Asgard #5: Layout Controversy

[Gez]

Version 2 is better. First, it is incredibly smaller (in size). 10 times smaller. Secondly, it takes also less pages. It's an economy if you want to print it. Thirdly, version 2 was properly displayed on my computer, whereas version 1 showed only the titles and the pictures. All text was merely little white squares, one per line. And I *did* use the official Acrobat Reader to consult it. Not the Windows version, sure, the Linux one. Version 2 is free-software-friendly, version 1 isn't because it uses probably things that are only in Acrobat 5. Grr.

 

[Welverin]

Version 1 (Screen) is 1.22 MB
Version 1 (Print) is 6.42 MB
Version 2 is 776 Kb

So size wise Version 2 is better as well.

Wow, they shrank. I wasn't planning on waiting until they were all out and there was a clear winner, but if they're this small I don't mind getting them all to compare.

 

[Morrus]

They've been taken down temporarily after someone noticed that one of the classes referenced feats from DotF. That class will be replaced with something else and, hopefully, will reappear in next issue.

 

[Buttercup]

I also noticed that the two versions had different product reviews. I'm waiting to vote until I see all of the versions.

 

[bondetamp]

It is a good idea to have an alternative, low-res download made for screen viewing.

It is a bad idea making it a .pdf.

I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but I can't think of any format that is worse for that purpose.

My suggestion is to do the high-res .pdf's as before, using the editor of the best submission, and then taking in another editor that is responsible for making a .html-version of the same document. It doesn't have to be fancy, no asp, php or Java is needed as the only thing needed is a clear, somewhat attractive layout so that people can read it. release it at the same time you release the .pdf, both on the web for browsing and as a zip-file so people can store it locally.

It wouldn't have the benefit of keeping all attributes consistent when going to print, but it would be easy to read.

 

[RangerWickett]

Is it against OGL to name feats and other items from non OGC Wotc books, or just to actually quote them? Could you just say, "Acid Orb, from T&B"? Everyone knows you mean "Tome & Blood" and they can see the actual spell for themselves, but you're not specifically saying that it's a non-OGC product that you're referencing.

I thought it was okay as long as you didn't use anyone's trademarks, and as long as you don't copy any text from a non-OGC source. Is the term "DotF" trademarked?

 

[Blacksad]

First, I'm not a lawyer

Second:
The wording might not be clear in the license, but the intention seems to be: the only reference you can do is Player's Handbook, DMG and MM, and the only content from WotC that you could use is in the SRD.

Third, this is in the submissions guidelines for Asgard:
You CANNOT reference official feats, classes, rules or anything else from WOtC that is not in the System Reference Document.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

BUSTED!

Actually, since game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, couldn't you just change the name and alter the description a bit to make essentially the same spell? Call it "Acid Ball" or "Flesh-Destroying Flying Death." I've seen pretty much the same thing done by various d20 companies, WoTC included.

 

[Morrus]

Is it against OGL to name feats and other items from non OGC Wotc books, or just to actually quote them? Could you just say, "Acid Orb, from T&B"? Everyone knows you mean "Tome & Blood" and they can see the actual spell for themselves, but you're not specifically saying that it's a non-OGC product that you're referencing.

I thought it was okay as long as you didn't use anyone's trademarks, and as long as you don't copy any text from a non-OGC source. Is the term "DotF" trademarked?

It's not really a question of trademarks or copyright. The license is a contract. By using the license, you are agreeing not to use those feats (or anything not in the SRD). If you breach the contract, it's contract law, not copyright law, which applies. The main penalty for breaching the contract is to have it terminated - i.e. you can no longer publish d20 system material.

 

[Morrus]

OK, I've just uploaded version 1 of the new batch. Doomsdaisy's Shieldmaiden has been replaced with Coik's Undead Hunter (that's a hunter who is undead, not a hunter of the undead!). Hopefully the (slightly revised) Shieldmaiden will appear in Issue 6.