D%D 3.5e Open Source MUD?

[Drawmack]

For everyone who is telling me that it can be done OGL but not d20l, you are correct, however I would not be allowed to tell anyone it was DnD without the d20l now would I? So there cannot be a mud that claims DnD 3.5e compliance becuase it could not include task resolution, and some other necessary aspects.

This is done intentionally so that WotC does not break existing video game contracts with Atari.

 

[yipwyg42]

What I am talking about is WOTC telling all developers they can not do add the experience table in any product they release because it violates the license agreement when there were many instances of people using the same xp table chart way before WOTC even put it in their PHB. It is sort of like they are saying they now own the rights to 1,000, 3,000, 5,000 table or something.

 

[Umbran]

It is sort of like they are saying they now own the rights to 1,000, 3,000, 5,000 table or something.

It is more than the table. It is "a process for Applying the Effects of Experience to a Character", of which the table is only one part.

And again, that's for the "d20" mark on the thing. It is setting a standard for compatibility - if you have a the PHB and DMG, you can use those. If you want to put in something other than what's in the PHB, you aren't what they'd call compatible, so you don't get to put their mark on it.

 

[Nikosandros]

For everyone who is telling me that it can be done OGL but not d20l, you are correct, however I would not be allowed to tell anyone it was DnD without the d20l now would I? So there cannot be a mud that claims DnD 3.5e compliance becuase it could not include task resolution, and some other necessary aspects.

Yes, that's correct.

 

[S'mon]

To my knowledge you can create an OGL MUD, without the d20 logo, that uses the rules in the SRD. You can use a character advancement mechanic functionally identical to the one in the d20 Players' Handbook if you wish. This is not excluded by the OGL (although it is by the d20 license), and arithmetical functions are not generally protected by copyright. Plenty of existing OGL games like OGL Conan include an advancement table identical to the one in the PHB. Of course you could use a different mechanic if you wanted, eg having XP to level double each level, with fixed XP awards per monster, as in previous versions of D&D. Castles & Crusades does this.

 

[Castellan]

There is a version of CircleMUD (based on DikuMUD, which itself was originally derived from1st/2nd edition AD&D.... sorta) available at http://cwg.lazuras.org/. I believe it is the "Rasputin" codebase. I do not know of anyone currently running this version of the MUD for folks to log in and play, so you may have to download and compile it yourself. (In my experience, it compiles effortlessly on Mac OS X (with only a few warnings) and so does TinyFugue and Tintin++.) It probably also needs a fair amount of work, since the last time I checked it out it still was missing a lot of features (and some were implemented in a different way than I would have done it).

Good luck!

 

[Morrus]

What I am talking about is WOTC telling all developers they can not do add the experience table in any product they release because it violates the license agreement when there were many instances of people using the same xp table chart way before WOTC even put it in their PHB. It is sort of like they are saying they now own the rights to 1,000, 3,000, 5,000 table or something.

No.

They are saying:

"We have this cool logo we'll let you use to enhance your sales and indicate compatibility. You can use this logo of ours for free, but in exchange, we want you to ensure that people need our PHB to use your product. To that end, the conditions of using the logo are that you don't incude character generation or advancement in your game.

If you don't want to use our logo, cool - then go ahead and include what you want."

It is utterly, utterly reasonable and fair. Now try and put a Star Wars logo on your product and see what Lucasfillm does to you.

 

[S'mon]

Morrus is 100% correct. WoTC's d20 contract seems entirely fair to me - in return for agreeing to not do something you would otherwise be allowed to do (include character advancement in your product, among other things - no nipples in the artwork!) you are authorised to do something you would otherwise not be allowed to do (put d20 logo on the product). You get something, you give something. The OGL is even better, it lets you include copyrighted text in your product in return for very few restrictions, basically just that you accept WotC's extra-legal concept of 'product identity' and not use PI monsters.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Edited, slightly inflammatory, slightly off-topic.