RE: [Ogf-l] d20 and Subabilties

[Fraser Ronald]

Since I only get digests, I had no idea the tempest I had created. Yowsers.

Could someone suggest an individual at WotC I could contact in regards to this dilemma, or should I simply email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with my concerns?

From: "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

New/inexperienced publishers often
violated this "rule", and were quietly told the "proper procedure" to
follow in the future and did so.

Ryan

After having read over the licences (including the ESD), I am still convinced that this is commentary rather than conversion or creation. However, if WotC decides otherwise, I hope they follow the procedure Ryan outlines above. If they tell me I need to do it, I will, but there are no real rules or conversions in the article, merely comment on them. Or am I way out in left field?

From: "Martin L. Shoemaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Of course, there's a rather fuzzy line between commentary (allowed under
Fair Use, and a common form of magazine article) and a derivative work.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd feel VERY confident writing a d20 game review
without benefit of the OGL. But I'll go farther: I'd feel confident
writing a magazine article which analyzed d20 probability curves,
discussed why I loved or hated them, discussed how well they match
reality, discussed how well they match the conventions of different
genres, and compared them to probability curves for other games. Even
though my article would be built on the d20 rules in a lot of ways, it
would be commentary on those rules, and I'd feel safe under Fair Use.

And I tend to agree with Martin. The article doesn't create or convert rules, it discusses application and usage. I would say that is commentary, but I'm not a lawyer.

From: Bryant Durrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I know it's an article of faith with you that the courts would rule that
RPGs are special.  While you may be right in the case of a rewrite of
the PHB, I think it's highly unlikely that the article in question here
would be found in violation.  As I pointed out, the concept of
subattributes is not even unique to D&D.

I tend to agree. The rules aren't even stated, simply referred to, much as one would refer to what was covered in a particular rulebook in a review.

From: "Scott Metzger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I think you would be safer using the ill named ESD Conversion Agreement
http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/ESDpolicy.rtf

Its basically the d20 license with an additional license that lets you
use WOTC titles for conversion purposes.

Scott

Thanks for the tip, Scott. I guess in some sense this could be called a conversion, in that it refers to using something from 2E with 3E/d20, but there really aren't any rules. Maybe I'm way off base here.

From: Joe Mucchiello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

And if he had created his own subabilities he would stand on firmer
ground. Problem is he's using the Player's Options terms directly under
the assumption that you know what they are based on that work and is
building up from there. Sounds derivative to me.

Joe

But isn't that also commentary? I mean, there are no rules presented here. You're right, that he uses the terms, but so does almost every reviewer of gaming rule books. I guess there is not clear distinction between commentary and rules, but I honestly think that this sits on the commentary side of that line.

From: Bryant Durrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sure.  But to claim that people were meticulously seeking out permission
in each case of magazine publication... and let's remember that the guy
who asked the question which set this off is essentially talking about a
/fanzine/.

Absolutely (though whether I feel pride or shame at the designation is a secret I keep safely hidden away!) The parent site of the e-zine, AtFantasy, has hundreds of reviews on it (as do many sites) which use terms and discuss mechanics of numerous publications. It has never been a problem and, honestly, I don't think we ever imagined it would be a problem. I emailed the list as soon as I figured I had over-reacted, only to find that a lot of people think I didn't.

From: "Chad Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] d20 and Subabilties
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:57:39 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Forgive me if someone has already brought this up.

Someone did, but thanks a lot for the offer of help, Chad. Appreciated.

From: "Chad Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

You know, I've seen a lot of people say stuff like this, especially since
the d20 opportunity arrived.  Just because you have nothing now, doesn't
mean a court would hesitate to assess damages against any future earnings
you may have.  If you upset someone enough, they can make you pay for it
well into the future.

True enough, but I also imagine that WotC would drop em a quick line saying "Hey, stop that!" before they dropped the A-Bomb (lawyers) on my #$$. At least I hope so. I intend to contact them directly anyway, so I'll soon have a definitive answer (hopefully) at least in my particular case.

Anway, sorry for causing all this ruckus over a simple little article. Next time I'll go directly to the company itself. Thanks to everyone who offered their opinons and took the time to try to help educate me. Perhaps a lost cause, but your efforts are appreciated none the less.

Take care all.

---
Fraser Ronald, Editor
"Sword's Edge" (http://www.swordsedge.net/)
Check out issue 11 with fiction from Howard Andrew Jones, Eric S. Brown, Steven L. Shrewsbury and Megan Miller.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l