So, can I PI a description [of] mechanics? If I wanted to clarify certain vagueProbably. But you'd have to go talk to a lawyer, and you'd probably want to have in escrow money to pay for disposal of your entire company and paying damages. (You're going against the intent of the OGL.)
rules, or make things simpler to do using OGC mechanics (BAB, Saves, etc.),
but I wanted base my company around clarifying or simplifying mechanics, and
so wanted to limit who could use my exact wording, could I?
A better way to do it would be to quote the rules, and non-OGC the commentary text. (PI is frequently abused when a simple "not OGC" statement would do.)
I stand by my belief that delcarative statements that require determinations by the reader are not sufficient for the OGL, though they can be useful as CYA clauses. A 13-year old with their first gaming book should be able to take a marker and highight all of the OGC in your book without wondering if part of it is or isn't OGC.Taking that to an extreme, I could declare my whole work OGC, and PI my original work in the next sentence.
DM
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
