Search results

Most people who have been around the OGL for a bit, I would guess, don't associate Orcus with any WotC product so much as with Necromancer Games, who used him as their mascot. Most of the demon-lords you are on pretty safe ground using as far as names go. Several were stated up in Tome of...

If you are asking for yourself, my advice to you would be to buy as many OGL bestiaries as possible, and learn what is in them, so you can 1) borrow whatever you like, and 2) make sure you're not reinventing the wheel. When in doubt, check one of the srds, such as the aforementioned d20pfsrd.com...

No they don't. You can't copyright (easily) a Roman god (Orcus) or Mesopatamian deity (Tiamat) which predates your product by a couple of thousand years. Now, if you develop a trademark which incorporates either, that I would guess you can protect to a certain extent. But the names...

That list has several wrong on it. Orcus, the Tarraque, otyugh, owlbears, drider and drow are all open. When in doubt, just go to a reliable site like d20pfsrd and enter in the monster name to search. If it comes up, its open.

Ropers are also open.

Otyugh are OGL.

This seems like an odd sort of question for the 5th edition forum, which doesn't have the OGL. The short answer is yes and no. Probably the closest I can think of to what you are actually suggesting in a published work is the pseudo umber-hulk in the early 3.0 adventure Nemoren's Vault...

Character creation should always be free. That's how you rope them in. What you really want to do is take a page from the online games and let players play the regular game for free, but grant them "Hero Points" to do little extra things. Keep it small at first, and give them the 1st ten...

No legal reason sure. But as a gesture of goodwill and to build up good PR, it would be the smart thing to do. There was a time...

Bummer. I thought this was a post telling us that if we got xp-awards on the boards this weekend it would count twice as much. Though perhaps I should mention this to my players so they buy me pizza tomorrow. :)

I doubt it. Now when they invite other publishers to a meeting, I'll get my hopes up again.

You are probably right. The problem is that people in the company used the term OGL for what they were going to do, thus raising expectations.

I think you guys are protesting too much. There has been a lot of cross-pollination. And the amount continues to increase. Sure, there were corner cases here and there where it did not happen like it should, and WotC never made an effort to encourage it (which I think was part of the problem)...

I think you are imposing an unnecessary interpretation. They made both names and flavor text closed, as was their right, because both of them had copious amounts of world-names and descriptions in them. It was easier to do a blanket cut-off then to delineate with each monster. But their monsters...

What is outside the OGL that is bothering you? You seem to be under the impression that most OGL publishers are trying not to share, but in my experience, they are all sharing pretty well.

Well, no, really it doesn't, unless everyone who wants to use the system is fine with making generic worlds. But for a system where multiple creators want to publish books with IP in it, then the CC becomes less useful. The CC is also less useful for a system where you do want people to build on...

It seems pretty clear from my readings that this is how the CC license works. And you can only mix and match licenses if someone does not use a Share-alike CC license, but I'll assume you already knew that. :) When all is said and done, I think that the conclusion is: the OGL is the superior...

I feel like there are two different conversations talking past each other. I am not sure what your response has to do with what you are responding to.

My question above was largely rhetorical, but maybe that wasn't clear. :) Now here is a real question I have - could another party create a license which incorporated OGC from the OGL as being automatically part of the new license? I recognize there would be little point to actually doing...

May I inquire as to what rights were actually reserved by that copyright?