The reference was that it was non-sensicle to have a spell without a name in
the SRD as in all stat blocks for spells start with the school the spell
belongs to, skipping right over any name at all.
----- Original Message -----
From: "jdomsalla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 4:24 PM
Subject: [Ogf-l] Non-PI SRD/Sensibility
> DarkTouch wrote:
> >Even then, it isn't very exact.
> >Imagine that in the SRD in addition to those spells, Mordenkainen and
Bigby
> are also NPCs. Both illustrious individuals as well as 'all spell names'
are
> considered closed content either through PI or (nonsensicly) non-inclusion
> in the SRD.
>
> Addressing this statement, I do think there is a great degree of
sensibility
> to non-inclusion in the SRD, and here's why...
>
> With the SRD, I have a complete "generic" game. I can take all of the
> documents, merge them into one document, and then begin editing from the
> beginning all the way to the end to create "Jimmy's [non-D&D] Role-Playing
> Game", without *any* concern about WotC PI (or un-opened IP) being within
> it. I don't have to fish for PI terms, names, or expressions of setting.
> It's all stripped out, nice and clean, for the beneficiaries of the OGL
(all
> of us) to use without concern or worry that *we* have removed the
forbidden
> elements.
>
> This just fails to come across to me as nonsensical to me, but is rather a
> clear example of PI vs OGC separation ("instructive", as Spike Y Jones put
> it) and extremely convenient for all of us. If anyone would deem it
> nonsensical, it would be WotC accountants questioning the man-hours and
> financial investment required to give it to us (which they either haven't
> done or, if they did, the proponents of the OGL within WotC won the
debate).
>
> ~Jimmy Domsalla
> qtgg.icehex.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DarkTouch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 4:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
>
>
> > Even then, it isn't very exact.
> > Imagine that in the SRD in addition to those spells, Mordenkainen and
> Bigby
> > are also NPCs. Both illustrious individuals as well as 'all spell names'
> are
> > considered closed content either through PI or (nonsensicly)
non-inclusion
> > in the SRD.
> >
> > The crux of the question involves being able to tie the name to the
Spell
> > name in some way that when I rename the NPC with my new handy-dandy open
> > content name that I know that handy-dandy name belongs to BOTH the NPC
AND
> > the appropriate Spell. And it hasn't sudden'y become Mord's Interposing
> Hand
> > and Bob's Magnificent Mansion.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Spike Y Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 3:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
> >
> >
> > > On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:26:35 -0500
> > > "DarkTouch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Venca is the undead diety of greyhawk. Wizards releases a book that
> > > > is OGC with Venca listed as PI so I can't use him in my product.
> > > > This same book also has a number of spells in it that are directly
> > > > related to our undead god. The names of these spells which are
> > > > things like 'Venca's Hand of doom' and 'Venca's horrid vomit' are
> > > > also listed as PI.
> > > >
> > > > The question is: Do I _KNOW_ that the spells which are in a
> > > > completely different chapter from the Diety Venca are in fact
> > > > related to the diety? Or for my purposes are they just nameless
> > > > spells and nameless dieties?
> > >
> > > If the publisher simply listed "Venca" as PI, and did not also list
> > > "spell names" or "spell names that include the word Venca" as PI,
> > > then you'd be able to call your spells "Hand of Doom" and "Horrid
> > > Vomit".
> > >
> > > There is a parallel here to the fact that there are spells in the
> > > Player's Handbook called "Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion" and
> > > "Bigby's Interposing Hand," and there are spells in the SRD called
> > > "Magnificent Mansion" and "Interposing Hand", and the former are
> > > off-limits, while the latter are Open Content. (The parallelism is
> > > inexact, because WotC didn't use PI to accomplish this, but it's
> > > instructive nonetheless.)
> > >
> > > Spike Y Jones
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ogf-l mailing list
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ogf-l mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
> >
> > __________ NOD32 1.629 (20040220) Information __________
> >
> > This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System.
> > http://www.nod32.com
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ogf-l mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
