Another Immortals Handbook thread

[Nifelhein]

I agree, he is going to be very clear, and that is to his own benefit, I believe, the suggestions I am giving in making it even better, though, are to improve this and have nothing original, I am basing them on the products that i own of Fantasy Flight Games, Atlas Games, Green Ronin and Mystic Eye Games.

The one that has the msot open content is the last and the one with the clearest identification is the last.

Anyway, i haev said my share on this, now I want to see the whole thing in print...

 

[Sledge]

Hey all!
Product Identity

- All product and product line names (Immortals Handbook, Immortals Index etc.)
- The 1 1/2 pages section titled A Glimpse at the Kosmos
- The 2 page introduction to Angels
- The 1 page introduction to Brood
- The 1 page introduction to Daemons
- The 1 page introduction to Demons
- The 1 page introduction to Devils
- The 2 page introduction to Dragons
- Monster Descriptions
- Monster Backgrounds
- Monster Tactics
- Monster Adventure Ideas (including any character names, creatures, places or objects therein mentioned)

Open Content

- Size Matters
- Density
- Virtual Size
- Universal Damage
- 1/2 page introduction to Abominations
- Monster Names
- Monster Statistics
- Monster Combat Text
- New Artifacts
- New Feats
- New Magic Items
- New Material (Orichalcum)
- New Spells

Any thoughts on those 2 lists?

Perfect. You keep your fluff, and give us all the crunch to play with.

 

[CRGreathouse]

U_K, the PI/OGC split looks good to me -- useful to us, and legal for you.

Wel, it's beyond me how you could reasonably differentiate everything in the IH or indeed any published OGL work to the standard you say is required. Also I'm gobsmacked that apparently everything that could be claimed to be a derivative work (under the extremely broad & unusual US derivative work doctrine) HAS to be made OGC. I guess I'll shut up now since I guess I don't have anything useful to contribute. :\

Perhaps it's just the general difficulty of the many issues surrounding the OGL. In any case, thanks for your input on these matters. Even though we have different understandings of the actual workings of intellectual property and contract law in these regards, I'm always greatful to hear from someone who actually has background in law. (I certainly have none; my understanding comes from reading the contract, small parts of the law, and hundreds of pages of discussion on the OGL-F listservs.)

Also, as a pragmatist, I tend to stick to conservative interpretations -- those that don't end up with Hasbro sending in the dogs.

Again, thanks for the discussion.

 

[Nifelhein]

I have enjoyed it too thank you two guys.

 

[Alzrius]

Okay I think now that we have established that none of us fully understand the OGC/OGL we should work out exactly what needs to be Product Identity and what should be Open Content.

And the consensus is in - none of us know what we're talking about.

At this point I'm thinking:

Product Identity

- All product and product line names (Immortals Handbook, Immortals Index etc.)
- The 1 1/2 pages section titled A Glimpse at the Kosmos
- The 2 page introduction to Angels
- The 1 page introduction to Brood
- The 1 page introduction to Daemons
- The 1 page introduction to Demons
- The 1 page introduction to Devils
- The 2 page introduction to Dragons
- Monster Descriptions
- Monster Backgrounds
- Monster Tactics
- Monster Adventure Ideas (including any character names, creatures, places or objects therein mentioned)

Open Content

- Size Matters
- Density
- Virtual Size
- Universal Damage
- 1/2 page introduction to Abominations
- Monster Names
- Monster Statistics
- Monster Combat Text
- New Artifacts
- New Feats
- New Magic Items
- New Material (Orichalcum)
- New Spells

Any thoughts on those 2 lists?

Perfect. This is, realistically, everything that I had hoped would be open-sourced. Take those lists and run with them U_K!

 

[CR2000]

Would the beastiary preview be adequte enough for the ENnies next year?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Would the beastiary preview be adequte enough for the ENnies next year?

It would be a valid entry, if that's what you're asking. Could it win...? I don't know. Look at the field of nominees this year -- it's not just d20-compatible material, which narrows the chances (if there will only be 2-3 d20-compatible products nominated). Still, I'd certainly enter it.

--Former ENnie Judge CRGreathouse

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey guys!

My internet was down from last night to this evening and I have also had to lay the smackdown over at wizards message boards, so that distracted me earlier tonight.

It seems fine following the standard I have given you, although the introduction to abominations should be made closed content itself, consider any character name to be closed too, so if it happens to be on a spell, specify it too, descriptions being open would be nice, if those you are refering are like the ones we have on the SRD of the MM monsters.

I know that is the standard but does it make sense to guard the names of spells/monsters/items etc?

It seems somewhat illogical.

Pointing open content during close content passages is not a problem, although you might want to make the same WotC made in the MM, the passages in italics in a monster write up identifies closed content, the remaining (then specify and speak of spell names and the like) are open content.

Thats just too pedantic for my tastes.

Also, having product identity somewhere in the middle of the open content is not a problem, just remember to reference that, so if a monster name has a place name you want to keep closed, for example, you might say in the introductory chapter of the bestiary that (insert your list) are close content, as well as (place name), (character name that shows up often), Immortal's Handbook, Immortal's Index, Immortal's Bestiary.

Indeed.

In general consider that your designation has to clearly be understood by what the americans call "citizen Joe", the medium person, if you have any atlas games book, open it, they have open content in a different color background, inside boxes, or with a specific symbol (which is not open, by the way) before and after it.

Again, too pedantic.

All images are product identity, the graphic layout and the like too.

Yes, I meant to add that.

 

[Upper_Krust]

I meant to add that I will probably remove the Vol.2 lists from the contents and CR Table and that will free up the space for the PI/OGC declaration.

It would be a valid entry, if that's what you're asking. Could it win...? I don't know. Look at the field of nominees this year -- it's not just d20-compatible material, which narrows the chances (if there will only be 2-3 d20-compatible products nominated). Still, I'd certainly enter it.

--Former ENnie Judge CRGreathouse

It has not been officially released at the time of the Ennies being opened, therefore I don't want it entered, I can't see it as a viable product when its not even finished.

By next years competition I may have a few things to enter.

 

[Fieari]

What sort of smackdown did you have to hand out on the wizards boards? Link?