A d20 NPC Wiki?

[Vascant]

Thanks andargor, I hope no one thinks it happened over night though, 10 months of designing and coding.

 

[Nellisir]

Woohoo!

This is actually really fun. Posted a human cultist (adept 1/war 1) yesterday, and hope to post a few more tonight - tomorrow my PCs infiltrates the cult of the liosalfar and steals their sacred relic - back!

I need to think up some nonhuman monsters to place in the tunnels.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Psion]

Exactly. If EN World and similar sites can exist, so can this Wiki. Same thing.

You are aware that WotC made ENWorld shut down its old conversion library, right? (The legalese you link to earlier in the thread is the outcome of that, but everything that didn't fall under the ESD conversions guidelines had to be pulled.)

I'd tread carefully. "I have a bad feeling about this."

 

[S'mon]

You are aware that WotC made ENWorld shut down its old conversion library, right? (The legalese you link to earlier in the thread is the outcome of that, but everything that didn't fall under the ESD conversions guidelines had to be pulled.)

I'd tread carefully. "I have a bad feeling about this."

Conversion of scenarios involving reproduction of original text clearly potentially violates copyright (and more importantly, potentially loses WotC money since they like to sell their own 3e conversions). Posting Elminister's stats from the ELH would, too. Posting new NPCs doesn't, also it's ok according to WoTC's own policy pronouncement, so I think your bad feeling is unfounded.

 

[JimAde]

You are aware that WotC made ENWorld shut down its old conversion library, right? (The legalese you link to earlier in the thread is the outcome of that, but everything that didn't fall under the ESD conversions guidelines had to be pulled.)

I'd tread carefully. "I have a bad feeling about this."

No I was not aware of that, but I still agree with S'mon. There's a big difference between conversions of someone else's adventure/setting material, and new material created with rules published for that very purpose. If this is a problem, so is every "here's my campaign setting" website on the 'net.

 

[smootrk]

I may have missed the answer already, but is it permissable to create npc's from a particular setting?...

ie: Create a Red Wizard of Thay NPC, using the class (& PRC) and subject matter from the setting. Mind you, not saying duplicate the class material itself, but stating out the npc using those supplements and possibly naming locales they may have associations with?

 

[Psion]

Conversion of scenarios involving reproduction of original text clearly potentially violates copyright (and more importantly, potentially loses WotC money since they like to sell their own 3e conversions). Posting Elminister's stats from the ELH would, too. Posting new NPCs doesn't, also it's ok according to WoTC's own policy pronouncement, so I think your bad feeling is unfounded.

I think you are ignoring the material you are infringing on and are viewing the ESD policy as a shelter when I think it does no such thing.

Consider this, from the ESD policy:

Conversions must be performed using the System Reference Document (SRD), created for OGL users, for purposes of establishing 3E mechanics in the respective materials.

See, they are extending permission to convert their old modules, but only allow you to do it with open material. Using hexblades and so forth is not falling in the guidelines.

Now FAQ 6 on that page makes it sound like my might have some wiggle room, but I think this statement makes it pretty clear these graces are being extended only for the purpose of conversion, not creation:

You are only granted permission to convert the ESD; you may not perform a re-design based upon personal standards and opinions.

You are not even converting an ESD; you are creating brand new materials based on non-open and non-permissioned sources.

You think the ice is thick. I'm just letting you know, it's pretty durn thin. I don't see the precedent of the ESD policy as meaningful. Your only hope is really that WotC legal decides it's not worth their time. The events that lead to the conversion library shake-up should show that not all fan sites escape scrutiny.

 

[Psion]

No I was not aware of that, but I still agree with S'mon. There's a big difference between conversions of someone else's adventure/setting material, and new material created with rules published for that very purpose. If this is a problem, so is every "here's my campaign setting" website on the 'net.

Unfortunately, we aren't the ones who get to draw the line or decide which fan sites are worth regulating and which ones aren't. My point was that one cannot assume simply because it's a fan effort, that you are safe from the itchy trigger fingers of corporate lawyers; some fan sites DO get told to back off.

 

[JimAde]

Unfortunately, we aren't the ones who get to draw the line or decide which fan sites are worth regulating and which ones aren't. My point was that one cannot assume simply because it's a fan effort, that you are safe from the itchy trigger fingers of corporate lawyers; some fan sites DO get told to back off.

Well that would be unfortunate, but at least, since it's a Wiki, we're talking about a moderate amount of effort from lots of people, rather than somebody's life work. If they did decide to lean on us, it wouldn't be a tragedy.

But it would be a bummer.

 

[S'mon]

I think you are ignoring the material you are infringing on and are viewing the ESD policy as a shelter when I think it does no such thing.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm going purely by Ryan Dancey's "We won't pursue fan sites for posting D&D NPCs" combined with the lack of financial incentive for them to do so, combined with the fact that they would legally be on very shaky ground alleging that such NPC stat blocks infringed any copyright. I'm not sure why you can't distinguish between scenario conversions & (brand new) NPC stat blocks.

I am not a businessman, but I do teach copyright law in the UK.

I am not alleging anything to be "a shelter". WoTC could announce tomorrow that they were not allowing NPC stat blocks to be published on the Internet. It's highly debatable such a policy would be legally enforcable, but doubtless many sites would comply with it. But we have absolutely no reason to expect this to happen. It would be completely against their very sensible policies of the last 5 years that have helped grow the hobby and make them lots of money. So I see no point in worrying about it.