What we've been looking at in software

[herald]

And to the people out there who develop software, or have a relationship with him already, I'm sure that you are satisfied, but since Andy came on to a message board that is open to the public, I think that Andy should answer for himself.

I'll avoid the general overwrought point of anyone can sign on here claiming to be a member of WOTC. All I am saying given the current situation with WOTC and the constant shifting priorities, I would like to understand what Andy's background is and where he gets his position of OGL and STL being used in software. Does he have a background in law, Open Licence software, RPGs or is he learning this as he goes along?

There is nothing wrong in any situation, but I think that many of us in the public don't really understand how OGL and STL is being dealt with and would like to know.

 

[Hardhead]

Success and failure are the sticking points: because under standard d20 rules a high roll is always better than a low, we are treating any randomization (such as ability score generation) as having success and failure.

Ahem. First, Andy, I doubt you're the one setting up these rules, so please don't take this in any way as a personal insult.

Thereofre, uses of the pronoun "you" that follow are directed toward WotC in general, not Andy in specific.

That being said, that stance is pure crap.

First, high rolls are *not* always better in the d20 system. If I'm dying, for instance, and I'm trying to stabilize, a low roll is better. So right from the start, you're working from a bad premise.

Secondly, how do you fail when generating stats? I have rolled stats up many times, and I have *never* failed to generate ability scores. Sure, high rolls are better, but the d20 lisence doesn't say "any random result where one result is better than another." Instead, it specifically mentions sucesses and failures. And it's impossible to fail when rolling stats. There is no set of concievable numbers whic results in a lack of stats. At the wrost, you'd have six 3s. But those are still stats.

I'm sure Wizards can crush any fan programer with legal fees should he disagree, but any person with two brain cells to rub together couldn't possibly interpret the d20 lisence as prohibiting stat generation and hit point rolling.


- Z a c h

 

[smetzger]

Secondly, how do you fail when generating stats? I have rolled stats up many times, and I have *never* failed to generate ability scores. Sure, high rolls are better, but the d20 lisence doesn't say "any random result where one result is better than another." Instead, it specifically mentions sucesses and failures. And it's impossible to fail when rolling stats. There is no set of concievable numbers whic results in a lack of stats. At the wrost, you'd have six 3s. But those are still stats.

I agree, now the original Traveller that had success and failure when creating a character.

WOTC is free to change the d20 license, but until they do a random character generator is a real d20 possibility.

 

[Leopold]

A random PC generator NOT using the D20 label CAN succeed as only the D20 license has that stipulation.


Am i correct in this or is there a line in the OGL i am missing?

 

[smetzger]

A random PC generator NOT using the D20 label CAN succeed as only the D20 license has that stipulation.


Am i correct in this or is there a line in the OGL i am missing?

OGL is no problem. Only d20 has the "No Interactive Game" stipulation.

I also believe that d20 is no problem since you cannot fail to make a character, cannot fail when rolling your ability scores, or fail when randomly selecting feats and skills etc.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I also believe that d20 is no problem since you cannot fail to make a character, cannot fail when rolling your ability scores, or fail when randomly selecting feats and skills etc.

While I think that's reasonable, I wouldn't be willing to test that.

I would be willing to test the 'binary as OGC' concept under controlled conditions -- if I can find a good way to do it, I fully intend to host it on a free website and send a link to the appropriate people at WotC.

 

[theoremtank]

Success and failure are the sticking points: because under standard d20 rules a high roll is always better than a low, we are treating any randomization (such as ability score generation) as having success and failure."

This is one portion of the OGL, I still don't understand. Ability Score quantities inherintly have nothing to do with success or failure. All they do is describe how your character might be roll played or viewed. Anyone who knows anything of D&D knows that ability scores are rolled up, so I still don't understand the harm in including the basic ability score generation method in the OGL.

Another point of contention I have with what was mentioned in the original post is that of keeping the mystery behind how experience points work in the system. What is the point of not making these rules open content? Are we not supposed to know that characters increase levels or actually have experience points?

I'm just throwing out my opinion on these two points as I do not understand why such fundametal system rules should be left out of the open content. In any case, it seems that if the System Reference Document were all one knew of, then that person might be pretty confused at the lack of rules in these areas.

edit - Sorry, I should have read through more of the previous posts. But it appears that the ability score generation restriction obvioulsly is not making sense to other people also.

 

[Klintus Fang]

FWIW: the whole "can't explain how to make characters (which includes not being able to handle the rolling of ability scores)" thing is D20 specific is it not?

In any case, I always assumed that the reason for this particular clause was so there would be no way for anything published under the D20 license to supplant the need for the PhB. Because of that clause, the PhB will always be the definitive and only reference on how to make a character in the world of material that adheres to the D20 license.

Just my take.

 

[Sm!rk]

You can fail in some of the roll methods, some have rules for "bad" rolls where you are then allowed to reroll. Other than that I can't see some of the others having any failure conditions.

However in a legal sense you've already lost if you go down this avenue, this is a definition of the no interactive-game concept, by defending the roll-failure stuff you are already admitting that rolling and failure is what defines a game.

Personally I would see a better model like Action-Response-Resolution as defining a game. In other words there is some action (in the game world), and you respond in some way, and then the event is resolved. So for instance a dragon breathes on you, you roll a save, and then that number is compared to your stats and the dragon breath to resolve what happened to you. That is interactive. Just rolling a dice and then comparing it to a table to determine success is meaningless in context of the Action-Response mechanism, also just rolling a dice with no other context is also not interaction of any form. "Playing" craps by yourself is decidely *not* playing a game, or interactive.

Two other points, its WotC's lawyers job to strengthen their position to perserve their buisness, no more, no less. What do they care about character generators? They print books. Its your job as the consumer of that material to defend your own rights. (That is above and beyond OGL or d20.)

Second, none of any of this matters nor any other opinion on this board except the "current view" of wotc until this is tested in court. Or if you could somehow convince WotC that they are wrong on this, not likely short of court dates.

 

[dvvega]

So it seems that if you can remove all mechanics from the the software and have the software simply interpret the data files as to how to handle the game, you're set.

However there are a couple of things here that interested me...
(this is not an attempt at accusation etc ... I am after clarification)

1) the random generation of numbers ... that is something computers can have have been able to do for many many decades ... how do you tell the computer to do something it normally does? I'm assuming the point here is to have it interpret random generation in regards to d20 itself, not in general.

2) I think it's RPM that has some *.js files that handle SRD mechanics in "open script". Now if this is compliant with OGL/d20 (whichever is the most stringent) then what's to stop people distributing the source code of their system. Then if you want to change something you do it and voila ... it's user-definable?