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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1530210" data-attributes="member: 10201">What about this:i'm currently working on an extensive project: a complete "D&D 'Done Right'". So it'll have at least as much content as the 3 core D&D3.5E books. It may be released for free online--for the pragmatic reason that i don't think i could go head-to-head with D&D, even if i had gorgeous art and beautiful books and the best rules in the world. But i can only afford an excellent layout, probably no art, and as a PDF. And while i expect my total ruleset to be better than D&D3.5E at doing "D&D-style fantasy" (i wouldn't be doing this, otherwise), i know that that's not an objective truth, and it certainly won't be "the best rules in the world".Now, all that was just background. Now we get to the question. I'm starting with a mix of Spycraft and Arcana Unearthed for my rulesbase, rather than the D20SRD. So, let's say i have the entirety of the feats, skills, and spells chapters from Arcana Unearthed included. Now, a non-generous reading of its OGC/PI declarations would force me to rename every single feat and spell, but i could otherwise use them verbatim. So, do you think i would have done anything, hmmm.... unkind? non-generous? inconsiderate?--i'm not really sure the term, here, but hopefully you get the meaning--if i were to do this: release essentially the bulk of the new rules of Arcana Unearthed for free, online? Does it count as adding value, in your opinion, that i'm giving all the various rules widgets OGC labels, where before they had none? I mean, from the standpoint of other reusers, i'm clearly doing them a favor (especially since coming up with sensible alternatives to such generic names as "stomp" for a feat that lets you stomp the ground is gonna be a bit of a chore). But from the standpoint of the originator, i may actually be doing a disservice: presumably, he didn't want it to be easy to reuse the stuff, or he would've given them usable names. On the gripping hand, i might be making both happy: the creator restricts his widget labels, and everyone else gets labeled widgets. So, any opinion on this? Does it matter if i'm effectively reusing the bulk of a ruleset when that ruleset happens to be one other than the D&D3[.5]E ruleset? Does it matter whether that reused ruleset ends up being 100%, 90%, or 10% of the resulting work? (IOW, is it any more or less of on offense to reproduce 90pp of a 100p work, than to create a 500p work that includes 90pp of a 100p work?)</blockquote>

Verification