Synonyms for "Core Book" and "Player's Handbook"?

[Ranger REG]

Given that due to a change in the d20 System Guide:

• You may no longer use "Player's Handbook" in a d20 Product's name;

Forgive me, but I have gone over the System Guide v5.0 and I find no specific mention of the aforementioned restriction.

Did I overlooked it?

 

[jmucchiello]

Dude, how about rereading the first post again. If my replies are wrong, it's because the description of the situation is incorrect. So stop giving me a hard time (for no valid friggin' reason) and correct the OP.

I didn't read the first post. I read the GUIDE. When giving advice about what is allowed by the license, one should actually look at the license. I'm not giving you a hard time. I'm just pointing out a mistake.

Nikoli, first the first post!
Morrus, fix the front page!

 

[jmucchiello]

Forgive me, but I have gone over the System Guide v5.0 and I find no specific mention of the aforementioned restriction.

Did I overlooked it?

Restricted Trademark Use:
Except as specifically required or permitted by this Guide you may not use Dungeons & Dragons, d20 Modern, Urban Arcana, d20 System, Player’s Handbook, Wizards of the Coast, or any other Wizards of the Coast trademark in a Covered Product, in its advertising, or in any marketing in support of the Covered Product, or in any other use in conjunction with a Covered Product.

The problem here is this the first time WotC has tried to imply that Player's Handbook is a trademark.

So while the letter of the guide is weak on restricting the use of Player's Handbook, remember, they can always update the guide to say you cannot use the term without referring to it as a trademark.

 

[Ranger REG]

True, the statement have an apparent implication (by grouping it with the other known trademarks), but I don't think it is what Wizards intended.

Personally, it should have been added under the "Mandatory Restrictions" heading in the Guide.

 

[Aeolius]

Should I ever publish a d20 supplement, I would refer to the PH as "Tom", the DMG as "Dick", and the MM as "Harry".

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I didn't read the first post. I read the GUIDE. When giving advice about what is allowed by the license, one should actually look at the license. I'm not giving you a hard time. I'm just pointing out a mistake.

Fair enough, although "advice" is an odd term here. Anyone taking advice from a complete stranger on a message board needs his head checked. Personally, I tend to keep just to the OGL, as the d20STL causes (as this thread indicates) headaches.

 

[Ranger REG]

While the OGL gives you a lot of freedom, it is the restriction of compatibility and co-adaptability, as well as the lack of a d20 logo, that presents a large obstacle to marketing your product. Unless you and your publishing company have have a credible rep among the distributors, you'll have to suffer some difficulty of pushing your wares. Not many authors fully realize the scope of publishing RPG as a business. These licenses do not guarantee you can get rich any more than the Declaration of Independance can guarantee happiness (only the pursuit of happiness).

Of course, if you got money to burn, and you're really not expecting to make any kind of revenue from the sale of your product, by all means go ahead. But tread carefully.

 

[jaerdaph]

Hey Reg - from the legal RTF file from the revised 3.5 SRD, in the Product Identity section:

The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, d20 (when used as a trademark), Forgotten Realms, Faerûn, proper names (including those used in the names of spells or items), places, Red Wizard of Thay, the City of Union, Heroic Domains of Ysgard, Ever-Changing Chaos of Limbo, Windswept Depths of Pandemonium, Infinite Layers of the Abyss, Tarterian Depths of Carceri, Gray Waste of Hades, Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, Nine Hells of Baator, Infernal Battlefield of Acheron, Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia, Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, Twin Paradises of Bytopia, Blessed Fields of Elysium, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Olympian Glades of Arborea, Concordant Domain of the Outlands, Sigil, Lady of Pain, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti.

 

[Ranger REG]

Ah...

Now I have to re-download that Legal section over my old one, which does not contain "Player's Handbook" as a Product Identity.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

While the OGL gives you a lot of freedom, it is the restriction of compatibility and co-adaptability, as well as the lack of a d20 logo, that presents a large obstacle to marketing your product.

There's a false assumption in this statement, however. For instance, does M&M worry about being seen as compatible? No, of course not. If anything, I enjoy the freedom of stating outright that a product is not compatible but is still run on the same game engine.

Unless you and your publishing company have have a credible rep among the distributors, you'll have to suffer some difficulty of pushing your wares. Not many authors fully realize the scope of publishing RPG as a business. These licenses do not guarantee you can get rich any more than the Declaration of Independance can guarantee happiness (only the pursuit of happiness).

Then it's a good thing for me that I treat this as nothing more than a licensed hobby. A lot less headaches in that regard, as well.

Of course, if you got money to burn, and you're really not expecting to make any kind of revenue from the sale of your product, by all means go ahead. But tread carefully.

Another false assumption: I'm not in it for the money.