d20 Modern and Spycraft

[Synicism]

Originally posted by Mistwell Try selling your material for Spycraft without their permission. I'll offer you my legal services (normally $225/hr) for free in defending you from their lawsuit

I agree that someone couldn't write SPYCRAFT stuff. However, I did some checking. Did you know that the Farscape RPG, which uses the Spycraft rules as far as combat and stuff goes, designated the entire mechanics chapter as Open Game Content?

 

[Mistwell]

Mistwell, by that logic, you've just applied that to ALL d20-based products from third-party publishers. You even makes it so negative that third-party publishers may want take a step back to and reconsider this entire d20/OGL business plan.

I mean what do you have against Spycraft and to some extent, other third-party d20 products? Are you concern that it may have a short lifespan, or that it focuses on a specific audience?

As I have said repeatedly, I have NOTHING against Spycraft. In fact, in the quote you were responding to I said as much. I want Spycraft to succeed.

What I do have a beef with is AEG in not opening up the license for the Spycraft trademark in the same way that WOTC opened up the D&D and core rulebook trademarks. There is simply no sound business plan behind it, that I have heard thus far. A third party publisher should be able to write an expansion, module, event book, campaign setting, etc... for Spycraft just by following their public licensing rules, and automatically have the permission (if the license is followed) to put "This product requires the use of the Spycraft core rules book" (or something like that), and mention the Spycraft system on the front and back cover, and in their advertisements and catalog ordering forms to game stores. You can do this with D&D, and with d20M.

And what excuse has AEG offered so far for this portion of their business plan? "We don't want people having kiddie porn attached to the Spycraft name." Right. Like that is going to happen. Like that has happened with the D&D 3e trademark policy. That is not the reasoning behind it.

I don't know if the existing third party licensing deals involve promises that could result in money being exchanged, but I suspect they do (and am willing to accept the fact that I could be wrong on that assumption). I do know it isn't just a short phone call to get permission to publish something (for profit) that has the word "Spycraft" written on it anywhere. There are actual, realistic barriers (that can be overcome with effort) to third party publishers who want to publish something specifically for use with the Spycraft rules, and the barriers I am referring to do not exist (at least nowhere near the same extent) for games like d20 Modern and D&D.

 

[Cergorach]

Well, if you're going to make generic espionage adventure or mini-campaign book that is unoffiically compataible with Spycraft, complete with character stats, the VP/WP is crucial to a NPC character stat block. Although I'm sure veteran gamers know how to convert basic HP to VP/WP, most gamers who buy pregenerated published adventure modules are newbie gamers just trying to get the feel of the game before they go solo (i.e., create their own adventures and setting).

So until VP/WP becomes OGC, I guess you'll have to stick with the HP for now.

Crud! I totally overlooked the npc statline. ALthough you could state them like this:

Hp: 13+38

But i see that it is a big problem and i'm curious how Paradigm will handle that in their adventures...

 

[Cergorach]

I agree that someone couldn't write SPYCRAFT stuff. However, I did some checking. Did you know that the Farscape RPG, which uses the Spycraft rules as far as combat and stuff goes, designated the entire mechanics chapter as Open Game Content?

They did that with the Spycraft chapter concerning comat rules as well, but if you read a little further you will see that they exclude everything that is either IP or copyrighted. And in the biginning of the book they designate the WP/VP, Defense, and any other rules from the Star Wars RPG as copyrighted by WotC and used under liscence...

 

[LcKedovan]

Microsoft is a great example - if I want to write an application that works for IE, I just have to follow the license and do it. In fact, they have standard licenses for most of their products (particuarly those that have competition). Thanks for pointing that one out.

And exactly like AEG are doing as I understand it. You talk to them, they approve/licence it and away you go

-W.

 

[Mistwell]

And exactly like AEG are doing as I understand it. You talk to them, they approve/licence it and away you go

-W.

Only not. Microsoft uses a prepublished license. You meet the license and you are done. No negotiation.

AEG uses the opposite system. You call them. You negotiate with them. They can say yes or no. They might charge you money, or a percentage of sales (unknown on this one). Not the same system at all.

I think we have beaten this part of the debate to death at this point. Let's all just agree to disagree and move on. We all like the Spycraft game, no reason to debate the details of their business plan any further.

 

[Synicism]

Originally posted by Cergorach They did that with the Spycraft chapter concerning comat rules as well, but if you read a little further you will see that they exclude everything that is either IP or copyrighted. And in the biginning of the book they designate the WP/VP, Defense, and any other rules from the Star Wars RPG as copyrighted by WotC and used under liscence...

HP/VP (or something remarkably similar to it) would be perfectly permissible under the OGL. And the concept of "Defense" is nothing more than a bonus to AC dependent on class level. So if you wanted to release a OGL game that used the Spycraft mechanics, there is nothing stopping you.

You might not be able to put the "d20" logo on it, but nothing stops you from giving your classes an AC bonus (like a Monk) or from limiting hit points to a character's Constitution score but adding, say, Stun or Endurance points based on level. The only caveat is that you would have to let other people use those mechanics under the OGL.

As a side note, from a legal standpoint (yes, I am a lawyer, yes I understand the Copyright Act, and no this does not constitute legal advice), I don't think that WotC could stop anyone from implementing a system like HP/VP or Defense under the OGL. You can't copyright individual bits of game mechanics.

 

[Mistwell]

As a side note, from a legal standpoint (yes, I am a lawyer, yes I understand the Copyright Act, and no this does not constitute legal advice), I don't think that WotC could stop anyone from implementing a system like HP/VP or Defense under the OGL. You can't copyright individual bits of game mechanics.

Oh, see, no wonder we keep butting heads...I'm a lawyer too!

 

[Ranger REG]

What I do have a beef with is AEG in not opening up the license for the Spycraft trademark in the same way that WOTC opened up the D&D and core rulebook trademarks.

Now we're getting somewhere...

Is that it? You wanted AEG to make a similar royalty-free limited trademark use license for their Spycraft IP the way Wizards have provided a trademark license for their d20 and related IP?

You wanted them to follow what they did with Rokugan on those "Goodies" use clause and expand on Spycraft IP for use with a wider audience?

Well, it's up to them.

 

[dpmcalister]

Try selling your material for Spycraft without their permission.

To be perfectly honest, I wouldm't try selling anything without their permission. Maybe that's a little too "goody-goody", but I believe that Patrick, et al, have a good working relationship with anyone who wants to expand the Spycraft line.

I'll offer you my legal services (normally $225/hr) for free in defending you from their lawsuit

Nice thought, thanks