{Eden Studios} Fields of Blood Second printing coming soon

[trancejeremy]

Just out of curiosity, has any publisher reprinted another's work verbatim? (Other than the SRD itself?). Several companies (and not just small ones) have made their entire books open content...

Still, doesn't really matter. I doubt any company would use Fields of Blood stats in anything but a web supplement, because it's too complicated to quickly explain (this is not a bad thing), even if they could reprint all the information on battles and realms, well, they wouldn't have room to in a print book. (Most companies already have more things they want to publish than they probably can, without publishing someone else's stuff)

And they cannot refer customers to the Fields of Blood without permission (if you have to ask permission, it puts the asking company in the position of relying on the good graces of another. Which most won't do, at least for a print product).

 

[Ranger REG]

Most, but it should not stop you from trying to acquire their permission. You make it sound like you shouldn't bother asking anyway.

But that's the thing, isn't it? Nobody like to ask permission. It makes them look like beggars. So when they created a fan-brewed material using someone else's IP that they wanted to share worldwide, only to receive a Cease & Desist Letter, it left them frustrated and ranting on a messageboard or newsgroup about how they're simply fans of that IP (but no longer) and that they did so in the interest of the IP owners: to promote it.

So they look for something like the OGL that give them blanket permission without asking.

One can't help but to reaffirm Monte Cook's Etiquette to OGC/PI Sharing.

 

[alex_jurkat]

<<So basically, I don't understand how users of this License feel justified in claiming game mechanics as Product Identity.>>

We didn't claim mechanics as PI. PI applies to terms, logos, graphical content, and the like. PI is a way of carving out materials from generally designated OGC that you don't want others to play with. We wanted to do the opposite -- open certain terms and names in generally non-open text.

As I understand it, the OGL defines two types of text, Open and PI. There is a third which is neither. That text is subject to regular copyright laws -- the terms of the OGL do not apply to it. We have expressly not designated Chapters Three or Five as Open or PI, so regular copyright laws apply.

Alex Jurkat
Eden Studios
www.edenstudios.net

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

As I understand it, the OGL defines two types of text, Open and PI. There is a third which is neither. That text is subject to regular copyright laws -- the terms of the OGL do not apply to it. We have expressly not designated Chapters Three or Five as Open or PI, so regular copyright laws apply.

Mea culpa. I should have said, I don't see how publishers feel that a game mechanic can be anything other than Open Content, since the license defines any game mechanic as open content.

I don't want you to feel like I am picking on you, by the way. I understand it would be a simple matter to ask permission, and it sounds as if Eden is amenable to granting it, but I like a certain amount of clarity in the use of the OGL.

Wulf

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

In our opinion, Chapters Three and Five present parallel mechanics that allow easy convertability from the SRD but are not directly derived from the SRD.

So the fact that the battle sequence includes initiative, attack actions, move actions, full-turn actions, and free actions, all of which actions have a DC, and the unit condition summary which parallels the SRD condition summary...

These terms sprung up independent of the SRD and by happy coincidence use the exact same terminology and allow for full compatibility?

As opposed to being derived from the SRD?

 

[0-hr]

The fact that a company appears (even just appears) to have a shaky understanding of the OGL, and yet wants to claim mechanics as their own, is enough to make me look elsewhere for my rules.

I'll not embrace a system warded so jealously by it's creators.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The fact that a company appears (even just appears) to have a shaky understanding of the OGL, and yet wants to claim mechanics as their own, is enough to make me look elsewhere for my rules.

I'll not embrace a system warded so jealously by it's creators.

Well, in the first case, no publisher is 100% certain on the OGL, not even Wizards of the Coast themselves. Even they make mistakes.

And second, Fields of Blood has some good rules.

So you're being unfair, and doing yourself a disservice.


Wulf

 

[0-hr]

Well hey, as long as those good rules aren't in chapters 3 or 5, maybe I'll pick up a copy!

 

[Ranger REG]

So the fact that the battle sequence includes initiative, attack actions, move actions, full-turn actions, and free actions, all of which actions have a DC, and the unit condition summary which parallels the SRD condition summary...

These terms sprung up independent of the SRD and by happy coincidence use the exact same terminology and allow for full compatibility?

As opposed to being derived from the SRD?

Sounds like you're alleging that the copyrighted material in chapters three and five are not original but derived from SRD because it contains OGC terms. You have got to present more evidence than that.

 

[johnsemlak]

Does someone know the situation with Amazon and this book? Eden Studios have stated that they are not shipping to Amazon due to a dispute. However, Amazon still claims to have the book, which "Usually ships in 24 hours". A poster above claims to have received it.

Now, I assume that any Amazon order would be the first printing in any case, correct?