Here is yet another preview of 5 1st level spells from the
101 Series Subscription (specifically 101 1st level spells)
Check it out HERE
|
Steve, in both the Rite Review #2 and on the Rite Publishing website, I am unable to locate the Declaration of Product Identity/Open Content statement. I found the OGL very easily in RR #2 but I am either extremely dense and not looking in the correct places or RR#2 is missing the required Product Identity/Open Content declaration? Same with the website. I have found the OGL page, but I can not find any sort of clear indicator of what is and what isn't Open Content on the actual website (which I believe is required by the OGL?)
I know we've had this discussion before, but it ended when you indicated that if I had purchased one of your products I would clearly see the OGL status within that product, however, in the case of the Rite Review #2, I still fail to see the Declaration. Was it just missed for this issue but it clearly appears in all other Rite Publishing products and I just happened to pick the one that it got missed in?
I'm still liking these, but a couple of observations.
Flank Shield seems a little too powerful if you deny the rogue his sneak attack flanking. Perhaps a rogue of X levels higher should still be able to pull it off. (?)
Foul Flesh - perhaps some short term sickened state if the fort save is failed aside from not biting, or would that be too much?
I'm still liking these, but a couple of observations.
Flank Shield seems a little too powerful if you deny the rogue his sneak attack flanking. Perhaps a rogue of X levels higher should still be able to pull it off.
I'm with Urizen. As written, that's easily a 3rd level spell, and I wouldn't blink at it being 4th. I'd recommend allowing rouges with +4 levels above caster be able to bypass. Or make it a 50% change to negate sneak attacks, rather than 100%.
I DO want to say I found the formatting much, much less distracting. You jumped to change that, it is reflects well on you.
Also... the 10/lethal DR. It confused me a bit. Do you mean the spell only protects you against nonlethal damage? If so I agree it's balanced at its level, though I have difficulty seeing anyone ever preparing the spell (and sorcerers are NEVER going to take it). But a word of explanation for the nonstandard DR bypass type might be a good idea.
Overall, interesting, though.
Flank Shield
I agree with the level of the rogue issue as I was considering it already
@Dungeon Girl= it does not negate sneak attacks, it negates your abiltiy to gain a flanking bonus, and they by negates your sneak attack from flanking because there is a barrier between you and your target just as if there was a wall. You can still feint, go first, or do anything that causes them to loose their Dexterity Modifer to AC or become flatfooted. we will see what the patrons have to say though, we propose 111 spells and 10 get cut this could be one of the 10 cut ,
Please remember that 90% of the time all this does is negate a +2 bonus to attack when someone is flanking you, its extremely situational.
Foul Flesh
@Urzien, the sickened state is possible I will propose it too he patrons.
Valorous Resolve
@Dungeon girl: it is a non standard form of Damage Reduction, but it uses the same format as all DR it lists what is required to bypass it which is Lethal damage, I don't understand what is confusing about it other than its non standard, but one line of explanation is easy enought
It is designed for a Wizard specifically an abjuration specialist, and it becomes very useful in a barroom brawl, and even better if you cast it on a creature with Regeneration.
I found the formatting much, much less distracting. You jumped to change that, it is reflects well on you.
Thank you.
@d20pfsrd.com,
I have no real interest or motivation in teaching you how to read our Open Content Deceleration, when from all appearance your simply wanting to copy/paste the content I create, rather than actually supporting our products in any meaningful sense. You constantly asking me for the right to republishing my free content because I use the OGL without ever spending even .99 cents to support our product lines does nothing but offend me.
|
|
I have no real interest or motivation in teaching you how to read our Open Content Deceleration, when from all appearance your simply wanting to copy/paste the content I create, rather than actually supporting our products in any meaningful sense.
I'm not asking for a lesson in reading your Declaration. I just want to know where it is. If nothing is Open Content, that's fine, but per Section 8 of the OGL:
"8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content."
You constantly asking me for the right to republishing my free content because I use the OGL without ever spending even .99 cents to support our product lines does nothing but offend me.
I believe I asked you one time previously which you dismissed, suggesting I should just purchase your product in order to learn if it is open or not. That's like me asking to look under the hood of the car I am considering buying and you holding your hand on the hood and saying "uh uh, not until you pay sir." Well I want to make sure the product is worth my money before I purchase. If that doesn't work for you then you can keep the car. However, you apparently distribute many free cars with the hood unlocked and in every single one I have examined, it appears the engine is missing many pretty important parts. It makes me very glad I didn't pay for anything previously.
So, specifics:
In The Rite Review #1, you do not have an OGL at all, let alone a Declaration of Product Identity. You are required to include a copy of the OGL if you distribute Open Game Content. The lack of an OGL suggests nothing is Open Game Content, even though you do include references to the Pathfinder Compatibility License etc. It appears you or Rite Publishing were sloppy and forgot to include it.
In The Rite Review #2, you at least got your act together enough to include a copy of the OGL but you still do not clearly indicate what is and isn't Open Game Content, which again, is required by the OGL. The lack of any indication can only lead one to assume that nothing is Open Content. If that is the case, then that's fine, but you still are required to indicate what is and isn't Open Content per the OGL, as explained previously.
Lastly, I'd be more than happy to support your products if I felt you supported the OGL, which it doesn't appear that you do. I already do support many other products, such as subscribing to Kobold Quarterly magazine as well as purchasing many Paizo products as well as many others you have no idea about.
I guess your hostile attitude speaks for itself regarding your feelings towards the OGL and others using or reusing Open Content you create. If you don't want others to use your content I suppose you just shouldn't distribute under the OGL.
The first word in the OGL acronym is Open (or so I thought).
|
I guess your hostile attitude speaks for itself regarding your feelings towards the OGL and others using or reusing Open Content you create. If you don't want others to use your content I suppose you just shouldn't distribute under the OGL.
Ok, I've watched/read enough of this crap.
Steve's feelings about the OGL are not the issue, it's your attitude. Your site takes the content of other people's work and puts it in one place. Many people, including me, think it's a lazy and opportunist way of making a site. Yes, it's open content and you can do that. Many times you are a douchebag about it. There are more polite ways of asking for things and pointing out what you think are someone's, or a site's, failings.Quit attacking people. We're all gamers and we are a small niche of society. Be polite. Don't be a douchebag.
So, back off on trying to be the OGL police. You're not it.
Do feel free to offer advice to others to help them comply with the OGL's requirements. People appreciate helpful advice. There are no experts here, people are new using the OGL online. Be part of the community.
Cheers,
Matt
I guess your hostile attitude speaks for itself regarding your feelings towards the OGL and others using or reusing Open Content you create. If you don't want others to use your content I suppose you just shouldn't distribute under the OGL.
And I guess that your own hostile attitude speaks for itself. That d20pfsrd.com is not something I should be invested or interested in.
Many times you are a douchebag about it.
First off lets not call people names, if I made an error in the publsihing of an OGL or it got left out of the layout of Rite Review #1 that needs to be corrented and I thank d20PFRsrd.org for pointing it out.
As to the manner in which he chooses to do so, is part of the reason of my perceived hostility to d20PRSRD.com, I would like to state I am not against what d20PRSRD.com is attempting to do, but GrandOGLWiki had an approach I was much more receptive too, one of those simply being that it was done in private.
That's like me asking to look under the hood of the car I am considering buying and you holding your hand on the hood and saying "uh uh, not until you pay sir.
Your attitude in approaching us has always been one that you not interested in buying anything. You simply want to take the free content, and use it to promote your own website.
This causes me to perceive you as someone who is not interested in supporting Rite Publishing, our authors, our goals, or the open gaming movement but simply in self-promotion.
This has caused me to never perceive d20pfsrd.org as a customer, potential customer, peer, or concerned citizen who is simply interested in helping me corret a percieved error in my presentation of the OGL that you would like to see me correct because of that concern.
I am not hostile to the OGL or the open gaming movement and have made good use of open gaming content with products such as Wyrd of Questhaven, for which I privately contacted the author and the publlsiher making sure they wanted no requested changes or if they had an issue before the product went on sale. We have also posted exclusive open gaming conent to the GrandOGLwiki, rather than posting it on our wewbiste. We have also supported the Pathfinder Excel character sheet project with free copies of our products because his approach was respectful and and professional.
I am however hostile to d20PFSRD.com's approach, his perceived intentions, and modus operandi.
Steve Russell
Rite Publishing
|
|
Many times you are a douchebag about it.First off lets not call people names, if I made an error in the publsihing of an OGL or it got left out of the layout of Rite Review #1 that needs to be corrented and I thank d20PFRsrd.org for pointing it out.
Ok, let me jump in first and say thanks Steve for asking for a bit of calm. I appreciate the civility and respect it shows and I'll be sure to do the same for you.
As for correcting Rite Review (or any other products), all I was asking for was clarification on what is and isn't Open Content in each book since I couldn't find a declaration statement in either. I just now tried to locate my previous query to you... I believe there was only one. I seem to recall asking, politely, what was Open Content, since I couldn't tell by the lack of declaration. I may of course be mistaken, but I thought I was polite and respectful. The immediate response I got was what I perceive to be hostility.
As to the manner in which he chooses to do so, is part of the reason of my perceived hostility to d20PRSRD.com, I would like to state I am not against what d20PRSRD.com is attempting to do, but GrandOGLWiki had an approach I was much more receptive too, one of those simply being that it was done in private.
To be honest, it didn't occur to me and I didn't see the harm in simply asking on the forum.
Your attitude in approaching us has always been one that you not interested in buying anything. You simply want to take the free content, and use it to promote your own website.
I don't know where you are getting "always" from since, as I said before, I think I only contacted you one time prior to today and even in that first contact I received a hostile response.
This causes me to perceive you as someone who is not interested in supporting Rite Publishing, our authors, our goals, or the open gaming movement but simply in self-promotion.
To be honest, I truly don't know anything about your authors or your goals. I'd like to, but I don't. I really probably would have been more likely to purchase product had I not been received so negatively. Whether you know it or not there are other 3rd Party Publishers we actively work with to promote their products. We have a large ad up on the main page for Frog God Games right now because we *really* like what they do and their attitude towards the OGL is very clear to us. They have all of the right documentation and have treated us well. For that matter, one of the primary people involved with Slumbering Tsar is one of the largest contributors to d20pfsrd.com. Charles Wright has single-handedly converted dozens and dozens of monsters from Necromancer Games Tome of Horrors.
In fact, if you ask Frog God Games what they think of d20pfsrd.com you'll find this on their site right now:
"d20 Pathfinder SRD (pathfinder conversions and SRD, a valuable fan supplied resource, and what Greg and Chuck use at home!)"
That's Chuck, as in Chuck Wright. If you look back in several prominent Necromancer Games books you'll see his name.
That's Greg, as in Greg A. Vaughan, whom I think needs no introduction.
If you ask Wolfgang Baur of Kobold Quarterly:
"Go ahead and add the tracking sheets to the Open Lab. And thanks for your work on the d20PFSRD site."
and...
"We also use the d20pfsrd.com for OGL adventures for Pathfinder designs"
If you ask Marc Radle, a frequent contributor to Kobold Quarterly:
"I just got a chance to dig around the d20PFSRD ... wow! What a great resource!"
If you ask Mark Chance, of Spes Magna Games, you'll find that not only is he not opposed to the site, he actively uses it to try to promote his own products. He maintains a "Lab" page on the site and periodically showcases his creations. We actively promote and support his game by trying to direct people to his products.
If you ask Dale McCoy of Jon Brazer Enterprises, you'll find that not only is he not opposed to the site, he too actively uses it to try to promote his own products. He himself posted a bunch of feats from one of his books and we provide links back to his product page and try to promote and speak positively about his products.
If you ask Michael Brewer of Madbrew Labs you'll find the same thing. Someone who has actively added their own personal content to the site, freely, in order to support the Open Gaming Movement.
If you ask Richard Hunt, 2010 RPG Superstar Top 8 finalist what he thinks, you'll find that he too regularly adds his own content to the site in order to support both the site, AND the Open Gaming Movement.
If you ask the 8000+ visitors to the site everyday, I think you might find that they appreciate the convenience we provide. We do much more than copy and paste the work of others and if that's all you think we do then you clearly have not ever visited the site, which is too bad. I think you'd be pleased to see how actively we support and promote the open gaming concepts and goals. We do a lot and its too bad you don't know all of what we provide.
This has caused me to never perceive d20pfsrd.com as a customer, potential customer, peer, or concerned citizen who is simply interested in helping me correct a perceived error in my presentation of the OGL that you would like to see me correct because of that concern.
But you see, we are more than me. We are 120+ active contributors to the site today. We add new collaborators every day. These are your customers and fans and its not just me. All of these people actively view your and other 3pp products and I'd like to foster a positive relationship between us, not a hostile one.
I am not hostile to the OGL or the open gaming movement and have made good use of open gaming content with products such as Wyrd of Questhaven, for which I privately contacted the author and the publlsiher making sure they wanted no requested changes or if they had an issue before the product went on sale. We have also posted exclusive open gaming conent to the GrandOGLwiki, rather than posting it on our wewbiste. We have also supported the Pathfinder Excel character sheet project with free copies of our products because his approach was respectful and and professional.
So this would have all been better had I just emailed you? To be honest, I find that suspect since you have already indicated your negative feelings toward d20pfsrd.com. It is good though to hear that you have posted content on GrandOGLWiki. That's a great site for Open Content and I have gotten a lot of great material from there. I'll have to look to see what you contributed. I wasn't aware of anything, though that's more due to my ignorance and infrequency in visiting that site.
I am however hostile to d20PFSRD.com's approach, his perceived intentions, and modus operandi.
That's too bad. I've already established positive working relationships with several other 3PP and would have loved to have done the same with you. I would have loved to have helped promote your content on our site, freely. That doesn't appear possible though.
If you ever change your mind, or decide you'd like free promotion on the site though, just let me know. We'd love to help support your products, as well as the open gaming movement, as I think we have more than established.
|
I guess your hostile attitude speaks for itself regarding your feelings towards the OGL and others using or reusing Open Content you create. If you don't want others to use your content I suppose you just shouldn't distribute under the OGL.Ok, I've watched/read enough of this crap.
Steve's feelings about the OGL are not the issue, it's your attitude. Your site takes the content of other people's work and puts it in one place. Many people, including me, think it's a lazy and opportunist way of making a site. Yes, it's open content and you can do that. Many times you are a douchebag about it. There are more polite ways of asking for things and pointing out what you think are someone's, or a site's, failings.
Quit attacking people. We're all gamers and we are a small niche of society. Be polite. Don't be a douchebag.
THIS is why I stopped contributing and using D20pfsrd
This isn't the first thread where you've been pushy and downright obnoxious about these issues and I just don't want to have anything to do with it. This whole attitude is not helping the OGL, it's making people more likely to choose to just release completely CLOSED content.
So I've stopped helping D20pfsrd, and generally stopped using it and I certainly have stopped recommending it.
|
|
I'll say once again that I feel I've been nothing but polite and respectful to others. I have not resorted to name calling or insulting anyone and only sought to determine what was and wasn't open content in a product released under the OGL. I find it amazing that some view me as the villain as all I originally did was ask "what is open?" and received a very terse and hostile response. I don't really have anything else to say on the matter. If you (or others) have a negative opinion of me or the site you are certainly free not to use it. We provide it free of charge to anyone and everyone and a lot of people seem to appreciate our efforts. You don't, and that's fine. I don't appreciate the hostility, but it is what it is I guess.
I had a feeling asking for this was going to tick people off. It just seems unfair that asking for something that is required but missing is viewed by some as a bad thing. Oh well. I guess I'll just keep on keepin' on, and hope there are people out there who appreciate the effort I and all of the other collaborators put in in order to make others games smoother and easier. I guess its a good sign that we get 4-5 more collaborators signing on every week. That seems reassuring at least.
+1
And that's why I need a lawyer before even hoping to get into publishing...yikes!