What happens to OGC which violates OGL?

[aryus]

Thank you guys so much for this thread. All of the views expressed have been very insightful. As a budding/aspiring (I know, I Know) d20 publisher this has given me much to think about when the time comes for me to declare open content.

Best Regards,
Martin

 

[Orcus]

The best advice for new publishers is to see the "d20 Publishing FAQ" right here on our very own ENWorld. In fact, it is "stickied" as the top thread in this very forum. Go check it out. It has tons of great information for the new publisher.

Clark

 

[jmucchiello]

I like the comment you made about you have used similar death's door rules for 15 years. That is what I am talking about. Clearly, you came up with those rules before there was d20 so it is hard to say that the "concept" of a rule that deals with death's door must inherently be derivative of the d20 SRD--heck, lots of us had that rule long before d20 ever existed. The issue is, is something derivative and therefore open by default simply because it is described in d20 terms. Many people argue "no." Rules can be created and are deserving of protection as newly created concepts even though they are expressed in d20 terms.

Okay, now I'm on the same page. I think the difference here is that the d20 implementation of external rule ideas is derivative of both the old rule idea and of the OGC in d20. So I think a d20 implementation of any idea must be OGC. This doesn't stop you from creating a separate game with no OGC derived rules and including your idea there as well, after all you are the owner of the concept. But derivation from OGC must be OGC and since the rule ends up being defined in d20 terms, it must derive in part from the SRD and thus must be OGC.

Short form: I think the act of translating even a unique idea into d20 terms makes the implementation derivative of OGC. And thus you should open it.

 

[Nellisir]

I can see a new rule being protected, IF it isn't reliant on OGC content. I expect publishers to close "hero points", "action points", or "void points".

But death's door (for one example) or spell templates (for another) are reliant on OGC content. Death's door rules are enabled by such things as hit points, Constitution, and weapon damage. Spell templates are enabled (though less so) by the OGC spell casting method.

...Or a brand new spell system totally different that the d20 core system (a la Monte's templates). I think that is protectable.

The templates aren't a new spell system; they're essentially a type of metamagic feat. The ability to use a template is granted by an (OGC) feat, and that's essentially the only requirement.

I'm hung up on the templates largely because I don't understand why they're protected. The concept has been released as OGC, the mechanics are OGC, the method of granting a feat is OGC...the only actual closed content are the actual templates in MC's AU, which don't contain any campaign-specific material. It's just annoying to know I have to write "Fire Template: 1d4 damage, +1 DC", because "Fire Template: +1d6 damage" is closed content.

Argh.
Nell.

 

[Cergorach]

Post partially deleted because Nellisir said it so much better than i ever could...

Actually, i don't see Spell Templates being designated as Closed Content or IP, and:

In Chapters Six, Sevenm and Eight , all material that also appears in the System Reference Document is open, and all other material is not.

The following material appears in the System Reference Document:

Spell
Templates
are
special
rules
that
characters
<etc.>

If people don't want to follow the spirit of the OGL, they should word their OGC better...

 

[The Sigil]

Okay, now I'm on the same page. I think the difference here is that the d20 implementation of external rule ideas is derivative of both the old rule idea and of the OGC in d20. So I think a d20 implementation of any idea must be OGC. This doesn't stop you from creating a separate game with no OGC derived rules and including your idea there as well, after all you are the owner of the concept. But derivation from OGC must be OGC and since the rule ends up being defined in d20 terms, it must derive in part from the SRD and thus must be OGC.

Short form: I think the act of translating even a unique idea into d20 terms makes the implementation derivative of OGC. And thus you should open it.

Agree. (Sorry to pick on Monte) I feel that a "Fire Template" that causes "any evocation spell to do 1d6 points of fire damage and any spell with the fire descriptor to do 2d6 extra points of fire damage" has to be derivative, because the game mechanics it is interfacing with (the Evocation school, and the "fire descriptor" and to a lesser extent the damage energy type of fire) are CLEARLY not defined outside of the SRD, and as such, the template becomes a derivative of the SRD by default... because it could not have been created independent of the SRD.

I hope that's being clear... the moment you alter an idea to "interface" with SRD mechanics, incorporate SRD terms or concepts, especially mechanical concepts, such as Spell Descriptors or Feats and such, you have created something that is in fact a derivative work - because you had to use the SRD to make sure it would "interface" in the first place.

Perhaps I'm wrong... I'm sure Clark will correct my logical flaws if I am. But it seems to me that no matter how original the idea, in order to "transform it" into a "mechanical entity" that interfaces with the SRD's mechanics, one had to use the SRD as a "reference point" - which immediately turns it into a derivative work. If the expression of mechanics that the idea engenders carries with it no direct reference to any mechanics available in the SRD, I will admit that proving a derivative relationship might be somewhat tenuous and I can see possible counter-arguments.

However, should the expression of the idea incorporate terms and mechanics directly from the SRD itself (e.g., Spell Descriptors, material components) - especially if it RELIES on such things for a full understanding of the expression (e.g., referencing "Fire Descriptor" with no further elaboration on what a Fire Descriptor actually is), it seems to me that there is no "wiggle room." That expression was built on Open Game Content. As such, I should think it is by definition a derivative work and must under the OGL itself be Open Content.

For example, I could have an idea for an adventure high fantasy city near a body of water. Certainly, I can create my own work on this. However, if my 500-page work has several references to "Khelben's Tower," "Waterdhavians," "Red Wizards," and so forth, and takes place in the city of "Waterdeep" on the planet "Faerun," my work in its entirety is clearly a derivative work - even if my protagonist, Bobby Squidface the Third and the adventure premise (Bobby Squidface gets dehydrated and is looking for a freshwater inlet to bathe in) is a brilliant original idea and the plot is brilliantly done and 99% of the book is about Bobby Squidface and I only mention the terms above in passing.

I've gotten wordy now. Very well put, Joe. I agree wholeheartedly with your logic (just couldn't have expressed it as succinctly) and am rather curious to see Orcus' take on this. I think I see Clark's POV - that an idea can be original and "sourced" outside the d20 system. I won't disagree with that... I think it's quite clear. However, in transforming the idea so that it "interacts" with d20 mechanics, one must pass the idea through the d20 mechanics, thereby making it derivative. In other words, anything that "interfaces" directly with the d20 mechanics must by default be open (anything that is a separate game mechanic unto itself that never interacts with d20 mechanics - e.g., a "Luck" score of 1d4 that allows a character to re-roll 1d4 rolls of any sort at any time during a game - does NOT fit this interpretation as "rolls" is too generic - though adding 1d4 to Armor Class or BAB would because these terms are not).

In other words, if a mechanic can be "lifted wholesale" and plopped into GURPS or Action! or Palladium or WW or any other system without any changes and still be completely comprehensible, I think it is fair to say it is not a derivative work. To use the example above, I could drop the "Luck" score into any other system and it would still be quite comprehensible and would work. It's a "non-d20" mechanic.

It's especially hard to argue that your work is "not derived from the SRD" when it clearly uses SRD terms and has the d20 logo slapped on the front. Bottom line: I think Monte probably declares as "closed" some things he's not allowed to because, whether anyone likes it or not, they are in fact "derivative" work of OGC in the SRD. I also think WotC is not likely to pursue such things any time soon, so the "problem" is not going to go away. I also also happen think that Monte will not really have a problem granting anyone who bothers to ask permission to re-use Spell Templates (I could be wrong), so I don't know that it's a "deal-breaker" anyway... if it's unclear whether or not it CAN be closed in the first place, and I want to use it, I'll just ask and get permission - then I don't get in trouble using it whether the thing SHOULD be open or whether it CAN be closed.

--The Sigil

 

[jaldaen]

I also also happen think that Monte will not really have a problem granting anyone who bothers to ask permission to re-use Spell Templates (I could be wrong), so I don't know that it's a "deal-breaker" anyway... if it's unclear whether or not it CAN be closed in the first place, and I want to use it, I'll just ask and get permission - then I don't get in trouble using it whether the thing SHOULD be open or whether it CAN be closed.

--The Sigil

I indeed did go to Monte, but unfortunately you need to go through his license in order to use the closed rules... which presents a problem due to some of the requirements (I won't list them here b/c the license is not as I understand it for public consumption) that IMO would be confusing to customers in the case of a product that wants to only use the closed rules and not the PI within AU.

-Joseph

 

[jmucchiello]

I can see a new rule being protected, IF it isn't reliant on OGC content. I expect publishers to close "hero points", "action points", or "void points".

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.

 

[Nellisir]

I indeed did go to Monte, but unfortunately you need to go through his license in order to use the closed rules... which presents a problem due to some of the requirements (I won't list them here b/c the license is not as I understand it for public consumption) that IMO would be confusing to customers in the case of a product that wants to only use the closed rules and not the PI within AU.
-Joseph

Ditto. I want the halter, not the horse.

Nell.
Stretching for analogies.

 

[Orcus]

I'm not pretending to be able to settle this debate. In my opinion, this is still undecided and is a grey area, even to us publishers.

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. Now, will that be the controlling view? I dont know. Because there is, IMHO, a reasonable argument on the other side that says (particularly with templates such as the fire one mentioned above) it is so intertwined with the source material from the SRD as to be derivative rather than an enhancement over prior art.

I think this is a tough question with very reasonable arguments on both sides.

Those of you who know me know that I dont usually sit on the fence. I am pretty opinionated and definately not afraid to express them. I hope the fact that I am on the fence on this tells you something.

Like I said, I cant convince either side they are wrong on this one.

Clark