Suggestion

[CB Droege]

I couldn't find a place specifically for suggestions for additions to the program, but when I found this (https://www.hailscape.com/). The first thing I thought was: If FGII had this sort of functionality built into it, it would dramatically improve the variety and verisimilitude of my NPCs.

I've been using this site for a few sessions, and I love it. The only complaint I have is that I have to copy all the info manually, which means it's not very handy 'on the fly'. if it was built into FG, my players would never again have to wait for me to roll an NPC.

https://www.hailscape.com/

[Spyke]

Sounds like an ideal candidate for one of the new extensions. Any D&D 3.5 coders want to take up the challenge? ;)

Spyke

[Sigurd]

It might work as an independent project but I don't think it could be tied to smiteworks because of the license limitations. Random generation of stats removes the role for the core books.


Sigurd

Brilliant site though.

[Spyke]

Does that apply to d20 as well? I've never understood this OGL business...

[Oberoten]

Does that apply to d20 as well? I've never understood this OGL business...

Yeah, in very brief... OGL doesn't want you to automate things in the games.

[Ged]

Actually it's the d20 license, about to be terminated, that prohibits interactive games etc.

Quoted from the Software FAQ (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i) for d20/OGL: "In addition to following all the rules of the OGL for any Open Content you use, the d20 System Guide doesn't let you describe the process for creating a character, describe the process for applying experience to a character, and cannot be an interactive game." The criteria for an interactive game have been described elsewhere.

[unerwünscht]

Are you sure the D20 license is about to be terminated? and do you have a link to that information? That's pretty big news, but this is the first I have heard about. If it's accurate that could be a very good thing for the community at large.

[Ged]

Hmm... I cannot find an official statement of the revokation of the license, only Scott Rouse talking about it in different places, e.g. https://www.icv2.com/articles/news/12449.html and https://www.enworld.org/forum/4171829-post.html . Also, I don't quite know what to think of the home page (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20) for the license not having the d20 license text anymore. If that is a proper way of telling licensees of termination of a license ...

If somebody can locate the official statement, please post the url here.

[unerwünscht]

Oh ouch... That's the bad kind of termination actually.
However with the correct spin on it, could still become a good thing. I will go over the entirety of the OGL again, and see what it has to say about everything. I am assuming you are planning on staying with the 3.5 system as the core component of fantasy grounds, and not updating it to the more draconian 4th ED.

On the bright side loss of the D20 logo might not be as bad as it seems at first. The fantasy grounds name itself is growing, and may in the end hold more weight than the D20 name in the virtual table industry.

In case you were not aware your site is worth an estimated $8,154
battlegrounds comes in at $4,818
Openrpg is only worth $4,328
and Epic Table is at $1,460

So in short you are on your way to being the king of tabletop emulators.

[Griogre]

My understanding is the current 3.5 d20 license is going away. It was ideal for FG really, but in general was very seldom used. It is also, by far the most restrictive license when compared to the OGL.

WotC's plan appears to be to resurrect the d20 for 4th Edition and make it a more meaningful license. One presumes they will cancel or void the old license eventually - but judging from the modern horror that is the GSL with it's moving release date and revision after revision because 3rd parties won't use it (and the firing of Lurking Lidda) - I wouldn't expect any formal notice until they actually have the 4th Ed one ready which is likely to be months away.

Like Ged, I have seen no formal notice anywhere just the Scott and Leane's (hope I spelled her name right) comments. You might see something after that 6 month window occurs where guys who shifted over to the GSL can't sell 3.5 stuff in the lines that shifted.

[unerwünscht]

6. Effects of Termination
Upon termination, You shall immediately stop all use of the Licensed Articles and will destroy any inventory or marketing material in Your possession bearing the d20 System trademark logos. You will remove any use of the d20 System trademark logos from your advertising, web site, letterhead, or any other use. You must instruct any company or individual that You are or become aware of who is in possession of any materials distributed by You bearing the d20 System trademark logos to destroy those materials. You will solely bear any costs related to carrying out this term of the License.

This is the tricky part. But doesn't really effect Fantasy Grounds all that much. The D20 logo will have to be removed, but as I stated before that really isn't that big of a loss. Beyond that, I do not believe that any other trademark is used, and everything else pretty much falls under the OGL, which does not include a termination clause. The base ruleset might have to be renamed something other than 'd20' such as 'base rules' or simply 'default' but that should cover them.

[Spyke]

"You must instruct any company or individual that You are or become aware of who is in possession of any materials distributed by You bearing the d20 System trademark logos to destroy those materials."

My poor ape brain can't read this in any way other than a ruling that any individual who has ever bought a d20 product is about to get instructions from the distributor to destroy that product.

[Sigurd]

Except that purchasers never sign the d20 agreement. Their stuff is their own, at least for now...

I think removing old product is cheezy because it really limits the choice for the purchasers.

Sigurd

[Tenian]

A future of gaming books shipped in sealed plastic bags that read:

"By opening this product you agree to the following terms and conditions:"

[unerwünscht]

"You must instruct any company or individual that You are or become aware of who is in possession of any materials distributed by You bearing the d20 System trademark logos to destroy those materials."

My poor ape brain can't read this in any way other than a ruling that any individual who has ever bought a d20 product is about to get instructions from the distributor to destroy that product.

I have no idea what WotC intent was with that portion of the clause, however legally under the doctrine of first sale, they have no right to demand that the end user destroy anything. The trickle down from that can go as far as the distribution company.

So in example lets say I own a publishing company, that makes a D20 product, and you own a distribution company that sells that product to retail chains. I would have to destroy any copies that I had remaining, and you would have to destroy any copies that you had remaining, but all other copies that you had already sold would be exempt from that clause.

[Spyke]

But by my reading the distributor still seems obliged to instruct the purchasers to destroy their products, even though the purchaser is under no obligation to actually do so.

[Ged]

My use of word "termination" in the earlier post and the D20 System Trademark License's use of "termination" seem (to me) to be in conflict. While I really meant revoking, "termination" in the License refers to termination for breach, i.e. in such a case where the licensee fails to comply with the terms of the license. However, we will probably in any case, if the d20 System Trademark License gets revoked, instruct users to delete the d20.pak because a ruleset with a different name will have to be distributed, and the d20 ruleset will have no additional value over it. (For those of you whom "acceptfrom" says anything, we have it in mind ;))

[unerwünscht]

Yea, according to the contract I was reading (version 6) the end result is the same. Article 6 covers the required actions for a termination of the D20 license drawn from and open description of the term termination in Article 5 where the condition of termination is loosely discussed.

(Truly not meant to be an antagonizing post, legal jargon just always comes out that way.)

[Callum]

However, we will probably in any case, if the d20 System Trademark License gets revoked, instruct users to delete the d20.pak because a ruleset with a different name will have to be distributed, and the d20 ruleset will have no additional value over it.
Possibly - but, on the other hand, a file called d20.pak isn't the same as a d20 System trademark logo.

[Ged]

no it isn't and the mentioned instruction will be more a technical convenience than anything else (there's still the d20 trademark logo in the ruleset license portion, which needs to be removed) and if the instruction makes us follow the letter of the agreement literally it is even better.