<<Mechanics are not among the list of items allowed to be PI. They can be
'closed content' (as was done extensively in the d20 Traveller book) but not
PI.
>>
Rules and the expression of those rules can be considered separate things. In fact, that's exactly what the U.S. copyright office claims. However, at the same time, when there're a limited number of decent ways to express a rule, the expression of the rule may become indistinguishable from the rule itself.
Still, where such separation can occur it may be possible that the "language", "formatting", "concepts", and "themes" provisions of the OGL would allow a user to declare as PI the expression of rules even in those instances where the underlying rules themselves might still be OGC.
Green Ronin (which produces great products, by the way) in Mutants and Masterminds actually PIs the costs of various powers, several summary tables, and the term "Power Points", presumably based upon this sort of interpretation of the OGL.
While rules themselves are not per se listed in the PI section of the OGL, certainly "concepts" and "language" are listed, and they could be interpreted broadly. Also, various reference materials like spells, creatures, etc. are all subject to PI declarations.
Lastly, and this is controversial, and I invite people to look to the archives rather than re-opening this ugly debate, some authors may be considering that through these allowances for "language", "concepts", etc. as PI, that their rules can be declared PI, and then they would not be considered OGC.
"Open Game Content means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity..."
The "to the extent that such content does not embody the Product Identity" part could lead one to such a conclusion. Though certainly interpretations opposed to this viewpoint have been expressed at length in the archives.
All I can say is that the community does not seem to have a single consensus on how rules or the expression of rules can be interpreted either as PI, OGC, etc.
I think part of what makes this stuff open to interpretation is something like this: is the cost of a superpower simply a matter of reference, or does it represent a game mechanic?
And part of it comes down to the distinction on how "concepts" and "language" can be separated, if at all, from rules, and the expression of rules.
Perhaps we should ask Chris Pramas of Green Ronin and some of the other publishers of rules and reference statistics that have been PI'd for their interpretation of some of the standards set by the OGL. I think the resulting discussion would be enlightening.
Lee
