On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Clark Peterson wrote: > Doug- > > I think Alec will say that you shouldnt be referring > to an outside web site for OGC designations, even if > only for errata or mistakes or changes. Not sure I > agree, but it is an issue to consider.
generally, yeah i'd say that. however, in this case I think it may be acceptable (if it's acceptable to whoever's OGC you might have forgotten to mark as OGC) at least until the next printing. Obviously if it's the publisher's own material, it's perfectly fine. If it's someone else's OGC being re-used, or a derivative of someone else's OGC, I'd really leave it up to them to say if the web site for errata is sufficient. That's one thing people have to remember - if you screw up the OGC designation, you aren't the one who gets to decide how you fix your mistake. It's person(s) whose OGC you've used/derived from that gets to decide if you have to recall all your product. > Plus, "all game rules" could be considered vague. I agree, but skimming some products in the game store last weekend it almost appears to be becoming one of the standard ways of identifying OGC. I really hope this is one of the things WotC will be addressing with the upcoming talks. Also hope that perhaps it was just the fact that I was skimming the items. Perhaps more explicit identification of OGC appeared throughout the products rather than in the introductions. But the store owners wouldn't like it if I tried to read the entire product. :) > I have come to agree with many of my previous critics > that the best way to do it is open up just about > everything and say: "the entire text of this product > from page x to page y is OGC, subject to the following > declaration of product identity..." yeah, a convert! Although, I really just think being clear about where OGC starts & ends is enough. I don't think you have to open everything or that you need to do OGC in blocks of pages. That's one reason I really liked Creature Collection. No PI at all, it's just very clear that the OGC is certain parts of each creature and the other parts aren't OGC. I really liked Sovereign Stones OGC designation until I read the PI claim, which threw some confusion into their very clear designation of which chapters are OGC and which are not. I just think that there was a lot of 'PI happiness' early on. Mostly because everyone wasn't entirely sure on just how to use the license and didn't want to inadvertly open up something they shouldn't. That's understandable. And hopefully it will fade over time as everyone becomes more familar with the license. Of course one of the big problems is lag time, especially if newer publishers are relying on the older products of experienced publishers as their models. alec _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
