|
Author
|
Comment
|
fumblingclown
Ebon Hand Cultist
(1/24/04 11:37 am)
Reply
|
Re: Three cheers for Zans!
Just wanted to chime in my thanks to everyone that's been working on the conversion.
I've just started a 3.5 campaign and this is going to be a *great* help!
|
Dexter25ca
Ebon Hand Cultist
(2/11/04 8:22 am)
Reply
|
Not Working - link to [3.5] Conversion & Errata Document
Hi there,
As of today, seems like the link to your conversion document is not working. Any problem with your server?
Dex
|
fjeTheNarrator
Ebon Hand Cultist
(2/11/04 9:46 am)
Reply
|
Re: Not Working - link to [3.5] Conversion & Errata Docu
Yea, looks like Zans' whole site isn't working, anymore.
I noticed it today as I was putting stuff together for this weekend's game and started freaking out.
ZansforCans site is my RttToEE LIFELINE. It's down and then these boards were down last night and this morning. I was begining to get worried that I'd be out in the cold running this thing on my own.
--fje
|
ZansForCans 
Bloodied Knife Cultist
(2/11/04 9:46 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Not Working - link to [3.5] Conversion & Errata Docu
Hrmm... sorry, didn't notice the outage! Is it working OK now for everyone? I can reach the site fine (and it's not local for me).
Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo |
fjeTheNarrator
Ebon Hand Cultist
(2/11/04 10:09 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Not Working - link to [3.5] Conversion & Errata Docu
Working fine for me here.
Thanks!
--fje
|
Dexter25ca
(2/12/04 5:07 am)
Reply
|
Working Now, Thx!
It works fine now, thank you for the quick support!
|
Thrommel
Runechild (mod)
Council of Magisters
(2/12/04 7:11 am)
Reply
|
Re: Working Now, Thx!
Btw, Zans, check your PM inbox.
-Thrommel, who notes that's not as foreboding as it sounds.
~Council of Magisters~
~ Arcana Unearthed ~ |
ZansForCans
Bloodied Knife Cultist
(2/12/04 12:14 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Working Now, Thx!
Checked. My Inbox never lights up for new messages when visiting the board anymore these days... annoying!
Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo |
 Siobharek 
(2/12/04 11:50 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
|
Re: Working Now, Thx!
You can set your inbox to send you an e-mail to the address you gave when creating your account every time you've got a new message. Works great.
Siobharek
...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. |
ZansForCans
Bloodied Knife Cultist
(2/20/04 9:11 pm)
Reply
|
Doc update & being 'official'
Ooof... sorry I've been so awol lately. I have a few other side projects that have captured my attention recently since my campaign has been on hold for a while as we try to wrap up CotSQ before the DM leaves town.
I am planning to update the document with the few comments that have trickled in, and I've found a few more things to tweak myself, particularly on Eeridik since I used him to do some heavy testing on new templates for lycanthropes in PCGen recently. They are very tough to keep straight!
I also received this recently from our local anti-garlic advocate:
Quote:
According to some correspondence I received, here's what you need to do in order to get official with the RttToEE conversion document:
* You may only list the necessary changes, not reproduce anything else from the adventure.
* You must indentify Wizards of the Coast, Inc., as the holder of all trademarks and copyrights.
* You must specify that the conversion was done with permission from WotC.
* All game material has to be released under the OGL and d20 license and be compliant with those licenses.
You need to accomplish all of these things in order to legally distribute this.
If you do comply, however, we should be able to have Monte put together an intro for you.
If you have questions, you should contact Andy Smith andrew.smith@wizards.com
Seems like a lot of work, but I think you're mostly there to be honest.
Let me know when you've got the new version ready and I'll see if we can't get something from Monte.
Comments welcome.
The FAQ might have to be cut out, and the last bit about OGL/d20 makes me wonder what we could 'officially' say about kuo-toa's and mind flayers. I don't quite understand how a WotC product can be fully converted using just the SRD, but maybe we just need to have a bit more discussion with Andy.
I'm not the best person to push for compliance since I have been known to have the occasional contrary opinion on the need for it. I can likely still do changes on the conversion doc if there are some clearly defined goals. I would rather devote what little time I get these days to making game-related changes, but if someone wants to review what we have in this new context and start thinking about what else we might need to do, go for it and I'll try to follow suit.
Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo |
Cordo Crowfoot
Deathmantle Cultist
(2/20/04 10:22 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Doc update & being 'official'
I'm not grokking something here... Why exactly do we need to get the WotC imprimatur? Is that a prereq for getting a blurb from Monte?
Edit: Ok after reading Thrommel's email a bit more closely I see that is exactly the case now. Also that we may be illegally distributing info on the module otherwise.
Edited by: Cordo Crowfoot at: 2/21/04 2:13 pm
|
Siobharek
(2/20/04 11:42 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
|
Re: Doc update & being 'official'
IANM, but if I were him I wouldn't lend my name to anything that wasn't 110% above-board.
On the other hand, I'm sure that Andy will help us. He's been around these boards for a while.
Siobharek
...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. |
Infiniti2000
Brother of Venom
(2/21/04 7:53 am)
Reply
ezSupporter
|
Re: Doc update & being 'official'
I've never heard of Andy Smith. Andy Collins (The Andy), yes. I'd love to get the whole thing above board but that will be a lot of work (for Zans, I guess) having to strip out all of the stat blocks, and just leaving the comments and the lime-colored changes. It will also therefore create a lot more work for new DMs, making them edit their own paper copies or whatever. I understand WotC's position, however.
To me the first bullet is the toughest. The second and third are no problem to me. The fourth seems confusing, but I think it's just saying that we must use the OGL and d20 licenses (fairly simple) for any game material (not necessarily changes). That means, we probably can't include BoVD suggestions, etc., but I don't think there's a huge limitation there.
In the end, there's a lot of work for someone(s) to edit out all the unchanged material. I say we find one or more volunteers to tackle the document and revise it. I don't think there are any lawyers here, but I'm sure Andy will help us by reviewing the first draft of the doc and pointing out things that need to be changed, so I wouldn't worry about the legalities too much. Once Andy approves it, we can attach Monte's intro and 'stamp' it. I don't think we need to remove the errata or the FAQ, though. Another thing is that if we make it fully legal we can put our real names on the doc if anyone wants. Not that it's hard to find your real name...
|
Cordo Crowfoot
Deathmantle Cultist
(2/21/04 2:04 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Doc update & being 'official'
As a first step why doesn't someone send it to Andy and ask:
1) What would we have to delete, and
2) Can we retroactively say we had permission
Edited by: Cordo Crowfoot at: 2/21/04 2:14 pm
|
ZansForCans
Bloodied Knife Cultist
(2/21/04 8:13 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Doc update & being 'official'
CC: Yes, the original premise that was tossed out here long ago was to get Monte to acknowledge it and have a short intro. Thrommel did some inquiry for us and sent the summary reply to me. He has said as much that it would have to be OK'ed by WotC before Monte could/would do anything.
I2K: Andy Smith was (still is?) an intern at WotC in their publishing dept/arm/etc. He deals with the SRD and OGL compliance and has been one of the primary contacts for PCGen, for example.
As for changes, I didn't interpret that first statement as literally as really typesetting only the changes we found we needed. Rather, I expected that it just means that we should not be duplicating information that is not needed for the conversion. Providing context for changes seems like an integral part of making them in the first place.
For stat blocks, I sure hope they remain intact as we have them. A lot of work for us and future DM's is an understatement! I really wouldn't find the document acceptable in that form personally. I doubt it will be that severe, but if so, I definitely will step away.
The license issue is strange to me as well for a few reasons. Normally, one can't include IP material at all in OCG/d20 documents. That would mean not only stripping out some of the monsters and NPCs that are based on the monsters, but also all the names of people, towns, etc. Again, I doubt this is what is meant by this point and maybe what I need to do is compose an e-mail to Andy soon to find out what parts of the license need to be strictly followed (re: CC's last suggestion). They ultimately would like us to say it's done with permission of WotC, so that may give us license outside of the normal restrictions given that we are doing a conversion of a completely non-d20/OGL product of theirs.
As for the errata and/or FAQ, I can see the errata not being a problem in the context of the conversion, but the FAQ may fall under #1 somewhat.
What is somewhat unclear is whether this is all just within the context of getting some words from Monte in the document. Is it worth the extra effort to go 'official' if being unofficial is not really a problem?
Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo |
Witchking of Angmaar
Crimson Coil Cultist
(2/22/04 12:51 am)
Reply
|
Re: Doc update & being 'official'
Andy Collins, the game designer, uses the screen name: Andy Collins.
Andy Smith, the d20 liscensing guy, uses the screen name: TheAndy tm.
Witchking of Angmaar |
Admiral Xzar
Tolling Bell Cultist
(2/22/04 11:55 am)
Reply
|
Re: Doc update & being 'official'
hello to all folks,
i`ve the same opinion as zans referring to the statblocks, because if we had to cut everything out which isn`t a change, many dm´s are going to have a hard job changing their appendix. And if they try it without printing new stablocks, they will have a) a "clearly arranged" appendix (with lots of notes and so on, you understand) or b) to look at printed notes flying around.
But if the changes are in a way we can agree with, i would be glad to do some work (free time in march, whole march)
Xzar
|
Admiral Xzar
Staj
(3/4/04 8:39 am)
Reply
|
Re: Doc update & being 'official'
hi guys,
whats the matter with the wrong stablock from rethidoor? (arcane spell failure) am i wrong with this? or has zan no time to solve it? i ask, because there is less than zero response about this thing...
i know its minor, but i think we should fix it...
Xzar
|
ZansForCans
Oathstalker
(3/4/04 8:53 am)
Reply
|
Re: Doc update & being 'official'
Sorry, I'm just collecting issues and going to revise it less often now since there seem to be few changes left. I hope that's OK. I didn't mean to ignore you! I will try to get a new version out this weekend or next week. I have had a lot less time since the beginning of the year to work on it, but I'm gradually working my way back into RTEE issues. Thanks for the nudge
Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo |
Infiniti2000
Night Beast
(3/4/04 10:47 am)
Reply
ezSupporter
|
Re: Doc update & being 'official'
Zans, take a quick check through all the 3.5 threads. I made some comments as well that I'm not sure were considered yet.
|
Okay -- Your Turn
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies