Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 369110" data-attributes="member: 5">It appears that Clark and I have reached an impasse on the collaboration.&nbsp; He isn't fond of the generic names that I feel need to be the primary names.&nbsp; The kicker for me is that I see no point in just replacing the proper names with alternate proper names.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; This was true of the names used in the draft SRD as well.&nbsp; 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 &quot;Open Spells Collection&quot; as opposed to my first choice of &quot;Alpha Spells&quot;.&nbsp; I've also kept with my first intention and maintain a document that doesn't require an overlong OGL section 15.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mark, post: 369110, member: 5"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification