OGL sharing question

[philreed]

You do realize the challenge and token rules are probably not declared OGC? IIRC, only the skills chapter is OGC. (Don't own it, just skimmed it.)

Actually, the skill challenges appear in the skills chapter -- which is designated as all OGC -- so they're clearly open.

The token rules get strange, though. The master token rules appear in an area of the book that is not designated as open while the ways in which the individual classes gain and use tokens -- presented under the class features section of each class -- are clearly designated as open.

As to should you buy or not. I say buy.

 

[Nellisir]

The token rules get strange, though. The master token rules appear in an area of the book that is not designated as open while the ways in which the individual classes gain and use tokens -- presented under the class features section of each class -- are clearly designated as open.

Not having IH to hand, that sounds somewhat similar to his setup of spell templates in AU/AE. He clarified to me in an email that the intent was to open the concept of spell templates, but not the actual templates in AU/AE. So the only actual open templates are from Dragon (and now the Dragon Compendium), both of which have OGL flaws, as usual.

 

[afstanton]

Not having IH to hand, that sounds somewhat similar to his setup of spell templates in AU/AE. He clarified to me in an email that the intent was to open the concept of spell templates, but not the actual templates in AU/AE. So the only actual open templates are from Dragon (and now the Dragon Compendium), both of which have OGL flaws, as usual.

What's lovely is that the feats that allow you to apply templates are themselves open content (since the book explicitly states that all feats in it are open), but you can't use the templates they refer to. You have to create your own. So you might as well change the text of the feats to use the templates you make up. The templates you make have to be significantly different from the ones he gives, or you're using closed content. So the feats, despite being open, are essentially useless for ogl purposes. As stated, all it does is open up the concept of spell templates. But you can't use his - you have to reinvent that particular wheel yourself.

 

[philreed]

Not having IH to hand, that sounds somewhat similar to his setup of spell templates in AU/AE. He clarified to me in an email that the intent was to open the concept of spell templates, but not the actual templates in AU/AE. So the only actual open templates are from Dragon (and now the Dragon Compendium), both of which have OGL flaws, as usual.

Makes perfect sense. If I remember right the appearance of spell templates in Dragon didn't have an OGC declaration.

 

[Nellisir]

Makes perfect sense. If I remember right the appearance of spell templates in Dragon didn't have an OGC declaration.

Right. The Compendium has an OGC declaration, but no OGL that I've found, and thus no S.15 to attribute. The irony of it kills me. I've pretty much decided at this point to hang it all and go for it anyways -- I'll rewrite the "fundamental" spell templates (a fire template, an ice template), without touching his PI or CC at all, and add new ones. I'll probably email Erik about an attributation for the Dragon Compendium, or worst case I'll make up a good, accurate, proper one. If they complain, I'll change it to whatever they want.

UPDATE!!
I found it. The OGL is on page 171 of the Dragon Compendium, in what has to be The World's Smallest Type Ever! And it's got a proper S.15 and everything! Three cheers for Erik Mona!!

 

[Yair]

[hijack]

What's lovely is that the feats that allow you to apply templates are themselves open content (since the book explicitly states that all feats in it are open), but you can't use the templates they refer to. You have to create your own. So you might as well change the text of the feats to use the templates you make up. The templates you make have to be significantly different from the ones he gives, or you're using closed content. So the feats, despite being open, are essentially useless for ogl purposes. As stated, all it does is open up the concept of spell templates.

You can't open up the concept of spell templates since a concept is not copyrighted to begin with. What he did was open up the TERM "spell templates", so you wouldn't have to invent a new name for it, and the core mechanic's text, so you wouldn't have to write it yourself.
On the same token (hah!), the templates you make don't have to be significantly different from his as the concepts therein are not copyrighted; the text describing the tokens has to not be derived from his, that is all. Regardless of who phrases it, if he follows the standards of phrasing in the SRD the result will probably look very similar, which MAY make it difficult to show actual derivation line, but I THINK the burden of proof is on the one suing (as they have to prove the defendant is breaking their copyrights, he is innocent until proven guilty). Not sure of that.
(All of this assuming the templates aren't covered by the blanket "everything derived from prior OGC is" statement.)
[/hijack]

Curiously, the IH situation seems reversed to the spell templates one - a lot of specific ways to gain tokens, but no general rules about them.

 

[jmucchiello]

Have you thought to ask Monte?

 

[Nellisir]

Have you thought to ask Monte?

Yes, back in March of 2004.

The basic answer is that the concept of spell templates is open content but the specific templates are not.

Subject: Are spell templates OGC?


<short version>
My exact question is...

Are the spell templates that appear in MC's Arcana Unearthed intended as Open Game Content?

Thanks for your patience
Nathan

<longer version>
I'm unclear on whether or not they were intended to be Open Game Content. The feats that grant them are declared OGC, and the Dragon article featuring them (presumably authorized by you) was OGC (albeit without a OGC declaration or updated OGL), but the OGC declaration in Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed states "In Chapters...Eight, all the material that also appears in the System Reference Document is open, and all other material is not". Spell templates don't appear in the SRD, though the component mechanics do.

 

[Nellisir]

[hijack]
You can't open up the concept of spell templates since a concept is not copyrighted to begin with. What he did was open up the TERM "spell templates", so you wouldn't have to invent a new name for it, and the core mechanic's text, so you wouldn't have to write it yourself.
On the same token (hah!), the templates you make don't have to be significantly different from his as the concepts therein are not copyrighted; the text describing the tokens has to not be derived from his, that is all. Regardless of who phrases it, if he follows the standards of phrasing in the SRD the result will probably look very similar, which MAY make it difficult to show actual derivation line, but I THINK the burden of proof is on the one suing (as they have to prove the defendant is breaking their copyrights, he is innocent until proven guilty). Not sure of that.

Essentially true, BUT I think it's common sense not to copy content someone has attempted to close unless there's a good reason. There's nothing intrinsicly "better" about the fire/cold/water/earth templates in AE/U, and if I come up with logical effects to fill those "fundamental" spell template concepts that DON'T copy his effects, I'm actually creating something/adding something, rather than just rewording/duplicating something.

Follow?

 

[philreed]

Essentially true, BUT I think it's common sense not to copy content someone has attempted to close unless there's a good reason.

Makes perfect sense to me.