Mind Flayer, as SRD open content, contains virtually no background or cultural information, and contains no artwork showing you what it looks like. My understanding is that if WotC develop background and include it in the MM, you have no right to use that, and continue to build on it - it is closed content. You may develop your own background, but you may need to show how you haven't "borrowed" from what you've seen in the MM.
Additionally, the term "Illithiad" doesn't appear in the SRD, and hence is closed content of the MM.
>"or it's just an unfortunate side-effect of having to >keep copyright value in the MM itself (which is >otherwise valueless, since it's completely copyable as >fully OGC" > >The MM is not valueless. If it is then so is the PHB >and DMG. They have art, detail, good production >values. They are an attractive product.>
That is correct. The point I'm trying to make is that the MM is essentially the monsters in the SRD, with artwork and background added in - as closed content. That artwork and background is not contained in the SRD, and hence is closed content of the MM - and you may not reproduce it, or build on it, for your own work. This is the essence of the problem. If WotC >did< make the artwork and background open content (and hence usable in modules), then it would also be legal for anybody to produce and distribute (free, if they liked), something which very closely resembles the MM. It is only in that sense that I mean "valueless". It is obviously a great and >valuable< gaming aid.
>You are free to take all the OGC and print it in a >book and call it "Fantasy Roleplaying" and put the d20 >logo on it. But guess what, unless you have WotC's >distribution chain and art department that isnt going >to be a very popular product.Nothing ethically wrong with that. Ryan himself has virtually proposed this as being a good idea. To add worthwhile value, though, you probably need to create artwork and background information, without using the MM content. Hence the "divergence" issue here, under heavy discussion. I don't personally see that an alternative MM (with the SRD creatures (appearing in the MM) re-invented with different artwork and background), is a good idea, and I don't think that the general gaming community would take to it either.
>If you were right that the MM was valueless because it
>was ogc then no one would be buying MMs--the content
>is all on line, after all. Guess what, people still
>buy MMs.
The content isn't all on-line. The SRD is missing all the very valuable artwork and most of the background of the MM. Try to imagine playing D&D with the SRD, having never seen an illustration of any of the creatures. These fantasy games are played in our heads, sitting around the table. Without those illustrations, nobody is going to have a common picture for what their encounter really looks like (barring truly generic creatures, such as unicorns). Even if DMs describe monsters, without showing pictures, they then need to remember that description, and stick to it from thereon, to be consistent. Also, without some decent background available for the non-rare creatures, the DM has to do a lot of work to invent it, since most player characters would probably have as common a knowledge of them as we would of our own human races, and wild animals. This is where the MM brings it's unique, copyright, value.
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click Here
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
