SRD Update

[Mark]

My suggestion would be not only for publishers to make up their own name, but to make them only a letter or two off from the original. Melk's Acid Arrow, Bagby's Grasping Hand, Tenzer's Transformation...

That way, everybody not only knows exactly what we're talking about, but they should have little trouble finding 'em alphabetically.

You should cehck the CMG release link above. I think it fits the bill. I've heard a lot of discussion that the dropping of the proper names from the spells just released to the SRD by WotC would cause some difficulties. This seems to be mainly perceived as a problem because it upsets the alphabetical order of spells. To try and offer a simple solution, I've taken those spells involved in the controvery and adjusted the names to try and keep them close to their old order. Remember, with the addition of so many 3rd party publisher spells to the d20 landscape, I had to try and use more than just the old first initial, lest the addition of other spells continue to move the old ones out of order too much. Hopefully this solution will be seen as a fair compromise to the problem.

 

[tensen]

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

 

[Luke]

How's about publishers...

1. Find out if wizards themselves plan to standardize on the changes "soon", and failing something satisfactory;

2. Come up with their own agreed standard. As a group, release OGC equivalent of similar names, for all non-Wizard's publications.

???

As far as I'm aware, either this board, or the official OGL mailing list, are the most appropriate forums in the world to try and come up with an (enforced) alternative standard.

Even Ryan Dancey is irritated by this... I presume that, as the father of 3rd edition open gaming, he would have tried for something a bit different.

 

[J Lloyd]

...

2. Come up with their own agreed standard. As a group, release OGC equivalent of similar names, for all non-Wizard's publications.

...

Necromancer Games has already moved in this direction. They have posted the notice on their website.

I'm not sure I'm too happy with NG's resolution, but it will do for now. There's just something...well, not right about using the names. Hopefully something else can be done to change the matter.

 

[Ranger REG]

Even Ryan Dancey is irritated by this... I presume that, as the father of 3rd edition open gaming, he would have tried for something a bit different.

I can understand his irritation, but since he no longer worked for Wizards, there is nothing else he can do about it. Then again, he could leave the draft sections up on his OGF web site.

 

[Grazzt]

Then again, he could leave the draft sections up on his OGF web site.

True- but ya couldnt use them though. The section has been released and is now "official."

As mentioned above, Clark Peterson (along with Mark of Creative Mountain Games) are working on a solution. It's posted on Necromancer Games' site in the legal section.

 

[Mark]

It appears that Clark and I have reached an impasse on the collaboration. He isn't fond of the generic names that I feel need to be the primary names. The kicker for me is that I see no point in just replacing the proper names with alternate proper names. One of the biggest complaints I've heard(and shared by myself) was that the proper names pigeonholed all publishers into the pereption that their setting included an NPC with that name from the spell. This was true of the names used in the draft SRD as well. I don't mind having some proper names as alternate spell names, but not as the new primary spell names.

Nonetheless, the opinions of the community at large that there should be some alternate names included in my first document seem fair and I've added those (while not stepping on Clark's toes, i.e. I avoided the names he had chosen should he wish to develop his piece further.)

I'm going with "Open Spells Collection" as opposed to my first choice of "Alpha Spells". I've also kept with my first intention and maintain a document that doesn't require an overlong OGL section 15. It was always my intention to keep it as simple as possible and by keeping the documents separate and independent, my section 15 will continue to be simple to reuse.

I hope that my offering finds some use in the community, but I am sure that there is room for others should Clark continue to develop his, or others step up with their own versions.

 

[Cergorach]

I actually think that Necromancer's solution is sly and pretty good (if not the best out there). The thing you want is that people read a spell in you supplement and don't think twice about what the spell does. These names are so close to the original, that unless your really paying attention, you don't notice the difference.

If publishers feel that they are 'forced' to use names that aren't in your world, they can always make a little box where they convert spell names.

 

[hong]

Personally, I think using "Tensor" instead of "Tenser" or "Nystal" instead of "Nystul" just looks like someone misspelled something.

My preference would be to do something like what happened with wizard mark and wizard eye, which were renamed to arcane mark and arcane eye because they conflicted with 3E's naming conventions. You could do the same with Mord's hound, Tenser's transformation, etc. You probably don't need to do this with every item or spell, only those without an adjective attached to the name.

Thus:
Mord's sword -> arcane sword
Tenser's transformation -> arcane transformation
Mord's faithful hound -> faithful hound
Leomund's tiny hut -> tiny hut
etc.

You could do the same with wondrous items, but substituting "wondrous" for "arcane":
Quiver of Ehlonna -> wondrous quiver (or quiver of wonder)
Apparatus of Kwalish -> wondrous apparatus (or apparatus of wonder)
Heward's handy haversack -> handy haversack (or haversack of wonder, but that messes up the alliteration)

 

[tensen]

Hong, Pointing out it looks like it was just mispelled is pretty much what the authors want you to think. Because that way the players and GM's know where to look in the Player's Handbook to find the spell. If you change the name completely.. how is the reader supposed to know what spell it is?