On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Sixten Otto wrote: > 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.
Yes, but the stat block is simply text reprinted from CC, it's just not the entirety of the monster entry. That's not derivative as the term is normally used on this list. That's why I'd avoid the term and be more specific that he is taking material directly from those books. > 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. I'd have to double check the specific language, but it was clear from comments from both Clark & Steve that the intent of the license to use PI from RR was to allow people to use the specific name in RR with the specific item/spell from RR. If the license allows people to just take item names and attach them to any modification of the item/spell then it also essentially allows people to take the PI'ed names and put them on any similar item/spell. I don't think that's what they intended. (Realize this is just for people publishing, if GMs & players want to tinker at home we're outside the whole realm of OGL.) > >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? There was no double negative in my post. There were two separate single negatives. Don't know where your getting the idea that I said the quoted material, since I never did. There's two negatives in my statement, but they don't actually create a double negative. The PI designation is obviously negating the orginal OGC designation. Then I included some additional specific negation of the general PI clause to explain what parts of the items that had just been claimed as PI were still OGC. That's not a double negative however. That's working from very general (all text is OGC) to somewhat specific (these items are PI & therefore not OGC) to very specific (these elements of the PI items are not PI but OGC). And as I said I was trying to find some way that Clark could keep all the material being used from CC, CC2 or RR in exactly the same fashion of OGC, PI & non-OGC as they appeared in the original books. The more I think about the more I think he can't preserve the non-OGC aspects given the designation of OGC he's starting with. alec _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
