Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rpgHQ" data-source="post: 1269854" data-attributes="member: 12219">hey joe why bring it up then? If this isnt the proper place to discuss it then why even mention it? Just point the guy to the mailing list and hold your tongue. If I am wrong some where in my post then correct it or dont evenbring it up, its that simple. Your being a jackarse in the way your posting. If you had identified what is or isnt correct in my post and explained yourself would be the proper way to respond.Next time either point out what you have issue with and explain or simply keep your mouth shut and simply point whoever to the ogf website and/or their mailing list for concerns about the definitions of the OGL. No need for the jackarsyness.I edited this post because I am not going to get into the back and forth with joe again. He simply takes exception when someone talks about what can be done without the OGL.    Its ogl or nothing with joe. So I will make this longer comment and leave it at that.Lets see what I said about what is doable with the OGL  in my post above:Monster name can be PI, a publisher can declare a monster name open or closed. Sounds correct to me.next I mention statblocks and say I think its possible to PI some types of statsblocks, keyword is 'think' not saying yes it is or no it isnt. Next I reply to his  question about casting spells, well casting a spell is part of the game mechanics, but the spell name and descriptive text falls under PI, and once again a publisher can declare it open or close. Seems correct to meNext was Humanoid, its a type or subtype, its game mechanics and not covered by the definition of PI in and of itself. Seems correct to me.Then I address 'material' and explain what I assume he is talking about and state its PI. Seems correct to me.Then I went on to talk about other things and make sure to mention I was talking outside the context of the OGL. That is WITHOUT the OGL.Then I talked about derivative works and as defined in the OGL it doesnt include game mechanics in and of itself as defined in 1b. Though in 1d when defining Open Game Content it mentions game mechanics and then goes on to include derivative works in that definition. Saying that a publisher can take their derivative work as defined by copyright law and declare it open game content if they want to. Derivative Material/Works has nothing to do with game mechanics.But whenever someone mentions OGL and someone mentions even in side comment how such and such can be done if not using the OGL ol' joe pipes up in jackarse mode. How does talking about stuff that is outside the OGL get a response of this isnt the place to talk about the ambiguities of the OGL, go to the ogf mailing list? Why would I want to talk about things that have NOTHING to do with the OGL on a mailing list that deals WITH the OGL?Nothing I made comment on to the originators post within the context of the use of the OGL was incorrect, or disputable, the stuff I made comment on was all pretty cut and dry with the exception of certain statblocks and I said so, that part where I said "I think', it implies one is not completely sure if their answer is correct or not.  Joe, you just have some weird fetish about people talking about things inside the bounds of the OGL and  outside the bounds of the OGL all in the same post. Must be something to do with the bigger minds bit of yours, all that unused space needing filled.Next time just respond to the person with the OGL question by directing them to OGF website and/or their OGL mailing list and leave others out of it. By saying "....However, I will not point out how in this forum. This is not the proper forum for discussing..." you have already made comment and remark on something in a forum you yourself declare as not a proper place to talk about it.</blockquote>

Verification