Joe Mucchiello wrote: > I think you are overly worried about something most gamers do automatically. When looking at a new sourcebook for reuse in another setting, they automatically look to see what parts of it will need tweaking.
Maybe a little. However, there is kind of this presumption about how an SRD-derived product would be balanced by many gamers, and I want to be sure that, if only 1 person outside of my actual gaming group downloads it, I have informed said individual that such is not the case with the title in question. It's mostly about some of the reaction I witness when Wheel of Time came out, as many folks on several boards had a habit of calling it "under powered' when in truth it was simply balanced differently (i.e., lower powered game vs. under powered D&D product). >I believe the 5 bullet points listed above is probably as succinct and accurate as you will get. Why not just use what you wrote above as is? Ehr... Great idea. Might clean them a little, but yeah, they *do* work, don't they... Talk about answering my own question. >Have you sent email to the publishers of your borrowed material and asked for permission? Read the section restricting claims of compatibility carefully. That section voids itself if you gain permission to indicate compatibility. I think you misunderstood... My point was that I can't put a label or note into my work stating "This section contains rules from Green Ronin's The Shaman's Handbook and Bloodstone Game's The Primal Codex," not about claiming to be compatible with them. Unless, of course, I get permission (which, just like claiming compatibility, permission *could* be gotten), though I'm not sure which would be more tedius: writing every publisher about every contributing title, or putting in the notes containing the information and making sure they're right. In this regard, I'm half better off having a "Aedon Guide to Shamanism" rtf/pdf that would then only have these two products in the Section 15, since it gets the job done and completely simplifies re-use. >The ban on indicating compatibility extends to all marketing materials. You cannot answer folks questions about sources outside of the document without coming close breech. Again, though, it's not about claiming compatibility. What I'm saying is, if a poster asks, "Is the Kin of Silence Prestige Class original or from another source?" I'm going to reply, "It's not original; They were originally published in Librum Equitus 1 as The Practical Ones and received [no/some/a lot of] changes." My point being, I feel it would be better to have that person look at the original and like it better as opposed to seeing only my (modified) re-use of it and decide it doesn't look right or is broken and not use it at all. Think of it this way... As a "fan project", I *want* to turn people towards the originating sources as my own little effort to promote the material I like personally, even if I had to alter it in some regard to work right in my non-standard setting. At any rate, you are right, the 5 points pretty much cover it. I think I'm still going to go a *little* extra on things, just to be sure the job is done "cleanly" (the proverbial "If you're not going to do it right, then don't do it" spiel). Heck, I had to hold out an upload just today because I realized a source had a non-existant Section 15 (a *very* early release by a company that has since gotten very good about it). I'm hoping for a turn around on that shortly, as the contact is usually pretty good about fast replies. ~Jimmy Domsalla, QTGG _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
