Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1130711" data-attributes="member: 2013">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</blockquote>

Verification