D&D 5E Which parts of Doctors & Daleks are OGC?

[Waller]

I'm trying to work out which bits can be reused but can't find the the declaration of Open Game Content. I figured it would be at the back with the license itself, or at the begining on the credits page but I'm not seeing it there. In theory I should be able to take D&D-derived game elements like those classes or the Quips system (which is awesome) but there's no explicit OGC designation. Anybody know?

 

[Reynard]

Probably nothing. I have noticed that fewer and fewer 5E publishers are declaring any content outside of what was in the SRD open. technically, that is against the license itself: if it is a mechanic and it is derived from OGC, it is open. if it is a mechanic and it isn't, it is under copyright but you can still use the mechanic as long as you don't use the exact language. You can't copyright game mechanics, just a particular expression. Of course, IANAL, so don't take my word for it.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Some companies are better at paying it forward than others. Working with licensed material, they probably thought it was safer to just ignore OGC declarations than to accidently "open" something that isn't their IP.

 

[kenada]

WotC used to have an OGL FAQ before they got rid of all the old content in the redesign. Per the FAQ, material that is derived from Open Game Content is also Open Game Content. If it’s not clearly identified, then it’s probably in breach of the OGL. You’d need to talk to a lawyer to confirm for sure.

 

[Jer]

I checked my C7 copy of Adventures in Middle Earth to see where they put it there - it was on the front page with the other copyright info. And unfortunately it is one of those boilerplate "anything from the SRD is OGC, anything else is Product Identity" Product Identity indications that a lot of companies have loved to use since the early days of the OGL. Once I saw it I vaguely remembered that being the case for AiML and being disappointed at how closed up they'd made it.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's their intent for this book too then. But if they left off the PI notice on this they need to get it fixed before the book goes to print.

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah. That’s one of those maddening things. I give them a pass as it’s licensed. But it’s really a terrible look for a company to refuse to add anything to OGC when their product is only possible because of the OGL and OGC.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Most of it will belong to the BBC, and therefore not be up to Cubicle 7 to give away.

 

[Waller]

Most of it will belong to the BBC, and therefore not be up to Cubicle 7 to give away.

The stuff derived from the SRD doesn't belong to the BBC, and can't -- it's OGC by definition, using licensed content owned by WotC. They can declare product identity like character and creature names and fluff text and stuff (like WotC does), but the actual rules part can't be.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, the license's terms do require a declaration. If it's not there, they'll need to add that in.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The stuff derived from the SRD doesn't belong to the BBC, and can't -- it's OGC by definition, using licensed content owned by WotC. They can declare product identity like character and creature names and fluff text and stuff (like WotC does), but the actual rules part can't be.

Which leaves nothing for Cubicle 7 to declare, other than the licences. If it's rules its used under licence from WotC, if it's fluff it's used under licence from the BBC.