> > In the spirit of the "Netbooks", there is currently some reason
> > to perhaps create a free, published work that releases, as
> > open content, pictures, background, social structure etc, for
> > every creature currently in the MM.
>
>I think that an OGL version of such a work would have tremendous value. Perhaps more, in some ways, than many of the projects proposed so far.
I'm not so sure. The open box might be about selling the PHB, but I'd warrent that very few gaming groups, whilst they may have multiple copies of the PHB (assume, as does D&D game mechanics, a group of 4 players and 1 DM), would >not< have a MM. This is a huge market share on the community perception of what is intended by reference to creatures named in the MM.
I'm not sure that anybody really wants a non-MM-derived alternative. A look at the market penetration of the Netbooks itself would probably be sufficient to indicate that success (particularly given difficulties of artwork) is unlikely. Even success would be a failure, since a schism on interpretation of the "core" races is simply a bad idea.
> > It's not just a "handful" of monsters. Do WotC effectively want closed content
> > on what every creature looks like
>
>Some of those creatures are generic enough that a reasonable search is likely to turn up numerous public domain sources for similar images. Others have been carefully built from scratch to be proprietary to WotC. Some monsters have unique backgrounds created from scratch by WotC (or TSR) designers. Others are based on public domain myths and legends.
We're switching here between a "handful" that WotC want to keep closed content, to "some creatures" being sufficiently generic in the public domain. The copyright issues here are reasonably clear (assuming you're not looking for ways to circumvent them - as much of this thread appears to be).
The issue for me (still unaddressed) is: "Are WotC happy for adventure publishers to fully feature their races in adventures as portrayed in the MM?". If so, the the OGL/D20 licenses (the only real options available) have failed to provide a safe and legal avenue for doing so. I didn't intend to point the finger at "Slayer's Guide to Hobgoblins" (though I admit my reference to "Slayer's Guide to Illithiad" and artwork made it pretty obvious), but this is just one example of many possible examples out there.
It looks, at least on the surface, as if the licenses themselves are deficient for the desired outcome of WotC, and require "a blind eye to be turned", for the sake of the overall greater good.
Inability of published D20 adventures to reference any artwork, background and other features that the MM adds to the SRD, leads to a finished product of compromised quality.
If WotC only want to keep a "handful" of races as their own closed content, then it looks as if all the background material and artwork for everything else could be released as part of the SRD. That isn't what has happened. Now, I realize that means that anyone could effectively "copy" the MM and release it as a softback at a greatly reduced price, but the license still doesn't help those simply trying to publish an adventure, based on the "core" SRD, with creatures as they are percieved by the community at large.
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
