Clark Peterson wrote: >I mean, the issue of simultaneous develoment (such as >with chain spell) is one thing, but to encourage a >clear violation of the license because you think they >wont worry about it is wrong and is the kind of thing >that would make a company decide not to support the >d20 license. > >Mistakes will happen, but we the producers CANNOT >advocate (as you just did above) that little >violations are ok. We have to advocate following the >license. > >Maybe you were just teasing, but that is an untenable >position. > Hmm... I might be off a bit, but I do recall Ryan stating something not too far from what I said not more than three months ago.
But I do see what you mean. The OGL is followed badly enough as it is, and I'm doing no one any favors by suggesting that they do as I suggested. They're just in for heartbreak, the movement's just in for a headache, and everyone else is just in for some more confusion. So, let me try again. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Is it wrong to refer to something that's not in the SRD, like a > feat from Tome & Blood? Yes, unless you have specific instructions on how to do this from WotC. (Such instructions will probably be introduced in the near future, but they aren't out yet--and when they do come out, they probably won't get you anything that isn't allready in the SRD or draft SRD.) > Example: I have a prestige class that requires a feat from Tome & > Blood as a prerequisite. Is it wrong to have that, even though the > feat is not described in the prestige class? If you think that you want to refer to something in Tome & Blood, the short answer is "don't do it, find someting else." The longer answer is "You can do it, but by doing so you leave the Safe Harbor of the OGL behind." The procedure is, in a nutshell, as follows: #1: Reduce what you want to the most basic idea you can think of. "a feat that lets you shape magical areas" is probably not vauge enough. "A nonmagical way to shape magic" is. #2: Think up as many different ways to implement the idea as you can. Include WotC's way as one item, but come up with at least ten more. (At least three major variations, and as many minor variations of those major ideas as you can think of.) #3: Cross out any ideas that are too close to WotC's. (See your lawyer about this part.) #4: Pick your favorite of what's left on the list. Write that up, slap it into the slot you need to, and pat yourself on the back for outdoing WotC at the design of a minor game mechanic. :) #5 (optional but preferred): hand the final notes you have to someone who has never read the WotC book you got the idea from, and have THEM write it up for you. You can edit it later if their grammar's bad. :( man, I gotta post less and write more. DM _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
