Synonyms for "Core Book" and "Player's Handbook"?

[woodelf]

Well, it could be construed as false advertising.

The balance of the two games are widely different, making this compatibility harduous.

"compatible" comes in degrees. I think the whole "permission to make products using the D20 System" "advantage" to the WotC OGL/D20SRD/D20STL is silly, because i've long considered most RPG books "compatible" in the sense that i can take any two RPG books i have that i've read and use material from them together without having to spend any significant amount of time meshing them. Moreover, the amount of time it takes me to mesh two products for different game systems is no greater than that for products fr the same game system, provided the latter aren't explicitly designed to work together [so this argument doesn't apply to the "effort" required to integrate the D&d3E PH and the D&D3E DMG, or the AD&D2 PH and the AD&D2 CPsiH]. So, frex, making a Dragonlance and a Forgotten Realms product work together (assuming both use the same rules: AD&D2 or D&D3.5E, say) takes no less effort than using the W:tA Axis Mundi book with my D&D3E game--neither takes enough effort to be a significant obstacle.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that there is no one universal standard for "compatible". By the standard of "one from book A, one from book B", i'd consider Everquest RPG compatible with D&D3E books--i could freely mix-n-match bits with no more effort than it takes me to read the two sources. Hell, you're not even guaranteed that any two WotC D&D3E books will be 100% compatible, requiring no effort to integrate (MotP/Epic Level/Dieties&Demigods/BoED, frex).

 

[woodelf]

Hey Reg - from the legal RTF file from the revised 3.5 SRD, in the Product Identity section:

The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: [snip list of terms]

You know, interestingly, "as defined in ...the Open Game License Version 1.0a" and "not Open Content" might very well be contradictions in terms. According to one strict reading of the license, PI is a subset of OGC--there is no such thing as content that is PI but not OGC.

Furthermore, their PI declaration may be null and void "as [PI is] defined in ...the Open Game License Version 1.0a". Specifically, PI *may* need to be present in the work in which it is cited/identified, *may* need to be designated in that work as OGC to have any meaning, and may or may not have validity if the terms are common-language terms. For that matter, PI protection may only be as strong as standard IP laws, meaning a short, non-original term has essentially no protection, anyway.

In short, from a strict legal standpoint, i wouldn't worry much about the "Player's Handbook" PI claim. Rather, it should impact your behavior as something that WotC may be willing to press suit over, and they have the bigger lawyers, rather than as something illegal. IOW, still a no-go for most of us.

Oh, and before anyone jumps on me: i'm not a lawyer. i don't have a law degree. I am parroting somone who does have a law degree, but is not a practicing lawyer, and was not acting in an official legal capacity when he provided these analyses of the WotC OGL.

 

[reiella]

"3rd edition fantasy rules" is a completely meaningless term. There are lots of fantasy RPG's which saw a 3rd edition. Maybe it's just referring to the 3rd edition of a book on how to write fantasy...

Problem comes with the phrasing of the Trademark and the Compatibility clause.

From how I read it, it implies you cannot claim compatibility of any sort without an appropiate extended license.

Also intent is extremely easy to prove, there are a number of typo references in EQRPG products that refer to Core rulebooks I or the D&D player's handbook page numbers :x.

That, and as mentioned, there are 3rd editions of OTHER FRPGs than D&D, and the mechanical simularity exists really only with D&D.

Ultimately, it's edgy grounds that WotC hasn't expressed any public interest/comment about as yet, so most likly OK for the most part. Of course, the legality of a virus license in the first place is questionable (the virus license portions of the GPL have actually been thrown out of court ... before the d20STL/OGL licenses came about).

 

[Impeesa]

p14y3r'5 |-|4|\|d800|<. Any association with or resemblance to actual English words is completely unintentional.

--Impeesa--