"Marizhavashti Kali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > b)A pretty half hearted embrace of openness. I understand the need to
> > protect valuable IP, but I think the names of the creatures should have
> > been Open, at least if they were linked with the stats and combat.
>
> Well... The names and likenesses are IP. I could take the "Herald of
> Vangal" and use all the game information in another D20 product as "The
> Daughter of Graz'zt" (or rather, some other demon prince of my own
> invention). I'm fine with that.
I can understand the descriptive material being closed, but the problem I
had with it is that all the new rules are closed as well. For example, the
Exemplar has access to several new feats, all of which are closed content.
For that matter, all of the monster special abilities are closed too.
What's left isn't much use as open content.
Now, the personal likelihood of me publishing a D20 supplement using any of
this material is slim to none, but closing off rules, feats etc. seems to me
to be at least going against the spirit of open gaming. (Death in Freeport
and Three Days to Kill, OTOH, both had usable open content, with the monster
descriptions fully open).
_____________________________________________________
Kevin J. Brennan, Fourth Millennium Line Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://www.fourth-millennium.com/
"If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man this deep young man must be!"
--Gilbert & Sullivan, "Patience"
