Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
BadMojo said:
They can, but no, they probably won't. They couldn't manage it before. It's like herding cats.
D&D 4E Rumor control: Lucca 4e seminar report inaccuracies
- Thread starter Scott_Rouse
- Start date
They can, but no, they probably won't. They couldn't manage it before. It's like herding cats.
The Little Raven
First Post
Maybe they can produce a modified version of the new D&D logo that publishers can use? Different enough so that you know it's not official, but clearly indicating "This product is compatible with 4th Edition D&D."
Also, I think the whole "Compatible with the 4th Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game" is better than the old d20 stuff, since openly connecting it to D&D will help non-gamers make the correct choices when buying gifts, as well as differentiate whether it's compatible with 3.X, d20 Modern, or 4e. I remember my mom was going to buy me some RPG books for my birthday, and she called me from the store because she didn't know which products were compatible... something like this would have really helped her make a choice without telling me that I was getting Midnight 2nd Edition.
Also, I think the whole "Compatible with the 4th Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game" is better than the old d20 stuff, since openly connecting it to D&D will help non-gamers make the correct choices when buying gifts, as well as differentiate whether it's compatible with 3.X, d20 Modern, or 4e. I remember my mom was going to buy me some RPG books for my birthday, and she called me from the store because she didn't know which products were compatible... something like this would have really helped her make a choice without telling me that I was getting Midnight 2nd Edition.
Kahuna Burger
First Post
hmmm.... what about a 4E logo of some sort with pieces slotting into it. It says "this product is meant to be added to your existing 4e ruleset, rather than a stand alone product using many similar mechanics."
Kahuna Burger
First Post
Mouseferatu
Hero
Kahuna Burger said:
The problem was never about coming up with good logos, KB. There were quite a few making the rounds for a time, and I don't imagine it'll be any harder for 4E than it was for 3E.
The problem was that it's essentially impossible to find one that appeals to all--or even a majority, or even a significant minority--of publishers. Some object for aesthetic purposes. Some aren't certain about legality. Some believe--and I tend to agree with them--that without direct backing from WotC, no symbol is going to carry enough weight or meaning to grow sufficiently to impact consumer purchasing habits. Only if every major 3rd-party publisher adopted the same one, at the same time, would it have any meaning without WotC. That's simply never going to happen, and therefore putting one's efforts behind growing such a symbol is a waste of effort and energy.
People can discuss and argue the logic all they like, but the truth is, this has already been tried (after the D20 Logo stopped meaning what people wanted it to mean), and it's proven impossible for all intents and purposes. If WotC chooses not to hand down a "D20 Logo" (or its equivalent) from on-high, then for all practical purposes, there will never be one that means anything.
jgbrowning
Hero
Wulf Ratbane said:
No.
It's like herding artistic and creative cats.
joe b.
Scott,
There still needs to be some way to control compatible products and give them compatibility language. Without it you have anything and everything claiming 4e compatibility, which is bad.
The real question is: Will D&D 4e have the D20 logo on it?
If so, then I think you need to give the 3rd party OGL products that want compatibility with D&D4e the ability to use that logo too. Completely removing the current system I believe is a mistake, as it opens the door to either a) any product being capable of saying it is compatible with 4e or b) having to put a subset of legal rules in the OGL that grants the "compatible with 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons".
Personally, I think you should do this:
1) Have the OGL for 4e and keep SRDs updated with every product or at least the main ones. Allow some sort of compatiblity language but no brand usage.
2) Have a paid D&D 4e liscense that allows companies to make their own IP based modules, campaigns, etc. The paid license has very tight quality control, but grants the official D&D logo, ties the product game mechanics into the D&D Insider and makes the material official. The standards for this level should be high. This approach treats the D&D products like a game system (think xbox 360) and then the 3rd party licensed companies as game publishers. Make the fee high enough to keep those who can't put out good quality out of the game using the OGL. These products get the official WOTC approval logo and the D&D logo put on them. These companies can use all of the published D&D books and refer to them as WOTC can, they get the designer rule & style guides too. Control this with NDAs.
Anyrate, there needs to be some way to say here is the OGL stuff and here is the stuff that followed our standards and used the official rules. Anything that can put "compatible with the 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons" or " Requires the 4e Player's Handbook for use" needs quality control on it and in turn should be granted brand tie in in some fashion. This is what you are potentially taking away and not replacing with something comparable. That is not a good thing.
There still needs to be some way to control compatible products and give them compatibility language. Without it you have anything and everything claiming 4e compatibility, which is bad.
The real question is: Will D&D 4e have the D20 logo on it?
If so, then I think you need to give the 3rd party OGL products that want compatibility with D&D4e the ability to use that logo too. Completely removing the current system I believe is a mistake, as it opens the door to either a) any product being capable of saying it is compatible with 4e or b) having to put a subset of legal rules in the OGL that grants the "compatible with 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons".
Personally, I think you should do this:
1) Have the OGL for 4e and keep SRDs updated with every product or at least the main ones. Allow some sort of compatiblity language but no brand usage.
2) Have a paid D&D 4e liscense that allows companies to make their own IP based modules, campaigns, etc. The paid license has very tight quality control, but grants the official D&D logo, ties the product game mechanics into the D&D Insider and makes the material official. The standards for this level should be high. This approach treats the D&D products like a game system (think xbox 360) and then the 3rd party licensed companies as game publishers. Make the fee high enough to keep those who can't put out good quality out of the game using the OGL. These products get the official WOTC approval logo and the D&D logo put on them. These companies can use all of the published D&D books and refer to them as WOTC can, they get the designer rule & style guides too. Control this with NDAs.
Anyrate, there needs to be some way to say here is the OGL stuff and here is the stuff that followed our standards and used the official rules. Anything that can put "compatible with the 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons" or " Requires the 4e Player's Handbook for use" needs quality control on it and in turn should be granted brand tie in in some fashion. This is what you are potentially taking away and not replacing with something comparable. That is not a good thing.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
jgbrowning said:No.
It's like herding artistic and creative cats.
joe b.
It's like herding artistic, creative, egotistical, controlling, and frequently flat-out paranoid cats.
But I repeat myself.
buzz
Adventurer
My bad. What I meant was that if Role Aids could successfully convey compatibility without TSR's permission, OGL publishers should be able to do even better given they will have permission from WotC.Wulf Ratbane said:
Heh!Wulf Ratbane said:
Seriously, though; I wasn't even thinking Games Plus when I posted, or even shoddy LGS like Gamer's Paradise. I was thinking Border's, B&N, Waldenbooks, and maybe even Amazon.
Similar Threads
D&D General
What if High Level Was Only in a Supplement
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
