[warning: this message is a mixture of If-I-Ran-the-Zoo rants, and (hopefull) reasoned analyses. i hope i've made it clear where i'm stating "fact" and where it's pure personal opinion.]
> > Ryan S. Dancey >> >> If it was a octopus-headed humanoid, I'd call it infringing. > >Let's pose a different question. Why did WotC release the Mind Flayer OGC >at all? The skeletal outline of the creature virtually mandates that the >player have a copy of the MM and/or Psi Handbook in front of them during the >game, so that they can give the players a reasonable description of the >combat. The player must know what a mind flayer is in order to use it. > >This is in conflict with the trend to use boxed text for encounters, and to >make modules self-referencing rather than to demand that a player have their >own reference material in hand when running an encounter. > >I realize that the Mind Flayer's stats are all there, but a mind flayer is a >very complex creature. Presenting them in this way encourages its use as a >'cardboard' encounter with very limited depth and creativity. It does a >disservice to players to cheapen a very cool creature in this way. Better >that it not be included at all then devalued by a lack of information. that's been exactly my complaint with the rules-for-free-but-description-closed philosophy that permeates the D20 stuff--they aren't giving away enough to actually be usable. as a practical matter, i can't use Mind Flayers, or any number of other creatures, is my work without (1) just leaving out all the established history/backstory/society/etc. or (2) rewriting it from scratch (to safely avoid the issue of possibly stealing protected IP). actually, in terms of "cardboard encounters" and so on, that's my complaint with the D&D3E MM: by taking out everything but the combat stuff, and a brief (often pitiful) physical description, it encourages their use as purely-combat obstacles. the counter-argument i've heard is that it frees the GM to tailor the society, etc, to their campaign. by that logic, why not leave the stats ambiguous, too? it seems to me that comparing those situations leads us to the conclusion that the stats are expected to be generally comparable across games, but the societies (and even, to a lesser degree, appearances) of creatures aren't. which still leads me to the conclusion that monster-as-obstacle (and thus as a "fair" obstacle with a known value) is being promoted as paramount, and the rest is just window-dressing. >This also raises similar concerns with many other original creatures that >are sketchily presented in the Monster SRD. So I guess I'd like to hear a >bit more about the philosophy of what was included and what was left out, >and how the remaining bits would be used in your ideal world. > >-Brad > >PS- I am not asking to be handed more of WotC's IP. I am just trying to >understand the rationale behind what you have chosen to release. If it is >determined that the Monster sections need to be updated, now is the time to >do it (while they are still in draft form). IMHO, they've chosen very clearly what to release: mechanics, without a hint of setting/world info to contextualize them. this, combined with the D20 license, pretty much assures that most of the products actually published will be just minor extensions of the existing structure, or completely original works. building on the established D&D continuum is damn hard in those places where there isn't a PD antecedent. frex, while the Slayers' Guides are really cool, so far they've only been able to build on monsters that have a prior existence to D&D, which, IMHO, are exactly the monsters that need it the least. it's things like the Illithid, Aboleth, Cloaker, and other really bizarre things that need more detail, and, more importantly, most benefit from it, because they have the least to begin with. At 10:35 -0700 1/14/02, Weldon Dodd wrote: >It seems to me that you would be able to use the Mind Flayer effectively >this way. You wouldn't be able to create the "Slayer's Guide to the Mind >Flayer" but you could throw them into an encounter without too much >trouble. At 12:44 -0500 1/14/02, William Olander wrote: > I think we've drifted a little bit here. The original >question was the use of the word "Illithid" to describe a mind >flayer. I don't think that there is anything in the spirit of the >work that makes it bad to use a Mind Flayer in the commonly accepted >way. Afterall, they were put into the SRD so that developers could >use them in their adventures. I can't exactly put it in one of my >adventures if I have to justify why my Mind Flayer is a humanoid >with an octopus for a head. and that is exactly the problem: strictly-read, you can't refer to elements of the creature that aren't included in the D20SRD--and that includes the physical description, society, and everything else that'd make you want to use a mind flayer rather than a simple slime-monster with Mind blast, psionics, improved grab, & extract. [or, at least, everything that'd make we want to use them.] IMHO, the part of a monster that is worth reusing is the concept, not the stats--i might alter the stats for an illithid in my game [i always have, in fact, 'cause they weren't scary enough], but if i'm going to completely change the concept (i'm not just talking about minor changes), why bother using an original creature? [i understand why one would use the basic stats for, say, orcs, or some other well-established trope, but change everything else, possibly including appearance--that's pretty much the point of Orkworld, Elfworld, certain elements of Glorantha, and others. but i don't think the same applies to a creature that has no existence outside of the given version.] i mean, it seems to me that what Ryan, among others, is advocating as the only legal solution is pointless--are the stats of an illithid really valuable if you can't build on the creature itself? ok, sure, they're at least usable for an adventure (though, if you're *really* strict, and don't even allow inferrence or implication, they'd make for pretty bland creatures in an adventure, since you can't give them an illithid-like society without risking infringement), but the more social and less militant the adventure, the less usable they become (at least, and still remaind "mind flayers"). but you can't *do* anything with them--do a replacement for the Illithiad, frex. (that is, a volume like The Illithiad that details society and back-story, and so on, and builds on te basics found in the MM/PsiH.) > Illithid on the other hand is specifically a D&D term. It's >not in the dictionary at all. It doesn't show up in web searches in >anything that's not D&D related. It is a term that doesn't just >refer to a single creature either. There is an entire mythos built >into the name Illithid. There are the related species, there is the >old slavery of the Gith races. There is the huge war. Mind Flayers >as Mindflayers are just single creatures that you might run across >in a dungeon. There is a difference.. A big one. so, either nothing of the concept has been given away by the D20SRD (a strict and reasonable reading, IMHO--there isn't much there), in which case, why use them at all? or everything[0] except the name has been released, in which case the question becomes "can you give someone permission to use a unique character concept, and then deny them use of the non-trademarked name associated with that concept?" [0] not literally everything, of course, but whatever elements of the creature (apperance, back-story with the Gith races, society, etc.) *have* been released or are considered fair game, despite their lack of inclusion in the D20SRD. At 14:19 -0800 1/14/02, Ryan S. Dancey wrote: >Because you don't need a physical description, culture, or list of >tactics if you have the WotC products that contain those things, and if >you don't have those WotC products, you may sense the lack and be >motivated to make a purchase. as a consumer, absolutely. but i could *already* use all that stuff freely, with or without access to any WotC (or TSR) products, as a consumer. the only place the WotC OGL (and thus the D20SRD) comes into play is in reuse/re-publication. and by omitting that stuff, it at the very least makes it more difficult and less worthwhile to reuse a creature. >At the same time, you can ignore WotC freely (your choice) and make up >your own critter. > >I don't agree that there's a correlation between "not having all >potential background material" and "useless". all? no. any? that seems like a problem. if there were a cursory description of appearance, culture, and background (about the level of detail of the half-page description in the AD&D2 MC entry) released, they'd be a lot more usable. and that level of detail hardly gives away the farm--it just makes it possible to reuse the creature in a manner consistent with the established D&D creature. At 14:45 -0800 1/14/02, Ryan S. Dancey wrote: >If I gave you the d20 stats for Chewbacca from the Star Wars RPG, but >didn't give you a physical description other than something like "has >long pointy teeth", and you gave me back a picture of a wookie, I'd say >your picture was an infringement on Lucas' copyright. And I suspect the >courts would agree with me (especially if you called it a "wookie".) > >If I give you the d20 stats for a mind-flayer, but don't give you a >physical description other than "has four tentacles around its mouth", >and you give me back a picture of a mind-flayer, I'd say your picture >was an infringement on WotC's copyright. And, again, I suspect the >courts would agree with me (especially if you called it an "illithid".) agreed, on both counts. which leads me back to "why bother releasing the mind flayer at all, when the reuser can't actually reuse what the gaming public thinks of as 'a mind flayer'?" -- woodelf <*> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/ If any religion is right, maybe they all have to be right. Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them. --Sinclair _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
