Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="broghammerj" data-source="post: 369903" data-attributes="member: 1869">Forgive me for I am a humble physician not well versed in the ways of legalize (that's the language that lawyers speak which is not to distant from medical mumbo-jumbo.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> )&nbsp; I have several questions surrounding a fabricated scenario related to the use of OGL and MMII/CC.&nbsp; WOTC publishes a module and they decide to use two of the monsters from the CC because they fit well into the plot.&nbsp; (To me this seems to be why OGL exists).&nbsp; WoTC references them properly, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; Everything is &quot;legal.&quot;&nbsp; My understanding from reading previous threads is that the monster info can be used but not the name.My questions are as follows:1.&nbsp; What is WotC motivation to release two previously published monsters from a different product and rename them in their own monster book?&nbsp; (Question unrelated to scenario).2. Is the OGL inherently flawed?&nbsp; This appears to create a situation from which you can use game material (a good thing) but not directly relate it to the name (bad).DM: &quot;A large fury dog faced humanoid wielding two metal bars connected by chain attacks the group.&quot;Player: &quot;Is that a Flind?&quot;DM: &quot;I don't know.&nbsp; It doesn't say.&quot;3. Why is keeping the names protected beneficial? ie You have the blue print to the Death Star.&nbsp; You can build Death Stars.&nbsp; You can even sell Death Stars.&nbsp; But you better not call them Death Stars.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> 4. Whats preventing me from making the super uber &quot;Book of Fantastic Monsters?&quot; A collection of every monster ever made OGL and placed into a 1000+ page tome with leather bound cover for $99.95.&nbsp; It seems ok as long as I rename them.Thanks for the help. -JB</blockquote>

[QUOTE="broghammerj, post: 369903, member: 1869"] Forgive me for I am a humble physician not well versed in the ways of legalize (that's the language that lawyers speak which is not to distant from medical mumbo-jumbo.:D ) I have several questions surrounding a fabricated scenario related to the use of OGL and MMII/CC. WOTC publishes a module and they decide to use two of the monsters from the CC because they fit well into the plot. (To me this seems to be why OGL exists). WoTC references them properly, etc. Everything is "legal." My understanding from reading previous threads is that the monster info can be used but not the name. My questions are as follows: 1. What is WotC motivation to release two previously published monsters from a different product and rename them in their own monster book? (Question unrelated to scenario). 2. Is the OGL inherently flawed? This appears to create a situation from which you can use game material (a good thing) but not directly relate it to the name (bad). DM: "A large fury dog faced humanoid wielding two metal bars connected by chain attacks the group." Player: "Is that a Flind?" DM: "I don't know. It doesn't say." 3. Why is keeping the names protected beneficial? ie You have the blue print to the Death Star. You can build Death Stars. You can even sell Death Stars. But you better not call them Death Stars.:p 4. Whats preventing me from making the super uber "Book of Fantastic Monsters?" A collection of every monster ever made OGL and placed into a 1000+ page tome with leather bound cover for $99.95. It seems ok as long as I rename them. Thanks for the help. -JB [/QUOTE]

Verification