Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 1457022" data-attributes="member: 812">It does? How does it do this, exactly? And who is demonstrating belief in this supposed myth, anyway?I mean, d20 supplies all sorts of games with all sorts of very different rulesets -- I would say that the popularity of games such as CoC and M&M suggest that this "myth" carries little weight. Obviously d20 doesn't even suggest that supplements need to have the exact same ruleset, since most of them provide different rulesets.What are the best selling third party d20 products? If the top 10 includes titles that AREN'T perfectly compatible with D&D, I'd say your logic just went south. Well, rpgnow lists "Elements of Magic" and the "d20 Modern Player's Companion" -- neither of which is particularly compatible with D&D (one intending to replace D&D magic and the other not even FOR D&D)Or, it looks like a way to make the rules of the game very clear to everyone playing. Like you say, the question used to be quite open to debate. Only a publisher willing to take the risk that the courts would go their way would be willing to publish material using existing rules. And even if it WAS legal, there was nothing to stop TSR or WotC from SUING you just to kill you with legal fees.At least now publishers know that's impossible. Sure, they have to acknowledge that the rules have an owner. And it's obvious from what's happened that making that acknowledgement was worth the legal certainty for most of them, and what's more, it's working out pretty well for them.Microsoft Windows. Trademark for the term "Windows" is certainly under dispute right now, but the mark was definitely granted in 1995. So your statement is not in fact true.</blockquote>

Verification