Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 1035843" data-attributes="member: 5">I went in search (on the Necromancer Games site) of a proper designation that would work and downloaded the Wizard's Amulet and its revised counterpart.  How does what WotC is doing in this case differ from the mention of a list of products names in a PI section of one of those product names when the other product names are not found elsewhere in that given product (such as the PI designation in the Wizard's Amulet (revised)?  (Emphasis mine){Regarding the first emphasized section from the above quote from the PI designation section of The Wizard's Amulet (revised)} Of the product names mentioned, the only one that I could find appearing in The Wizard's Amulet (revised) was The Wizard's Amulet except as mentioned in the PI designation section.  I assume you used a general list to failsafe against accidental inclusion of those items in the list, which seems like a smart way to go.I would think that the SRD is just as valid a place for any and all WotC PI'd terms even if those terms do not appear in the given OGL'd product (the SRD) or even if they have yet to appear in an OGL'd product, if WotC has the intention of using those terms as PI...or...if they wish to be clear in the use of those terms when allowed in third party published materials (such as Dragon magazine) where they might show up in an OGC section but need to be reserved as WotC PI.As it says, any of the above can be included as PI but nowhere does it require that the PI actually appear in the product beyond the PI designation section, so I would think both Necromancer and WotC are in safe harbor with the above.  However, I am not sure about someone being able to declare something as PI when that someone does not even mention those things directly in the process of that declaration. {Regarding the second emphasized section from the above quote from the PI designation section of The Wizard's Amulet (revised)}  In The Wizard's Amulet (revised) PI section it even includes PIing of names it doesn't mention in the product and in fact are not specifically mentioned where they are being declared as PI (the separate download referred to as pregenerated characters, including such names as Bannor, Belflin, Blackthorne, etc.).  It's a separate download and, I would think, must be considered as distributed separately, and I would think requires a separate OGL within the zip file that is distributed.  Correct me if I am wrong, please.  If someone were to get ahold of The Wizard's Amulet (revised) but was unable to obtain the pregen character files, how are they to know what names have been declared as PI?I could not find an OGL or PI designation in the original The Wizard's Amulet, btw.Further, to bring us back around to the subject of "d20" as trademark and referring to the "d20 System" versus "d20" as general usage referring to the platonic solid as a random number generating device... I assume that "The Wizard's Amulet is only PI'd as it refers to the title of that download and not as it refers to any individual mention of an arcane spellcaster's jewelry, I.E. a separate company using the phrase "in the room the party finds the wizard's amulet on a table."Pardon my mention of this but it seems a good example as any of a PI expression being distinct from a separate but identical expression.  In addition, please do not mistake my musing as legal advice or in any way adversarial.  I am merely trying to discuss the issue as fully as possible with whatever examples are at my disposal and easily referenced by others who are taking part in this discussion.</blockquote>

Verification