At 12:27 PM 2/13/02 -0700, Alec A. Burkhardt wrote: >If he's not reusing the material verbatim, there's really no need to >reference the earlier works as specifically as Clark is attempting to do >so. My impression is that he's not changing any of the game mechanic >information for the creatures, spells & items he's using.
When I say verbatim, I mean word-for-word identical. For instance, I would guess that "monster 1" as it appears in Temple of the Rainbow Mage would be a stat block, not the full "monster book" entry from CC. The two versions are functionally identical, but the stat block is not simply text reprinted from CC, but new text which is derived from CC. That's the reason I used the word in my original attempt. But even if he is making changes to the mechanics, if the names are still PI he's using, they really still need to be listed, IMO. >Especially since he wants to use the specific names from the books and the >requirement for using the names was that nothing be changed. At least >that's the requirement of the license in RR. Hmm. Are you sure? I thought that the license in RR just said that you could only use the spell names as the spell names (i.e. you couldn't refer to Dolomar except in Dolomar's Limited Liquification) not that you had to use the spell itself without modification. Anyway, see above. >Your attempt arrived after I sent mine. I think it works better than >mine, although defining OGC/PI by a negative doesn't really bother me. I don't necessarily mind single-negative, but I think that double-negative is needlessly confusing. "Whatever doesn't not appear in the list below" is equivalent to "whatever appears in the list below," so why not use the latter? >The problem your approach might miss (and that I was trying to capture but >think I failed) is the fact that because of differing designations in the >earlier products designating some things as PI may not really be what >Clark is aiming for. For example, there actually is no PI in the Creature >Collection. It's either OGC or not OGC. Luckily for Clark he's the >person who has the right to change that non-OGC text into PI if he wants. Ah. This is an interesting point. I don't have a copy of CC, so I hadn't realized that it didn't use PI to isolate names. In that case, you're right, the consolidated wording I've been proposing wouldn't work in the general case (though, as you point out, in Clark's particular case it's probably fine). Sixten _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
