I understand that this is what they want you to believe. I don’t understand how it would be trademark or copyright infringement saying “go buy those people’s book and look up information there”.
> If you can describe what "neutral good" or an "Armor Class" represents mechanically without resorting to a literal mechanical description
But source books don’t do that. They say “so and so, neutral good, ac: 12” It is expected from the DM reading them that they already know what this kind of shorthand mean.
It's a violation of the OGL. So you can opt out of the OGL (and opt out of reprinting verbatim rules), try it, sell it, and see what happens:
> Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity.
...
> The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, ...
This is why so many OGL works contain phrases like "core rule books of the 5th edition of the world's most popular pen and paper RPG" instead of "Monster Manual p. 132".
> Source books don’t do that. They say “so and so, neutral good, ac: 12” It is expected from the DM reading them that they already know what this kind of shorthand mean.
You're right, those are too generic of examples. Here are some real-world ones I've had to deal with as an OGL author:
- What are the mechanical ramifications of a sentient magic item with the Crusader special purpose that's engaging in a Conflict with its wielder?
- A creature has Burrow. Can they burrow through stone?
- "Eldritch Blast". Is it PI because of "Eldritch"? Is it OGL because one version of the SRD named it but omitted its mechanics?
- How do you sustain the spell effect of a Crown of Madness? Is that OGL because one version of the SRD omitted that paragraph?
- A dwarf has Dwarven Combat Training. What kind of hammer can they throw?
- Does the Grappler feat grant two or three benefits? If it's two, but your DMs' copy of the source text has three, which benefit was removed via errata? Do you assume your players/DMs even have the errata?
What you reference isn't always a detail you can assume the DM (sorry, GM) has available. The official SRD also isn't entirely OGL, and the contents of the SRD don't always match the text of their source works.
So when something you add to your setting, or to a creature or item, relies on the details an OGL/SRD wrinkle, do you play it safe and stick to what's covered by the OGL? Find something else? Ditch the OGL, rewrite all of the complicated interactions from scratch, and wind up creating a new game?
If you're a third-party publisher making three figures and paying freelancers by the word, do you tell the writer, "Sure, go ahead and rewrite all of the related rules from scratch", or do you tell them to stick to what's most clearly covered by the OGL?
Idk. Do you want it to burrow through stone? Write that down. Do you not want it to burrow through stone? Write that down. Do you not have an opinion? Leave it to the DM.
I’m not even following what you are saying. You are saying that you choose to publish under OGL because then it is defined how burrowing works? Or what is exactly that you are saying?
> Does the Grappler feat grant two or three benefits?
What? The Grappler feat is in the basic rules. How does this come up in your own published material? If some NPC of your making has it you just say “has the grapler feat” and then people can look it up what that means.
> Do you assume your players/DMs even have the errata?
Why do you care? How often did you received feedback like this: “We were playing the adventure published by trynewideas. The setting was trully breath taking, and the maps gorgeous. The fun quirks of the NPCs made combat very memorable. My players lowed it. That is until it all came crashing down because the grappling feat of the gladiators in the amphiteatre were slightly ambigous. Ruined the whole module for us. Sad.”
But that's ridiculous, right? Anyone can refer to a page in a book. If the OGL takes that away, then what's even the point of it? Well, I guess being able to make derivative works, but what if I don't want to do that? What if I want to make my own campaign world that's merely meant to be compatible with the D&D rules? The same way anyone can make a game that runs on Windows without needing a license?
WotC's entire reasoning that you can't do that, sounds to me like a far too restrictive interpretation of copyright law. I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know, WotC's interpretation has never been tested in court.
I'm talking about copyright, not OGL.
> You can't by name without a separate compatibility license, typically by way of publishing to the Dungeon Master's Guild, which is laden with a lot of other intellectual ownership gotchas.
Says who? WotC doesn't decide the law. They can claim it's illegal, just like Apple can claim it's illegal to jailbreak an iPhone, but that doesn't make it law.
Just like the Harry Potter Encyclopedia can refer to Harry Potter characters without a license, an adventure should be able to refer to entries in the PHB or Monster Manual, as long as it doesn't directly copy significant amounts of text.
> If you can describe what "neutral good" or an "Armor Class" represents mechanically without resorting to a literal mechanical description in the SRD or covered by the OGL
My point is that I don't want to and don't have to. It's already described in another book that I expect people to own.
Anyone can write a setting book. A setting book that references specific copyrighted text — like the contents of the SRD, including classes, spells, creatures, magic items, and certain non-mechanical terms — runs into OGL space.
If you create an entirely new set of terms and mechanics, you haven't created a derivative work, but you also haven't necessarily created a compatible work, and you certainly haven't created one as directly compatible as a potential competitor's OGL-compliant work.
If you aren't writing for distribution, then none of this matters anyway.
> And repeating stat blocks from the Monster Manual is clearly a violation
With the exception of some copyrighted monster names, it's explicitly not a violation under the OGL, and the ability to do so is a large part of the point of the OGL.
> but it seems to me I should be able to refer to the Monster Manual
You can't by name without a separate compatibility license, typically by way of publishing to the Dungeon Master's Guild, which is laden with a lot of other intellectual ownership gotchas.
> as well as include my own custom stats for original creatures not from the Monster Manual, or even stats that I need to be different from those in the MM.
If you can describe what "neutral good" or an "Armor Class" represents mechanically without resorting to a literal mechanical description in the SRD or covered by the OGL, go for it. The broader point of the OGL was not having to reinvent those wheels in every product a publisher created.