What's OGL and What's Not?

[Ishmayl-Retired]

I thought it would be useful to make a list of various products out there that have good OGL content in them (such as new classes and spells), and what products out there are not composed of OGL content.  I know I find myself trying to figure out sometimes which of various parts of someone's book is "useable" in my campaign, and which are considered Product Identity.  For instance, are Monte Cook's various classes, races, feats, talents, and spells in the "Arcana" series OGL, or PI?  What about the classes, spells, etc in Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time d20?"  In "Midnight," by Fantasy Flight Games, as well as on Rick Burlew's site, "Giant in the Playground," it is extremely clear which parts are considered OGL and which parts are not.  Most other sources, however, are not very clear at all.  Maybe we can shed a little light on various products.

This thread stems, more than anything, from my lack of understanding on how the OGL truly works.

[~Kalin~]

from my very limited understanding of the OGL is that if its not in the SRD then it cant be used, so beyond that i would have no idea what would be classed as OGL and what would by Pl, so im with Ishmayl on this, i hope someone can shed some light on this supject.

[CYMRO]

This thread stems, more than anything, from my lack of understanding on how the OGL truly works.

Open Game Content is content you allow, with citation in the Open Game License(section 15), other authors/publishers to use free of charge.  If a book has Open Game Content, it is up to the writer/publisher to differentiate between that content and Product Identity, which is content protected under standard copyright law.
Product Identity is usually listed on one of the opening credit pages, with the citation of the OGL at the back of the work.

Of the Core(plus XPH, Epic, DDG) material that is OGC, if it is in the SRD, it is OGC.  Note that the experience table is not OGC.  Neither is the fluff of class descriptions.  Only the skeleton of the Core is OGC.  But that is still a ton of stuff.  Most, but not all, monsters are OGC.  Mindflayers, slaad, formians, and yuan-ti are among the Product Identity critters.

Example 1:  Unearthed Arcana.  The entire work is OGC, except proper names, registered trademarks, the artwork, trade dress, and the names and stats for Product identity creatures(the property of WOTC) like the beholder, displacer beast, gauth, githyanki, githzerai, mindflayer, slaad, umber hulk, and the yuan-ti.
   If you chose to, you could delete all references to the above Product Identity, and reprint what was left of UA, so long as in your OGL you cited UA in your section 15.

Example 2:  Altvogge:  AATS.  I reworked a lot of SRD material for Altvogge, but it is still OGC, and is cited as such.  I used UA's WP/VP system, which is OGC, and is so cited.
My alchemy skill is unique, but I made the skill OGC, while keeping the proper names of alchemical procedures Product Identity.  In fact, besides the art and proper names, my work, new stuff and all, is OGC.  

The whole point of the OGL was to establish a base from which new ideas could be developed.  By offering other designers a chance to tweak their core work, WoTC hoped to increase the amount of shared material.  This was the stated original goal, as WOTC had no intention of creating supplements.  After the OGL was released Hasbro got greedy, and did a 180, but the license, already in existence, could not be revoked entirely.  THey changed it a bit because of the whole BOEF problem to ensure PG-13 content.

Now, the d20 License is a whole other kettle of fish.  To put the d20 logo on your work, you must abide by the terms of the d20 license, which has several strict definitions of terms and the work cannot have, for instance, XP charts.

[Ishmayl-Retired]

Yeah Kalin, that's what the thread's for.  You see, some products list very clearly in their books what they consider PI and what they consider OGL, while others are very murky.

Cymro, do you know what, if any, of Monte Cook's stuff is OGL?  What about Forgotten Realms and Eberron and Greyhawk stuff?

[Elven Doritos]

D'oh. Never mind-- Cymro beat me to it.

[CYMRO]

THE COMPLETE SERIES:  NO OPEN GAME CONTENT.

TOME OF MAGIC:  NO OPEN GAME CONTENT.

PHB II:  NO OPEN GAME CONTENT.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERIES:  NO OPEN GAME CONTENT.

MUTANTS AND MASTERMINDS, 2e:  
PI:  All character and place names, descriptions, artwork and images, power points and hero points.
OGC:  All other text in the intro and chapters 1-9, the stat blocks in chapter 11, and the adventures.

[CYMRO]

Cymro, do you know what, if any, of Monte Cook's stuff is OGL?  What about Forgotten Realms and Eberron and Greyhawk stuff?

I am not sure about Cook's other stuff, as I do not have it anymore.
As for FR, Eberron, and Greyhawk, nothing but SRD material that they have reprinted.  
Eberron's dragonshards and new feats, etc., are all, PI.  

[Ishmayl-Retired]

So since Tome of Magic is not OGL, technically, I couldn't post anything about using it in my campaign on my website, could I?

[CYMRO]

So since Tome of Magic is not OGL, technically, I couldn't post anything about using it in my campaign on my website, could I?

Correct.

[Jürgen Hubert]

So since Tome of Magic is not OGL, technically, I couldn't post anything about using it in my campaign on my website, could I?

Oh, you could - but then your website shouldn't be considered OGL, but "fan material". Really, as long as you don't intend to make money from it and don't copy entire passages from WotC books, you don't really need to worry about the OGL.

If you want to be on the safe side, you should put a disclaimer on your website. This might look like this:

"The material presented here is my original creation, intended for use with the <RPG NAME> system from <GAME COMPANY>. This material is not official and is not endorsed by <GAME COMPANY>."

Yes, theoretically WotC could send you a "cease-and-desist" letter under these circumstances. But the same is true for all fan material for all RPGs, including those who don't fall under the OGL, and the only RPG company these days who sics lawyers on fans is Palladium. All others like the idea that there are enthusiastic fans out there who use their material - as long as their copyrights are respected, which means that you shouldn't steal their work outright and not pretend that your material is "official".

Really, only publishers need to worry about the OGL. Incidentally, parts of Urbis are published under the OGL, but then again I do want to publish it professionally eventually...

[CYMRO]

Bad idea.  Why? Because it is illegal.  Plain and simple.  If a book has no OGC, then reproducing it, in whole or in part, is against the law.  And morally suspect.

You can recommend said book on your website, but that is as far as I would go.

[brainface]

I don't think Ish is talking about reproducing it, but rather something like Acetylens from the forests of Cransida often take levels in Massatin Summoner, as described in the Tome of Massatia.

Which would be fanstuffs to me.

[Jürgen Hubert]

Bad idea.  Why? Because it is illegal.  Plain and simple.  If a book has no OGC, then reproducing it, in whole or in part, is against the law.  And morally suspect.

Unless I am much mistaken, that's not what the Original Poster was talking about at all.

From my understanding, he wanted to say something like:

"This setting uses the alternate magic rules from Tome of Magic, page 116, with the following modifications..."

Or:

"Many members of this monastic order take the Necrophile prestige class (see Complete Gravedigger by CotW, page 71)..."


And I don't see any problems with that - nor something morally dubious. While copying the work of publishers outside a specific legal framework (such as the OGL) is wrong, referring to it isn't.

[Numinous]

Thanks to Jurgen, CYMRO, and Brain.  That ws exactly what I was looking for.  I personally like to refer to things, but I always fear stepping over the invisible legal line.

[Epic Meepo]

You can always reference any published material, provided you cite your sources and don't describe unique elements of that source in too much detail. Just don't reprint the text of that material or post your own version of rules from (or based on) that source.

For example, making a unique spell list for a new class (but not describing any of the spells on that list): probably okay if you cite your source. Listing new spells and stating what they do or changing what they do (or reprinting an existing spell list): not okay.

Also, for small publishers, you can often email them to ask permission to use various material. They sometimes respond, occasionally in the affirmative.