__________________ Any Edition and Feudal Lords Products Are Now Available From Alea Publishing Group
See though, that's the thing. I don't want to adopt it as my own creation. I just want to use it as open game content.
What I am saying is that you can use it as open game content except for the the parts that they say are Product Identity. You can't use Product Identity as open game content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gailbraithe
If I have to change it, how is it exactly that I'm using the open game content? Why do I have to add my own content (renaming it for example) to use it? That just seems very...nonsensical.
I think it is a bit asinine as well, but if you want to play, you've got to play by the rules.
The open game content is the statistics of the creature, except where they claim it is PI. Names and rules do not go hand in hand.
The reason companies do this is simple - in your case, for example, you decide to write your monster as it is in the monsternomican. A customer purchasing it might associate it with a Privateer Press Iron Kingdoms product because you use their PI (although their logo is not on the product, a customer might think you have an exclusive license). If he tells his friends to buy your product because he assumes it is official (it has to be since you used PP Product Identity) or if you put out another adventure and the customer assumes this new adventure is another Iron kingdoms product, you are now making money off of their brand and infringing on their PI.
I know it sounds silly and a bit extreme, but if a company does not actively protect its PI, then it can be contested and put into the Public Domain.
Star Wars is another great example - you make an adventure with minions called "stormtroopers" - nothing wrong with that since it is in the Public Domain (Hitler and such). But you sell your adventure as a sci-fi adventure, your stormtroopers have similar white, armored uniforms and carry what you call blaster rifles - then you are treading on PI.
I am just offering some simple advice - you can do what I and others suggested before about changing a few names or write Privateer Press an e-mail. However, it does seem you are intent on doing what you want to do and are using this forum to get some support, but I don't think you will find it (except for the suggestions a few of us already mentioned).
I can't argue the point more clearly then that (there is a reason you can't use the Beholder monster name in a OGL/GSL book - because it is PI and they are keeping it that way - can you make a monster shaped like an orb that floats and has multiple eye stalks - yes. Can you call it a beholder? No. Can you have the eye stalks do exactly the same thing a WotC Beholder does? No. Can I make up my own game system where I don't have to follow the OGL/GSL and have a monster called a Beholder? No.) That is just the way it is.
Your adventure's greatness should not be bogged down because you have to change a few things - if the creature does in the game what the statistics allow, what does it matter if it is called X over Y. So change the name - it is as simple as that - but if you are insistant to use their PI, then it seems to me that you are trying to intentionally write an Iron Kingdoms adventure and to make money off their branding.
Or, write the adventure as an Iron Kingdoms adventure and post it for free at a fansite or in the Privateer Press forums. I am sure they and the fans will enjoy it.
__________________ Any Edition and Feudal Lords Products Are Now Available From Alea Publishing Group
Last edited by Jraynack; 7th August 2008 at 05:01 PM..
I'm a little confused as to how they can claim an ability - by definition a game mechanic, derived from the SRD and thus OGC whether they like it or not, notwithstanding attempts to declare it otherwse - as PI.
Or did you just mean the name of the abilty? In which case, just use the ability and give it a different name. There's no way they can make a d20 game mechanic not OGC.
I'm a little confused as to how they can claim an ability - by definition a game mechanic, derived from the SRD and thus OGC whether they like it or not, notwithstanding attempts to declare it otherwse - as PI.
Or did you just mean the name of the abilty? In which case, just use the ability and give it a different name. There's no way they can make a d20 game mechanic not OGC.
They are referring to the name of the ability and the name of the monster - and probably the other name of the monster inside the ability - in this case "drudge".
__________________ Any Edition and Feudal Lords Products Are Now Available From Alea Publishing Group
Last edited by Jraynack; 7th August 2008 at 06:57 PM..
Step One: Contact Privateer and ask if it is ok to use the Cephalyx in an OGL product.
Step Two: Use the stats to make a Cephalys with the Chirurgery(Su): ability. Done.
__________________ Andreas Rönnqvist Dreamscarred Press
New publishing with a focus on Psionics
Step One: Contact Privateer and ask if it is ok to use the Cephalyx in an OGL product.
Step Two: Use the stats to make a Cephalys with the Chirurgery(Su): ability. Done.
__________________ Andreas Rönnqvist Dreamscarred Press
New publishing with a focus on Psionics
Not to get too far afield here, but my Google-fu seems to be failing me. Didn't somebody have an awesome list of all the OGL monsters somewhere? Not their stats. just a list. Might have even been here. If someone can assist on that score, I'd appreciate it - I apparently rolled a natural 1.
Cheers,
Patrick
__________________ Patrick M. Murphy, Ph.D.
Mad Irishman Productions www.mad-irishman.net
Slainte!
Not to get too far afield here, but my Google-fu seems to be failing me. Didn't somebody have an awesome list of all the OGL monsters somewhere? Not their stats. just a list. Might have even been here. If someone can assist on that score, I'd appreciate it - I apparently rolled a natural 1.
Cheers,
Patrick
A couple sources are entirely OGC.
Bastion Press in Minions Fearsome Foes and Complete Minions (the pdf 3.5 update) made their monsters including the names and flavor descriptions entirely OGC.
Tome of Horrors and Tome of Horrors Revised by Necromancer games are all OGC. I don't own the second two volumes so I couldn't say on those.
I believe Denizens of Avadnu by Inner Circle Games is all OGC.
I know that Atlas Games' Penumbra Fantasy Bestiary has the stats and monster names as OGC but not the in-depth background description parts.
White Wolf/Sword and Sorcery were very restrictive, not including monster names or description parts in the Manual of Monsters, Monsters of Norrath, etc. I think it was this way in all the scarred lands books as well so that would include the creature collections, but I'd have to look them up specifically to be sure.
There are a ton of monster books, PI/OGC designations vary widely.
Sure there is. It's easy. Lots of publishers have done it.
Cheers,
Roger
No, they haven't. If it's derived from the SRD (as any d20 mechanic must be, by definition - otherwise it isn't a d20 game mechanic), then it's OGC, whatever the publisher in question claims.
If it's not derived from the SRD (i.e. doesn't reference any d20 game terms, etc.) then it's not a d20 game mechanic. It's just an unrelated game mechanic.
1.(e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;
(Emphasis in the above is my own.)
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but to me, that seems to indicate fairly clearly that "magical or supernatural abilities or effects" can be declared Product Identity.
I'll agree that it's not in keeping with the spirit of the OGL to do so.
No, they haven't. If it's derived from the SRD (as any d20 mechanic must be, by definition - otherwise it isn't a d20 game mechanic), then it's OGC, whatever the publisher in question claims.
If it's not derived from the SRD (i.e. doesn't reference any d20 game terms, etc.) then it's not a d20 game mechanic. It's just an unrelated game mechanic.
Actually, as TSR's history proves, mechanics can't be copyrighted. Tables may be considered copyrighted, the words themselves that describe the mechanics may be copyrighted, but the mechanic itself cannot be copyrighted. So if another system doesn't use the entire d20 system and as long as they don't reprint the wording from the d20 SRD or any other D&D-derived product, and don't reprint the exact same tables, then they can still include that mechanic or a group of mechanics in their system.
__________________ My current view of the OGL: Though accomplishing exactly what it was meant to do, it is flawed for not providing WOTC more latitude.
My current view of the GSL: section 2 and subsections 6.1, 11.1, and 11.3 need to be completely rewritten to protect the licensee from abuse, but the rest of the GSL is commendable and provides loss leader dynamics superior to the OGL, as the point to being a loss leader is pointing the community toward the loss leader.
Linear Mode
