Quote from: S'mon;966610"Product Identity" is not a legal concept or form of Intellectual Property, it only has meaning within the OGL licence.

A correction, while yo are correct that Product Identity is a OGL term, it is a shorthand for "this is the stuff that not open content thus covered by my rights under copyright law include the right of control of its distribution.". Most open content licenses are an all or nothing affair for a single work, the OGL is a bit unique in that provides a standard method for open content and copyrighted material to be intermixed in the same work. Which reflects the fact that most RPGs products are one part rules for a game, and one part creative prose describing people, places, and things.

Quote from: estar;966710A correction, while yo are correct that Product Identity is a OGL term, it is a shorthand for "this is the stuff that not open content thus covered by my rights under copyright law include the right of control of its distribution.".

Yes, sort-of, but this is legally irrelevant - it does not matter to the OGL licence that WoTC's claim to own copyright in the Displacer Beast is false (because Coeurl). If you use a Displacer Beast in your OGL product you are still in breach of the licence because the DB is designated Product Identity.
WoTC are not just relying on their copyright claim re the Beast, a claim that would likely fail in court. They are relying on the Contract you agreed to when you incorporated the OGL in your work. The designation of Mind Flayer or Displacer Beast as PI remains valid within the terms of the licence despite the creators of those critters copying prior works, and I can't see any reason why a court would not enforce it.

Quote from: S'mon;966712Yes, sort-of, but this is legally irrelevant - it does not matter to the OGL licence that WoTC's claim to own copyright in the Displacer Beast is false (because Coeurl). If you use a Displacer Beast in your OGL product you are still in breach of the licence because the DB is designated Product Identity.
WoTC are not just relying on their copyright claim re the Beast, a claim that would likely fail in court. They are relying on the Contract you agreed to when you incorporated the OGL in your work. The designation of Mind Flayer or Displacer Beast as PI remains valid within the terms of the licence despite the creators of those critters copying prior works, and I can't see any reason why a court would not enforce it.

Except in the d20 SRD the Mind Flayer, Displacer Beast are never mentioned. In fact the entire document is declared open content. The Monster Manual doesn't have any type of license attached to it. The use of Mind Flayer or Displacer Beast by a unauthorized third party is treated as a copyright violation.

The only relevant provision in the OGL to external content is that you can't claim compatibility with any trademark without an explicit second license grant. This provision does narrow one's normal rights under copyright.

Also people are confusing the issue by doing stuff like this at the d20 SRD

QuoteQ:   Why are some monsters missing from this site?
A:   
The following monsters are considered "Product Identity" by Wizards of the Coast and are therefore not part of the SRD:

beholder
gauth
carrion crawler
displacer beast
githyanki
githzerai
kuo-toa
mind flayer
slaad
umber hulk
yuan-ti

If you look at Wizard's FAQ there not mention of any of these monsters as product identity.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/srdfaq/20040123c

To be crystal clear just because they are not declared product identity anywhere doesn't mean you can go using them.  It a problem for you as the author under copyright, not a problem for you as the author as a OGL violation.

Also note that while it was in use the d20 Trademark License carried additional restriction if you wanted to use the d20 logo on your products. But it hasn't been relevant for nearly ten years now.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;966670Excluding Complete Fighter's guide weapon groups, categories only existed to determine which weapons only got half-nonproficiency penalty when you were not proficient in them, but in a related weapon...So yeah. Weapon proficiencies are a fine concept, but not with leaving the rest of the weapon system (damages, magic item charts, etc.) as is.

Right. In the main, it's not that 2e ideas were intrinsically bad, it's that they're critically underdeveloped due to lack of any kind of comprehensive testing. The same could be said of 3rd edition. In fact, many things I dislike about 4e, like DM-as-computer and combatification of skill, are fully present in 3rd edition.

Both NWPs and weapon proficiency are good examples. In 5e, the skills and backgrounds cover NWP territory, but they're much better defined systems. Weapon proficiency and fighting style are also much more robust systems in 5e. I don't think it's just a matter of there being decades more experience, either. There were a lot of really ugly things in the early Next playtests that got refined out.

2e is the Toolboxiest toolbox there is. There's nothing that needs to be so fine-tune balanced, because it is a compilation of optional discrete systems. Take something out for your campaign and it mostly functions. This is unlike WotC where there is a singular integrated system vision that ends up with cascading effects from previous design decisions.

Looking back I *like* 2e discrete and often optional systems, like NWP or punch/wrestle table. If read, (instead of received knowledge by secondhand,) they just work faster for my table to keep the game moving. I didn't understand why they worked as they did before when younger, but now I see their logic to modularity. With less compounding unforeseen effects, I see the benefit of being separate sub-system unto itself, and more of a buffet by having more than one option provided (and 2e very much has an alternate system or three to just about everything).

Will it work swimmingly if you graft on all those little modular sub-systems simultaneously without forethought? No. But then what does? I think that was its biggest challenge -- people assuming expected play instead of holding strong making the game theirs. However, given Adventure League and the gradual power creep I see in 5e, I blame that 2e issue as more of a GM function trying to appease players that their table is RPGA-compliant.

When in doubt blame toxic competitiveness.

Quote from: estar;966716Except in the d20 SRD the Mind Flayer, Displacer Beast are never mentioned. In fact the entire document is declared open content. The Monster Manual doesn't have any type of license attached to it. The use of Mind Flayer or Displacer Beast by a unauthorized third party is treated as a copyright violation.

The only relevant provision in the OGL to external content is that you can't claim compatibility with any trademark without an explicit second license grant. This provision does narrow one's normal rights under copyright.

Also people are confusing the issue by doing stuff like this at the d20 SRD



If you look at Wizard's FAQ there not mention of any of these monsters as product identity.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/srdfaq/20040123c

To be crystal clear just because they are not declared product identity anywhere doesn't mean you can go using them.  It a problem for you as the author under copyright, not a problem for you as the author as a OGL violation.

Also note that while it was in use the d20 Trademark License carried additional restriction if you wanted to use the d20 logo on your products. But it hasn't been relevant for nearly ten years now.

OK thanks for clarification. For some reason I thought it listed WoTC PI in the OGL.

Quote from: S'mon;966749OK thanks for clarification. For some reason I thought it listed WoTC PI in the OGL.

Glad to help.

Quote from: estar;966716Legal Stuff

And this is why I, as a non-lawyer, am so gun shy about anything related to WotC created elements that is not directly derived from the 3.5 SRD. What they consider "Product Identity" isn't actually spelled out and can get you into hot water if they decide something of theirs IS product identity and they need to crack down due to "enforce it or lose it" (particularly for trade marks; which are not just the names/logos but the presentation style of an entire product... particular font/color combinations or distinctive layouts for example).

When you're the little fish your best course of survival is to not even give the big fish a reason to bother with you. The related problem is that despite the claimed lack of enforcement, its still a loaded gun laying around that could wreck your day if someone ever decided it was worth using. We don't even really know exactly how enforced it is because so few people have the resources to fight Hasbro that those they do go after will probably fold at the first cease and desist order and thus never even makes the news anywhere. It could be rare or it could not.

Now maybe if my product makes a profit for me I'd be a bit more willing to take some risks going forward, but as it is with nothing but money sunk into art resources, paper and toner for all the playtest printouts and a heap load of time sunk into producing this currently 165k word behemoth I'm not all that eager to have to either eat the losses at whatever point it comes up or throw down hundreds to thousands of dollars in legal fees because I guessed wrong on what WotC is willing to go after.

And again, there actually is a surprising amount of 4E's roots to be found in the SRD. Spell attacks vs. Static defenses is there. Action Points are there. The simple Trained/Untrained Skills option is there. Most of the conditions are there. All the stuff that carried over from 3.5 (ability scores/mods, hit points, d20 check, standard/move/swift actions, turns and rounds, attacks vs. ascending AC, damage dice + modifier for damage rolls, level based advancement and character classes, etc.) is there.

Not counting fluff, the only really iffy things you can't get out of the 3.5 SRD that 4E has are the save ends mechanic for durations, healing surges, the AED power structure and the specifics of how the 4E classes are put together (i.e. the benefit schedule of when you get what type of power or feat and how much XP it takes to get there). Those are the areas I think you'd want to be the most careful with when trying to put together a genuine 4E spiritual successor (13th Age is too much indy story game and not enough tactical combat to really qualify in my mind) while avoiding any potential legal pitfalls.

But as noted above, I'm not a lawyer, just someone whose been burned by and seen others burned by lawyers (and the utterly worthless BBB) in the past and has no desire to repeat the process unless absolutely necessary.

Quote from: estar;966710A correction, while yo are correct that Product Identity is a OGL term, it is a shorthand for "this is the stuff that not open content thus covered by my rights under copyright law include the right of control of its distribution.". Most open content licenses are an all or nothing affair for a single work, the OGL is a bit unique in that provides a standard method for open content and copyrighted material to be intermixed in the same work. Which reflects the fact that most RPGs products are one part rules for a game, and one part creative prose describing people, places, and things.

This is the part I love about OSR OGL use. The whole "I can steal your stuff whole cloth but dont you dare steal mine!"

4E Essentials is a great game, with probably the best rules, books, and supporting material for any RPG I've played.

I didn't play it until after it was discontinued, but I ran a very fun and rewarding campaign with Essentials for over a year. Everyone picked up the system quickly and had fun with the traditional-style Essentials characters. The campaign was open-ended and dealt more in intrigue and investigation than combat. And when the combat happened, it was satisfying and engaging (and this from someone who played D&D theatre of the mind for over 30 years). By Essentials they had fixed the monster math and combats didn't drag. The key was to ignore WotC's ill-suited early adventures. 4E/Essentials is a poor game for dungeon-crawling hack and slash. Combat in 4E needs to be meaningful - the climax of the adventure. We had 2-3 combats of 30-60 minutes each in a 5 hour session.

Setting aside all the anguish and chest-beating over edition wars and whether it was 'real' D&D, 4E Essentials is a very well designed game that delivers on what it promises. The Essentials books and boxed sets are excellent value, and give you everything you need to play forever. The adventure and setting books WotC released after Essentials are also some of the best ever published by TSR or WotC.

Oh, and aside from B/X, Essentials is the easiest edition of D&D to run at the table. Easier than AD&D or 5E, and far easier than 3E or Pathfinder.

Quote from: Haffrung;966940We had 2-3 combats of 30-60 minutes each in a 5 hour session.

Sounds like a Heroic Difficulty WoW Raid.

I've had 40-50 minute combats in 5E. The difference is we were just whacking away at huge sacks of hit points.

Yeah - I'm not a fan of 5e either. The difference in 4e, in this regard, is they're giving you resource-plates to spin in play. Personally I find them both to be mechanically monotonous. I don't mind punching bags of HP as long as my punches scale up to 1000lb anvils. I don't find either edition does this particularly well on an assumed 20-level curve.

Quote from: Omega;966849This is the part I love about OSR OGL use. The whole "I can steal your stuff whole cloth but dont you dare steal mine!"

You can't steal what's freely given.  There are some people who are pretty stingy with the Open Content.  I remember some Goodman Games 3e stuff that was just downright dickish.  There's also a lot that are basically a list of setting names offlimits and everything else is Open.  Sine Nomine, like in just about everything else OSR, is the gold standard.

Quote from: tenbones;966947Yeah - I'm not a fan of 5e either. The difference in 4e, in this regard, is they're giving you resource-plates to spin in play. Personally I find them both to be mechanically monotonous. I don't mind punching bags of HP as long as my punches scale up to 1000lb anvils. I don't find either edition does this particularly well on an assumed 20-level curve.

You checked out Adventures in Middle-Earth?  Fucking brilliant.