From: "Clark Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Kenan wrote:
>
> "On page 9 of Necromancer Games' adventure "The
> Wizard's Amulet," the section entitled "Starting
> combat" contains what I would consider game rules.
> Since this section is not marked as OGC is the
> adventure in violation of the OGL?"
>
> This adventure was released before the OGL was
> finalized and before there was any distinction between
> Product Identity, etc. The permission we had at that
> time was that we could quote from the combat chapter.
> So since my adventure is bound by the rules in effect
> when created, it is not in violation.
Yep. I remember. I'm just using it as an example to help
understand the current license.
> In addition, you may also note a disclaimer in the
> adventure (since no one knew how this all would work)
> that any material derived wholly from the d20 srd or
> the players handbook is open content. Thus, it is not
> in violation becuase the adventure does indicate that
> material is open content. So you are wrong when you
> say Amulet doesnt mark game rules as open content. We
> just didnt do it only with gray boxes. Read the notice
> about Open Content at the back of the adventure.
Right, I did, but the license says that all OGC must be clearly
marked. I am curious if what The Wizard's Amulet did, is considered
'clearly marked.' If so, why even bother with the gray boxes?
> Would we designate things more clearly today? Yes. But
> back then we didnt know how all this was going to
> shake out.
How would you do it today?
> By the way, the people I heard from at WotC loved it.
I didn't mean to cast aspersions at your work. It is the only OGL
adventure I've seen so far and so I'm using it as an example.
Necromancer Games is leading the OGL charge, and I respect (and
envy) you for it.
-kenan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
