Nebular Cross in possible breach of new d20 stl 5.0

[Mouseferatu]

I think you can get away with the words "3.5 Compatible" as long you do not further explain what that means, anywhere in your Covered Product. I just have a problem with using it to cite reference from their book like say, "See the Combat Chapter of the 3.5 Rulebook I," and using it often. A d20 gamer-consumer may be able to make the cryptic meaning, but other gamer-consumers may not, or will be scared off from purchasing it because it means you need another book to make your product playable.

Ah, I see. Yes, I think you've got a valid point if the subject at hand is a stand-alone game, such as the one this thread is about. (Or is supposed to be about, until I keep hijacking it. )

But again, I'd suggest that a campaign setting or supplement that's not intended to stand alone can get away with far more of that sort of thing. After all, the people buying it already own the books, so they're not going to be scared off.

That said, were I (or anyone) to publish an OGL, but not D20, product intended as a D&D supplement, I'd advocate simply reprinting rules when necessary (i.e. reprinting the heat danger rules, rather than referencing the environment chapter of "Core Book II"). Obviously, you can't do that if you're referencing page after page, but for the occasional referent, it should be doable without reprinting so much that you're wasting space. True, you can't do that with character creation or advancement rules, but then, you can't do that with D20 either.

 

[Dr. Harry]

[brief hijack]

But what of a campaign setting? Suppose I decide to put out a setting that has, as a central theme, a kingdom with a number of depraved social and sexual customs. [end hijack, for the moment]

Like, say, a possible version of Melnibone that holds closely to the Moorcock novels?

I hope that Crown of Thorns gets a clear answer from WotC, as that would set a precendent that others could follow, as opposed to "we don't feel like going after you today, and [italics]probably[/italics] not tomorrow ...

I would bet that a lot of gamers, especially the older ones, have used games to explore real questions and themes in an environment that is more clear than the Real World (TM) or at least without triggering a knee-jerk reaction before thought can even begin. (IMO, the value of Fantasy/SF as literature.) I think that questions of faith could be examined using F/SF as a guide (ya might have heard of C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien, for example), and I would hope that there would be room for a mature treatment of that under the d20 rubric.

 

[Strutinan]

I think you can get away with the words "3.5 Compatible" as long you do not further explain what that means, anywhere in your Covered Product. I just have a problem with using it to cite reference from their book like say, "See the Combat Chapter of the 3.5 Rulebook I," and using it often. A d20 gamer-consumer may be able to make the cryptic meaning, but other gamer-consumers may not, or will be scared off from purchasing it because it means you need another book to make your product playable.

Actually, this has already been beateninto a fine red mist elswhere, by many people who ARE lawyers (including my own).

The following terms are FREE GAME, and can be used LEGALLY:

d20 (just not "d20 System")
OGL
SRD
3.5
3.0
Edition
System Reference Document
PHB (is not listed as Product Identity or Trademark)
DMG (is not listed as Product Identity or Trademark)
MM (is not listed as Product Identity or Trademark)

Mix-and-Match to your heart's content

You see, all the d20STL REALLY does, and all it ever was intended to do, is give free advertising for WotC's "Dungeons & Dragons" product line, while indicating compatibility with that product line. What hasbro is TRYING to do is gain control over the market by use of a "Family Friendly" kill clause in the only license they actively control: the d20 STL.

The OGL is a wonderful thing. It's stable of material (the SRD) can only be ADDED TO, not REDUCED! If the 4.0 version of the SRD is labeled non-OGL....who cares? We still have the pool of resources that all previous versions of the SRD provide, as well as the OGC from otehr sources!

And soon, it looks like we will have an altarnative compatibility logo as well!

 

[linnorm]

Please let us know the outcome of your talk with WotC. I, for one, am interested in hearing what they say about your product.

 

[jgbrowning]

Please let us know the outcome of your talk with WotC. I, for one, am interested in hearing what they say about your product.

Me too.

joe b.

 

[DaveStebbins]

The initial post labeled the product as a campaign setting. As such, I think he would be better off (if forced to go OGL, which I don't think will happen) adding a compatability statment to the cover, like "Compatable with the third edition rules of the world's most popular fantasy role playing game."

If he doesn't denote compatability somehow then he has to make it a complete stand-alone game. This means adding not just chargen and experience, but the ENTIRE rules set, the whole SRD (less anything not required by the campaign setting).

If he had identified it as a game, sure, add chargen and experience and he's all set. But as a campaign setting, he's probably relying pretty heavily on the customer already having the core rules, so he will either need to denote compatability or radically revise and expand the product.

-Dave

 

[Strutinan]

The roblem is there are only two possible repsonses from WotC/Hasbro, and niether is good for PR.

#1: "Go ahead and put the logo on." This shows preferential tretment in the applications of "Quality Standards", providing yet another case in which WotC/Hasbro can be cited as hypocrites. Tarnishing a quickly blackening reputation in the industry and amoung their customers.

#2: "No, est ist Verbotten! It is an Indecent and Bad Quality product!" Need I even explain this one? This only shows that WotC/Hasbro is using the clause as an excuse to destroy a potentially competing product. Again, placing them in the image of a tyrant trying to destroy the small guy.

Needless to say, any response other than "We are so sorry for the problems. We'll fix it all right away, and make sure nobody has to worry about this ever again." is the ONLY thing they could do to save face.

 

[DaveStebbins]

"Go ahead and put the logo on." This shows preferential tretment in the applications of "Quality Standards", providing yet another case in which WotC/Hasbro can be cited as hypocrites. Tarnishing a quickly blackening reputation in the industry and amoung their customers.

I think people are already assuming such due to the inclusion of the "sole discretion" clause. They've already set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner on license violations. Not much they can do about how it looks, and the nature of trademark law pretty forces them to be draconian about the whole thing. no win situation.

-Dave

 

[Ranger REG]

Actually, this has already been beateninto a fine red mist elswhere, by many people who ARE lawyers (including my own).

As for some of the terms, mainly initials, you can use them but you cannot further elaborate nor define what they mean. IOW, anyone who have knowledge of D&D will know, while others may find it cryptic.

In any case, I hope your lawyer can back his legal advice in court, where two lawyers argue but the judge make the final ruling.

And yes, I know what d20STL v.5.0 is all about (content policing), as opposed to an earlier now-defunct d20STL v1.0 (rules & trademark compliance). I don't agree with it either (D&D associated with "Walt Disney"-esque children's product?!?!!!), and I can only hope the community can persuade Wizards nicely to remove that restriction.

 

[smetzger]

The roblem is there are only two possible repsonses from WotC/Hasbro, and niether is good for PR.

#1: "Go ahead and put the logo on." This shows preferential tretment in the applications of "Quality Standards", providing yet another case in which WotC/Hasbro can be cited as hypocrites. Tarnishing a quickly blackening reputation in the industry and amoung their customers.

IMO they are already showing preferencial treatment. Demons, Devils, Sorcerers, Spells, Divinations, and witchcraft are parts of Satanism. They are also mentioned in the Bible as things to be avoided. I don't think WOTC will be restricting those things. If WOTC restricts this product but not those things that would be my definition of Prejudice. I will be mailing a letter to WOTC petitioning against some of the recent changes.

Depending on your release schedule you may have time to start a dialog with WOTC to see if you can use a license other than d20.

p.s. Do you guys have a website?