Would this be as inappropriate as I think?

[trancejeremy]

It might be tacky, but OTOH, it might be the only way to go.

When my review of the old Spycraft was up on RPG.net, in which I had mentioned 3rd party Spycraft support, I heard from a few small-ish publishers that they had tried, but AEG was not particularly interested in working with them. Which is somewhat understandable from AEG's point of view (sort of, all the companies I heard from were PDF, so not really competing with AEG's products, except in a general sense), but sucks from the consumer/fans.


Also, how different is it than doing stuff for d20 Future? AFAIK, there is no license that lets companies use "d20 Future" like they can d20 Modern or the D&D PHB in advertising. Most companies just sort of dodge around it (like what's implied here). I don't see anyone is losing by it. The opposite. The only real difference is that WOTC is huge, and AEG is not so huge (but not exactly small, at least for an RPG company)

 

[scourger]

Phil, I think ____Craft titles are fine. There are so many such titles that I don't think you'll be infringing on SpyCraft (2.0 or otherwise). The trade dress is more important than the words for product recognition. I still get confused when I see Hunter books because I often think they are Deadlands products. Since you mainly publish pdfs, it shouldn't be as much of an issue if your electronic trade dress is similar to that of SpyCraft since the products won't be on shelves for comparison and confusion.

The other about being for use with the 2.0 espionage rules is more problematic. I wouldn't do it if I were you without either permission or lack of concern. Since you are concerned, check with them first. I might like to see some adventures for SpyCraft, but it has to be done right to get my attention.

 

[philreed]

Also, how different is it than doing stuff for d20 Future? AFAIK, there is no license that lets companies use "d20 Future" like they can d20 Modern or the D&D PHB in advertising. Most companies just sort of dodge around it (like what's implied here). I don't see anyone is losing by it. The opposite. The only real difference is that WOTC is huge, and AEG is not so huge (but not exactly small, at least for an RPG company)

A big difference is that WotC added future to the SRD. That alone is a very strong implication that WotC _wants_ people to use the material.

 

[Kaos]

If someone wrote a book called SpaceCraft, I'd think it was a book about starships...

Exactly. And in a similar vein, Magecraft would imply it was more about variant magic systems than a fantasy tie-in to spycraft.

I can't speak about the legality, but as a customer I'd feel the titles were quite deceptive - albeit understandably so, rather than dishonestly so. If that makes any sense.

 

[PJ-Mason]

Of course, this kind of problem just adds to the ether that seperates so many writers/publishers from using other's non-WOTC OGC. Some are happy to have others use it, some would rather they didn't, some are not clear about it, etc. If you create a game engine that you want others to use in their game material, then its not going to help if they are touchy about things like "powered by Spycraft" type of advertising. Please note, i'm not saying that about AEG, they are just the focus of this thread so i am just using them as an example.

So when someone is creating material and thinks about using someone else's OGC, all these different potholes and uncertainties usually causes them to say "Heck with it, i'll just create my own rules for what i am doing". So you don't get a lot of OGC being used. Or they just stick with core srd material and don't experiement an awful lot like you would if one person used some OGC and improved it, then another guy takes that result and evolves it, etc. A lot of publishers talk a good game about community and such, but it doesn't seem to play out an awful lot in actuality. At least not yet.

 

[Voadam]

From a thread discussing Spycraft 2.0 and how to create supplements for its rules without using the Spycraft trademark:



The second suggestion "For use with the 2nd edition of the ogl spy genre roleplaying game." strikes me as questionable but not crossing any lines. It's very similar to the "For use with the world's greatest fantasy RPG" I've seen used.

It's the first -- the creation of SpaceCraft, MageCraft, and _____Craft titles -- suggestion that triggers my "this isn't right" button. Technically, from a legal view, it's just fine and a very good idea. But something about it just makes me feel that it's slightly dishonest and inappropriate.

What do others think?

Without using the Spycraft trademark how appropriate would it be to title an independent expansion to the OGL rules to fantasy calling it MageCraft?

Well you are trying to say it is Spycraft for fantasy without using the word Spycraft. So your goal is to tell people what it is. And part of that is to ID with the trademark product. Do you think that goal is inappropriate? If you didn't inform customers about what the product you were selling them is (an adaptation of one system to a different genre) do you think that would be appropriate?

Even if you came up with a non similar name (Shadowchasers: Alternate Fantasy OGL Rules!) would it be more appropriate for your product to misrepresent (from one point of view) what it is (an adaptation of an existing system rather than an original one with new mechanics)?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Does anybody remember the company that had a cover format very similar to the Core Rulebooks? In addition, they were even being marketed as 'the other core rulebooks' or something similar. I don't want to name names because it isn't important.

Fantasy Flight Games, Legends and Lairs line - it was the use of 'Core' on the covers that got them a talking to - they were not required to destroy any product, or to recall it from the stands. Nor were they the only ones spoken to - I believe that Sword and Sorcery also got lectured. (But again, they did not need to recall product.)

The Auld Grump

 

[BSF]

Shh! I said it wasn't important.

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

Boy, Phil, you don't make it an easy one!
I've been thinking about the same issue, though in regards to True20. There is so much cool stuff there, and I want to jump in and start converting stuff and producing new material, but with GR holding off on the license for True20 logo and official compatibility I wonder, should I wait or release something "compatible with the game of romantic fantasy" or "compatible with games that truly use one d20" or something to that effect.

I know it would be legal, and we have certainly seen enough people using similar tactics, but my gut instinct is to not do it, at least not without clearing it with GR first. It's annoying in a way, the material IS OGC after all, but then this is THEIR work, and while I want to reap some benefit out of it, I certainly would not want to do it at the expense of GR's trademark (which they have already made very clear they wish to protect and shepherd to success). As a customer, I just want support material for my favorite game, but not at any cost.

Would support material for SpyCraft be inappropiate? No, but it wouldn't be nice either, especially if no attempt to contact AEG has been made. At least with Spycraft there is an official 3rd-party license you can get. Me, I just gotta keep waiting and either win the True20 setting contest, be good enough that, while maybe not winning, I get royalty-free permission, or bite the bullet and negotiate a paid license. We'll see.

 

[mythusmage]

My recommendations:

If the books tie into Spycraft in some manner be sure to obtain permission from AEG, and include the "powered by Spycraft notice and logo or whatever it is AEG wants you to use. If they don't, don't worry about it. No sense in making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Where Witchcraft is concerned you would have trouble since it is a trademark of Eden. As a title, no problem. The question then becomes, would Eden have problems with your using Witchcraft as the title for a sourcebook on witches? Or would it be better to use Wiccecraft as a title? (You have three guesses as to how 'wicce' is pronounced, and the first two don't count. )

First, find a way to reconcile a disagreement before it becomes a problem.