Search results

UIrban Settings are super simple. HAve a detailed map with each building on it. Use a few stock sizes and shapes of buildings (usually no more than ten or so shapes and sizes) and distribute those widely as "fill". I find this step easiest to do with Campaign Cartographer software, buit did it...

I'm amazed at the $250 figure. That it will probably go up is pretty absurd to me, but there's no accounting for people wanting something, so good on you for getting it.

You can only use the OGC under the OGL. Any other use of it constitutes a violation of copyright. The OGL specifically prohibits use of certain first person, creature, and place names. Thus, if you do not adhere to the OGL and abide by all parts of it, you are not licensed to use any of the OGC...

So is the business plan something like this? 1) Spend hours upon hours designing adventures. 2) Convince poor college students to pay for play. 3) ??? 4) Profit!

You could always use cheetos, but the monsters tend to get eaten. :p

BIG difference between d20srd.org and Ema's site. d20srd.org is 100% legal. Ema's wasn't.

Warhammer Fantasy Battles from Games Workshop. They don't make the Pirate Zombies of the Vampire Coast any more, but here's a link to the current zombies: Link to WFB Zombies They're $35 for a box of 20 multi-part plastic zombies. That's pretty standard for the WFB minis. They're 28mm and...

I use the boxed sets of plastic WFB minis. I love painting minis and can use these things in both WFB games and in D&D. Plus, you can sometimes get good deals. I got two packs of 20 Zombie Pirates of the Vampire Coast models for $10 each from my local GW because they needed to get rid of the...

Not true. ENWorld has a policy against it and takes measures to correct the actions of a few posters when violation of that policy is brought to ENWorld's attention. That proves ENWorld IS doing something about it.

Then it wasn't a case about copyright at all. It was a case about trademarks. That makes a lot more sense.

You quoted a case regarding piracy where no sale of pirated material occured and the sharing act was, in fact, the act of piracy. It has no relevence to what Ema did. Nor does it apply to Ema even when Ema's site was merely a fan site and not a business as the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction in Italy.

qft

If you don't understand that stealing intellectual property is stealing, there's no point in having a discussion.

Ema charged money for storage space on his server. That's a business. Using WotC's intellectual property in that endeavor was theft. There's no way around it.

Ema charged money for a service. Like it or not, the moment Ema did that, Ema's site was no longer a fan site. It was a business. Any business that steals (yes STEALS) intellectual property gets what it deserves.

Come here, my snuggly green cutie-pie!

IT still depends. If he embedded an actual logo, the trademark must be defended. IF it said "compatible for use with Dungeons and DragonsⓇ", then there's no need to defend that trademark. Please note, this only states two potential permutations and in no way is a listing of all possibilities...

Did it say "Dungeons and Dragons" anywhere on what Ema put up? There's a lot of that going around...

Under the OGL, certain content is considered product identity and cannot be used. If Ema used "Dungeons and Dragons" in any context on the content presented, WotC would be within their rights to terminate the terms of the OGL regardless of the version supported with those terms. Also...

Well, section 13 of the OGL may have ended up being the doom of any open content on Ema's site: