Dumb Question About OGL Monsters

[Gailbraithe]

Okay, so even after all these years, I'm still a bit confused by how the OGL works exactly. Here's the thing I'm unclear about: I have the Monsternomicon from Privateer Press. The Monsternomicon features a creature I really like called Cephalyx. They're clearly a substitute for the not-OGL Mind Flayers, but they're waaaaaaay awesome.

The Monsternomicon is OGL. Thus the Cephalyx is OGL. But the OGL document at the end says that the "product identity" includes the creatures and names of creatures, as well as "magical or supernatural abilities or effects". The Cephalyx has a supernatural ability called Chirugery that allows them to create Drudges.

So I'm confused. Can I publish my own adventure with Cephalyx that has nothing to do with the Iron Kingdoms? Can I reprint the statistics for the Cephalyx, including the text that explains what the Chirugery (Su) is?

Isn't the name of the creature part of the game statistics of the creature? It seems that it's necessary to include the name as part of the stat block, and it seems it would be necessary to reprint the description of what chirugery does (especially since the Monsternomicon will be out of print and unsellable by the end of the year, thanks to the revocation of the d20 license).

What about the basic concept of the monster? The description in the Monsternomicon is written in that annoying "in game" voice, and is clearly "product identity," as is the drawing in the book, but I could do my own write-up of the Cephalyx fluff and my own art, but I'd want to keep the basic concept (underdark mastermind with mechanical arms that uses drudge slaves) and appearance.

A lot of 3PP seem to do this, try to claim the name of the monster and everything about it that isn't the game stats as "product identity," but so much of the "product identity" blurs with the game statistics. Like the Cephalyx's game stats list four prosthetic blades as it's full attack, and studded leather as it's armor, so if you drew one in studded leather with four bladed arms you would be reflecting the game stats...and creating a creature that looked pretty much like the Cephalyx.

I'm mostly asking because I'm writing my own adventures with an eye towards publishing, and I'm wondering how much I can use of OGL material. Anyone got a clear guide to this stuff or know what I'm talking about?

This is going to become more important to 3.5/Pathfinder players as time goes by, and creatures need to be updated for Pathfinder, and books like the Monsternomicon go out of print.

 

[CapnZapp]

Are you charging money for it at a RPG Shop or are you putting up your adventure on your web site for free?

In the first case the answer is "get a lawyer", in the second "who cares, just do it"

 

[CapnZapp]

*double post*

 

[Jraynack]

As a 3PP, I can tell you that proper names of any kind (monsters [Cephalyx], spells [Withering Hand of Lux], NPCs [John Gould], countries [Qwal], magic items [Hand of Vecna], etc.) are product identity. But names that are into the everyday world is not (dragon, magic wand, loch ness monster, a feat called run, or a spell called fireball).

Now, under the OGL, companies could allow you to use their names and some did - that is dictatated in the OGL and Open Game Content of the product.

As to the monsternomicon, you can use the stats, but not the name. As for Chirugery (Su)(you must change the name since they made that name up), I would do one of two things: keep the ability as is (drudge is fairly common name that might be used as a monster) BUT make a drudge with different stats and abilities; Secondly, keep the ability, use a different monster name in place of drudge and use the replaced name on a drudge statistics block.

I am not a lawyer, but if you are still confused, I would simply contact Privateer Press.

 

[Jraynack]

A lot of 3PP seem to do this, try to claim the name of the monster and everything about it that isn't the game stats as "product identity," but so much of the "product identity" blurs with the game statistics. Like the Cephalyx's game stats list four prosthetic blades as it's full attack, and studded leather as it's armor, so if you drew one in studded leather with four bladed arms you would be reflecting the game stats...and creating a creature that looked pretty much like the Cephalyx.

There is nothing wrong with stuff looking similiar, but Product Identity certainly does not blur with game statistics. There is nothing wrong with doing something (and I stress this) similar - there are many similarities between a Cephalyx and Warhammer 40k's Fabius Bile - but the entire look is not copied as well as their game mechanics.

But, if you draw a creature with four prosthetic arms, the same looking studded leather armor, coupled with the same mask -you are treading on product identity (especially if you use the same stats).

There's nothing wrong being inspired by another creation, but if you want to adopt it as your own creation you really have to change it up.

Again, not a lawyer speaking.

 

[Roger]

This is legitimately sort of tricky, and often trickier than it needs to be.

Here's the thing: Not everything in an Open Game License product is necessarily Open Game Content.

Indeed, the OGC can be as little as 5% of the product.

A publisher is required to clearly identify which parts of the product are Product Identity and not OGC, but they often don't do a very good job of it.

It's perfectly keeping within the letter of the OGL, if not the spirit, to publish a monster and say the name and its powers are not OGC, but the rest of it is.

All that being said, I agree that in your particular case, it wouldn't hurt to drop the publishers an email and ask if it'd be okay if you do what you plan to do. There's a reasonably good chance they'll say it's fine.

If not, you might need to create your own cool monster.


Cheers,
Roger

 

[starwed]

As for Chirugery (Su)(you must change the name since they made that name up),

Um, what?

 

[Gailbraithe]

There's nothing wrong being inspired by another creation, but if you want to adopt it as your own creation you really have to change it up.

See though, that's the thing. I don't want to adopt it as my own creation. I just want to use it as open game content.

If I have to change it, how is it exactly that I'm using the open game content? Why do I have to add my own content (renaming it for example) to use it? That just seems very...nonsensical.

 

[Jraynack]

Um, what?

Please look at the spelling at little closer "chirurgy, chirurgery" vs. "chirugery" - there is no "r" before the "g". Though I am not up on my archaic french, this is a common practice that even I use to create PI from an old word - intentionally mispelling words to come up with a whole new word.

 

[Jraynack]

See though, that's the thing. I don't want to adopt it as my own creation. I just want to use it as open game content.

What I am saying is that you can use it as open game content except for the the parts that they say are Product Identity. You can't use Product Identity as open game content.

If I have to change it, how is it exactly that I'm using the open game content? Why do I have to add my own content (renaming it for example) to use it? That just seems very...nonsensical.

I think it is a bit asinine as well, but if you want to play, you've got to play by the rules.

The open game content is the statistics of the creature, except where they claim it is PI. Names and rules do not go hand in hand.

The reason companies do this is simple - in your case, for example, you decide to write your monster as it is in the monsternomican. A customer purchasing it might associate it with a Privateer Press Iron Kingdoms product because you use their PI (although their logo is not on the product, a customer might think you have an exclusive license). If he tells his friends to buy your product because he assumes it is official (it has to be since you used PP Product Identity) or if you put out another adventure and the customer assumes this new adventure is another Iron kingdoms product, you are now making money off of their brand and infringing on their PI.

I know it sounds silly and a bit extreme, but if a company does not actively protect its PI, then it can be contested and put into the Public Domain.

Star Wars is another great example - you make an adventure with minions called "stormtroopers" - nothing wrong with that since it is in the Public Domain (Hitler and such). But you sell your adventure as a sci-fi adventure, your stormtroopers have similar white, armored uniforms and carry what you call blaster rifles - then you are treading on PI.

I am just offering some simple advice - you can do what I and others suggested before about changing a few names or write Privateer Press an e-mail. However, it does seem you are intent on doing what you want to do and are using this forum to get some support, but I don't think you will find it (except for the suggestions a few of us already mentioned).

I can't argue the point more clearly then that (there is a reason you can't use the Beholder monster name in a OGL/GSL book - because it is PI and they are keeping it that way - can you make a monster shaped like an orb that floats and has multiple eye stalks - yes. Can you call it a beholder? No. Can you have the eye stalks do exactly the same thing a WotC Beholder does? No. Can I make up my own game system where I don't have to follow the OGL/GSL and have a monster called a Beholder? No.) That is just the way it is.

Your adventure's greatness should not be bogged down because you have to change a few things - if the creature does in the game what the statistics allow, what does it matter if it is called X over Y. So change the name - it is as simple as that - but if you are insistant to use their PI, then it seems to me that you are trying to intentionally write an Iron Kingdoms adventure and to make money off their branding.

Or, write the adventure as an Iron Kingdoms adventure and post it for free at a fansite or in the Privateer Press forums. I am sure they and the fans will enjoy it.