What happens to OGC which violates OGL?

[Orcus]

I will say this (and I dont know if this is Monte's thinking or not) but one day d20 will go away. Maybe 3 years, maybe 30. And if you want to keep control over what you as a publisher believe is a unique rules approach, you want to keep that content closed. So I do see why some publishers are closing or attempting to designate as PI some rules content that others might think should be open (again, see my post above about what we mean by "should". Do you mean "should" as in "can vs. cant" as in referring to permissible versus impermissible or do you mean "should" as in "you should have done it this way because I think this way is better" as in referring to preferable versus not preferable).

You have to remember that different publishers (WotC included) has different business interests in using the license. For example, WotC on the one hand provided the most valuable OGC when they released the SRD. But they dont make open content products. Is that supporting open gaming? Monte is perhaps one of the most successful third party publishers and has released a lot of open content and some that is not so open. But he has paved the way for more third companies to be successful in the market. Is that supporing open gaming? That is only one small fraction of the business decisions we all have to make. And it isnt just as easy as "well, just make it all open." That isnt always a realistic decision. It is, when possible, a good decision if there are no counterveiling principles saying you shouldnt open content. There is alot more to supporting open gaming that just how much you release as open content.

Clark

 

[Nellisir]

You do? But what do these things do? They set the die roll to 20 or alter the DC of some check. Heck, they turn failure into success. At some level they must interact with OGC from the SRD, otherwise they don't do anything. Any implementation of a concept, compatible with d20 rules must derive from the SRD if it is to have any in-game effect.

I was a little vague; but also a little less strict in my interpretation than you are.

IANAL.

At the most extreme, EVERY rule interacts with the game system somehow; ergo all rules are OGC. That's not my interpretation.

Some new mechanics modify, clarify, expand, compress, or simplify portions of the existing rules. Death's door, alternate poison effects, detailed diseases...these take an existing OGC concept and revise it. Any mechanic thus derived should, IMO, be OGC. It's derivative.

Fewer mechanics add in rule subsets to govern otherwise undefined (in the SRD) areas -- fear and horror checks from Ravenloft, sanity checks, critical hit charts...these add rules to govern a specific situation, and typically interact with OGC at a variety of points (Will saves, wisdom bonuses, BAB, natural 20 = critical hit...). Any ruleset thus added in should probably, IMO, be OGC, but may not be if it defines something integral to the PI of the campaign setting and addresses an issue otherwise unaddressed in the SRD. Most will be derivative, some will be enhancement.

A third set of mechanics introduces the "fourth wall"...and breaks it. This is where void points, action points, and hero points (panache points, pizza points, Mucchiello money, etc, etc, etc) almost always come in. All of these boil down to one thing: the player of a game can "buy", via an expendable resource, an alteration to the otherwise unalterable rules of the game. The alteration can be narrowly defined (an expended void point adds +1 to the DC of a fire spell), loosely defined (a panache point adds +1d20 to another die roll), or barely defined (a zippy allows you to reroll any one roll), but they all come down to the same thing. Any mechanics involved are either simple additions and subtractions to the existing system (+1 DC) or vague alterations (reroll any one roll) -- they are essentially so fundamental they're (mechanically) impossible to declare closed content. What is essentially declared in these cases are the title words "Void Points, Hero Points, Mucchiello Money". I expect this material to be declared PI or closed. I like void points, but the core idea is so basic, my only motivation for using void points would be to signify a compatibility with AEG's Rokugan material. (It doesn't hurt that all of AEG's feats are unquestionably open). The entire system is utterly replicable with Mucchiello Money. It's an enhancement, but a very, very, primal one. There are only so many ways to interact with a dice-based rule system, and they all involve dice and/or numbers.

Alright. It's a "feely" sort of thing. There're a thousand loopholes. But that's my working opinion, until it changes.


Nell.

 

[Nellisir]

I will say this (and I dont know if this is Monte's thinking or not) but one day d20 will go away. Maybe 3 years, maybe 30.

By d20, do you mean a method of indicating compatibility with the Dungeons & Dragons game? A defined ruleset (that happens to be the Dungeons & Dragons game)? Or something else?

I can see WotC someday dropping d20, but not the disappearance of OGC and the OGL, which are more important in this case. I think the cat is out of that particular bag.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[jmucchiello]

I think the line is between what is derivative and what is an enhancement over prior art. That is a hard line to draw. I will say that I can see a reasonable argument that spell templates can be closed. I dont think you can say there is NO way they can be closed. There is a reasonable interpretation that allows their closure, IMHO.

How does this argument stand in the face of the pieces of OGC that must be present in the rule in order for the rule to have an effect in a d20 game? I'm not saying the idea isn't new or enhancement over prior art. I'm saying that once you render the rule as a d20 rule, that rendering is derivative. IOW, in order to translate English into French, I must use French words. Likewise, in order to translate ideas into d20 game mechanics, I must use d20 game mechanics. It is impossible to use d20 game mechanics without also using bits of the SRD or other OGC.

If you say it isn't derivative, that it is enhnacement over prior art, the OGL itself forces it to be OGC in the definition of OGC: OGC is "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." Thus, unless you PI the new rule, any enhancement over the prior art is OGC according to the license.

Finally, you say that people want to keep ideas closed for the time when no one uses the OGL any more. Well the only way to use OGC without using the OGL is to be the original copyright holder and to just rerelease the content without the OGL. So what difference does it make in your "post-d20" future what you have "opened". It's only open if people are still using the OGL.

Additionally, we know that copyright does not cover processes and algorithms (which is all that game mechanics are). No amount of copyright protection or "no declaring something open" will prevent someone from reusing your idea in another game context. I mean, again not picking on Monte here, but if he hopes to reuse spell templates in another game context, that game context has to include a Vancian spell system, feats, spell levels, casting spells from memory, etc. The fire template only works in a spell system with "evocations". There is nothing here to protect. Likewise a death's door rule requires a system with an abstract hit point methodology, ignoring the fact that GURPS also uses -HT for death, HERO uses -BODY for death, etc.

Any way, I'd like to see a counter-argument to my translations must be OGC point. If that premise can not be filled with holes, then I will not accept that material translated into d20 statements can be allowed to be closed.

 

[Orcus]

If every rule that used a d20 concept must by definition be OGC then there would be no need in the license for the clause that indicates some rules can be PI and enhancements over prior art. Since that is there we have to presume it has an effect. The only effect is that there must be some rules that are enhancements over prior art and thus PI-able.

As for specific designations I agree that you SHOULD (#2) specifically designate rules you beleve are closed as PI. But, if that section of your book is not OGC then there is no need to PI it.

I think the proper way to close rules is to declare the section OGC and then PI the rules you want to close because you believe they are enhancements over prior art. I dont think you can just leave them out.

But I should warn you, that is my opinion today. A month ago, I thought it was better to just leave the rules out of OGC declarations all together (thus "closing" them wihthout "PIing" them).

Clark

 

[Orcus]

In all honesty I think that is one of the least clear (to me anyway) sections of the OGL.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

Lets look at the license term:

(d)"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.

Translation (as I translate it):

Open Game Content includes rule mechanics unless such mechanics are PI and an enhancement over prior art; and also is anything else the contributor designates as open content.

That seems to say on the face of the license: there are open rule mechanics and there can be closed rule mechanics that are PI and enhancements over prior art.

If that is true, if there are those two categories, then the perfectly logical position you state above which is logical on its face (that all rules detailed using OGC terms must be OGC) is contradicted by the license itself and we have to legally give effect to the terms of the license.

A principle of legal interpretation is that things are not put in licenses or statutes meaninglessly. They must be given meaning and read together when that is possible. Here it is possible to distinguish those two categories.

Thus, back to what I said, that mechanics that are PI'd and are enhancements over prior art can be kept out of OGC. I (and this is just me) interpret this to mean a new or novel rule mechanic. I would include templates and sanity checks as new mechanics that are not part of the OGL. They may exist in other systems but they are new to the d20 system (putting aside CoC).

Why does this exist? I think to encourage publishers of other game systems (Chaosium and thier Elric system for one were very worried about this) to convert to d20 without running the risk that some of the things unique to their game system would now be open to everyone.

Clark

 

[Nellisir]

I'm having a happy moment, and so want to thank Clark & the rest of y'all for pleasantly debating and discussing this. It's interesting getting everyone's viewpoint, and getting a few questions answered.

Whee!
Nell.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Clark--

I have been in the same camp as Joe and Spencer for a while, but on reading your comments I am not so sure now.

Can you help to define "enhancement over the prior art" for us, and give us some d20 examples that you think fit that bill?


Wulf

 

[Staffan]

(d)"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.

OK, I'm neither a lawyer nor a native speaker of English but the way I read it, I get:
OGC 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.

The way Clark reads it, it would appear to be more like:
OGC 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.

Personally, I think that it could be read either way. In order for it to only be what Clark says, it should probably say "does not embody the Product Identity or is an enhancement over the prior art".