Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5807498" data-attributes="member: 42582">Yes. Part of what I base my 98%-don't-understand-the-SRD/OGL/D&D-situation is a lack of clarity over the intersection between IP- and contractually-based obligations.Linking this back to the question of whether Paizo is leveraging D&D brand recognition - clause 7 of the OGL obliges Paizo to refrain from using any Product Identity so-designated by WotC in releasing the SRD under the OGL - and "Dungeons & Dragons" and "D&D" have both been designated. "3.5" is the best that Paizo can do.A question for you in your pro bono capacity!: the SRD has almost no fiction for races, and pretty limited for monsters. OSRIC has more than what is in the SRD, and it's modelled on AD&D. An example:Gnoll raiding parties will be led by a leader with 16 HP. He fights as a 3 HD monster.There are mechanics there, but is that primarily a statement of mechanics, or a fictional statemen about gnoll raiding parties? And that's just one part of the gnoll entry, which is in turn just one part of OSRIC's replication of AD&D.I would agree that the strategic dimension to any litigation around the SRD and retro-clones is an important factor. I tend to regard it as a reason to be cautious about inferring that, because WotC is not litigating, it believes that any given retro-clone publisher is compliant under the OGL.</blockquote>