GSL: No kobolds?

[cdrcjsn]

You can totally redefine Kobolds as dog faced rat men if you like...you just got to call them Khobolds or Kohbolds or Kobalds or ...

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

It could be pretty funny to see all the various SRD monsters and races redefined in a satirical way with horribly misspelled names. Riffing off another thread you could have dorrf fhiters and harfink teeves fighting khobalds and dargons alongside neefling worlucks. And other such inanities.

 

[mxyzplk]

It's a bit confusing.

First, it seems clear that one can create new types of kobolds, devils, demons, and so on. However, as I asked in my Devil&Demon thread (and still want an official response on), there seems to be some issue over what "redefining" means, and whether it applies to fluff. It seems that the most restrictive reading of the GSL/SRD is that I can neither create my own culture for kobolds (this would 'redefine' the term), nor can I take the fluff text for kobolds in the MM and build upon it (as that would be referencing non-open content).

I'd like this clarified, as books of race/culture fluff are one of the things I most want to see coming out of the GSL. I'm concerned because it seems as if making sure all GSL products fit into the "assumed world" of D&D is one of the functions of the GSL, and that would be Seriously Depressing.

I think there's not too much concern, because for good or ill (hint: ill) there is just about zero fluff in the new Monster Manual. They don't even have physical descriptions of most of them, relying solely on the art... Although that has its own concern, because any derivation of the art is restricted by the GSL, so you could interpret describing e.g. gnolls as hyena-like humanoids as forbidden.

 

[pemerton]

any derivation of the art is restricted by the GSL, so you could interpret describing e.g. gnolls as hyena-like humanoids as forbidden.

The actual text of the GSL is "Licensee expressly agrees it will not use, publish or reprint any such imagery or artwork, including without limitation any derivatives thereof, without Wizards’ written permission."

The word "derivative" has a technical meaning in US copyright law. Are you suggesting that, consistent with that meaning, a verbal description of an image can constitute a work that is derivative of that image?

 

[pemerton]

Deleted double post.

 

[Nellisir]

It could be pretty funny to see all the various SRD monsters and races redefined in a satirical way with horribly misspelled names. Riffing off another thread you could have dorrf fhiters and harfink teeves fighting khobalds and dargons alongside neefling worlucks. And other such inanities.

I'm really starting to want this game. It should go to 31 levels.

 

[Lizard]

The actual text of the GSL is "Licensee expressly agrees it will not use, publish or reprint any such imagery or artwork, including without limitation any derivatives thereof, without Wizards’ written permission."

The word "derivative" has a technical meaning in US copyright law. Are you suggesting that, consistent with that meaning, a verbal description of an image can constitute a work that is derivative of that image?

I'm not sure how to interpret that, legally, but I *do* know that in the OGL days, some people at WOTC were annoyed that they had spent a lot of time/effort creating new, distinctive, visual looks for monsters (like bugbears or kobolds) and that other companies mimicked the new looks -- not directly copied the works, that would be blatantly illegal under any terms -- but used the MM art as a guideline, i.e, "That's a kobold. Paint us some kobolds for our cover."

Of course, this drives us write into the basci schizoprenia of the GSL -- they don't want people going too far afield from "core" D&D, whatever that is....BUT...they don't want people directly referencing anything from the core books, either. So you can't "redefine" kobolds in any meaningful way, but you also can't draw/depict them as looking too much like the kobolds in the MM, so...

It's really, really, hard not to keep coming round to "WOTC felt somehow obliged to produce a license, but really doesn't know what they want from third parties". Dancey's vision was clear: He wanted D20 Uber Alles. He wanted to encourage every company to buy into the D20 system and spread it throughout gaming. One die to rule them all. The OGC/PI split was there to encourage companies to produce valuable IP (settings, backgrounds, fluff) without fear of it being "stolen", while keeping all mechanics open so that they system could grow. It might not have worked out perfectly, but the "vision" was clear. I don't know what WOTCs "vision" is for the GSL. I think I'll start a new thread.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I'm really starting to want this game. It should go to 31 levels.

It would be perfect as a Munchkin type product.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure how to interpret that, legally, but I *do* know that in the OGL days, some people at WOTC were annoyed that they had spent a lot of time/effort creating new, distinctive, visual looks for monsters (like bugbears or kobolds) and that other companies mimicked the new looks -- not directly copied the works, that would be blatantly illegal under any terms -- but used the MM art as a guideline, i.e, "That's a kobold. Paint us some kobolds for our cover."

Sure, but that doesn't suggest that verbal descriptions are precluded.

It's really, really, hard not to keep coming round to "WOTC felt somehow obliged to produce a license, but really doesn't know what they want from third parties".

I don't know that it's quite as bad as you're suggesting, but it's certainly different from the OGL.

 

[mxyzplk]

The actual text of the GSL is "Licensee expressly agrees it will not use, publish or reprint any such imagery or artwork, including without limitation any derivatives thereof, without Wizards’ written permission."

The word "derivative" has a technical meaning in US copyright law. Are you suggesting that, consistent with that meaning, a verbal description of an image can constitute a work that is derivative of that image?

Yeah, I don't know what the technical definition is, so by the untutored reading-words interpretation, it could. If you have specific info, feel free and share.