> John of the Collective
>
> In this case OGL work is not defined as a book cover to cover, but can be
> subsets as defined by the originator.
That's how I read it too.
> Since the OGL doesn't define how to indicate closed content,
> simply make sure
> that any content that is clossed is defined as such.
This isn't accurate. The OGL does define how to indicate closed content:
don't indicate that it is Open Content. Your suggestion of restricted terms
isn't a bad one, but it will get you into trouble if you also designate
those terms as Open Content.
If one absolutely feels that they MUST keep a noun in their closed IP but
must also build open rules around that noun, then a clever statement of open
is probably the best route:
"Open Content within this work shall be designated by use of the Arial font
[example of Arial font], except when that font is italicized. Italicized
Arial text [example of Italicized Arial font] is not Open Content".
Then you describe your stat blocks as:
[Arial]
[Italics]Mongoosemen[/Italics] receive a +2 Attack Bonus when fighting
[Italics]Snakemen[/Italics]
[/Arial]
> Alec A. Burkhardt
>
> While personally I don't think just using the name of a creature in an
> OPEN section of the text would be sufficient to bring the entire
> description of the creature (assuming it was described in a CLOSED
> section) into the OPEN, I think the suggestion about describing any
> benefits in a generic way (+2 to hit mortal enemy as opposed to +2 to hit
> snakemen) is a simple way around this. Explaining who is a creature's
> mortal enemy would then be something covered in the CLOSED descriptions of
> the creature.
This seems to be another good solution to the Open/closed problem.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
