Game Mechanics & Product Identity

[HellHound]

I am trying to explain to someone how actual Game Mechanics in an OGL product HAVE to be Open Game Content - especially in the case of new spells, psionic powers, feats, etc.

Here is what I emailed them, I was wondering if anyone more eloquent than I could make it sound better, or at least explain it better than I have.

---

You understand that by the terms of the license, anything BASED on the mechanics of the SRD are by necessity Open Game Content, right?

For example, the rules for creating new poisons in The Quintessential Rogue are forced to be OGC because they use systems developed initially in the SRD (using skills, manufacturing rules, save DC, etc).

Also by definition in all the OGL FAQs and use guides, it states clearly that new spells have to be OGC because they use material that is based on the SRD (the magic system, spell system, spells already published).

Thus if a power you have is a modified version of a power in the SRD, then it is by default OGC (since you can't claim that it is not derived from the SRD). This is why no one has ever published a single psionic power, spell, or feat that wasn't OGC (although in some cases the publishers have made the NAME of the spell, psionic power or feat PI) - the fact that it IS a power, spell or feat indicates it HAS to have been derived from prior OGC (in most cases being the SRD). Otherwise, no one would ever make ANY part of their document OGC, if they could make it all Product Identity.

Here is the quote from the OGL FAQ:

Q: What is "Open Game Content"?

A: Open Game Content is any material that is distributed using the Open Game License clearly identified by the publisher as Open Game Content. Furthermore, any material that is derived from Open Game Content automatically becomes Open Game Content as well.

and here is the quote from the relevant section of the Open Game License itself:

"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.

"Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;

Notice that nowhere in here does it say that game mechanics can be Product Identity, the actual mechanics have to be Open Game Content.

 

[jmucchiello]

There is a loophole. I can create a game mechanic that has nothing to do with the SRD. (How to simulate a game of poker with die rolls?) Since the rules to poker and the way dice are rolled are not OGC, I can include this "game" in an OGL covered product and PI the rules.

Now, granted this level 9 esoterica, but it is still possible. It certainly doesn't help with a spell though you can close. (If the spell has no game effect, it probably doesn't derive from the SRD. It also doesn't do anything useful and thus has no use. But it may be possible to create.)

Now that I've muddied the waters, who, may I ask, are you trying to convince?

 

[HellHound]

It's in a conversation between me and a friend who wishes to make new material for a product but wants to protect the material by making it all Product Identity.

Also, I feel that a spell with no game effects would still fall as OGC, on the basis that if said spell included caster levels ar any other game mechanic from the d20 system (just the "Level: bard 0"). I guess you could create a "PLOT DEVICE" spell that the ancient badguys used, and then not include any actual mechanics for using said spell unless they were entirely new...

Thanks for muddying the waters for me.

 

[Orcus]

Just because it is a "spell" doesnt make it OGC. It must be derived from OGC for it to be manditorily OGC.

For example, if I create a whole new spell system and release it as OGC the spells I create for that system do not have to be OGC as they were not derived from OGC.

However, if you make new spells based on OGC content--such as spells compatible with D&D--they must be OGC.

But...just because they are OGC doesnt mean that they can be PI.

OGC includes PI and non-PI content. There is no need to PI something unless it would otherwise be OGC. PI'd content is a subset of OGC--it is OGC that you are allowed to protect.

An example is the spell "Vangal's rage" from Relics and Rituals. The spell mechanics MUST be OGC because they are derived from OGC. But the name, since it contains the name of a god unique to the scarred lands and is thus protectable, can be PI. Similarly, the description of the spell that talks about where it came from and that the dwarves of Burok Torn use it, etc, can be PI'd as well since that is non-game mechanic information. In fact, that stuff doenst even need to be delared as OGC at all.

There are three types of content:

OGC that is NOT PI'd;
OGC that is PI'd; and
non-OGC.

It all depends on how you designate things.

Clark

 

[davewoodrum]

Not that this is for everyone, as I know some people prefer to hold on to their rights of product protection and that is perfectly fine, but this is why I've always preferred making the whole thing 100% OGC or working for a publisher who prefers 100% OGC release... it's not only friendly but it saves a few headaches...

 

[Alzrius]

There are three types of content:

OGC that is NOT PI'd;
OGC that is PI'd; and
non-OGC.

It all depends on how you designate things.

Clark

Okay, I understand the first and third thing you listed there, but I don't quite grasp the second. Product identity is stuff that you can't use because it belongs to someone yes? But OGC is allowing it to be used by other people, albeit in a certain way. So...how is writing a product using someone else's OGC PI different from writing using someone else's non-PI OGC material?

 

[MThibault]

I'm not trying to put words in Orcus' mouth, but I think that the three categories he presents are dependent on how you identify your OGC.

If you have a statement that says something like, "all spells are open game content, except for the names of the spells and the text labled 'Description'" then you've actually declared the titles OGC in the first part of the sentence, but protected them as PI in the second part. You couldn't do this with mechanics that are derived from the SRD, though.

In a nutshell, I think (and I'm no expert so this is really just a "talking point") that if your mechanic uses the existing terminology found in the SRD or 3rd party OGC (DC, AC, BAB, Saves, Spell Failure, maybe even Class or Level) you are strongly advised to err on the side of declaring that mechanic as OGC. If the mechanic is a part of (and is indicated as such) an existing category of mechanics (Feats, Skills, Spells, Psionic Powers, etc.) then you are best advised to declare the specific mechanic as OGC.

If you are creating a whole new category of mechanics from scratch (e.g Benefits/Hinderances) then you can probably keep the category closed down, even if the listed specifics (which might effect bonuses to AC and penalties to saves) must be OGC.

Is this really far off the mark?

 

[tensen]

Okay, I understand the first and third thing you listed there, but I don't quite grasp the second. Product identity is stuff that you can't use because it belongs to someone yes? But OGC is allowing it to be used by other people, albeit in a certain way. So...how is writing a product using someone else's OGC PI different from writing using someone else's non-PI OGC material?

Actually the issue is.. generally PI is gaming content that is specific to a setting or publisher. You can't use without requesting permission, which may or may not be gotten simply by asking a publisher. non-PI OGC material can be used whole cloth without asking (although it is nice if you ask).

You can always just leave material fall under normal copyright, and not open it to OGC or place PI on it. This is why Orcus states PI as a subset of OGC.

 

[jmucchiello]

Okay, I understand the first and third thing you listed there, but I don't quite grasp the second. Product identity is stuff that you can't use because it belongs to someone yes? But OGC is allowing it to be used by other people, albeit in a certain way. So...how is writing a product using someone else's OGC PI different from writing using someone else's non-PI OGC material?

Technically if the material isn't OGC then it is NOT governed by the OGL. Thus PI only exists within OGC. Anything that falls outside of your OGC declaration is protected only by standard copyright law.

Thus you have three things:
plain copyright,
OGL protected OGC, and
OGL protected PI within OGC.

Example:
If I have a book and designate chapters 2-4 as OGC and I can only declare "Warmaster Fred" as PI if the good warmaster appears within chapters 2-4. Even if chapter 1 is a 20 page short story about the exploits of the warmaster, if he isn't in chapters 2-4 I don't mention him in the PI declaration.

In the spell example, you should just OGC the whole spell and PI the title. If you OGC everything except the spell title, then you cannot also PI the title (nor can you PI words that only appear in spell titles).

Now to answer your question: The OGL says you cannot use (someone else's) PI without their permission. Plain OGC you can use without their permission. That's the only difference.

 

[Orcus]

Thus you have three things:
plain copyright,
OGL protected OGC, and
OGL protected PI within OGC.

Correct.

The reason for PI being a subset of OGC is that sometimes protectable content will fall into OGC or be mixed with it--a great example is the new spell I mentioned above. The name of the god, Vangal, is protectable. So when it slips into OGC, by being in a spell name, we can protect it by designating it as PI. That way we can release the spell and the name as OGC, but PI the god's name. You will notice that in Relics and Rituals I included a limited license for the PI in the spell names so that people dont even have to call and ask specific permission--I put it right there in the product.

Clark