Let's all take a pause from the current thread about the perceived Open Game
contribution values of various members of the list. While entertaining in a
perverse sort of way, it is kind of counterproductive.
If we want to discuss the ethics of open gaming (which I am all for), I'd
like to see the conversation stripped of the emotion-tinged links to the
real or imagined ethics of real people. I know we all have thick skins
here, but there's no reason to prove the point over and over again.
My own opinion is that a publisher should only seek to claim "Product
Identity" for material that is A: Named something completely unique and
original (not just a few common English words used as a name or a title),
AND B: describes something that is also completely unique and original. The
point of Product Identity should not be to cut a wide swathe through Open
Game Content claiming everything that might possibly be of value - it should
be used like a scalpel to clearly deliniate things with real commercial
value.
Claiming "Product Identity" for the name "Frost Ape" isn't going to get you
much benefit (since "Frost Ape" is certainly not an enhancement over the
prior art, and your claim to Product Identity isn't going to stop anyone
from using the name if they want to)..
Reserving monster names as Product Identity seems benign to me if those
names are really unique, and are linked to creatures that are also unique.
The Creature Collection contains a mixture of names that include bits of the
Shattered Lands IP, nonsense words used as creature names, and names that
are simple combinations of common English words. From a subjective
standpoint, I think a name like "Garabrud, the Obsidian Hound" rises to the
level where I think using the machinery of the Product Identity clause might
be worthwhile. On the other hand, a name like "Frost Ape" certainly
doesn't.
As a product on the bleeding edge of the Open Gaming wave, I'm willing to
cut Creature Collection 100% slack on PI issues. Just doing it at all was a
worthwile effort in my opinion. And, when the publishers stepped back up to
the plate for the Relics & Rituals release, they did a great job of keeping
their Product Identity designations off of much of the Open Game Content.
I'm sure that if they had it to do over again and acting with hindsight,
many of the Creature Collection names would also be free of the designation.
Now I have two caveats to make. If and when WotC chooses to add Forgotten
Realms (and other campaign setting) content to the SRD, I wouldn't be
surprised to see all manner of fairly simple common English words used as
names designated as Product Identity. That may just be the way the cookie
crumbles. With a multi-million dollar IP, you tend to err on the side of
caution. And in the case of Star Wars, we may be forced to declare certain
things Product Identity even if we would prefer to do otherwise due to the
rights issues with Lucasfilm.
My other caveat is that for a new publisher creating content without any
current commercial brand equity, opening as much of that content including
proper names as possible is, in my opinion, a valuable and worthwhile
choice. The challenge of creating something really new and unusual is a
high bar, and I suspect that many new or inexperienced publishers who think
they've brought forth something the world has never seen before would be
dismayed if someone knowledgable was to sit down and start telling them what
their work was "derivative of". Designating something as Product Identity
is the same as announcing to all the world that you think you "created"
something unique and original. My advice is: don't do so, unless you
really have. And don't assume you have, until you've had some very
experienced >professionals< review your work and talk about the prior art
it's based on.
Ryan
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
