D&D 4E Rumor control: Lucca 4e seminar report inaccuracies

[Wulf Ratbane]

But worth a shot. How's this?

Just to play devil's advocate, "I'm not putting that on my products. It looks amateurish."

Or

"I'm not putting that on my products. I can do better."

Or

"I'm not putting that on my products, I want a logo that *I* can own."


We've been down this road before... believe me.

 

[Maggan]

But worth a shot. How's this?

I think that the crux is that you could get the world's foremost logo designer to design a logo. It still wouldn't solve the problem.

How would we load the logo with the meaning we're looking for? That's a thing that doesn't come from the design, the look and feel. It comes from another process entirely; support from publishers, and money spent on advertising. If I had the perfect logo with no resources to pool behind it, I'd much rather take the crappy logo with resources attached to it.

So unless we solve where the resources are coming from, in the form of cash and cover space on books before we start, no logo is gonna be effective. The d20 logo wasn't successful in indicating compatibility because of the logo, it was because of the resources behind the logo. WotC, to be more specific. Maybe, just maybe, EN World could start such a process. It worked with the Ennies, so it could work for a compatibility logo. But it would be a long and ardous trek through the wilderness.

/M

 

[Kahuna Burger]

So unless we solve where the resources are coming from, in the form of cash and cover space on books before we start, no logo is gonna be effective. The d20 logo wasn't successful in indicating compatibility because of the logo, it was because of the resources behind the logo.

But the d20 logo stopped being effective in indicating compatibility. And to some extent, that was because of the logo - it could just as easily be seen to mean "this uses roll high on a d20 as it's core mechanic" as "This product can be used in your 3rd edition D&D game." That's the reason folks are discussing logos. Because we are thinking about how a new compatibility logo could STAY a compatibility logo, not just how to establish it.

 

[Maggan]

But the d20 logo stopped being effective in indicating compatibility. And to some extent, that was because of the logo - it could just as easily be seen to mean "this uses roll high on a d20 as it's core mechanic" as "This product can be used in your 3rd edition D&D game."

But that wasn't the "fault" of the logo itself. It was the result of market forces. It had been no different if the logo had looked different.

EDIT: come to think of it, Wulf is right. It didn't stop indicating "compatibility", it stopped indicating "quality".

That's the reason folks are discussing logos. Because we are thinking about how a new compatibility logo could STAY a compatibility logo, not just how to establish it.

How it could stay a compatibility logo? Pool resources behind it in the form of cash and advertising. A logo won't by itself accomplish what you want, you need to load it up with value as well. Or to put it another way; one of the greatest obstacles you have to getting a logo established to indicate compatibility is the thought that it is the look of the logo that matters. It's the resources that matter.

At least that's how I would approach things.

/M

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But the d20 logo stopped being effective in indicating compatibility.

When did that happen?

If I picked up a book with wizards and monsters and a d20 on the cover, I had very good confidence it would be compatible with my D&D game. If you have a counter-example, please explain.

If I picked up a book with spies and guns and a d20 on the cover, I had very good confidence it would be compatible with my d20 Modern/Spycraft game. If you have a counter-example, please explain.

If I picked up a book with Han Solo and R2D2 and it did not have a d20 on the cover, I would put it back with very good confidence that it was not compatible with my current Star Wars game. If you have a counter example, please explain.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

But that wasn't the "fault" of the logo itself. It was the result of market forces. It had been no different if the logo had looked different.

EDIT: come to think of it, Wulf is right. It didn't stop indicating "compatibility", it stopped indicating "quality".

obviously we're talking past each other, so repeating ourselves again wont help anything.

 

[Najo]

The D20 logo is fine, it is not the logo that matters. It is the requirements to place that logo on your product that matter.

For example, before WOTC changed the decency standards we had products from Mongoose with nudity and gore, some companies published real world settings with real world politics and religion, and of course the notorious Book of Erotic Fantasy came out. When they changed those standards, those books could no longer claim compatibilty with D&D. In fact, they cut the BoEF off at the pass if I remember correctly and it had its own d20 logo and wording saying it was compatible with the 3rd edition of the world's leading fantasy role playing game etc etc...

But there is another area that the D20 logo didn't do a good job covering. That was how well the game material was designed and the publishing standards of the book.

All WOTC has to do is add quality control that places the same standards on publishers of 3rd party materials that they place on themselves. Those 3rd party companies in turn should get access to the design guides and required standards that their products have to meet, and in turn they get to put the d20 logo and say they are for use with D&D 4e. Simple.

It is this second half of the logo that WOTC never really took care of. The part that controls the qualitiy of presentation and the crunch. In turn, we got amature looking art and graphics or poor designed mechanics.

If you want the D20 logo to mean something it needs:

Decency standards, prohibited subject matters (i.e. real world religion), presentation requirments, and assurance that the mechanics were built with a design package beyond the SRD (i.e. the style bibles that WOTCs team uses).

This is why I think companies should have to pay a liscense fee for the D20 logo. It seperates the amatures from the pros and makes the company take the add-on to D&D serious.

 

[Najo]

I like to reiterate one more point:

Video game consoles for years have been allowing 3rd party publishers to make supporting material for their consoles. They have developer packages that those 3rd party publishers purchase (though xbox 360 made their's free) but most charge a fee for them. Those packages include everything from top to bottom on how to make a product and what standards that product meets. Everything from trade dress, software code, minimum requirements for quality control, prohibited materials etc etc.

This is no different. It is the VERY same thing. If a company wants to make supporting material for D&D (i.e. campaign settings, modules, DM tools, player aids, periodicals etc) I think WOTC should let them come play in the sandbox and in turn charge liscensing fees for developer packages. It would solve everything we are talking about and open all of the doors for D&D 4e to be adapted and grow into a strong and well supported brand.

 

[Mouseferatu]

All WOTC has to do is add quality control that places the same standards on publishers of 3rd party materials that they place on themselves. Those 3rd party companies in turn should get access to the design guides and required standards that their products have to meet, and in turn they get to put the d20 logo and say they are for use with D&D 4e. Simple.

Not simple.

It's a great idea, in theory. In practice, it's not workable. It would require WotC to devote a rather substantial amount of resources--in the form of time, manpower, and legal advice--to overseeing the other companies. For WotC to do quality control over othre companies' works, they have to get the work ahead of time, and they have to devote paid time to going over those works--sometimes two or three times, as changes are made.

Either current employees have to split their time, or WotC has to hire new employees to do this. In either case, it's a considerable expense, and not one that's going to be recouped by the (ultimately minor) added benefit of quality control. Better to do exactly what they did: Include a license that lets others indicate compatibility without suggesting WotC had any content oversight.

Believe me, this is something WotC has considered in the past. There's a reason they didn't do it.

 

[BadMojo]

This is why I think companies should have to pay a liscense fee for the D20 logo. It seperates the amatures from the pros and makes the company take the add-on to D&D serious.

A lot of really good publishers don't have the money to spare and are often lucky to break even. At the beginning of D20, there were a few publishers that had a lot of money to spend but cranked out glossy, high production value crap. They're not around any more but a lot of publishers from more humble beginnings really grew in to something special.

In the RPG industry, I think a licensing fee will just separate the wealthy amateurs from the poor amateurs. Microsoft's fees didn't prevent a ton of awful, nearly unplayable games from hitting the market either.