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

[hexgrid]

But the d20 logo, in all honesty, does not quite do that. It has been used like that, but not all d20 games are really D&D3.x compatible. BESM d20 is hard to use with D&D.

Not to mention that the d20 logo is also on d20 modern and it's compatible products, and d20 Star Wars products.

 

[BadMojo]

EnWorld is a bad sample. We're all super elite gamers, here, with an IQ 40 or 50 points above the average gamer, and stunning good looks to boot.

I read that as "with an IQ of 40 or 50 points". I'd take an IQ of 40-50 as long as I got the stunning good looks. I could be some sort of Male Model Savant.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Not to mention that the d20 logo is also on d20 modern and it's compatible products, and d20 Star Wars products.

There's no confusion, though. Trade dress solves those differences. The problem is not discerning whether or not a given book is for fantasy, sci-fi, or the spy genre, for example. The problem is telling whether or not a given book within that genre is d20 compatible, and the d20 logo serves that purpose.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I think what both retailers and consumers need is a label, a method of sorting 'compatible with D&D4E' from other OGL and games.

*nod* this is something I want as a consumer as well as a potential writer.

(will be sad to see D20 go, because now I will never get around to putting out a pdf called Dog20.... )

 

[howandwhy99]

#1 is a good idea. It's what is happening now anyways.

#2 I believe is a mistake. Rule Expansions (not just new options) should be included in II, III, and annual core books. I imagine they will sell better if they are what most of the community believed Monte's Arcana Unearthed was going to be - a variant Player's Handbook fully compatible with the current rules. Unfortunately is wasn't.

Fixing errata and putting in new rules like Swift & Immediate actions in repeated Combat Chapters can only help the game evolve vs. sticking to one version.

 

[Mythmere1]

We are looking to incorporate some sort of compatibility language within the new version of the OGL. Something like "Compatible with the 4th Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying game..."

I, Orcus, Joe Kenzer, and every other IP lawyer out here probably just drew in a sharp breath, suffered from sudden post-traumatic stress memory of being a first-year lawyer, and said a silent prayer for your attorneys. The amount of law-crunching involved on the two sides of that issue, if it's not decided, is HUUUUUGE.

Hopefully, you just mean that you're going to do it but haven't settled on/can't confirm the language yet; if it's still up in the air, your attorneys will need life-support systems to make it to the roll-out date with sanity and marriages intact.

 

[buzz]

They could. But I am sure most publishers would prefer to play nice with WOTC, and vice versa, as opposed to sticking a finger in their eye. (No particular finger specified.)

What finger? I mean, if the revised OGL lays out the specific language that can be used to indicate compatibility, and publishers proudly proclaim that language on their products, isn't that playing fair?

As for assuming how much of the market knows about the d20/OGL, regardless of the size of that audience, would their very nature mean they aren't currently buying any d20/OGL product? If so, then how does the removal of the logo make any difference?

Aside: I gotta believe the number of aware consumers is larger than you think. I can't really think of any stores, off the top of my head, that carry D&D product but don't carry d20 product. Assuming someone is up to speed on 3.5, I'd imagine the odds are very good that they know there's third-party product out there.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

What finger? I mean, if the revised OGL lays out the specific language that can be used to indicate compatibility, and publishers proudly proclaim that language on their products, isn't that playing fair?

I guess I was misled by your reference to Role Aids. Anything that's cool with WOTC works.

Aside: I gotta believe the number of aware consumers is larger than you think. I can't really think of any stores, off the top of my head, that carry D&D product but don't carry d20 product. Assuming someone is up to speed on 3.5, I'd imagine the odds are very good that they know there's third-party product out there.

Buzz, I know where you do your shopping.

Let's just say that Games Plus Mt. Prospect is to game retailers as EnWorld is to gamers.

 

[JohnSnow]

I guess I was misled by your reference to Role Aids. Anything that's cool with WOTC works.

I actually had a thought on this subject. Is there anything stopping the OGL community from coming up with an "OGL" logo? Basically, third-party publishers create a piece of trade dress that says "OGL-compatible" which anyone can use.

Kinda like "Bluetooth," "Firewire," or "Wi-fi." As an "open" system, it could have an "open" logo.

Heck, Scott, if you're still here, is there any reason WotC couldn't create one for use by anyone using the OGL? Perhaps permitting the language you talked about earlier and working up a generic "OGL" logo to allow for easy identification of OGL products.

I understand why WotC wants to keep the "d20" logo for use on its own, non-D&D products. But what's wrong with a second logo that the OGL community can use?

Just an idea.

 

[BadMojo]

I actually had a thought on this subject. Is there anything stopping the OGL community from coming up with an "OGL" logo? Basically, third-party publishers create a piece of trade dress that says "OGL-compatible" which anyone can use.

I don't know if they could have a logo that actually said "OGL" but any number of publishers can and probably will come together to create some kind of logo. The trick is showing people what it is and that it actually means something. With D20, people already knew what that meant, for good or bad.