Game definitions?

[Dinkeldog]

Cergorach speaks words of wisdom, especially that very last bit at the very bottom of the post. Please heed it.

 

[Nellisir]

Hi,
I'm a bit confused, but when publishers talk about:
1.) game mechanics
2.) statistics
3.) material
in relation to OGC, what exactly do they mean?

Is casting a spell a game mechanic?
Is Humanoid a statictic, is a monster name?
Is the word "the" material, is the word combination "the Orc"?

I find the above terms a bit vague and i'm researching what content they exactly contain, any help would be greatly appreciated.

Hey Ceg - I don't quite understand your question, but I'll take a shot at it.
Game mechanics - the actions/numbers/defined terms that define or modify the dice or a character or creature. "Sick" isn't a game mechanic; it doesn't do anything. It's just a description. "Nauseated" is a defined term that has an effect on the numerical properties of the affected creature (nauseated creatures can't attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring concentration. They can only take one move action per round).

Statistics, presumably in the sense of a statistics block, or stat block, is generally a listing of a creature's attributes, and abilities.

The process of casting a spell by either preparing a spell, or knowing a spell and expending a spell slot, is a game mechanic. Any descriptive text (wave your hands, bend over and blow a fireball out your...) is not. The effects of the spell are game mechanics, but the description of those effects is not. (a fireball does 1d6/level fire damage - that's game mechanics. The large ball of fire that appears is not.)

Humanoid is a defined term, like rogue or fighter. "Humanoid" is not in and of itself a game mechanic or a statistic, but the parameters it sets on a creature are game mechanics, and when the parameters are set to define a creature, they become the creature's statistics. I think.


And while I'm certain this isn't what you're asking...
"the Orc" is not correct, unless "Orc" is a proper name of an individual. D&D does not capitalize race or species names. "The orc bit the pie" is correct. "The Orc bit the Elf" is neither correct nor appetizing.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Cergorach]

And while I'm certain this isn't what you're asking...
"the Orc" is not correct, unless "Orc" is a proper name of an individual. D&D does not capitalize race or species names. "The orc bit the pie" is correct. "The Orc bit the Elf" is neither correct nor appetizing.

Not really what i intended Nel, i was aiming more at the definition of "material" when referencing the SRD, as in "material that also appears in the SRD".

EXAMPLE. If i have:
"The Spell is cast by the caster."
"Languages spoken by Orcs is Orc."
"A horse bit costs 3gp."
"An american pie is as soft as a pussycat."
can i make the sentence:
"The Orc bit the pie."

In the example above, did i use 'matrial' from the first four sentences? Because if not, what the heck do they mean by 'material'then?

 

[Nellisir]

EXAMPLE. If i have:
"The Spell is cast by the caster."
"Languages spoken by Orcs is Orc."
"A horse bit costs 3gp."
"An american pie is as soft as a pussycat."
can i make the sentence:
"The Orc bit the pie."

IANAL.

In the example above, did i use 'matrial' from the first four sentences?

No, not in the sense you're looking for. Carrying your analogy a little further, if WotC had included the phrase "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" you could write anything you chose and call it "material from the SRD" because you're using the same letters.

Because if not, what the heck do they mean by 'material'then

Well, context matters, for one thing. At the very least, you can't redefine "bit", since what's really important isn't the word, but the concept it defines.

I'm not sure I can put this in really clear language, and I'm not sure there's a really good answer.

The SRD defines a set of rules. Those rules are OGC. Its pretty well accepted now that items built using that ruleset (feats, spells, races, monsters) is OGC. What's unclear is whether or not rules added onto that ruleset that utilize the underlying premise of d20 (roll 1d20. Add modifiers. Determine result based upon total. IE, MCAU's spell templates) is OGC or not. WotC has not, to my knowledge, clarified the issue. A few publishers skirt the thin edge of civility by keeping their Declarations of Open Game Content as vague as possible, typically using exactly that phrasing (material that also appears in the SRD is OGC, material that does not is not).

Unless you want to post another example, I don't think I can go any further. Publishers use the phrasing precisely because it is unclear, and they can imply that they can cause you legal difficulties if you use something they want to protect.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Cergorach]

Unless you want to post another example, I don't think I can go any further. Publishers use the phrasing precisely because it is unclear, and they can imply that they can cause you legal difficulties if you use something they want to protect.

How can they cause legal dificulties when the OGL clearly states "If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content."? How is 'material' a clear designation of OGC, when everyone i talk about has difficulty explaining what is 'material' in the SRD and how it relates to designation of OGC? When/if i use OGC from "material that also appears in the SRD", who is going to tell me that i'm wrong or right? If i'm wrong, clearly the person who accusses me has a clear definition of what "material that also appears in the SRD" would be, maybe i should test this...

 

[Nellisir]

How can they cause legal dificulties when the OGL clearly states "If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content."?

Read what I said more closely. I said "imply". I didn't say they could. But I am not a lawyer, and if Publisher X wants to blow $1000 on a lawyer to send a cease and desist letter, are you prepared to match him? I'll wager their lawyer could come up with a defination of "material" that excludes whatever you use.

If you want to go challenge some publisher, have a blast. You don't need the permission of anyone here.

Nellisir

 

[Vigilance]

Yup that's the easiest way, but is that the 'right' way? You shouldn't have to, the OGL requires you to clearly designate OGC and IP. The OGL gives us certain 'rights', but also certain responsibilities, when i look at certain IP/OGC designations i find that some publishers fall short on their responsibilities. The OGL does not require me to be polite (that's something my momma teached me), it requires me to correctly apply the OGL. How do i handle material that's IP or not OGC, should it then be OGC? Do you really think that a company would reply to seriously reply to an e-mail that asks for all the OGC in a 300 page book?

I think it is the right way for a lot of reasons, a very big one of which is that it's the polite way. First, the industry is very small, and impressing someone with your professionalism is a better way to network than having them think you're less than professional.

So, you have the possibility of making a good impression coupled with the most accurate way to get the information you seek. Sounds like win/win to me.

If I ever got an email asking me to give all the OGC in a 300 page book I would wonder what the point was. If someone has specific material they want to use, seems like they would name it. Why would you send someone an email saying "Im not sure what I want to use from book X, so could you let me know everything in the book that I might use?"

Emails like that would take enough time that no one could get anything done. If you want to use something from book X, send the publisher of that book an email and ask. Chances are you will get a very polite yes in return whether the material is OGC or not.

Therefore, again, you win, and have saved yourself all the before-hand semantic hand wringing.

You seem to really want to avoid that email saying "Hey is it cool if I use Y feat from Book Y?"

My suggestion would be not to *worry* about what's right, since you seem to *know* what's right, just *do* what is right.

Chuck

 

[Cergorach]

You seem to really want to avoid that email saying "Hey is it cool if I use Y feat from Book Y?"

If the only thing i needed from Book Y would be Feat Y, and i wasn't concerned about the usefullness of OGC to others, i would do it your way. But this is not the case...

Depending from whom i use OGC i would sent a polite, informational e-mail "Hi there, i used OGC from Book Y, in my product X, i hope you like it.". It might not be as polite as 'asking', but then again it really isn't asking, because i don't see you not using OGC because a publisher said no.

 

[der_kluge]

Just a quick comment here, OGC is, by definition, already derived from the SRD. So to say "content from the SRD and OGC" is redundant, since all OGC is already derived from the SRD in some form or another.

Any OGC is readily available to be used by any publisher (look at Mongoose's Ultimate line of books for an example). Unless the content contains something that is specifically defined as PI (product identity), it's all available, even ver batim if you desire.

 

[Cergorach]

Read what I said more closely. I said "imply". I didn't say they could. But I am not a lawyer, and if Publisher X wants to blow $1000 on a lawyer to send a cease and desist letter, are you prepared to match him? I'll wager their lawyer could come up with a defination of "material" that excludes whatever you use.

If you want to go challenge some publisher, have a blast. You don't need the permission of anyone here.

When people imply something, they either back it up, or they're bluffing. Well, i was thinking worst case scenario. ;-)

I have no love of pissing contest, and most certainly not with publishers. I'm not seeking permission from anyone, i'm seeking opinions on the matter of vague OGC designation, in the hopes of clearing up the vagueness. I find your views very usefull, because they give me another perspective on the matter. When you look long enough at a problem, chances are you've spent so much time disecting the minuta, that you've lost the perspective of the whole issue...