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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1442427" data-attributes="member: 6398">I must admit to have been taken back by this...  Of the systems I have, I did (I still!) want to use this as the basis for my own system (expanded by my own views and a little bit of kit bashing from other systems).  However, this does pose a quandry. For instance, what we have is a declaration that includes the names of mechanics as OGC while those mechanics themselves aren't (and some folks think the opposite is a problem...?). Now, I've a feeling that this is part of the idea of allowing Fields of Blood to be used by other publishers while retaining the key points of the system as a non-reproducible item.  However, I think the short fall is that doing so requires actually contacting Eden Studios for permission. To clarify my meaning, what this product needed was something akin to a Goodies License; state clearly that the statistic/mechanical components are OGC but that all text isn't, but allow a provision that others using the product may add "Uses the mass combat rules from Fields of Blood by Eden Studios" on the cover, back cover, title page, or whatever (working title: A Co-Adaptability License, as this is the condition of the OGL, found in Section 7, that this limited license is bypassing, which Section 7 normally allows by "another, independant agreement"). This would have removed any doubt on the issue; Rather than leaving everyone scratching their heads going, "huh..?  I can't use this..?", they are instead seeing a set up that mirrors the Ship Design Codes from Traveler described earlier. I do see what Eden is trying to do here, and there's some degree of merit to it, although I think the handling of it is off-target. 1. The mechanics in the two chapters are excluded as OGC, where a "Mechanics are OGC, all other text isn't" is likely what you wanted. 2. Not stating intent leaves the reader wondering exactly what you were trying to do (possibly drawing the wrong conclusion or simply washing their hands of it for being too vague or ambiguous, as an earlier post indicates). 3. Assuming that an OGC re-user does determine your intent (and as an OGC re-user, I wasn't sure until I read this thread and, obviously, I'm not the only one), he must contact you for permission when it is your intention to grant that permission to anyone that asks (or, at least, this thread gives the impression that it is). That said, I suggest that perhaps future reprints address these points of confusion and redundancy, with a web-page addition at Eden explaining the desired intention for the previous and current print-runs, possibly even providing the [Co-Adaptability License] described above. To this, you might even consider an icon or logo that a product can include to indicate the application/requirement of Fields of Blood (akin to M&M's superlink). (Hoping this post was as helpful/suggestive as it was critical... <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> )</blockquote>

Verification