At 01:39 PM 1/29/03 -0800, Clark Peterson wrote (in response to Sigil):
That's one of the reasons I came up with my tricky section 15 thing for Tome of Horrors, so that people only have to list what they use.Things brings up an interesting point, especially since I've got plans in the back of my head for something similar: is what Sigil's doing okay? Would each entry have to have the full OGL with it to use his method?
As an example, say I have a big database full of OGC (for the sake of argument, magic items). Some are original, some reused from other sources. Each has a decent sized Section 15 of its own.
I would like to construct a web site where users can search for specific items they want, and be able to use them independently. That is, if they want the Ring of Reuse, they can pull up a page with only that item, and the Section 15 information particular to it. Obviously, if my collection is large, the combined Section 15 for everything would be very large and cumbersome.
Which of these options are legitimate?
1. Emulate the Tome of Horrors (probably try to get Clark's permission to reuse his instructions), and construct a Section 15 by reference. This will likely be *much* more complicated than the ToH, because all of the monsters in there were original OGC -- most were conversions of other material, but the d20 content was no, and so there were no existing Section 15 entries.
2. Do something like most printed collections: one immense Section 15 in the OGL, linked from each page.
3. Treat each item as its own "work" with its own copy of the OGL, and its own Section 15.
Is there another (better) way of accomplishing this that I haven't thought of? The idea would be to facilitate reuse, so obviously the easy it is for people to extract *just* the parts they want, the better.
Sixten
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
