Statblock Formatting

[Urizen]

I have a question about Statblock Formats.

Would it be considered a breach of the open gaming license if I published Stat blocks like they are presented in the DMG II ?

 

[Balok the Strange]

I'm not really sure about that. I have been told that the original stat block is not really part of the SRD or the OGL and that any means of conveying the information in a block format is open territory.

I don't really believe that, mind you.

I would have to say that unless it is printed in an updated version of the SRD that it is proprietary and cannot be used. As I understand it, however, both Dungeon and Dragon Magazines (both now owned by Piazo Publishing) are demanding the use of the new stat block in all new submissions.

Personally, I don't like it. I think that it is ugly, amateurish, and unnecessary. We already know how to read and write the current stat blocks; why do we need a new way that changes everything about the prevoius one including nomenclature?

I will not use it, and Dog Soul will not use it.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Mark CMG]

I have a question about Statblock Formats.

Would it be considered a breach of the open gaming license if I published Stat blocks like they are presented in the DMG II ?

How would it be?

What section of the OGL would be violated by emulating a format used by two entriely different companies, neither of which has specifically claimed "ownership" of that style of expression and neither of which has acknowledged within the initial presentation of, first publication of, that style of expression that they were doing so with the permission of the other?

I don't see that anyone has made any effort to protect that style of statblock formatting nor do I think that it behooves them not to encourage it be used as a standard. It actual harms them, in a way and perhaps only IMO, to have many different styles of statblocks being used throughout the industry because their potential target market may become used to an alternate style and not find their style, and consequently their products/magazines as appealing as they might have if that same customer had simply become used to the style they have used by widespread usage.

Anyway, the jury is still out on it, to my mind, as to whether it is a better way to format and unless it becomes more universally used I'm not likely to switch of my own accord.

 

[Urizen]

hey,

thank you so much for your responses. I appreciate the input!

 

[Balok the Strange]

What section of the OGL would be violated by emulating a format used by two entriely different companies, neither of which has specifically claimed "ownership" of that style of expression and neither of which has acknowledged within the initial presentation of, first publication of, that style of expression that they were doing so with the permission of the other?

While it might not be a direct contravention of the OGL it is still owned by WoTC. The little notica at the front of the book called a copyright is usually a big clue that the publisher owns everything in the book not covered by the OGL. Therefore, as I have seen no alteration to the SRD to include the new stat block I must assume that it is protected by copyright. The fact that Paizo is using it (with the blessing of WoTC, with whom they work hand-in-glove) is of little import; they are printing the mags in accordance with the wishes of WoTC.

It actual harms them, in a way and perhaps only IMO, to have many different styles of statblocks being used throughout the industry because their potential target market may become used to an alternate style and not find their style, and consequently their products/magazines as appealing as they might have if that same customer had simply become used to the style they have used by widespread usage.

I totally agree with that statement. One stat block style used universally is called a standard; multiple styles are called confusion.

Anyway, the jury is still out on it, to my mind, as to whether it is a better way to format and unless it becomes more universally used I'm not likely to switch of my own accord.

Well, this juror has spoken his mind.

And even if it does become more standardized, I will probably be remembered as the last hold out, the iconoclast who refused to follow the herd...... or just an idiot, not sure which.

 

[Mark CMG]

While it might not be a direct contravention of the OGL it is still owned by WoTC. The little notica at the front of the book called a copyright is usually a big clue that the publisher owns everything in the book not covered by the OGL. Therefore, as I have seen no alteration to the SRD to include the new stat block I must assume that it is protected by copyright. The fact that Paizo is using it (with the blessing of WoTC, with whom they work hand-in-glove) is of little import; they are printing the mags in accordance with the wishes of WoTC.

Your first sentence is unclear. Are you claiming that a stat block format is "owned" by WotC or that the OGL is "owned" by them? Remember, you can't own everything in a book not covered by the OGL if it wasn't yours to own in the first place and you can't contribute something to the pool of OGC if it wasn't yours to contribute. It may very well come down to an issue of ownership but I doubt that's as clear an issue as you seem to be inferring. But I am getting ahead of myself as there is more to deal with than just that.

Regarding the OGL: Unless it *is* a direct contravention of the license, then it *is not* against the license. The license is a contract and that's how contracts work. WotC also has the ability to change the license if they feel it doesn't cover something they want covered. The fact that they have done so in the past, and have not done so recently, is a clear indication that they are content with what the license currently covers. It's also a situation they will have to live with unless and until they change it, and those changes only apply to those who choose to utilize the newer license or materials released under the newer license.

Regarding Copyright: No notice needs to be given for something to be considered under copyright, at the front of a book or in someone's diary or anywhere; as soon as someone writes something it is considered their under their copyright, barring any agreements they may have previously made, such as those dictates of an employee/employer relationship, work for hire, etc. But all this assumes that the something being protected is something that *can be* protected in the first place.

So, getting back to what you were assuming/claiming... Assuming that WotC has given their "blessing" to another company (such as Paizo) to use something they wish to withhold from anyone else is intuitively counter to everything else they do, which is for them to normally and legally dot the I's and cross the T's to the best of their multi-million dollar, team-of-corporate-lawyers ability. WotC (Hasbro) and Paizo are two separate companies and they do not work strictly by understandings despite how it may appear. If they want something to have a legal standing they are more than capable of handling it properly.

Legally, and I am not a lawyer but, it would appear that IF they had wished this style of statistics dissemination to be kept to themself and a select group of users they would have, and should have, taken the legal steps to protect it, which they apparently have not.

I could assume that WotC wants no one to to use stat blocks at all, since they don't have any in the SRD but that seems not to have been the case for the last five years. I could assume that WotC doesn't want anyone to have any information in tables that separated information in color or shades of grey, since they do so in their books but it isn't in the SRD but that seems not to have been the case for the last five years, as well.

Again, they haven't said they don't want anyone else to use that format, publicly, legally, or elsewise. It's not in their best interest for them to maintain it as proprietary, even if they could. It's not against anything in the OGL, as near as I can tell, for someone else to use it or a similar format. I can't see why they would want to prevent it.

If I was interested in using that particular format I would go right ahead and do so, but I'd also adjust a few things like making sure to show how an Armor Class breaks down, mentioning the Scent feat up near the top when a creature or NPC had it, etc.

 

[HellHound]

Whao, why doesn't someone ask WotC?

 

[Mark CMG]

Whao, why doesn't someone ask WotC?

Certainly sounds easy enough. Unfortunately, as with other instances involving the OGL and d20STL, I'm personally of the belief that seeking direct approval from WotC is likely to culminate in a negative response even if they didn't have the legal standing to back it up. I think in most cases it is simply safer for them to automatically say "No" on the off chance that someone is trying to slip something by them. Who knows? Maybe on something as simple as this I'd be in error to expect a more corporate-legal reaction. I wish the OGL list-server archives were accesible. I might be able to point out some earlier instances where such an approach seemed less than potentially fruitful.

In any event, if I was to appraoch WotC on such a matter, I think I would try to make it a lot easier for them to allow it and remove the risk that they might disallow it out-of-hand. I think I would be prone to phrasing the question in such a way that they would need to be careful how they would answer, i.e. "I've seen no clear proprietary claim anywhere regarding the statistical presentation format currently in use by WotC and Paizo, so I'm wondering if I was to use it if I should expect legal proceedings to be started against me because of it?" If they say "No" you're at least as safe as you could expect to be, since anyone can start a lawsuit even with specious standing. If they say "Yes" then they've put themself in a position where they really have to take a definite stand if you even release a single page PDF with no more than a single Stat Block on it.

I don't know. Maybe I'm over-thinking it... Why don't *you* aks them?

 

[HellHound]

Unfortunately, as with other instances involving the OGL and d20STL, I'm personally of the belief that seeking direct approval from WotC is likely to culminate in a negative response even if they didn't have the legal standing to back it up.

Interesting.

The -only- time WotC has said "no" to me regarding a request was to license Boot Hill and/or Star Frontiers. I've received permission on several occasions to reference WotC IP over the years, including being one of the writers of the Paradigm Concepts Mind Flayers book.

 

[Mark CMG]

Interesting.

The -only- time WotC has said "no" to me regarding a request was to license Boot Hill and/or Star Frontiers. I've received permission on several occasions to reference WotC IP over the years, including being one of the writers of the Paradigm Concepts Mind Flayers book.

Excellent. Thanks for volunteering. Let us know when we've got the go-ahead on that new stat format.