dcas
First Post
Conaill said:As far as i know, it *is* permissible to use someone else's trademark to indicate compatibility, right?
Yes, hence Mayfair Games was able to indicate compatibility with AD&D on their Role-Aids line of modules and supplements. One might say "For use with D&D 3.5" but not "Approved for use with D&D 3.5" since the latter indicates the approval of the company that owns the trademark.
I think it's only when you sign on the OGL *license* that you voluntarily agree not to use WotC trademarks to indicate compatibility. If you don't use the OGL to begin with, you should be able to indicate compatibility, within the limitations quoted above.
I think you are correct.
However, without the OGL then a lot of WOTC's intellectual property is off-limits. Spell names are probably not copyrighted (although they might be if they are highly original), but do you want to take a chance on it? Terms used in stat-blocks could possibly be trademarked (T$R would never say one way or the other -- will WOTC? Or is it all just a big OGL mish-mash?). What Mayfair (and others) did was create an alternate set of abbreviations for use in stats (Armor Rating [AR] in place of Armor Class [AC], hits to kill [HTK] instead of hit points [HP], etc. -- click here for a more-or-less complete list). But it could be more problematic now with all the feats and skills that are normally put in a 3.x stat block.