D&D 4th Edition Rumor control: Lucca 4e seminar report inaccuracies - Page 3




What's on your mind?

+ Log in or register to post
Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 153
  1. #21
    Community Supporter COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)

    Scott_Rouse's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,040

    Ignore Scott_Rouse
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane
    Obviously there's no tiered OGL, since the OGL is what it is. It can't be changed. (Or rather, if it's changed, anyone can just use a prior version and sidestep any changes they don't like.)

    Obviously, the key point is whether or not there will be a tiered d20 STL.

    Specificity would be appreciated. Unfortunately, at the moment Scott appears to be either (a) engaging in a bit of doublespeak or (b) misusing terms he should be more than familiar with.
    or

    c) you not reading what I wrote or taking what I said as literal. There will be the OGL and Wizards D&D products period. No d20 STL (tiered or otherwise) to be even more clear.

    1) there is no tiered licensing structure to the OGL. There will be D&D and the OGL as I explained here: Tiered OGL
    There will be Wizards official D&D products (which will include licensed D&D products for foreign language translation) and OGL products made by third parties like Paizo, Expeditious Retreat, etc.
    This seemed pretty clear to me.
    Scott Rouse

    My Blog: Stepping out of the Books

 

  • #22
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)

    Wulf Ratbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    U.S. New England
    Posts
    8,338
    Blog Entries
    7

    Ignore Wulf Ratbane
    No STL at all is definitely news.

    Thanks for clarifying.

  • #23
    Community Supporter COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)

    Scott_Rouse's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,040

    Ignore Scott_Rouse
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane
    I think that's covered under (b) misusing terms he should be familiar with.
    You know what they say about assumptions?

    Go back and read the post. Seems pretty clear to me.

    Sorry I am feeling snarky today.
    Scott Rouse

    My Blog: Stepping out of the Books

  • #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane
    No, it's not specific. It's exactly as specific as, "We have no immediate plans to release 4e."

    It's not specific because Scott is not ready to be specific. If he was, we would have a specific answer from WOTC as to the dispensation of the d20STL.

    You can't make business decisions based on, "We are not looking to implement a tiered licensing structure."
    I don't mean to disagree Wulf, but I think Scott's been pretty clear.

    d20 and the OGL was, by its very nature, a tiered licensing structure. From what I understand, Scott's saying they won't do that.

    This has nothing to do with the parts of the game that are covered by the existing OGL. This has to do with whether the new mechanics of 4e will be OGL, and we've been told they will be. By dumping the distinction between OGL and d20, WotC would lower the burden on itself to monitor third party content to determine whether it should be "d20" or "just OGL."

    Given the number of high-quality books previously released as "OGL," and the number of low-quality books that were released as "d20," I don't think WotC believes the branding distinction is significant enough to preserve. As a result, Scott may very well be lumping the terms because, going forward, there is no difference.

    When he says no tiers, I'd assume he means "no tiers." Not just "not 3 tiers" but not even two. And "d20" for one tier of product and "OGL" as another IS two tiers.

    Now it's just going to be "D&D products" and third-party "d20/OGL" products.

    EDIT: Since Scott just confirmed they're dumping the d20 STL, I'm glad I'm not a betting man.

  • #25
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)

    Wulf Ratbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    U.S. New England
    Posts
    8,338
    Blog Entries
    7

    Ignore Wulf Ratbane
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse
    Sorry I am feeling snarky today.
    I know the feeling.

    Savory.

  • #26
    Registered User




    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    215

    Ignore Arnix
    Thanks for the quick replies.

    Especially in clarifying our misunderstandings with your initial (quick) response.
    Cameron Guill

    Alea Publishing Group

    Publisher of the Poor Gamers Almanac

    " Listen, you Vampire-playing drama queen, what part of "To go adventuring" do you not understand?" - Hunter Simon


  • #27
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)

    Wulf Ratbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    U.S. New England
    Posts
    8,338
    Blog Entries
    7

    Ignore Wulf Ratbane
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnSnow
    I don't mean to disagree Wulf, but I think Scott's been pretty clear.
    Trust me when I tell you, John, as someone who has published under both the OGL and the d20STL, it was not clear. I'll take Scott's admonition that the misunderstanding was mine in good stride, but believe me,

    THERE WILL BE NO d20 SYSTEM TRADEMARK LICENSE FOR 4e

    is big news.

    And it's very easy to be exactly that specific.

    EDIT: Since Scott just confirmed they're dumping the d20 STL, I'm glad I'm not a betting man.
    Well there ya go. Confused you too.
    Last edited by Wulf Ratbane; Wednesday, 7th November, 2007 at 08:17 PM.

  • #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane
    Trust me when I tell you, John, as someone who has published under both the OGL and the d20STL, it was not clear. I'll take Scott's admonition that the misunderstanding was mine in good stride, but believe me,

    THERE WILL BE NO d20 SYSTEM TRADEMARK LICENSE FOR 4e

    is big news.

    And it's very easy to be exactly that specific.



    Well there ya go.
    Since you probably missed my pre-edited post, I had bet they'd just let everyone use the "d20" logo so that compatible products were more easy to identify. Turns out I was mistaken, which is why I'm glad I didn't bet on it.

    As an aside, do you think the dropping of the d20 STL will make things easier or harder for independent publishers? Was the d20 logo worth anything? And, if it was, if it no longer exists, will it still matter?

    Just curious as to your opinion.

  • #29
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)

    Wulf Ratbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    U.S. New England
    Posts
    8,338
    Blog Entries
    7

    Ignore Wulf Ratbane
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnSnow
    Since you probably missed my pre-edited post, I had bet they'd just let everyone use the "d20" logo so that compatible products were more easy to identify. Turns out I was mistaken, which is why I'm glad I didn't bet on it.
    That's why it's big news. 3rd party publishers will have no way to indicate compatibility with the 4th edition of the world's most popular fantasy roleplaying game (other than saying exactly that).

    Or licensing the D&D brand outright, as Kenzer did for their Kalamar line.

    As an aside, do you think the dropping of the d20 STL will make things easier or harder for independent publishers? Was the d20 logo worth anything? And, if it was, if it doesn't exist, will it still matter?

    Just curious.
    Regardless of what damage you think was done to the d20 System Trademark Logo over the course of its history, it did serve a useful function in distinguishing products that were d20 compatible. The problem is that folks expected it to be a mark of quality, which it most emphatically was not.

    So... No d20 logo at this point cuts out a lot of folks in the middle.

    If you are a small enough publisher, primarily PDF, you won't be much affected.

    And if you are a large enough publisher, with a proven track record, access to distribution, and an established brand of your own, you won't be much affected.

    If you are a middle tier publisher, or any new publisher looking to actually print books and see them in distribution on the shelves of brick-and-mortar game stores, I think you have some hurdles. There will be no easy way to quickly (easily and visually) establish compatibility on the store shelf.

    Or, more importantly still, the effect it will have on the buying habits of retailers.

  • #30
    Yeah, this is the first time anyone at WotC has actually come out and said this. There's been speculation before that the d20 STL would be dropped, but never any official confirmation.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Rumor Control: No license fees for 4E OGL
      By Jrgen Hubert in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 17
      Last Post: Saturday, 18th August, 2007, 02:54 PM
    2. Rumor Control: List 4E rumors which have proven to be FALSE!
      By Jrgen Hubert in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 13
      Last Post: Friday, 17th August, 2007, 08:18 PM
    3. Monte Cook: Rumor Control--Me and 4E
      By Jaws in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 48
      Last Post: Friday, 11th August, 2006, 08:12 PM
    4. Rumor: G.I. Joe for d20 Modern
      By JPL in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 38
      Last Post: Wednesday, 1st October, 2003, 07:24 PM
    5. When Historical Books Show Inaccuracies
      By Quasqueton in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 42
      Last Post: Saturday, 13th September, 2003, 10:00 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •