Nebular Cross in possible breach of new d20 stl 5.0

[MythosaAkira]

But the point of my post was that going OGL w/o chargen would be bad. Mr. Taylor said that their book was originally slated to be under the d20 license. With the new changes to the STL and SG, he feels that he might be out of bounds. One suggestion was to remove the d20 and go pure OGL. Doing it this way would requrie needing chargen because the unsavvy consumer wouldn't know where to go.

You're quite right; what I was saying wasn't meant as a rebuttal to what you said, but more of a musing on my part. What you said simply go me to thinking that it would have been a better idea for Mr. Taylor to go OGL from the beginning (complete with chargen), so he'd have a complete game, rather than be restricted to the d20 logo limitations.

 

[Vigilance]

Personally- Id contact them, but not pull it in the meantime.

Since its an electronic product, what are they going to do? Order you to destroy inventory?

The worst they can do is say "pull it". That's the remedy.

So keep it up till you hear from them.

Chuck

 

[Ranger REG]

Try something like this:

"The product requires the core rules for 3.5 Edition Fantasy Roleplaying for use."

No trademarks used, no provisions violated.

(The usual disclaimer: I am so not a lawyer that I'm actually filled with negatively-charged anti-law particles. This is based on a pure lay-person's understanding of the licenses, and you should check with a real lawyer before taking this advice.)

Personally, if you're going strictly OGL, you might as well provide a standalone product format rather piggyback with some vague compatibility label. I mean, when it comes to character creation, you're going to cite "use the rules of the Revised Third Edition Fantasy Roleplaying Game"?

As a gaming consumer, looking from both eyes -- a d20 gamer and a casual gamer -- this is the work of a lazy game designer, compared to all other, more notable OGL-based rulebooks currently in the market. My opinion: Leave it on the shelf.

But hey, if you think this will work, well it's your business expense. I just hope you have a good return.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Personally, if you're going strictly OGL, you might as well provide a standalone product format rather piggyback with some vague compatibility label. I mean, when it comes to character creation, you're going to cite "use the rules of the Revised Third Edition Fantasy Roleplaying Game"?

As a gaming consumer, looking from both eyes -- a d20 gamer and a casual gamer -- this is the work of a lazy game designer, compared to all other, more notable OGL-based rulebooks currently in the market. My opinion: Leave it on the shelf.

But hey, if you think this will work, well it's your business expense. I just hope you have a good return.

[brief hijack]

Ranger, I can sort of see your point when it comes to a new game, like this. I don't necessarily agree, but I can understand where you're coming from.

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. (Let's leave aside for the moment the idea of whether such a thing appeals to you; I'm not planning to really do it anyway.) Let's say the publisher decides, or even is told explicitly, that this violates the standards clause of the D20 license.

Would you still think going OGL with the "3.5 Compatible" comment is lazy? After all, the intent was never to create a new game, but merely a campaign setting. Including character generation rules (or, for that matter, combat rules, and advancement rules) would be as redundant as putting such rules in, say, Scarred Lands or Midnight or Nyambe. Surely, for a product of this sort, going OGL with the above comment is no "lazier" than going D20 in the first place?

[end hijack, for the moment]

 

[MThibault]

You know, I wish that you would keep your product on the shelves and let them come to you. I doubt that they would harass a Christian publication, because that would elicit worse press than d20 F.A.T.A.L would ever provide.

On the other hand, it would provide a precendent for other religions (and I will go on record here as saying that I am not a member or proponent of any other religion) or perhaps minority groups to look to. Like others have said above, with a PDF product you don't have to worry about printing costs so pull it now or pull it later, it ends up being the same. But if you voluntarily pull it now, there will be no baseline behaviour established by WotC when responding to products that are literally in violation, but still not offensive. Without that baseline, there is one less way to identify a double-standard in the future.

I know that it probably isn't a priority for you, and would understand if it were quite the opposite of a priority for you.

Cheers

 

[der_kluge]

If they went straight OGL, and had their own chargen rules, then their audience wouldn't have to pick up that nasty ol' satanic player's handbook.

 

[kingpaul]

d20 F.A.T.A.L.

Its d20? I thought it was just a bizarre game book in its own right.

 

[KDLadage]

Its d20? I thought it was just a bizarre game book in its own right.

it is NOT d20; I think the original poster meant "theoretical" d20 FATAL (meaning that it is still conceivable for them to do a d20 FATAL book).

 

[MThibault]

it is NOT d20; I think the original poster meant "theoretical" d20 FATAL (meaning that it is still conceivable for them to do a d20 FATAL book).

Yep. That's exactly what I meant. d20 FATAL would be the worst case scenario for someone at WotC who thinks that sex and decreasing-sales are intertwined. (Er, in a chaste but provocative, Twister(TM) sort of way, I'm sure).

Cheers

 

[Ranger REG]

[brief hijack]
Would you still think going OGL with the "3.5 Compatible" comment is lazy? After all, the intent was never to create a new game, but merely a campaign setting. Including character generation rules (or, for that matter, combat rules, and advancement rules) would be as redundant as putting such rules in, say, Scarred Lands or Midnight or Nyambe. Surely, for a product of this sort, going OGL with the above comment is no "lazier" than going D20 in the first place?[end hijack, for the moment]

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.