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

[Ranger REG]

Wow. It has been over 3 years and people still can't really see that the Open Game License is a standalone, very generic content license.

After all, why do you think Gold Rush Games put their Action! System Core Rules Document under the OGL?

www.action-system.com

 

[diaglo]

What should d20 companies name such products?

PoS. truth in advertising.

 

[Gez]

Great! I was very bothered that Sword & Sorcery Studios called Relics & Rituals "Core book 4" (or something like that).

S&S labelled CC1, R&R, and CC2 as "Core Rulebook".
KenzerCo put "Rulebook IV" on the cover of the Kalamar Player's Handbook (but they are not restricted by the d20 STL).

You confused both.

Anyway, product names like Seafarer's Handbook are still valid. What isn't is Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual (so, you could not release an "Ultimate Monster Manual" or "Monster Manual 2004" or whatever).

You can still use Player, Handbook, Dungeon, Master, Guide, Monster, and Manual, just not in a two- or three-word combination that would liken it to something made by WotC. (Incidentally, a Dungeon Master's Manual would not be OK either, since Dungeon Master is PIed too. You could do, however, a Game Master's Handbook.)

 

[Ranger REG]

(It might have problems if it were based off the 3.5E SRD, but that's another matter).

I foresee a very big problem for the third-party publishers trying to make future standalone product line based on the most recent 3.5e SRD.

It seems that Mongoose Publishing will have to retitle their Pocket Player's Handbook, which from my gamer's opinion, it is a cool product for those who do not want to be burdened by the stackload of standard-sized rulebooks.

 

[jaerdaph]

Wow. It has been over 3 years and people still can't really see that the Open Game License is a standalone, very generic content license.

And in three years, there are still those who don't realize that most people out there gaming could care less about the licenses and legal stuff and just want to play the game.

 

[Ranger REG]

I can live with that. Just don't ask any question regarding the licenses or why publishers other than Wizards of the Coast can sell products using WotC's material.

 

[reiella]

But don't you have to use the latest STL? So isn't this now a violation?

Well yes and no.

If you're following the d20 STL license, yes you do.

If you're just following the OGL (As EverQuest does), then that is all you need to maintain license rights.

Further, truthfully, the EQ PHB has more of a problem with the claims of "Compatible with 3rd edition fantasy rules" than for using the Players Handbook claim. The later most likely would result in being deemed inappropiate for terms of the license.

 

[Ranger REG]

Further, truthfully, the EQ PHB has more of a problem with the claims of "Compatible with 3rd edition fantasy rules" than for using the Players Handbook claim. The later most likely would result in being deemed inappropiate for terms of the license.

I didn't think Wizards would have a problem with that compatability statement, since it does not specifically mention any trademark. Can you prove implication in court?

 

[Gez]

Well, it could be construed as false advertising.

The balance of the two games are widely different, making this compatibility harduous.

 

[Turjan]

"3rd edition fantasy rules" is a completely meaningless term. There are lots of fantasy RPG's which saw a 3rd edition. Maybe it's just referring to the 3rd edition of a book on how to write fantasy...