Actually, Woodelf, that would be me that posted that...
Let me clarify what I was talking about there (as I tend to be brief on
ENWorld when the subject isn't gaming itself)...
In the Introduction, after the part where I hail and praise open gaming, I
intend to include a small section where I indicate incompatibility issues
with other gaming products *will likely* occur. I wish to indicate the
following...
1. That the material is focused on a *specific* world (one of less magic and
super-heroics then current gaming trends) and thus is balanced accordingly.
2. That the material is not as hard-coded for mechanical balance as most
other products (i.e., room is made for the GM to "play around" with things
on the RP-side of the game, especially for things like gaining a Prestige
Class, that supercede mechanical considerations).
3. That some rules imported from contributing sources (i.e., OGL-published
materials) have been slightly changed.
4. That some rules imported from contributing sources ("
") have been dramatically changed.
5. That unless a rule presented by QTGG from any other source is *exactly*
what the re-user wants, he's better off obtaining the original source to see
how it functions in the "base line" of current gaming trends (i.e., most
d20STL games and settings).
While not quite sure how I intend to word it, I do have a desire to express
this information in a simple, clean fashion without ticking off WotC. I
figured it would also be a good thing to do becuase (A) there is quite a bit
of re-use and I want to plug/support the sources of the re-used content
beyond my own purchase of it and (B) the rules *have* been changed and
directly lifting an Aedon rule and dropping it into (let's say) Forgotten
Realms could (and in some instances will without a doubt) cause severe
balance/playability issues. Of course, I can't state in the material itself
where the individual components came from specifically (Product Names being
PI), although I do intend to invite folks to ask via email or our message
boards. One thing that I *have* started doing is to make "component
documents"; these are documents focused on a particular subset of rules (ex:
The Aedon Psionics Document) that would have their Section 15s based solely
on the material within them (reducing the multitude of Section 15 entries
for the *entire work* to the 1-3 that contributed to the single component;
Ex: The Aedon Psionics Document would list only MEG's Mystic Warriors and
Holistic's Fading Suns Core Rulebook because those are the only sources it
draws from).
So, I guess what I'm saying is that, in addition to a (presumed) privilage
of stating incompatibility, I also see myself as having something of an
obligation to do so as well, since not doing so *could* get folks mad at me
because they ported something that ruined their game. Ex: While my Ritual
Magic rules are drawn from S&S Studio's Ritual Magic rules, they *are not*
S&S Studio's Ritual Magic rules any more because they got retooled in minor
ways that a casual reader might not realize prior to doing a copy/paste to
save themselves the trouble of transcribing from a printed product; this
resulting in a sudden surprise that totally f's-up gameplay one fine night.
So, yes, I guess would like some opinions on this too before I proceed with
the above intentions, particularly in the safest yet most accomodating
manner possible.
And, to finish, I would not suggest mentioning D&D *specifically* in any
plug/press release/advertisement, even to claim incompatibility; There are
already plenty of ways to indicate that the material is derived from the
"3rd edition of the world's premier role-playing game" without crossing that
line.
~Jimmy Domsalla, QTGG
----- Original Message -----
From: "woodelf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 1:10 AM
Subject: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims
> Snagged this from a discussion on EnWorld:
>
> >Originally posted by Bendris Noulg at
> ><http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=75351&page=1&pp=25>
> >There's a false assumption in this statement, however. For
> >instance, does M&M worry about being seen as compatible? No, of
> >course not. If anything, I enjoy the freedom of stating outright
> >that a product [i]is not[/i] compatible but is still run on the same
> >game engine.
>
> You know, that raises an interesting question: what about claims of
> *non*-compatibility? If i put on my book "This game product is not
> compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd Edition." am i in the clear
> with the "no trademarks for compatibility/co-adaptability" clause?
> Assuming this is a true claim--i'm envisioning a game book that is
> derived from the D20SRD, but is sufficiently far removed that making
> it work with most other D20 System products would be arduous, at
> best. Thus, this would be a truth-in-advertising warning, so that
> those who recognized it as D20 System (such as by reading the Sec.15)
> wouldn't then just assume it was "same old, same old", get it home,
> and be frustrated with not being able to slot it into their
> Spycraft/Midnight/Greyhawk/whatever game.
>
> Yes, i'm aware that this would also be sneaky backhanded advertising,
> using someone else's trademark to possibly get the customer's
> attention. But is it forbidden by the letter of the WotC OGL?
> --
> woodelf <*>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/
>
> "The box said "Requires Windows95 or better." So I bought a Mac.
> _______________________________________________
> Ogf-l mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
>
> __________ NOD32 1.614 (20040129) 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
