Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jmucchiello" data-source="post: 1130921" data-attributes="member: 813">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.</blockquote>

Verification