d20 License Questions

[sabby]

I'm sure one of you has a quick answer to this. (I'm also sure that if I would have spent "just a little more time" looking that I could have found an easier answer, but I still haven't found a definitive answer.)

Is there anyone who knows for sure what view WotC takes towards "recommending" their products? I would like to, in a small campaign setting that I want to "half-heartedly" publish, recommend usage of certain books from WotC that will work well with the setting. I would love to go into more detail, perhaps say, "This feat and this feat are appropriate, but this feat is not." Keep in mind, I do not want to detail what the feats do. I just wish to make up a small appendix that says, "These other works from Wizards are good, you should buy them. These pieces will be useful."

I can understand their desire to protect their IP and respect it. I just hope that there's a bit of leeway when it comes to me recommending the purchase of that material... but I fear that I cannot even allude to the existence of other Wizards products.

Also, how careful do I need to be about making feats which are similar to other WotC feats? If I wanted to present a feat which was "Additional Favored Class" which granted a race another favored class, do I have to be concerned that WotC made a feat which granted an additional favored class but restricted the choice to an arcane casting class? How about an even grayer shade, where I make a feat which gave +2 to Spot and +2 to Listen, but also granted +2 to Craft (Origami Pterodactyls)... which would otherwise duplicate Alertness, but had another benefit.

What I'm most interested in is making up a background book which will let me publish my home campaign. I don't anticipate selling more than ten copies or so, so it's probably not going to even register on the WotC radar. I may never even finish the book... But, it's a philosophical question on my part. "How rigid are the rules which guide me?"

 

[Morrus]

I just hope that there's a bit of leeway when it comes to me recommending the purchase of that material... but I fear that I cannot even allude to the existence of other Wizards products.

No leeway. If it's not in the SRD, you can't mention it. If they didn't mean it, they wouldn't have written the license that way.

Also, how careful do I need to be about making feats which are similar to other WotC feats? If I wanted to present a feat which was "Additional Favored Class" which granted a race another favored class, do I have to be concerned that WotC made a feat which granted an additional favored class but restricted the choice to an arcane casting class? How about an even grayer shade, where I make a feat which gave +2 to Spot and +2 to Listen, but also granted +2 to Craft (Origami Pterodactyls)... which would otherwise duplicate Alertness, but had another benefit.

If you developed it independently, you're fine. It's unavoidable that there will be overlap.

"How rigid are the rules which guide me?"

They're contractual terms. If you accept the contract, youa re absolutely bound by its terms. If WotC didn't mean something, they wouldn't have put it in the license.

 

[SkeletonKey Ed]

Green Ronin's Secret College of Necromancy refers to spells in both Tome and Blood and Oriental Adventures. In the front it states that they are used with permission and are not OGC. Later in the text their sources are called out appropriately.

It is just a matter of getting permission from WotC. As long as you are NOT reprinting a feat or spell, I think you could get permission to reference some non-OGC products.

Good luck.

Cheers - Ed

 

[sabby]

Rigidity of Rules

Yes, that was the answer I was afraid of and was expecting.

It just seems odd to me that I can't mention the Feat "Reach Spell" *because* it is made by WotC... but I can mention the feats made by third parties, because they released their material under the OGL. During my typical gaming session, I generally only allow WotC material, since I can be a bit more confident of their balance as compared to those made by some (unnamed) companies. So, for my home games, those books are more useful to me.

However, when it comes to publishing material, the reverse situation is true. The WotC books are next to useless as they contain ZERO open gaming content. I guess the key is to be creative and find a way AROUND needing to use that material. Make feats/spells/skills/classes/whatever that fills the same VOID left behind by not having that material available, while not duplicating or in any way interacting with the original. I'm sure all the other publishers out there are just nodding their head with the sheer obviousness of my statements.

(Though, it does sort of pain me that I wouldn't be able at all to even recommend purchasing a WotC product for use of X, Y, and Z. "I recommend the use of the Reach Spell feat and the Energy Admixture feat." Strict reading of the contract prohibits it... And I imagine myself to be a *littletinyperson* beneath WotC's notice.)

Oh, and for all the "whining" that it seems I am doing, I still do realize the benefit of having the d20 license available. For that, I am still grateful. (Though, I had flirted with FUDGE and GURPS prior to this.)

 

[Darrin Drader]

SkeletonKeyEd is absolutely correct. If you would like to mention something, ask WotC for permission. They might surprise you and say yes. The worst thing that can happen is that they will say no.

Also, the best policy is to not create feats or spells that do the same things as WotC spells or feats if you already know about them. If you aren't aware of them ahead of time them its accidental and unavoidable, but if you are aware, that pretty much runs against the intentions of the D20 license.

 

[Morrus]

Re: Rigidity of Rules

However, when it comes to publishing material, the reverse situation is true. The WotC books are next to useless as they contain ZERO open gaming content.

Oh, I dunno. WotC have released a substantial amount of open content - and they've released the most important open content at that.

 

[sabby]

Re: Re: Rigidity of Rules

Oh, I dunno. WotC have released a substantial amount of open content - and they've released the most important open content at that.

Oh, I agree tremendously. It's just an odd place to be in where you want to build upon their OTHER work and find it to have this artificial barrier. Please don't think I'm belittling their contribution.

I just think that WotC suffers as much as the rest of us by making some of their best work closed content. The Forgotten Realms books allow for their Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks to have more detail than their core stuff is allowed, due to the fact that they're allowed to use the FRCS book to construct upon. (They do it because they are being very good about not requiring you to buy all their old books to use their new books, but it has the same consequences.)

But, don't think that I feel that they're obligated or that they are somehow "cheating" us. I just am making an observation that it feels "odd" that some of their best work is "invisible" to everyone except for their "end-users." (No "duelist" prestige class in a book about swashbuckling, for instance. Or if there is, it's "Yet Another Duelist Prestige Class.")

Originally posted by Baraendur


Also, the best policy is to not create feats or spells that do the same things as WotC spells or feats if you already know about them. If you aren't aware of them ahead of time them its accidental and unavoidable, but if you are aware, that pretty much runs against the intentions of the D20 license.

Oh, my intention isn't to create things that duplicate, merely fulfill the same purpose. Let's take a simple example: The "Called" property for armor allows you to have armor which appears on your body in a moment's notice. Nice nifty property, and something that becomes a standard amongst some of my players. Were I to publish my gaming world with the characters duplicated in any fashion, I would have to have a similar ability.

For instance, I could make a "Transform" armor ability, where the armor changes form into a set of bracers (taking up the bracers slot, in fact) but loses any bonus to AC. That would fulfil the same role, and be quite different from Called. If I went ahead and made it so that armor still provided the benefits of other special qualities, such as acid resistance for armors with that special ability. (This feat would be balanced well against the "Glamered" ability, which is a +1 enhancement where the armor still provides the bonus to AC but just LOOKS like normal clothing.) Then the fact that it was "inspired" by called is quite well hidden, and relatively safe.

Balancing that "I want to fill the same role" with "I want to duplicate this material" is the tricky thing. I'm quite sure that I could make 'Transform" ... I'm also rather sure that I could get away with "Extra Favored Class" (since it's a basic game mechanic, and mine would have entirely different language)... But, there's others where I'm going to have to sit down, scratch my chin, and ponder just leaving the purpose unfilled.

I had a home-rule feat which provided the benefits of "Spellcasting Prodigy" (from the FRCS book) but it was required to be able to cast spells, just to make spellcasters "special" while not providing a tremendous penalty for making a spellcaster. The goal is the important thing there, so the mechanics would HAVE to change. (Though, the important thing there is that I would just have to find some benign feat that spellcasters won't feel terrible about being required to take. It could even be a standard SRD feat.)

Drawing the lines "This is too close" and "This is rather unique, so I can include this" will be the challenge. And if I find something that I DESPERATELY want to include, then I guess I'll draft up a nice, intelligent, and concise letter to WotC asking for permission.

Thanks for the replies.

 

[Ranger REG]

I try not to question the gift they're giving us.