> I missed this statement. I hope he can clarify, because this sounds
> frightening. If I build an adventure which usues ONLY existing monsters,
> magic items, etc., I would want the adventure to be closed, period.
No... the magic items, monsters, and the rest could be argued to be
"derivitive", and thus open. Mark all of the rules in a different font or
in a box or something, and make them all open--in no way does ANYONE say
"Boy, the Tomb of Horrors sure had some great rules!" Don't worry about it,
I'd say.
> Small correction: some of us also want non-derivative rules to be open or
> closed at the author's discretion.
Perhaps we should draft a document and place it on the list, for eventual
posting on the OGF web site?
> I suspect it goes farther than that: I suspect that there will be next to
> nothing from Wizards that formally acknowledges any connection between the
> two at all. Trademark law is rich with examples where a trademark became a
> generic name due to being applied in a generic sense by too many
> people. If
> I recall correctly, the classic examples are "aspirin" and
> "refrigerator". I
> know that three hotly contested counter-examples are "Xerox (R)", "Kleenex
> (R)", and "Band Aid (R)". All three are practically generic terms
> now (heck,
> "xerox" is effectively a verb); but all three have been fought for
> vigorously by their owners.
Y'know, outside of a law class, I never heard "xerox" used as a verb...
And, if you haven't noticed, the recent PHB adds have the d20 logo on them.
And we're told that the D&D and Star Wars rulebooks will have the same
logo...
> So I suspect that Wizards wants to be sure that D20 NEVER becomes a mere
> synonym for "D&D compatible", because they want to be sure of one
> thing: if
> ANYTHING becomes legally a generic term for role-playing, it will be the
> relatively valueless term "D20", not the valuable term "D&D".
I agree in part; I'd see d20 as a "pseudonym" for "D&D compatible"... the
rules are really close, so that someone who picks up a "d20" game who knows
D&D 3e will know almost instantly how to play it.
> I believe Ryan has admitted exactly this, though I don't recall the exact
> place. (Faust?) The only time they will be bound by the OGL is if they
> derive from someone else's OGL works. I'll bet that never happens. If they
> REALLY like some new rule, they'll probably negotiate an agreement outside
> of OGL.
WotC owns its own copyrights; you can make derivitive works based on your
own work, so they don't need to worry about the OGL. (Remember--it's not
"public domain.")
> No. But I think this privileged position is the only thing that
> will tempt a
> company to open an entire body of rules. Making a quality,
> play-tested game
> is a lot of work. I expect that D&D 3E has been in development
> since before
> Alternity was released, and maybe a lot longer. Conservatively, that means
> the game has to repay some percentage of at least three years of
> development
> time, probably fifteen developer-years at least. (Frankly, I think that's
> WAY low.) The R&D to develop a D20SRD with a meaningful, useful OGL and
> D20STL will possibly be another three to five developer years (guessing a
> medium to large team working half a year to a year). PLUS they have to get
> everything past a legal time (which costs REAL money) and a
> marketing team.
If someone else does much the same thing, I think they would have the same
"priviledged position" to their work.
DM
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
