--- Justin Bacon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm kinda curious about this. I can see how > identifying OGC through the use > of an OGC appendix is a very dangerous way of > declaring OGC (since you would > need to be 100% sure that you've duplicated every > scrap of OGC or > OGC-derived material in the product), but I don't > see how the declaration: > > The words "make a skill check at DC 15" are hereby > designated as OGC > wherever they appear in the text. > > Is any less precise, accurate, and reasonable than: > > Page 15 is hereby designated as OGC.
And, as anyone who reads thru the archives can see, I've always said that what you described is acceptable. Of course it's only acceptable when there's a small amount of it. Which is why the appendix method falls apart. If all the OGC in a product is the line "make a skill check at DC **" (where ** implies the number can change) I think it's clear to a reasonable person that everytime they see that line they are looking at OGC. (The publisher has to keep the line consistent then of course.) Have 20 different such lines and it starts to become a problem. Have 200 and I think it's no longer reasonably clear. alec __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
