RE: [Ogf-l] 2nd
-Original Message- From: Steve Creech Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:12 AM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] 2nd You may want to take a look at this: http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/ Been wondering what OSRIC mean, which I saw the terms being thrown around the ENWorld messageboards. So, basically it present old-school rules without copying or lifting the text off copyrighted rulebooks? ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] RE: OGL Logos
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Bert Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 9:10 PM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] RE: OGL Logos If 4E is not licensed then you can't brand your OGL products to DD or d20 for that matter. The d20 System Trademark license and licensees will likely be rescinded by WOTC. Who are you going to be branding too? Perhaps today a little OGL logo means it is compatible with DD more or less for the very few purchasers who know what the OGL is or even notice the logo. But this will be meaningless when the logos disappear from the real DD books. Um, last I checked, WotC don't have an OGL logo on their books that have OGC. They simply attached OGL on the inside of their products. Also, OGL doesn't necessarily means they're using the SRD. Unless you want to single out other rules systems that have been attached to the OGL (e.g., Action! System). Granted, that system have yet to make a major mark with the buying public, but it shouldn't be dismissed. Personally, OGL doesn't mean much to the buying public, only those that are well-educated about it. What the buying public care for is a good packaging of rules for a game. What the OGL does is allow publishers to Use published OGC in their products and let other designers/publishers to Use any new original/derivative OGC Contributed by that products' authors/publishers. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] using the SRD verbatim
-Original Message- From: jeff Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 12:48 AM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: [Ogf-l] using the SRD verbatim Is there a general consensus on using text verbatim out of the MSRD/SRD? I mean if i wanted to include a specific spell or skill from one OG source (such as the SRD) in a new way need i re-write it or can i use the text exactly as it appears in the source. say for example i wanted to include a dd spell in a d20 modern product, apart from changing its summary layout, can i leave the spell's text the same. and also vice versa - if i want to use the above spell, but want to change some of the text for purely fluency reasons can i do that? You can reprint the OGC as is. Do note that d20 MODERN don't have 9 spell levels, so any higher-level spell may have to be reduced to 5th-level (maximum) or modify it for use as incantation (see Arcana section of the SRD). ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] d20 Modern question
-Original Message- From: jeff Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 9:58 PM Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] d20 Modern question Unfortunately there are about three shops in Johannesburg that acctually stock RPGs, and i see most everything is WOTC, so getting this book just to for a look may be pointless, so i've started to convert the 3.5 psionics to d20 Modern. I'm trying to work out the features, using the Mage or Telepath as a model: -Advanced classes with powers up to 5th level -Minimal access to item creation abilities - these are integrated into the advanced/prestige class. -Campaign orientated advanced classes. -Reduced scope in powers -An advanced Psionics powers system (kind like incantations) -Metapsionic feats -Psionic feats integrated as special class abilities - athough i never really like this. Did i miss anything? Personally i never like the Telepath and think the Battle Mind incorporates way too many powers. The Psionic Agent is okay, but in general i think that all the advanced classes are too prescriptive in the campaing models (mage, etc). One of my attractions to the game has been that there is more scope for creating a totally unique character by combining a bunch of classes - so i can see how a skill-n-feat system could be more desirable. So i'm likely to leave the many feats as they are - thus you have an advanced class with a few special abilities (including powers) and access to a range of feats. I think the special advanced classes that use FX abilities should be brought more in line with the DD style. Funny how you felt that the classes are too prescriptive -- mainly Telepath and Battlemind -- and yet you accepted them being DD-style modern cousins. The skill-n-feat model of the Psychic System (found in Steve Kenson's PSYCHIC'S HANDBOOK) is similar to the skill-n-feat model of the Force Power System found in Wizards of the Coast's STAR WARS ROLEPLAYING GAME. I found this one would better model psionics for DD, however WotC have decided not to use it. Alternatively, you can google the internet for Ken Hood's material on Grim-n-Gritty skill-n-feat Psionics Rules. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] d20 Modern question
-Original Message- From: jeff Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 10:39 PM Subject: [Ogf-l] d20 Modern question Hi, all I've recently taken a bit of shine to d20 Modern game and am planning to post a campaign model in the next month or two (on my website). My question relates to the Psionics rules for d20 Modern, as this will feature promently in my model, is there anyone out there that has published a more 3.5 friendly version of psionics for the d20 Modern game? If you prefer a skill-n-feat system model for psionics, I recommend the PSYCHIC'S HANDBOOK. It has a Psychic advanced class for d20 Modern rules. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Question about OGF's distribution of SRDs
-Original Message- From: David White Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 10:22 AM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: [Ogf-l] Question about OGF's distribution of SRDs Hello all, I've kept teh opengamingfoundation.org's web site bookmarked for quite some time and I remember when it used to host conversions of the SRD in various formats so that it would be more publically usable. Which, to me, seems to be the purpose of the OGL? Currently, the site seems very stale, it has links to WoTC's SRDs and dosn't host anything itself. Is this site dead? How can we contribute? You'll have to ask the webmaster, Ryan Dancey. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] WotC's Advantage
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] And my point in this specific case, and those resembling it, is that those licenses are still using WotC copyright: the license itself. Using a different system with the OGL, while allowing the bypassing of the SRD, is still stuck unable to change the license's terms unless they make an OGL entirely their own without any access to WotC's copyright (including WotC's OGL.) That fact, in and of itself, grants WotC a degree of leverage and influence, no matter how small or unlikely it is to be exerted in any way other than those inherent to the license's use. The fact remains that the influence remains so long as the OGL is used, to whatever purpose. I truly do not know what leverage WotC could have over other publishers who offer their own rules system in SRD while under the OGL. You'll have to elaborate this influence WotC can affect companies like Gold Rush Games through the OGL. Was there similar incident when someone uses the Open Source License in the computer software programming field? I mean, those GPL/GNU didn't sprang up from air, someone must have wrote them and therefore have copyright over the text of the licenses. In this specific instance, Gold Rush Games decided to use the same Open Game License as WotC did, the OGL, but that wasn't a foregone conclusion, and I remember Mark Arsenault spending some time working on crafting his own version of the OGL before he changed course and went with the existing OGL and an Action! System trademark usage license similar to (but different from) the D20STL. And, had he gone with a license all his own WotC wouldn't be able to have ANY influence in what Mark did or did not do with his products. As its tands though, WotC still has their fingers in the pie, even if it's just the tip of their fingernails. Again, I still don't get it. What bewitching influence are you talking about? ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dragon is licensing directly from WotC, if I'm not mistaken. Dragon doesn't need to follow the OGL or d20 STL at all because it is getting direct permission from WotC to use its open content AND PI. Dragon has a number of advertisements and articles historically that use the OGL. Magazines are themselves works which contain other works. So technically the magazine as a whole may not be a work covered by the license but individual ads and articles may be, by themselves, works covered by the license. However, WotC FAQ says if you distribute things like this (bundled somehow) then the OGL extends to the bundle instead of the covered work (I do NOT agree with this interpretation). But if this is true, by their own logic, then every Dragon with a single OGL'd ad (Mutants and Masterminds did this a lot), etc. makes the whole Dragon a work covered by the license and potentially makes everything in the work covered by the license OGC if it hasn't been declared as PI. Clearly, this is not what is happening. Only individual articles are works covered by the license, not the entire magazine, and WotC's FAQ file question on bundled goods is full of crap. They were foolish to make that comment about the way bundled items and collections work and then have individual OGL covered ads in their magazine. With all due respect, an advertisment is not an actual product, merely a method to promote and expose their product to potential customers. The publisher of the Covered Product have every right to advertise their OGL-based product, just as long they follow section 7 of the OGL, anywhere. And DRAGON did not have to be under the OGL for the sole purpose of offering advertisement space for OGL-based publishers. If that is the case, then the entire OGL and d20 would be worthless, and that's not what Ryan Dancey intended. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] Work=OGC+PI+nothing else? Was: Who candeclareProductIdentity (T...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ugh! Write a clear license WotC. That a covered work contains only OGC and PI is completely unambiguous. The ambiguous part: what the heck does covered work tell us about the license and its scope? Does it matter? Anyone can use any version of the OGL, and so far it hasn't been challenged in court yet. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] Work=OGC+PI+nothing else? Was: WhocandeclareProductIdentity (T...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 12:41 PM If the OGL only covers OGC + PI then the parts of the license that talk about factors external to the covered work might be effectively void in many circumstances. Such as pursuing a copyright infringement suit, if there is a violation of copyright law? ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
OR, Beta Games can secure a licensing agreement from Acme Games, and act as Agent under the terms of the agreement to designate content as PI, like Mongoose does with Babylon 5. So, here's my question: What happens if there is a violation of PI use, say one of Naughty Games's product include a PI that is actually licensed to Beta Games but owned by Acme Games, and Naughty Games try to challenge this in court? Who would be the plaintiff party in the lawsuit? Hypothetically speaking... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Shepheard Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 4:46 AM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?) From: Tim Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third PartyBeneficiaries?) On 28 Feb 2005 at 21:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, there's nothing saying explicitly that PI has to be declared by anyone in particular. I was thinking that you had to be a party to the contract to declare PI, but then I asked myself this question: can a third party beneficiary declare PI without actually being a party to the contract or an assignee. Not exactly sure what you are saying (an example would have been nice - hehe), but I will respond to what I think you are saying. I'm not sure what he was saying. I've got an idea of a situation where there could be a third party that wants stuff declared as PI but hasn't published the document it is in under the OGL. Maybe you could tell me if this is the sort of thing you are talking about. 1) Acme Games publishes a non OGL roleplaying game with no OGC declared. 2) Several years later WotC bring out the OGL and Acme Games joins the OGC community. 3) Someone at Beta Games phones up the guy that runs Acme Games and says: I've been looking at some of your old stuff and there is something there that I'd really like to use in one of my products. 4) The head of Acme Games says: I don't mind you using it, but I don't want to have to go to the expense of republishing it under the OGL. However, as long as you promise to declare X,Y and Z as PI for me, you can use it. Wouldn't this then mean that Beta Games would be making PI declarations on behalf of Acme Games? Beta Games would then be a third party that benefits from the protection of the OGL. Is this the sort of thing you are getting at? If it is then I can't see how allowing the OGL to be used in *this* way is damaging. Beta Games is benefiting from getting content from Acme Games without the associated development costs. Acme Games is benefiting because their PI is being protected without them having to republish. On the other hand if someone was to say that doing this would somehow strip Acme Games of any rights to declare anything in the stuff they allow Beta Games to use as PI then it *would* be damaging. Acme Games would then have three choices: * Refuse to help out Beta Games in order to protect their PI. * Allow their content to be reused and forfeit any ability to protect the PI if they later want to publish a second edition of the setting under the OGL. * Publish a new product, under the OGL, containing whatever Beta Games wants to use. So if this is your interpretation of how the law works, we could end up with a lot of publishers refusing to help their friends because they are too scared of loosing rights to stuff that would be PI if the product was published today. That is not good for players, publishers or anybody because the content never sees the light of day. Alternatively we might end up with publishers engaging in the farce of sticking a block of text from a 10 year old product into a letter then sticking a copy of the OGL on the end and a PI/OGC definition onto the front! :-O In fact if that is the only way to allow people to use copyrighted stuff that isn't protected by the OGL, I could even imagine somebody getting stationary printed with the OGL on it to save time! ;-) Section 15 entries would then contain pairs of things like: Old Role Playing Game - Copyright Acme Games 1972 You Can Use Our Old Role Playing Game Letter - Copyright Acme Games 2005 Forgetting what the OGL says for a moment (because nobody seems to actually know exactly what it means - LOL) isn't it logical that something that is included in an OGL product, that has been created by another company should be declarable as either PI or OGC on their behalf. This could apply outside the RPG industry as well. If I was to sit down and create an d20 Aliens product, why would I not be able to declare the name Rebecca 'Newt' Jordan to be Product Identity of 20th Century Fox instead of Product Identity of myself? Mind you, for all I know you might have
[Ogf-l] d20 bubble burst and other repercussions
Anyone want to comment about the latest string of news? AEG publishing the last Rokugan d20 product and losing the Stargate license? Wizards of the Coast pushing Star Wars miniatures as we possibly approach one year without Star Wars mini-free RPG product? d20 Future? ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] Bruce Baugh?
Last I heard, he unsubbed from this list due to Ryan's involvement a GAMA e-mail server incident. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 3:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OGF-L] Bruce Baugh? Bruce, if you are subscribed, drop me a private email. There's a pretty huge problem with your OGC/PI declaration in one of your PDF products that could make you very unhappy if you don't fix it pronto. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Copyrightability of games
So why bother with an OGL? -Original Message- From: David Shepheard I don't think that all types of RPG games can be put into the same category, with regards to the fictional elements. While a game based on Star Wars is based on *one* film that was released only as far back as 1977 (plus a lot of derivative material that is also owned by the company that made that film) most fantasy or horror games dip into real world mythology and legends. While I agree that it would be hard to defend a case where some was using lightsabers without permission of Lucasfilm, I can't see why a court should treat something containing mythological ideas like elves, dwarves, dragons, skeletons, zombies, mummies and most other fantasy or horror elements any different from historical ideas. A lightsaber is taken from a source that is protected by copyright, but a large chunk of a game like DD is based on sources that are not protected by copyright. People that have never seen DD know what a wizard or cleric is without explanation, a lightsaber doesn't imply a glowing energy weapon that is generated from a handle unless you know something of the Star Wars film So if crunch is not copyrightable, I suspect that part of the fluff in many games is also not copyrightable. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] courtesy OGC
What is courtesy? I know it's not a legal obligation, as Lee pointed out. The OGL does not specify that I must request the owner/contributor of the OGC for use in my product, only that if I want to use the PI, I must acquire their permission, which is a good time to be (or pretend to be) polite to said PI owner. Then it must be a social gesture. But what do you get out of that? A connection with that person who may later on ask you to help collaborate on some future project? To pay homage to the contributor, hoping that others will do the same when it comes to your OGC material? Or is it simply nothing, but it is just the way you are? -Original Message- From: Web Warlock I know I am not required to do it by any means, but I usually send an email to the publishers under the heading Notification of use of your OGC. I have received some positive feedback when doing this and under the worst circumstances I have only been ignored. It's not asking for permission (which I don't really need), it's just more as courtesy to the people that did the original work. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] One or many licensors?
-Original Message- From: Maggie Vining I think it mostly works like this: A= Open content produced by Wizards of the Coast via the System Reference Document B= new open content created by another company A + B = C C= A product containing open game content with varying PI restrictions. True, especially when the 3.5e SRD contains PI declaration, even though the rules sections of the document do not contain any PI in the mix. Correct me if I'm wrong. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Signing Off
While I do not condone Ryan's action ('nuff said for me), this is not the
forum to discuss it.
-Original Message-
From: Steven Trustrum
Yes, because those situations are all analogous ...
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Dual Statting a game
-Original Message- From: Morrigan I'm fairly new to this list but can anyone tell me if there are any d20 license restrictions to producing a sourcebook that would contain game stats for both d20 and another game system? Other than what is already outlined in the Trademark Usage Guide, no other restriction. To clarify, the Covered Product should not contain any rules on creating and advancing a character, even for the other rules system. But since you mentioned that this is a sourcebook and not a rulebook (where character creation and advancement rules are usually found) you shouldn't have any problem at all. For examples of dual-stat products, see AEG's Rokugan supplement (Way of the Samurai, Way of the Shugenja, etc.) or Chaosium's CoC products (can't recall title off the cuff). ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Phrases as PI
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If somebody lists as PI Dilly Green, is just the phrase PI? The stat blocks associated with Dilly Green? The text description of Dilly Green? The adventures and encounters featuring Dilly Green? In general, I assume that only the phrase Dilly Green is PI. Otherwise, I assume that the PI declaration is far from clear and nothing else is protected. What say you? I would say an appropriate PI declaration, if the goal is to PI everything, would say: the name Dilly Green (including his description, and stat block) but otherwise simply saying Dilly Green PIs only the phrase. Some people are starting to expect widespread coverage for dozens of things just by listing a phrase. I personally don't think that's very clear. Thoughts? IANAL. I don't know if this is an exercise, or that is an actual PI. The author should be specific when he designate certain text in his Covered Product as PI. AFAIC, only that phrase Dilly Green is designated PI by that author. If you wish to be sure, contact the author or publisher of the Covered Product. Perhaps next time, they'll clarify the PI designation. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] The Myth Of Closed Content?
From: Doug Meerschaert Reginald Cablayan wrote: And what is your revision wishlist for the Open Gaming License? 1: Expressly clarify if PI is no permission given or agree not to use. Of the two, I'd lean toward agree not to use which would give publisher a measure of control. 2: Expressly allow attribution of unaltered content when done so not in advertising. (i.e., Ritual item rules from Relics Rituals) That would conflict with d20 System Trademark License and Usage Guide on citation of works. In fact, it would conflict any trademark use agreements, such as MM Superlink. Whether it falls under PI or standard trademark law, you agree not to use without the permission of the author/publisher. 3: Expressly allow closed content - just because, if we're revising anyway, it's a good one to clear up. And how would that benefit publishers who wants to contribute, if not re-use content? ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] OGC in Crooks
So, in the case of T20, Quiklink should not have used the well-known High Guard ship creation rule, even though it can easily be adapted for the d20 rules system, but it did not derived nor originated from said system but another. Because by making it OGC, Quiklink would be in trouble with Far Future who are very specific about the use of their copyrighted Traveller material. Talk about stuck between a rock and a hard place. From: Fred --- Reginald Cablayan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So there has to be a clear trail of derivative works linking back to the SRD as the source, correct? What I'm saying is that if you're publishing something that's intended to be used with some other OGL'ed system, like D20 or whatever, then any rules that you build that are made to interlock with that are going to have to use OGC ideas from that system, and as a result, they're going to have to be OGC under the license. Systems that originate what amounts to a different SRD don't have this problem. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] what is OGC?
-Original Message- From: Fred I think this whole debate about what can and can't be OGC needs to be informed by the definition of OGC from the license: (d)Open Game Content means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. That is: -game mechanic either *methods *procedures *processes *routines not PI enhancement over prior art previously identified OGC -any work covered by the license that isn't PI To summarize, the OGC in a work published under the OGL consists of (all game mechanics plus all work covered by the license) minus anything declared as PI. This is why I say you pretty much can't publish game mechanics under the OGL and keep them closed. So, if a game mechanic is declared PI, then you can close it, at least according to your outline. In the case of T20, the rules for creating the ship's stats can be closed (PI) but the ship's stat block remains OGC. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] OGC in Crooks
From: Fred --- woodelf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11:35 -0700 4/9/04, Fred wrote: There is a line. Clearly: Setting information can be closed. Fluff text can be closed. Illustrations can be closed. Basically, anything that isn't a rule can be closed. So the starship construction system in T20 can't be closed, and it's only that no one has challenged it that keeps it that way? Despite the fact that it predates D20 System by quite a few years? T20 isn't based on an SRD. I'm talking about derivative works. So there has to be a clear trail of derivative works linking back to the SRD as the source, correct? ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Request for someone clarify my mind about d20 and OGL
From: Dominique Crouzet Ahem... Please forgive my stupidity, but there is something I would like to understand : I see that Mongoose Publishing publishes some games under the OGL rather than D20, yet these games are obviously d20 products (for example: OGL Cybernet, or OGL Antiquity -or something like that-). Can someone tell me why choosing to publish a normal d20 game under OGL (with no mention to d20 system) rather than normally, that is with the d20 logo etc. And when this is necessary to do so. Publishing strictly under the OGL relaxes some of the restrictions outlined in the d20 System Trademark License and the accompanying Trademark Usage Guide, such as character creation and advancement rules. This way you can make a standalone core game product. The only drawback is you lose the claim that your product is compatible with DD or use any of the trademarks owned by WotC, including the d20 System logo. This can be somewhat misleading for potential gaming consumers who are anti-DD, who may not know all this d20/OGL thing going. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: re[2]: [Ogf-l] Re: Releasing a new system under the OGL
From: DarkTouch By creating your own license you are essentially crippling your OGC in an entirely different way. Each license creates its own box. This is the reason why GRG and Action! get such high praise from me. They took their own system and opened all of that up for use within the now bigger box of D20/Action! rules. Without having to jump through hoops we can now see dual stats for products in both systems. As things continue I hope to ultimately see the idea of rules getting divorced from setting. Designers could build their worlds with notes for play in a number of different systems. Fans could then modify it for more systems. I can imagine things would eventually top out at a set of 5 different systems each of which emphasizes one of the different styles of play from narrative based to hard core war-gaming depending on the needs of the group. *grin* Call me an idealist. I dunno. There are a lot of dual-stats products out there. I think this is not the case of OGL but rather the case of trademark use, i.e., you can't slap a d20 logo on a different system core rulebook containing character creation rules if such product contains d20 conversion notes. And while I'm glad that Mark and Gold Rush Games joined the Open Gaming movement, I've yet to see if his business model will work profitably for his company. (And yes, I want his company to succeed.) No offense intended. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] SRD WotC errata question
From: Jim Butler Reginald Cablayan wrote: Actually, that's an issue I have been wondering about since the launch of OGL/d20STL. If a publisher puts out an errata of their Covered Product that is under the OGL, does that errata also becomes OGC? If not, can one use the corrected version of that OGC without being penalized? As publishers don't provide an SRD of their materials, I'd consider any released errata to be covered under that product's Open Content designator. Of course, I'd also check with the publisher before charging forward, but I can't see any reason why a publisher would want erroneous information based on one of their published works to be carried forward. Would attaching a copy of the OGL to an errata document be okay (to assure third-party game designers wanting to use your OGC material) or is that a moot point? ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] SRD WotC errata question
From: Kevin Savage Hello, I was informed that this list might be a good place to come for information on the DD SRD. My question is this: does the SRD get updated when WotC issues errata on the core rulebooks? If not, are there any projects that intend to incorporate the updates? Thank you! -Kevin Savage Actually, that's an issue I have been wondering about since the launch of OGL/d20STL. If a publisher puts out an errata of their Covered Product that is under the OGL, does that errata also becomes OGC? If not, can one use the corrected version of that OGC without being penalized? ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Why OGL?
From: Jamie I have recently purchased Knights of the Old Republic for my X-Box. The game is without doubt d20 based with the standard six abilities, feats and skills from the PHB etc. experience levels as the PHB (or possibly d20 Star Wars) and yet there is no mention of WotC or the d20 logo anywhere is sight. Why is this? A different agreement between LucasArt and Wizards, with Lucasfilm Licensing's blessing? If you truly want to use Wizards' trademarks on your computer game software, then you need to talk to Wizards of the Coast. It's up to them and in their right to grant or deny permission. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Silly Question
From: Reginald Cablayan From: Reginald Cablayan From: DarkTouch Interestingly however, while the OGL is not OGC, last I checked the D20STL was. Not the most current version (4.0). Correction: d20STL v.5.0. Just checked it today. One more thing, they also updated the Trademark Logo Guide, now v.4.0. What's added? A Standards of Decency section. www.wizards.com/d20 ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] SRD released (apparantly)
From: Smith, Andrew Thanks, Doug. The web team didn't jump the gun, I just forgot that we had said it would be up within a few days of the book's release. Let's just blame that on burnout from working on the SRD for a month straight. After I was reminded of our promised release date I begged to have it pushed forward. Looks like it worked. Andy Smith Publishing/d20 Licensing Wizards of the Coast, Inc. You better get those web team back on the job. Some of the links are broken. One thread offered the corrected links. OBTW, the SRDTreasure.rtf document is the same as the original and not formatted with the rest of the Revised SRD. IOW, the charts and tables are bleah compared to the other sections. One more thing, where is the original SRD? ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] 3.5
-Original Message- From: Jonathan M. Thompson It wasn't the draft SRD, it was a draft of the 3.5 rulebooks. Oh. My bad. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] 3.5
From: woodelf At 12:06 -0400 7/18/03, Damian wrote: They have not. The updated SRD goes live on midnight, July 24. Dammit!, that doesn't help me at all. Didn't they originally say they would go live the same day the books hit shelves, same as the D20MSRD? I was surprised when the Modern SRD was posted on the same day of the book's official release date (November 8). But honestly, there is a big difference between the two. The SRD have more content, while the MSRD adapted from the original SRD and modified to d20 Modern ruleset. IOW, they use cut-n-paste where it is needed. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] 3.5
-Original Message- From: Roger Bert You have to give them a few days to sell those books people. :) -Roger I know. But you should see some folks on the web-based messageboards (Wizards EN World). They're demanding it like they have some kind of entitlement. BTW, didn't some third-party publishers already have a copy of the Revised SRD so they can get a head start on their projects? ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] D20 Logo
From: David Bolack At 12:10 PM 7/14/2003, you wrote: AFAIC, you can make the logo large enough to cover the entire front or rear book cover, as long it is not distorted nor printed over by other graphics. The logo currently distributed is unacceptably distorted at a 1 inch size, which isn't exactly an unreasonable enlargement. You might want a photo/graphic editing software than can smooth out the distortion of an enlargement. Does anyone have any software recommendation? ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] D20 Logo
-Original Message- From: David Bolack In effort to verify we were going to be using the D20 logo within sizing requirements I checked up on the files currently at the Wizard's site to make sure my memory wasn't fuzzy. What I found was a minimum display size of .5x.5. I was certain I recalled a maximum size as well, but don't see that in the reference guide. Additionally, I see that the print ready art is smaller than the minimum sizes, at least according to Photoshop 6.0 on the PC. Admittedly, smaller by only a bit, but still smaller. Is there a larger version of the art? Was the size prohibition removed or do they simply not reference it in the guide, but still do so in the SRD? All three versions of the Trademark Logo Guide have no reference to the maximum size limit the d20 logo should be, just the minimum. AFAIC, you can make the logo large enough to cover the entire front or rear book cover, as long it is not distorted nor printed over by other graphics. Nevertheless, use the current version of the Guide (v3.0) indicated by the current version of the d20STL (v4.0) ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] SCO and the OGL
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 14:07 -0400 6/7/03, Richard Schreiber wrote: What ever happened to footnotes? The problem is that, in using the WotC OGL, you agree not to use any PI or trademarks without express written permission. The vast majority of manufacturers who are using the WotC OGL, and thus contributing OGC, mark their company name and their product name as PI. So, strictly read, you can't have a footnote that cites the source, because doing so would use PI without permission. So i'm trying to figure out how i can have footnotes, even if the item footnoted is PIed, without violating the WotC OGL. How about referencing them by adding superscript to the OGC in question and denoting said superscript to the source right inside the Copyright Notice? Isn't that what you guys did in earlier discussion? ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
