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: 1107888" data-attributes="member: 10201">So pick up a copy of Spycraft, and use what's in there. The VP/WP system in there (which is either the same as in Star Wars D20, or just a slight tweak) is quite clearly OGC.  While there is some reason to believe it wasn't supposed to be given away, it most definitely has been, and several people asked AEG at the time Spycraft came out, and they never clarified, so i'd say the chance to claim it was a typo is long past.  To short-circuit complaints, i quote the relevant passages:"AEG's intention is to open up as much of the Spycraft Espionage Handbook as possible to be used as Open Game Content (OGC), while maintaining Product Identity (PI) to all aspects of the Spycraft intellectual property.[...snip]"Designation of Product Identity: [snip a bunch of stuff that pointedly does *not* make reference to wound point/vitality point in any way]"Designation of Open Content: Subject to the Product Identity designation above, the following portions of the Spycraft Espionage Handbook are designated Open Game Content.  Chapter One: all agent statistics and new classes. [...] Chapter Six: the entire chapter. [...snip]"Chapter One describes figuring WP/VP for your character, which seems like an "agent statistic" to me, while Chapter Six is the combat chapter, which has the rest of the rules relating to them (such as healing).  So, the PI designation does not withhold them, and the OGC declaration quite explicitly gives them away.  The only way this would not be the case is if AEG didn't have "authority to contribute" those rules to OGC.  So let's take a look at that permission notice from WotC:"Vitality points, wounds, Defense, and other rules from the Star Wars™ roleplaying game and other items not covered by the Open Gaming License used with permission from Wizards of the Coast."Two important things to note here.  First, it does *not* say that their permission does or does not extend to having authority to contribute said rules as OGC. Second, it does *not* say "this material is not OGC", "this material is PI" or anything else of that sort.In fact, it is a bit ambiguous as to what exactly that statement means, all 'round--it seems to say that:1: they got permission from WotC to use a bunch of stuff2: that stuff was not released as OGC under the WotC OGL, which is why they needed to get special permission (or at least felt they did)3: that stuff consists of two sorts of things: rules from Star Wars D20 (of which VP/WP and Defense are examples), and "other items"--whatever those might beNow, it is quite possible that they intended it to mean the above, plus:4: that stuff is *still* not OGC, despite appearing in this book.But it utterly fails to say that.  So we have to do our best to understand what was written, and figure out which meaning, among the possible interpretations, was intended.  Given that the PI/OGC declarations appear to give away VP/WP, it makes sense to take the literal interpretation of the special permission note--which is to say, that said note has no bearing on OGC-ness, except perhaps by explaining the route by which AEG got the authority to contribute that material.  Given no statement from either party, either formally (via the OGC/PI declarations) or informally (when asked online) to the contrary, i see no reason to believe that the VP/WP system, as presented in Spycraft, is not OGC.  For that matter, it is quite possible that, legally, the OGC/PI statements, in conjunction with the WotC OGL, are binding, and even if the other parties *had* said something contrary, that material would still be OGC.-----Oh, and, in case anyone is unconvinced by the above: there is also a legal 100% OGC VP/WP system that some guy did up before Star Wars D20 hit the streets, and without having ever seen a copy of it.  I'd have to dig a bit to find it, but it's probably floating around online somewhere, too.</blockquote>

Verification