Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1178541" data-attributes="member: 10201">Well, if you're gonna pick nits, it is not the &quot;D20 System System Reference Document&quot;.&nbsp; In fact, that is precisely *why* i've chosen to title my work as i have.&nbsp; Let me 'splain:&nbsp; The official title for the documents WotC released is &quot;System Reference Document&quot;. There is nothing in the title that actually tells you what is in the work.&nbsp; They chose a simple broad descriptive that colud describe anything--there is no qualifier telling you *which* system this is a reference for.&nbsp; It's like naming a car model &quot;Car&quot;--it's either pointless or presumptious.&nbsp; (And, before someone brings up &quot;le Car&quot;, note that it is properly referred to as the &quot;Renault le Car&quot;--if this were the &quot;Wizards of the Coast System Reference Document,&quot; i'd be placated.)&nbsp; Personally i suspect presumption: it's the same reasoning that leads to MS naming their product &quot;Word&quot; (though, formally, at least that is &quot;Microsoft Word&quot;): an attempt to co-opt the mindshare for the entire product category by choosing a generic name.&nbsp; This gives the implication that this is &quot;THE&quot; System Reference Document, and all others are derivatives or knock-offs, and secondary in value in any case.&nbsp; Historical order notwithstanding, it is merely the SRD for a particular system, and it should be properly titled/labeled as such.&nbsp; The WotC OGL (another item that needs a specfic name), is availabel for use for any game, not just D20 System games, so anything released under it, even the very first thing released under it [and, due to the delay in releasing the D20SRD and the gentleperson's agreement, it was far from the first thing, anyway], should have a uniquely-descriptive name.&nbsp; While popular culture often shortens the name of the most popular product in a category to what really is a generic descriptive, the company should still be obligated to give their product a unique name.&nbsp; Especially if they want trademark protection.&nbsp; [I'm convinced that the only way WotC got a registered trademark on &quot;D20 System&quot; was through ignorance of the RPG world on the USPTO's part: normally, both simple descriptives and common words are forbidden from trademark status.] -----I'm still not understanding you.&nbsp; How is designating feat and spell names as PI &quot;carefully&quot; using the WotC OGL?&nbsp; If anything, the choice to PI some pretty generic words (&quot;stomp&quot;, anyone?) strikes me as really pushing the bounds of what the WotC OGL is intended to do.&nbsp; And, even if i make a simple identity substitution so that your sentence reads &quot;...Monte retained feat names and spell names as non-OGL[&quot;non-OGC&quot;?]...specifically BECAUSE he was going to forgo the D20 Logo&quot;, i still don't get it. Could you please explain the connection again in some other manner--perhaps i'm obtuse?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="woodelf, post: 1178541, member: 10201"] Well, if you're gonna pick nits, it is not the "D20 System System Reference Document". In fact, that is precisely *why* i've chosen to title my work as i have. Let me 'splain: The official title for the documents WotC released is "System Reference Document". There is nothing in the title that actually tells you what is in the work. They chose a simple broad descriptive that colud describe anything--there is no qualifier telling you *which* system this is a reference for. It's like naming a car model "Car"--it's either pointless or presumptious. (And, before someone brings up "le Car", note that it is properly referred to as the "Renault le Car"--if this were the "Wizards of the Coast System Reference Document," i'd be placated.) Personally i suspect presumption: it's the same reasoning that leads to MS naming their product "Word" (though, formally, at least that is "Microsoft Word"): an attempt to co-opt the mindshare for the entire product category by choosing a generic name. This gives the implication that this is "THE" System Reference Document, and all others are derivatives or knock-offs, and secondary in value in any case. Historical order notwithstanding, it is merely the SRD for a particular system, and it should be properly titled/labeled as such. The WotC OGL (another item that needs a specfic name), is availabel for use for any game, not just D20 System games, so anything released under it, even the very first thing released under it [and, due to the delay in releasing the D20SRD and the gentleperson's agreement, it was far from the first thing, anyway], should have a uniquely-descriptive name. While popular culture often shortens the name of the most popular product in a category to what really is a generic descriptive, the company should still be obligated to give their product a unique name. Especially if they want trademark protection. [I'm convinced that the only way WotC got a registered trademark on "D20 System" was through ignorance of the RPG world on the USPTO's part: normally, both simple descriptives and common words are forbidden from trademark status.] ----- I'm still not understanding you. How is designating feat and spell names as PI "carefully" using the WotC OGL? If anything, the choice to PI some pretty generic words ("stomp", anyone?) strikes me as really pushing the bounds of what the WotC OGL is intended to do. And, even if i make a simple identity substitution so that your sentence reads "...Monte retained feat names and spell names as non-OGL["non-OGC"?]...specifically BECAUSE he was going to forgo the D20 Logo", i still don't get it. Could you please explain the connection again in some other manner--perhaps i'm obtuse? [/QUOTE]

Verification