> kevin kenan
>
> Rules include all of the game-mechanical details of anything you
> create. If
> you describe your new races using phrases like "...their serpent-like
> physique gives them +2 dexterity" then those elements of your IP are
> required to be Open under the OGL. This is how you will lose
> control of your
> IP.
This is easier to fix than you seem to indicate. For you example, one could
remedy the situation in the following manner:
In your closed IP you describe 'Snakemen', a race of reptilian humanoids
with a serpent-like physique and amazing dexterity.
Then, in a sidebar specially marked as being Open, you describe their stats
in the game: +2 Dexterity, Bonus Dodge Feat. Note that the sidebar need not
include the word 'Snakemen', because the reader can reasonable infer that
the stat block references them implicitly. Also note that the sidebar does
not depend on any unique closed material. If you have such unique rules,
you must be careful how you represent them in game terms.
If you create a special power for Snakemen - Hypnotic Strike, where a
Snakeman can stare at an opponent and cause them to revert to Flat Footed
status (no Dex Bonus to AC, cannot Dodge), then the special power can be
described in closed, general terms, but the stat block would contain all of
the OGL-derived game rules (Flat Footed, Dex Bonus, Dodge Feat) and so must
be Open.
The OGL gives you GREAT freedom in indicating what is open and what is not.
You can even use bold, italics, or a different font to indicate which
portions are open and which are not, allowing individual words and phrases
to be included or excluded at will. So far these have been very
straightforward examples, but the waters can get stormy in a hurry if you go
beyond simple rules.
An example would be a totally Open race of Snakemen, written by a third
party, with a rich, detailed description of their culture. If you wanted to
write a module about THOSE particular Snakemen, then you would need to keep
all references to them Open. If you wrote historical or biographical
material about their leaders or a fictional story about a particular
Snakeman hero or villain then portions of your story based on previously
defined cultural references would have to remain Open, while your new unique
contributions could remain closed.
Another example would be a new kind of rule that was tightly integrated into
the existing framework. Lets say you want to create a new set of rules for
fighting with barbed whips, a Snakeman's favorite weapon. You develop a new
mechanic for targeting and damaging opponents for these whips. In your
description of them, you must leave Open anything that is carried forward
from the original rules (perhaps Hit Points, Armor Class, and Attack Bonus
stay the same) while closing off anything that is new (Critical hits require
a roll on a new table rather than doing extra damage).
Both of the above situations require the services of a clever IP lawyer to
determine whether or not you have crossed the line and inadvertently
compromised the OGL.
I must point out however, that this is no different than the current
situation, the OGL itself is not a factor here, but rather traditional
copyright law. All the OGL does is authorize the creation of derivative
works if you agree to place those derivative works under the OGL. Since, by
making closed material, you have chosen not to place the work under the OGL,
you must now pass the legal test to determine whether or not you have
created an unauthorized derivative work as such works are defined under
copyright law.
> If you want to retain control of your IP and you are going to use the
> OGL, you are facing serious risk if you do not hire a skilled IP
> attorney to
> review everything you publish.
I agree completely. If your IP isn't worth hiring a lawyer to protect, it
might as well be Open, since anyone will be able to take it away from you
without a fight.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
