D&D 5E OGL / SRD 5.1

[Myrdin Potter]

I am trying to make sure I parse this properly.

Under the OGL, everything under the SRD is fair game (current version is 5.1)

These monsters, at least by these names, are called out as product identity and off limits:

[FONT=&quot]beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-­ti.

[/FONT]There are monsters in the monster manual and not in the SRD and not in the protected list.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
An example is intellect devourer.

US copyright law is pretty clear about not protecting game rules.

In the MM entry, there are three key elements.

Art - 100% protected by copyright.

Fluff text - the story of the monster. Not game rules. Protected by copyright.

Stat block - all game rules. Not protected.

So I could recreate a monster not in the SRD and not in the protected list using the exact game rules (stat block) in the MM and not be violating either the SRD or the OGL?

Many of these monsters are in Pathfinder and other products based on the 3.5e OGL, so the name and concepts are open.

Proper names (if any) in the stat block are also protected.

Does that seem right?

 

[Mistwell]

Consult an intellectual property attorney before publishing.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Consult an intellectual property attorney before publishing.

This. Absolutely this. I can't promise that nobody on this forum is a lawyer, but I can probably promise that nothing anybody says here will hold up in court if you get sued.

If you want to walk on that razor blade, get some sound legal advice first, from someone whose line of work is interpreting IP laws and licensing.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

I ran a decent sized legal department in the recent past. All I am hoping to hear is that there is an obvious flaw that someone knows from prior experience.

 

[Jester David]

So I could recreate a monster not in the SRD and not in the protected list using the exact game rules (stat block) in the MM and not be violating either the SRD or the OGL?

IIRC game rules are not protected by copyright. However, the text of the rules is. In that, you can't reproduce them word-for-word. You have to rewrite and rephrase the rules. (Which is WHY the OGL exists in the first place. You can't copyright mechanics, so you could always make compatible products, but the OGL allows you to copy swaths of text without worrying about plagiarism.)

Rewriting is harder than it sounds, as the language is pretty simple and designed to be clear: rephrasing things can make things less clear or have unintended rule effects.

It's probably just easier to make your own intellect devourer (or yeti) statblocks, taking inspiration from earlier sources and redesigning. Really, even if you do copy the text verbatim, WotC is unlikely to go after you. But it's not very creative. The point of the SRD and OGL is to encourage creativity in the community, so while it's not going against the letter of the OGL, it is going against the spirit.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

There really are not that many monsters that are not forbidden product identity (called out specifically) and that are not in the SRD but are in the Monster Manual, so it is not that big an issue. Intellect Devourer was just an example, and the same name is used in other games (like Pathfinder), so no huge deal for that one in particular.

I 100% agree with the spirit of the rule vs. the legal basis as WoTC could just have sued everyone and occasionally lost but gave the broad OGL plus the SRD.

 

[BoldItalic]

Don't ask us - ask WotC.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Don't ask us - ask WotC.

They do not respond to such requests in general. That is why they have the OGL, the SRD and the DMs Guild. They expect you to do your own legal work. If they disagree, they will send a cease and desist. If you hire a lawyer who sends a specific inquiry to their legal team, you probably can get an answer, otherwise they are not going to staff up to answer hypothetical questions. That is why I inquired here, after doing a google search or two and a bunch of reading.

WoTC is a remarkably benign company now on this topic, you have to step into the area of trademark and/or product identity before they take action. They want to encourage lots of material compatible with the rules they publish and sell. Use the actual name Dungeons and Dragons, their ampersand, or any of the carved out terms and they don't hesitate. Otherwise, they are not out looking for trouble all the time.

 

[Morrus]

Don't ask us - ask WotC.

WotC does not answer OGC or legal questions. So by all means, ask us! That’s what forums are for! Ryan Dancey - the architect of the OGL - even used to maintain a listserver where publishers could discuss the license and ask each other questions.

Just bear in mind that when you publish, it’s on your own head. We may try to help, but we are not your lawyer.

 

[Morrus]

One thing you need to distinguish between is “game rules” and the *expression* of those game rules. It’s a mistake a lot of people fall into.

“Game rules” means the underlying processes, not the text itself. You can’t copyright the fact that an ability check is a roll of a 20 sided dice plus a modifier compared to a target number. You *can* copyright the text which expresses this fact. Somebody else would have to use their own words to express that game rule (well, they would if it wasn’t OGC).



Sent from my iPhone using EN World