DRAGON #360 Art Gallery: Dryad

[LoneWolf23]

I agree, if dryads have any hope of being taken seriously they need to be able to look serious when the need arrises for defending their home. The wrath of nature does not look like a half naked woman making and angry face it looks alot more like that tree thing...

Poison Ivy would disagree with your comment...

 

[Monkey Boy]

Never mind

 

[Nifft]

So much of 4th edition strikes me as game designers trying to justify their jobs to Hasbro, that I'm not surprised at yet another completely unnecessary and boneheaded butchering of the game.

Of course, the redesign creates marketable intellectual property, taking the D&D dryad completely out of the realm of a mythological (and thus public-domain) figure.

Notice the ditching of public-domain figures like Gnomes in favor of WOTC intellectual property like Tieflings and Eladrins? At this point I wouldn't be surprised if characters could no longer wield plain old public-domain swords, but instead only used some new weapon with a lot of weird pointy bits on the blade.

WotC clearly hates the OGL. Ever since they bought D&D, they've ... wait.

"My common sense is tingling!", -- N

 

[Clavis]

WotC clearly hates the OGL. Ever since they bought D&D, they've ... wait.

"My common sense is tingling!", -- N

Of course, the question may not be whether or not the current leadership of WOTC hates the OGL, as much as whether or not Hasbro dislikes it. Ultimately, 4th edition is Hasbro's game, so let's see what happens...

 

[Nifft]

Of course, the question may not be whether or not the current leadership of WOTC hates the OGL, as much as whether or not Hasbro dislikes it. Ultimately, 4th edition is Hasbro's game, so let's see what happens...

If your suspicions were correct, they (WotC, Hasbro) could have simply not put 4th edition under the OGL.

They've announced that they're going to do the opposite. If you're right, why would they bother?

-- N

 

[Clavis]

If your suspicions were correct, they (WotC, Hasbro) could have simply not put 4th edition under the OGL.

They've announced that they're going to do the opposite. If you're right, why would they bother?

-- N

True. Although let's remember that the OGL and SRD explicitly remove things from the public domain by defining terms, asserting ownership, and then granting a mechanism for use under the intellectual property owner's conditions.

 

[Nifft]

True. Although let's remember that the OGL and SRD explicitly remove things from the public domain by defining terms, asserting ownership, and then granting a mechanism for use under the intellectual property owner's conditions.

What has been removed from the public domain?

-- N

 

[grimslade]

True. Although let's remember that the OGL and SRD explicitly remove things from the public domain by defining terms, asserting ownership, and then granting a mechanism for use under the intellectual property owner's conditions.

Are you asserting that 3E is public domain and WotC is using the OGL/SRD to grab a hold of it? I think I may have an aneurism from the jagged edges of that twisted logic.

What is being removed from public domain that is not WotC IP, which they purchased when they bought TSR or developed themselves?

 

[Clavis]

Are you asserting that 3E is public domain and WotC is using the OGL/SRD to grab a hold of it? I think I may have an aneurism from the jagged edges of that twisted logic.

Not what I intended at all. In fact, as I understand it the OGL and SRD remove anything in 3rd edition from the public domain. My original point was that changing something like a dryad away from its generally understood form creates a new intellectual property that can't be challenged, unlike a creature that is a simple translation of shared mythology.

D&D did not begin with 3rd edition, and previous editions drew more heavily on world mythology, or IP that neither TSR or WOTC owned. Hence, changing halflings into pint-sized gypsies distanced them from the IP of the Tolkien estate. Making D&D Gnomes into slender bards who don't wear pointy hats effectively distanced them from Wil Huygen's portrayal of Gnomes.

What is being removed from public domain that is not WotC IP, which they purchased when they bought TSR or developed themselves?

Well, they didn't invent dryads, dragons, elves, gnomes, orcs, goblins, etc. Therefore it makes sense from a business point of view for them to change those things into forms different from their classic ones, so those distinctive forms can copyrighted.

The resulting tree-babe still looks stupid.

 

[grimslade]

Not what I intended at all. In fact, as I understand it the OGL and SRD remove anything in 3rd edition from the public domain. My original point was that changing something like a dryad away from its generally understood form creates a new intellectual property that can't be challenged, unlike a creature that is a simple translation of shared mythology.

D&D did not begin with 3rd edition, and previous editions drew more heavily on world mythology, or IP that neither TSR or WOTC owned. Hence, changing halflings into pint-sized gypsies distanced them from the IP of the Tolkien estate. Making D&D Gnomes into slender bards who don't wear pointy hats effectively distanced them from Wil Huygen's portrayal of Gnomes.

Well, they didn't invent dryads, dragons, elves, gnomes, orcs, goblins, etc. Therefore it makes sense from a business point of view for them to change those things into forms different from their classic ones, so those distinctive forms can copyrighted.

The resulting tree-babe still looks stupid.

Ok. You have no argument. All your examples are freely available to develop and use with or without the OGL/SRD. If you want to create d20 product using 3E mechanics and fluff, use the OGL. If you want to create an random RPG product with hobbitty halflings and fox- riding pointy hatted gnomes go ahead, WotC only cares about their mechanics and fluff, let others defend their own IP, i.e Tolkein's estate and Wil Huygen. There is no conflict here. The only conflict is if you try to create a 3.5e slender gnome bard named Gimble and claim it as your own IP. It would be wrong with or without the OGL.

Let's break it down:
Art of Barky 4E dryad= Copyrighted material contact the artist to use it

Millenia old myths, name dryad, concept of feminine wilderness nymph tied to a tree= 100% Public domain. Do what you will.

Mechanics for running a dryad in D&D, fluff about feywild, the name: Black Woods dryad= WotC IP, mechanics will make it into SRD, like all the other examples you listed above did for 3E. The names and fluff wil be stripped off; they are WotC IP. Add the mythic fluff and name back to them if you want.

Even if the 4E Dryad perfectly matched the dryad of myth and legend, WotC would still own the mechanics of how the dryad works in D&D and how the mythic creature fits into its fluffy world. Why? Because they created the mechanics and world fluff; therefore they own it.