Updates - 01 December 2005

[Amaril]

The Star Wars Roleplaying Game is mentioned in the first line of the Wounds & Vitality article/section.

I think the mentioning of where Wound and Vitality points were first introduced is not really a violation of the OGL. If I were to use mechanics of the Star Wars RPG as examples, then I would be in violation. But to mention the origins of a particular game mechanic shouldn't be a problem.

A clearer violation would be in the Sanity rules:

Metagame Analysis: Sanity

Because it affects the way that characters interact with the creatures and objects that they encounter on their adventures in many different and profound ways, this variant, perhaps more than any other in Unearthed Arcana, can alter the entire feel of a campaign. If you adopt this variant in your campaign, the largest change will most likely be one of tone (this applies to an even greater extent if you adopt the entire Cthulhu Mythos that the variant is based on).

As in the Call of Cthulhu Roleplaying Game, characters feel more vulnerable, for no matter how powerful they become, the dark gods are always greater. Religion is not only a source of comfort or succor, but also a dangerous enemy. (In those games that use the Cthulhu Mythos, religion seldom provides any succor at all.) Characters are suspicious, even paranoid, for a seemingly innocent commoner could secretly serve a cult. And yet, with such dark challenges come the opportunities for greater heroism.

[maikeru]

Not to mention the reference to the call of cthulhu rpg as well

[Amaril]

Not to mention the reference to the call of cthulhu rpg as well

I think the CoC reference is fine. It's only mentioning an example RPG game. The problem with Unearthed Arcana is that it's referencing the book in the context of this content being in the book itself.

[Guest]

The Star Wars Roleplaying Game is mentioned in the first line of the Wounds & Vitality article/section.

I think the mentioning of where Wound and Vitality points were first introduced is not really a violation of the OGL. If I were to use mechanics of the Star Wars RPG as examples, then I would be in violation. But to mention the origins of a particular game mechanic shouldn't be a problem.

It could be considered an indication of compatibility. Since it doesn't really contribute anything to the actual wounds & vitality system, it probably ought to be pulled.

I'm just letting the Man In Charge know, since it's being used as a point against massive OGC collections.

[DeMyztikX]

I would agree to remove it, Lucas and Wizards are two people not to mess with. If it's kept it really needs all the TM (c) mumbo-jumbo. I don't think it's needed and my non-proffessional opinion would be not to risk it. Of course, if he's got lawyers, they'll advise better. Of course this changes if it's listed as OGC in the SW:RCR.
I don't think the Unearthed Arcana referance is a problem BECAUSE it is (IIRC) OGC from that book. He's citing the original source of the material. If this is incorrect I might be inclined to agree.


As for where to go from here, Andy Collins (playtester of 3.0 and co-writer of SW:RCR) has some OGC that could be reposted on this site.

[Guest]

I think the mentioning of where Wound and Vitality points were first introduced is not really a violation of the OGL.

You think wrong. The PI of UA specifically states that trademarks are PI.

The OGL states that you agree not to use PI without permission.


Other violations include the mention of Sigil and other proper names (such as the prestige class and feat tests).

[DeMyztikX]

I suppose then it wouldn't be ok to qoute the source, which is weird because under all normal circumstances the opposite is true, otherwise it's illegal.
Of course, I can't give legal advice, so it really doesn't matter. Liability and all.

[Guest]

you should write up the OGC in Giants in the Playground next. http://www.giantitp.com
you could also put up the d20 modern SRD

[jwolfe]

Variant Campaign Rules Errata

Contacts
--The header "Npcs And Contacts" should be "NPCs And Contacts". This occurs on the Variant Campaign Rules Index page, also.

Reputation
No errata noted

Honor
Metagame Analysis: Honor And Alignment
--3rd paragraph, last sentence: "...pro vided those people...." should be "...provided those people...." (remove extraneous space). This error has been noted already in this thread.
--4th paragraph, last sentence: "...how to ma nipulate others...." should be "...how to manipulate others...." (remove extraneous space).
Benefits of Honor
--4th paragraph: "If you’re also using the reputation rules (see the previous section of this chapter), ..." The parenthetical comment should be removed and "reputation" made a link.
Thieves' Code
--Last bullet point: "Don’t kill anyone in the commission of a job, except in selfdefense. It attracts too much attention." It should be "self defense" instead of "selfdefense". This error has been noted already in this thread.

Taint
No errata noted

Test-Based Prerequisites
No errata noted

Sanity
Forbidden Knowledge
--2nd paragraph: The 1st sentence says "99 minus the modifier", and the 2nd sentence says "99 minus ... ranks". This could be confusing, even though in this case the modifier appears to always equal the ranks by definition. In order to be consistent with the rest of the section, "modifier" in the 1st sentence should be changed to "ranks".
Table: Sanity Loss From Creatures
--On the line "Animal, humanoid": the first four entries should have the last "1" superscripted.
Severe Shocks
--On the unlabeled table: The entry "Seeing a corpse rise from its grave" should be 1/1d10 instead of 1/d10 to be consistent with the rest of the table.
Private Care
--2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: "...(a charac ter cannot benefit from both...)." should be "...(a character cannot benefit from both...)." (remove extraneous space).
Personality Disorders
--2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: "In game terms, the character takes a -4 penalty on all Charismabased checks." should be "...Charisma-based...." (add a hyphen).
A Psychiatric Glossary
--Delusion entry, 1st sentence: "A firmly fixed false belief, one not based in real ity." should be "...not based in reality." (remove extraneous space).

[Guest]

Just to chime in,

Thebeginning of the book states that game names and other trademarks are PI and not OGC.

Thus all references to Star Wars, Call of Chuthulu, Manual of the planes (including creatures and templates from), Monster Manual II, et. all should be removed.

Just in Case

[Millennium]

Using the title of a game to cite your source is not going to count as a violation of the OGL. Indeed, by some interpretations of copyright law, he may in fact be required to use the titles in this way, much in the same way that one must cite sources in academic papers.

[Matjannan]

Using the title of a game to cite your source is not going to count as a violation of the OGL. Indeed, by some interpretations of copyright law, he may in fact be required to use the titles in this way, much in the same way that one must cite sources in academic papers.

It may actually count as a violation since using the name within the text and description implies affiliation with the product name and company. I'm betting that if you asked Wizards what their ideal OGC site would look like, it would be a simple bulleted list in outline form. No descriptive text. No prose. And definitely no using proper names of any kind.

Please note that I am not actually advocating moving to such a system.

[Guest]

Using the title of a game to cite your source is not going to count as a violation of the OGL. Indeed, by some interpretations of copyright law, he may in fact be required to use the titles in this way, much in the same way that one must cite sources in academic papers.

It may actually count as a violation since using the name within the text and description implies affiliation with the product name and company. I'm betting that if you asked Wizards what their ideal OGC site would look like, it would be a simple bulleted list in outline form. No descriptive text. No prose. And definitely no using proper names of any kind.

Please note that I am not actually advocating moving to such a system.

Matjannan is right - mentioning Unearthed Arcana, Sigil, Manual of the Planes, etc. violates the OGL. This is particularily important since Wizards will only consider releasing more OGC if they think the present OGC is being used correctly. It's not.

P.S. There's some OGC in the Dragon d20 Special which I may get around to typing up.

[DeMyztikX]

Using the title of a game to cite your source is not going to count as a violation of the OGL. Indeed, by some interpretations of copyright law, he may in fact be required to use the titles in this way, much in the same way that one must cite sources in academic papers.

I thought the same as well, however, the systems are being cited in the copyright section and apparently from what everyone is saying, WotC doesn't like using it in the text.