[DF] Holy water seems to have no purpose

[MKMcArtor]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

1) I've read the OGL. In fact, I had a copy at arms' length as I wrote the post. (My printout of NPC Essentials happens to be with my printouts of Dungeon Fantasy.) There is not only no such prohibition in there about making non-OGL games, section 8 clearly states that you need to designate which is closed content and which is open in the work in question, thus indicating that you can use OGL content to make closed content, which in fact happens constantly in any number of d20 products, like the one in which the license to which I referred is.

The OGL has more worms than ten cans, and the open/closed content thing is a can's worth of its own. The generally accepted interpretation in that part of the industry is that once something is designated as open content by its creator, it remains forever open content. So yes, you can extrapolate open content to make closed content, but the originally open content remains open in your interpretation of it.

Thus, if Company A makes Creature Alpha and designates its name and statblock as open content (which is a fairly common practice for monsters), Company B could take up Creature Alpha and create a whole new society for it (since Company A didn't make the original society open content) as well as several derivative and related creatures based on Creature Alpha. What Company B couldn't do is to make the original Creature Alpha name and statblock as closed content, and it would need to mark in its section 15 (I think that's the one, I don't have an OGL handy) where Creature Alpha came from. What Company B could do, though, is to make its society for Creature Alpha closed (which it should) as well as the names and statblocks for its derivative versions (which is legal but *******).

The point of the OGL was originally to make a community where people could create fundamentally compatible gaming material in an open and sharing environment. Humans are humans, though, and it didn't really materialize like that until much later, after the 3.5 switch shook out almost all of the chaff.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by MKMcArtor

What Company B couldn't do is to make the original Creature Alpha name and statblock as closed content, and it would need to mark in its section 15 (I think that's the one, I don't have an OGL handy) where Creature Alpha came from.

If the full Creature Alpha name and statblock made it into Company B's product, it seems mostly clear that they don't have a choice about marking it in section 15 as having specifically been drawn from Source XYZ under the OGL. The OGL doesn't take away Company A's ownership of Creature Alpha, meaning Company B doesn't get the right to declare that it isn't Open content. AND, importantly, the original Company A printing of Creature Alpha is still Open, so you can just go back to that open source and if Company B tried to take you to court over it, you can point out that you're taking it from this supplement XYZ (cited in your own section 15) just like they did.

There is some confusion over how derivative your Creature Beta would have to be before you could call it closed content and not be violating the license and trampling Company A's rights to the Alpha material. Again, never tested in court, and yeah, the document's about as clear as mud. Does adding two hit dice and 10 HP to the monster (but not adjusting the BAB, saving throws, skills, CR, or anything else) count as "enough"? What about renaming it? Etc.

And of course the other line, the line where Creature Beta stops being a derivative work and starts just being "A work that reminds some people of Creature Alpha" is also extremely fuzzy. But this line has far more legal precedent around it because this is the one where most legal battles over creative works are fought. The addition of stat blocks makes it muddy again, because lists and charts are very very difficult to copyright.

[MKMcArtor]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Lots of good stuff.

Everything you said is absolutely correct, particularly the "clear as mud" part. Many companies did it incorrectly, especially in the early days. Unfortunately, WotC washed their hands of the whole mess without really making it any clearer, except the one time they forced companies to destroy their products that were not compliant with the OGL.

Honestly, when WotC announced the OGL I wondered if SJ Games would do something similar. You know: allow 3rd-party creations based off GURPS. It's really for the best they didn't, I think. ;)

[Meatheus]

This really helped me with the Holy Water ideas...... ; )

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Meatheus

This really helped me with the Holy Water ideas...... ; )

With a bit of a side track along the way :D

[martinl]

1. AFAICT holy water burning undead/demons is not a DnD idea, it's something DnD copied from old horror movies among other sources.

2. I like the idea of unholy water being acidic. Practical evil always surprises the PCs.

3. I like the idea of portable sanctity. Make getting that benefit be a short ceremony of some sort, and it allows for more better religious warfare plus entertaining dramatic moments of people defending the cleric/holy water while the ceremony is done.

4. Note that consecrated holy water sprayers are almost inevitable if you allow gadgeteers in a holy water is useful in combat setting. This may be positive or negative depending on your POV.