SRD Update

[HellHound]

While I appreciate Mark's efforts, I have to say that for publication, Clark's names are more inobtrusive and less likely to cause player confusion when reading a product.

 

[Twin Rose]

I would definately like to see a preferred resolution. Having spells be different in 30 different products, all being the same spell, would really make a mess of the spell database in Campaign Suite.

I'm proposing that for a proper noun, we use "Anthony" for all the spells. Anthony's Floating Disk, Anthony's Tiny Hut, etc.

I've been informed I should get this finished soon, and I don't know if any of the rest of you have a product that uses ALL of the spell names, but I do. Is there any objections to my stop-gap solution? Or I could put together a list of names drawn from the current d20 publishers..

Reltub Mij
Surrom
Karlc
Tensen
Goud
Lah

Just brainstorming

 

[Wolvorine]

LOL

I hereby grant the permission to utilize the PI of my own personal screen name, to replace any previous instances of Tenser.

Didn't I do this on accident once on the DQG forums? hehe

 

[Orcus]

"It'd be kind of cool and help standardize the spell names that d20 publishers use."

I agree. That's why I emailed Mark, so that we could both do it one way so that there wouldnt be divergent documents. But Mark was less concerned about alphabetizing than me so he wanted to do his stuff his way, which of course is great.

In the end, I dont think it matters if there are two (or more) versions of what he and I did. Publshers will use what they want. I think consumers want spell names as close to the PHB as possible (obviously, or I wouldnt have done mine the way I did). Mike's is better for a world or setting where the NPC names are a conflict and you dont want to use them. So each serves its own purpose.

I will say that Mark's sure looks prettier than mine

Clark

 

[Mark]

That's why I emailed Mark, so that we could both do it one way so that there wouldnt be divergent documents. But Mark was less concerned about alphabetizing than me so he wanted to do his stuff his way, which of course is great.

Well, almost, but not my way, per se. I decided (based on feedback from many schools of thought) that for primary alternate names a simple misspelling of the old name wasn't enough to satisfy all concerns. If the document was going to serve the purpose, it needed to include the people that prefered to remove proper names but keep the new names in alphabetical order. In the end the document I have produced has generic names (alphabetized) as primary alternatives, and two other alternatives that utilize the misspelled proper name approach that some others have suggested.

After a lot of feedback since my initial solution was released, I've spent a lot of time trying to produce a document that incorporated all of the concerns of publishers, DMs and players. Alphabetizing was only one of the concerns. I believe the solution I've finalized handles all concerns and is a compromise that is very inclusive of all camps.

 

[J Lloyd]

As far as publishers doing what they will (*grin*), we've just placed a document called Unnamed Spells on our site that lists just the "new, unnamed" spells and their description.

The description of the spells will be replicated in products where they make their first appearance. After that, references will be made to both the product where the spells made their first appearance and the online Unnamed Spells document.

I think after a while, gamemasters and players will become comfortable with the "new" spells.

 

[Orcus]

Cool. Everyone should make sure to put their links here in this thread. Mine is above.

Clark

 

[333 Dave]

I'd already renamed all the proper-noun-spells I'm using in New Dawn . Score one for campaign specific NPCs!

 

[Fractalwave]

It'd be kind of cool and help standardize the spell names that d20 publishers use.

I will say that Mark's sure looks prettier than mine

Clark

lol...I agree, Mark's is definitely prettier.

To add to the brainstorming session...

Chris, what if we offered both solutions in Campaign Suite plus the straight SRD released list plus offer a gui where people could rename them using proper names that suit their own campaigns? We could put the lists in separate CSC files so you can load what you need.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[Orcus]

I didnt bother to make mine pretty because the point isnt really to download and use the document. We all know what is in it. Its just a way to get around the SRD name removal.

Clark