3e Conversions

One thing that bothers me about this is the reference to Forgotten Realms Monsters. Take a look at what was in Monsters of Faerun;
Aarakocra: Do Dark Sun sites have to remove them?
Bullywugs: No "Slayer's Guide to Bullywugs" from Mongoose?
Duergar: No gray dwarves?
Illithilich(Alhoon): If someone does a Guide to Mind Flayers (Ilithid isn't OGL) they can't cover the illithidlich?
Fire Newts, Giant Striders, Leucrotta, Meazel, Peryton, Quaggoth, Wemic, WereBat, Revenant. Most of these were put in this book because we were upset with them being left out of the 3e Monster Manual.
If 3e stats for Brownies are included in a FR adventure, does that immediatly ban them from any D20(Don't know where my trademark key is) product?

And of course, what about psionics? Brax over at Burnt World of Athas has just finished converting all of the left out 2e psionic powers. Everyone better get them while you can.

Dark Psion said:

One thing that bothers me about this is the reference to Forgotten Realms Monsters. Take a look at what was in Monsters of Faerun;
Aarakocra: Do Dark Sun sites have to remove them?
Bullywugs: No "Slayer's Guide to Bullywugs" from Mongoose?
Duergar: No gray dwarves?
Illithilich(Alhoon): If someone does a Guide to Mind Flayers (Ilithid isn't OGL) they can't cover the illithidlich?
Fire Newts, Giant Striders, Leucrotta, Meazel, Peryton, Quaggoth, Wemic, WereBat, Revenant. Most of these were put in this book because we were upset with them being left out of the 3e Monster Manual.
If 3e stats for Brownies are included in a FR adventure, does that immediatly ban them from any D20(Don't know where my trademark key is) product?

And of course, what about psionics? Brax over at Burnt World of Athas has just finished converting all of the left out 2e psionic powers. Everyone better get them while you can.

Click to expand...

If i understand it correctly (and please correct me if i'm wrong) you can CONVERT any monster from a 1E or 2E product, if the monster is in the SRD you can use it's statistics from the SRD. Not the statistics from MoF or anything else. Thus you've to make up your own statistics form any Bullywugs you convert from an adventure.

Anything that is not the property of WotC (or any other entity) can be used without an trouble. I believe that Druegar are dwarves from (Norse) myth Werebat should also be no problem, and a Mind Flayer Lich should also not pose a treat. As for the rest, unless someone can prove that they are not the sole property of WotC, they are off limits for anything but a conversion according to their rules...

Cergorach is correct about using the monsters. Regardless of where the monster appeared in 1e/2e, if it appears in a non-SRD 3e product, you cannot use it. Now- you can convert and do your own version, but that is about it.

For example, if I were designing an adventure that used bullywugs, perytons, and wemics....I would have to do my own conversion of that monster and couldnt even come close to touching the current 3e version (which appears in the Monsters of Faerun book).
Now- I am not sure if my version of said monsters could even be close to the official 3e version. It is my understanding that they cannot.

It might be one of those things where it has to be totally different in abilities and description. Also- I believe bullywug is IP (and not from mythology) so it would be best to avoid them completely.

If ya really wanted to use them for example, it would be best to make them like their 1e/2e counterpart and rename them to something else. Or best just to avoid them completely.

Regarding the SRD, I can see WotC releasing the Monsters of Faerun (well most of it anyway) as SRD, but not the actual FR stuff. So- perhaps one day we can use bullywugs legally without stepping on toes.

Of course, I am not a lawyer, so I might not know what the hell I am talking about either.

I am looking at this from the "Products I would like to Buy" point of view. If anything converted in a Forgotten Realms book is not OGL and cannot be used by D20 companies, it may create a trap worthy of Grimtooth that could be sprung on them without notice.

Personally, I am hopeing who ever came up with all of this is one of the hundred who gets fired.

Is it me or does it seem WoTC is cutting their own throats and will lose alot of potential fans and gamers by doing this. They knew people would be converting like mad when the released the conversion documents.

All-in-all I must say I am still confused as heck.

Well, I guess I've learned my lesson. From now on I''m going to download everything when it's posted, so if WOTC happens to change their mind about anything, I'll have it. It's all rather pointless, anyway--that's why the Goddess created Mobeius and KaZaA and all those other file-sharing programs.

I'm going to post my comments made on Nutkinland for those here especially those involved in the creature conversions.

"Well to be perfectly honest I believe that 90% of the reason for clamping down on the conversions is that WotC has 2 big ticket books coming (MM2 and FF) that they feel that available free conversions of thier monsters ie creature catalog and others would negatively effect sales.

Considering the new materials are almost certainly conversions of 1e-2e materials plus dragon magazine and module monsters allowing free use of thier IP would be very dangerous. "

I think it stands to reason that every monster from previous editions of D&D will recieve 3e treatment within the time frame of the release of MM2, FF and Monte's Vile Book. I think it can also be assumed that any monster converted will not be included in the SRD (in fact based on some rumors i doubt anything will ever be added to the SRD including DDG and ELH). I also suspect that once official stats are published any reference in any release not solely owned by WotC will be prohibited. For those who are contemplating new releases that means I would stick exclusively to home grown monsters and SRD monsters and definitely avoid using a non SRD property regardless of edition.

Not deadly clear, rewrite the document.

I see it like this:

If I am writing an adventure to sell or publish on the web, I have to use either (1) a monster from the current SRD or (2) somthing of my own design. And I have to put all this open gaming stuff in the document I create.

If I am offering (which because of the nature of the net is publishing) conversion notes on an old out of date adventure or monster that has not seen conversion to 3E yet, there seems to be wiggle room according to the badly written document known as the "Conversion Policy 1.0." If the monster is in the SRD there is no need to convert it. If the monster is in a published item by WotC again there is no need to convert it. I simply have to say:

Stinger, Monster Compendium: Monsters of Faerun pp. 80-81 hp: 30

I am giving credit where credit is due and I do not have to reference the SRD. What they are saying I can't do is go and dig up the old 1E info on say a Splanxty and write out the conversion on it without refernceing the SRD. When they release the 3E stats for this monster, mine becomes moot.

Now about the document. The document is badly written. It looks to me in my professional opinion that the document was not in its final stages when it was released. Things that it lacks that need to be clarified before it can even be considered effective operating policy are the following:

First, it needs to define its vocabulary. It does not do this and so things become unclear.

Second, it needs to look at how people make conversions. It does not address this.

There is an obvious confusion between Jim Butler's ESD program and his ideas on making conversions. The author of the document is not making clear to us that he understands the separation of these concepts, if he is making this understanding at all. A document as important as this should UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE EVER REQUIRED ANTHONY VALTERRA TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION.

This thing makes me angry every time I read it not because of the policy it states but rather how badly it states it. I wonder if they have any technical communicators on staff at that company at all. If they do this document slipped by them.

As a technical writer (albeit unemployed) these are the questions I would ask:

Q= Question

U= My understanding as someone paid to follow the industry and know what is going on and to keep your documents from making you look like a fool.

Q:How recently have these requests been made?
U:I saw this on the web sites about a year ago, you need to remove the word "recently" if it is the conversion notes you are refering to.
Q:Would you consider a year recent?
U:I would not. Lets just say the question has been asked and we are late in response.
Q:Are you sure these materials are not being bough in used print form?
U:I know they are, you need to separate your ideas from the ESD program because while this is related, it does not go hand in hand.
Q:Are these requests to publish the whole work or just notes on converting a few things?
U:This should be researched anf stated in this document.
Q:Are you sure that the OGL states this?
U:No, it is not.
Q:Is all you want a simple acknowledgement of ownership of materials?
U:This is what you seem to be asking. However your argument really need clarification before you send this out.
Q:Can people reference Wizards of the Coast material in the conversions, but not actually reprint it?
U:Citation is not publication. Thus a document that only cites is free from the license restrictions. This needs to be worked on and made clear before you release this document.

WotC: Rewrite your document, If you dont have a Tech writer there, go find one of your lawyers, and talk to HR about hireing a legal/technical writer. Heck, have one of your R&D guys write it up for you as making written things deadly clear is thier job.

Aaron

Edited to add signature.

Actually a further clarification might be in order, AFAIK at the current time you cannot even reference a non SRD term, monster, feat, etc in a 3rd party book. I think this issue came up concerning content from the new asgard. I think the safest policy from a legal standpoint is to make new monsters ,feats, PrCs etc that exclusively mention SRD complian materials. That means do not reference MoF or S&F or FRCS at all. It seems that to do so violates the newer interpretations of the OGL and would definitely place your product in breach of the licensing terms and those culpable for financial losses inflicted on WotC IP.

...

Henry said:

Are there even ESD's for G1-2-3, or Q1, or S1-2-3-4? I haven't checked lately, but I don't believe there are. What is the fate of such old classics as these?

Click to expand...

I think the whole point of Wizards introducing tougher measures on 3E conversions is so they can bring out thier own 3E converisons of the products above and any other popular products they want to convert to 3E and sell in PDF format...

If you think about it, people would go mad buying OFFICIAL 3E conversions of old 1E and 2E Hits...

I Would...

I know the convertors all did alot of work and i feel for them getting the shaft from Wizards...but they are protecting thir own product and in the long run i think this is a good thing...

Most people i know only want Official WoTC DND products and many dont even know of other publishers unless they really promote themselves...

Look at the Economics...

To publish a module and sell it in Hard Copy...doesnt sell alot (compared to Core books and Supplements) and the margin is much lower...Wizards has said that they wont be making adventures and only bringing out one Mega Adventure a year...

To convert an old POPULAR module and PDF it with new art ect etc and sell it on thier website...they would make a killing...

I hope they do this...

Im kind of looking forward to it (if thats the plan)

But if they are not and introduced the tougher measures for no reason than to seem Draconian and out of touch with thier fans, then i agree to string them up and hang them from thier corprate money grubbing suits ) Sorry couldnt control myself


Harlequin