E6 SRD - community project

[ideasmith]

What I can't determine is if the corrections to SRD ogc is still ogc. My gut tells me it's not an issue because they're "corrections"... but I've been looking into this to try to find a definitive answer.

edit: WotC's OGL FAQ asks/answers the questionemphasis mine). I don't know if that answers the question, but it seems on the right track.
[/LEFT]

My own understanding is that the corrections to the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual are derived from the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual.

The Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual are definitely not OGL and WotC's right to use them is definitely not derived from the OGL. The fact that the copyright notice is 'naked', rather than with the OGL notice that would be required if the corrections were OGL, underlines this point.

I am for leaving the corrections out.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Heh, suddenly this project has become decidedly less fun. Maybe [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] can point me to something online that would help clear this up?

I understand the manuals as a whole are not released under the OGL, but they do contain open content protected by the OGL. And it's my understanding that the point of the OGL is to allow derivative materials (including specifically "corrections", etc, in section 1.b of the OGL) to be created from ogc, so long as the resulting material is also ogc. In this case, the ogc is the SRD, and the derivative material is WotC's errata to non-product identity in the core manuals-- in other words, the SRD.

I guess the thing is that if this were not the case, all those other SRDs out there-- including Pathfinder, which also appears to incorporate the errata-- must be in the wrong.

In any event, I'll hold off on incorporating errata until I've got a better idea of what's correct here.

 

[ideasmith]

Heh, suddenly this project has become decidedly less fun. Maybe [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] can point me to something online that would help clear this up?

I may have gotten overly intense. My apologies.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

No, no, no apology necessary! My comment wasn't aimed at you at all. The legal issues are a valid concern, and the errata issue does need to be cleared up.

Sorry if I came off as frustrated; parsing legalese just isn't very high on my "happy fun list".

 

[macrochelys]

Heh, suddenly this project has become decidedly less fun. Maybe [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] can point me to something online that would help clear this up?

I understand the manuals as a whole are not released under the OGL, but they do contain open content protected by the OGL. And it's my understanding that the point of the OGL is to allow derivative materials (including specifically "corrections", etc, in section 1.b of the OGL) to be created from ogc, so long as the resulting material is also ogc. In this case, the ogc is the SRD, and the derivative material is WotC's errata to non-product identity in the core manuals-- in other words, the SRD.

I guess the thing is that if this were not the case, all those other SRDs out there-- including Pathfinder, which also appears to incorporate the errata-- must be in the wrong.

In any event, I'll hold off on incorporating errata until I've got a better idea of what's correct here.

I've been trying to catch up with all you guys have done, but I feel like chiming in on this right away.

I know this subject is a minefield for armchair lawyers, but having looked at the errata for the PHB 3.5 I would say that the content is almost solely in the form of rules and therefore the changes themselves are not subject to copyright (see U.S. Copyright Office - Games). Certainly, the numbers only changes would be free to be incorporated. The more prose-like changes (i.e. the Polymorph errata) might be questionable, in the strictest interpretation (and it seems Paizo changed these section wholly for Pathfinder).

But, does it matter? d20srd.org, which has certainly been known to WotC, has had the changes incorporated for years. I would say, to fit the bill of a product I would feel safe packaging and selling, I would include the small changes but not the big Polymorph/Alter Self changes, just to cover my ass.

Or I'd base it off the PFSRD, but that's a whole different path

P.S. I'm also in support of a 'Monster Spells & Abilities' section.

 

[Ry]

Heh, well it's your baby. Feel free to pop in anytime. We'll send a notify when the first online version goes up for comment & correction. Hopefully that will be easier for folks to see and evaluate the changes we've made to the full SRD.

I'd love to do a read-through towards the end of February if something is available by then. I've trimmed individual SRD files for what-would-have-been this project a half dozen times.

As I said on e-mail to another interested party, I'm big on keeping exactly to the baseline ruleset (in this case 3.5) and then using well-considered appendices and new feats to make changes from that. Feats are great rules containers.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

file: Monsters D-De

file: Monsters D-De

status: awaiting proofread

comment:
cut -
demon, hezrou
demon, succubus
demon, vrock
devil, hamatula
devil, bone
devourer

modified -
demon, quasit - inlined commune
devil, erinyes - inline Unholy Blight
devil, imp - inlined commune
derro - removed refs to confusion and higher-level cure magics

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

file: Monsters Dr - Dw

file: Monsters Dr - Dw

status: awaiting proofread

comment:

modified -
dryad (inlined [simplified] treestride)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In all honesty, I've never read the OGL: none of my clients are in the industry and despite my long history in the game, I've never felt the urge to publish anything. If any of my ideas are floating around in the hobby, they were freely given.

That said, my perspective is that, as stated in the link provided above, pure rules are not copyrightable...and ditto corrections to those rules.

As long as you're not using someone's fluff, you should be in the clear. Note that fluff can include unique creature/class/place names or phrases used in particular ways.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

file: Types, Subtypes and Abilities

file: Types, Subtypes and Abilities

status: awaiting proofread

comment:

[EDIT: added dominate person, dominate monster and telekinesis to "monstrous spells" list]

In this version, I've removed the spells-as-special abilities (as in the previous version), and kept them as spells in a "monstrous spells" section at the bottom, along with a (very awkwardly worded, imho) paragraph of explanation.

These "monstrous spells" have only a level with no reference to spellcasting class, and no components (since specials don't use components). They are otherwise identical to the spells as they appear in the full SRD. In retrospect, a couple of these (esp true seeing and charm monster) may be more appropriate inlined into monsters descriptions because there are just a couple instances of each, but they're here for now. Additionally, telekinesis might be appropriate to add, as it's a complex one but will be needed for ghosts (and would also allow the inclusion of vrocks).

Let me know if this "monstrous spells" approach actually looks better or worse than simply rewriting as special abilities.

(Also note , the spell fear is not a separate "monstrous spell". I left it as ideasmith (iirc?) left it, subsumed into the already existent fear special ability.)


[EDIT: added dominate person and telekinesis to "monstrous spells" list]