Publication talk:Mythic Races (3e)/Artathi/Letathen

Homebrew Monsters

Why, in the name of all that is holy, are you making 3.0 monsters and not 3.5? We don't even have a section for 3.0 material. --Ghostwheel 07:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. The book I am taking them from was a third-party book meant for 3.0 when 3.5 did not exist then. That is why. And no, obviously therefore I did not create them and I do not yet know how to update them for use with 3.5. That is why. I was being honest about it. Should I just change it to 3.5 when it was never meant for that?

ProphetPX 07:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you get that permission thing you were wondering about? And if so, it should probably be added to the Open Game Content section. --Foxwarrior 07:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No, because other sites had copied content from this book already and frankly this site does not seem to specify how one goes about "proving" that one has permission from an author or publisher that they are allowed to use their content. What am I really expected to do? Scan a hand-written letter in and upload it to the site? Anyone can type anything and say "See? I have permission". So no, I never bothered. I admit the monster I submitted is not my creation. But I DO wish to use it for my world and if your site is bothered by that then by all means someone can delete the whole thing and maybe I just won't use this site. Cf: for proof of what I say, see this site: [1] --ProphetPX 07:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What Foxwarrior said, if you don't have permission (as in, if it doesn't say that it is OGL in the source where it was created), please don't post it on the wiki. We can get into a lot of trouble because of it, and it's illegal. That said, if you can find the original source and confirm that it is OGL, feel free to put it on here (as OGL/open source, rather than homebrew). --Ghostwheel 08:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not even just the "we will get into a lot of trouble" issue. It's just not ethical. I deleted the page for copyright violation. No, we can't prove ever article submitted here is not a violation of copyright, but we want to do everything we can to keep this community running in good faith. --Aarnott 14:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The front or back of the book should have a license page where it reprints the entire OGL. On that page, it should say which sections of the book are open game content, and thus legal to reprint, and which sections are not. So if this is an OGL section, we can host it, but it would go in a different section of the site. We'd create a Publication:<Book Name> page for the book, and add this as a subpage of that. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

HERE is your proof of the Open Gaming License for the content I had posted yesterday. I am not aware of how this "open gaming license" stuff works but MYTHIC RACES (the book where I got the Artathi from) IS AN OPEN GAMING LICENSE WORK. See the 2nd to last page for a sample of this book and it's LICENSE terms (the page before this DOES list the Artathi) [2] NOTE this is a book meant for 3.0 and I have no idea how to convert it to 3.5e. --ProphetPX 23:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, pretty much everything is an OGL piece, but that doesn't mean the entire book is. It's a weird legal thing that allows for sections of the PHB to be reprinted, but not all of it. Since the section we care about isn't shown in that sample, we actually need you to look inside your copy for the license or credits page. For example, near the bottom of the credits page in Masters of the Wild is this line: "This Wizards of the Coast game product contains no Open Game Content. No portion ofthis work may be reproduced in any form without written permission. To learn more about the open Gaming License and the d20 System License, please visitwww.wizards.com/d20." You need to make sure that statement is NOT present in your copy. And if it's not, there should be a statement about which parts of the book are OGL. It might say all of them, it might say some of them, whatever. The important thing is that this monster is an allowed piece. If you can confirm that, we can get this put back up.

Blegh, I'm wrong. Here's the section we care about from the preview:

“

Not everything in this book is Open Content, however. The names of races, prestige classes, feats, skills, equipment, and spells and the game statistics, mechanics, and rules derived from the d20 SRD are designated as Open Content. The descriptions of the races and prestige classes are closed content and cannot be republished, copied, or distributed without the consent of Fantasy Flight Games.

”

So, you can't copy and textual descriptions of races or prestige classes. Everything else, including monster stats, is fair game. I'll restore this page shortly, though we'll still need to move it to the publication section. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 00:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. All I really wanted was their stats, skills, powers, etc... anyway. I can whip-up some alternative names and descriptions and prestige classes. Some of their prestige classes are lame anyway. --ProphetPX 03:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: All racial descriptions from Mythic Races are now removed from my posting. I will be thinking-up something decent of my own, before long. It's best in making my own world anyway. :) --ProphetPX 04:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, you don't need to find previews for these sorts of things in the future. As long as you have a copy and can find the OGL section in the book that says what you can and can't use, you can just add it in the appropriate section with the appropriate format. Which should be obvious in a bit, when I get this moved over. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 16:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, well, there are a LOTTTTTTTTTTTTTT of things i do not know about this site! like:

1. how do i e-mail people?

2. why is there seemingly little difference (besides amount of content) between this site and dandwiki.com? Is there some kind of community-split going on with there being 2 sites? :(

3. i am not a lawyer and do not understand why we have to even bother with all this OGL license and permission BS. I know that people can be sued for breach of copyright but personally I think IP laws are entirely bogus. Guess I am a bit of a rebel. If this site is so intent on protecting itself then why not have on-file scanned copies that are linked to each article that prove the OGL license exists for that content? Just because someone SAYS they "have permission" does not mean it is not a lie. this site would still be in danger at every turn. -- ProphetPX 17:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Emailing people is probably not the best way to contact people here; I suppose it's preferential if you want the conversation to be private, but leaving a message here on their talk page is probably more expedient.

Yes, we split from dandwiki.com some time ago. Long story short, let's just call it a difference of opinions between many influential members here and the owner there.

You may have noticed that we don't have many things that are labelled as Open Game Content Present on this site. That kind of legal uncertainty is--in my estimation at least--one of the reasons why. We don't have the resources or the desire, even as a collective, to combat any legal action, so the most prudent course is to avoid situations that could potentially cause such outcomes. - TG Cid 18:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)