> (Will require description of how to > convert level > based character classes to non-level based).
>Can't do this with D20 license. Hmmm... Reading through again you are allowed to modify the descriptions of race, class etc and to create or amend the charts with changes for level progression in your system. This section just seems more and more confused the more I read it. ::scratches head:: The document is a legal one and the definition they have chosen for 'Experience' is that of a level based system, it is this definition around which the use of the word 'experience' must be considered for the rest of the document. I can see about three ways around it all of them weaselly but well, thats legalese for you. >> 4 - New advancement system >Can't do this with D20 license. Doesn't matter what you call it. I'd agree with you if we were going by standard rather than legal english, but they have defined experience to mean something specific rather than general. So, a system of advancement without reference to level incrementation along the lines of White Wolfs or other people's experience charts (Earn points at the end of a game, spend them to improve character factors - in this case Abilities, skills, feats etc) should technically be feasible. >It means that if you publish a system that looks like advancement, >sounds like advancement, and works like advancement, you violate the d20 >license and you'll be told to stop. >Furthermore, if you figure out a clever way to get around the specific >wording of the license, WotC can just change the license to stop you. True, they can, but it is something that could really open up the system and make it more acceptable to the people that vomit at the sight of it. >On the other hand, if you come up with as system that doesn't use >levels, doesn't use classes, and doesn't use advancement, WotC probably >won't do anything about it. >The obvious example is a game with pre-generated PCs who never advance. This would be one of the weaselly ways around it, but it'd look stupid in print. Character tables with only level one available, all the levels for Base Attack, Saves, skill points etc all allowed under the D20 licence. THEN you say something like "Character's advance under a method chosen by the Games Master of the group." And follow that with an 'example'. Dodgey... Strictly speaking by legalese definition anything that doesn't refer to levels is OK if you read the D20 licence material with a lawyer head on. There is also this confusing bit in the FAQ: *************************************************************** Q: Can I define a new class? A: Yes. Q: Could my new class use a different experience point chart? A: You could publish a new chart. And you could say that characters of a given class use that chart. But you couldn't actually say what to do with the chart. Q: Could I create a character system that didn't use classes and/or levels at all? A: Sure. **************************************************************** >> You can't describe how Ability levels are determined, right? >Correct. That I'll agree on :) Second opinions? Worth talking to WOTC about it directly? Are they being fluffy lately? Anyone else approached this problem? James 'Grim' Desborough -- Busy Freelancer, typecast humourist, origins award winning egotist. Someone please make me a staff writer. RPG community project www.postmort.demon.co.uk _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
