d20 Hatred near you?

[barsoomcore]

5. D20 System reinforces the myth that two RPG supplements have to be written with exactly the same ruleset to be useable together.

It does? How does it do this, exactly? And who is demonstrating belief in this supposed myth, anyway?

I mean, d20 supplies all sorts of games with all sorts of very different rulesets -- I would say that the popularity of games such as CoC and M&M suggest that this "myth" carries little weight. Obviously d20 doesn't even suggest that supplements need to have the exact same ruleset, since most of them provide different rulesets.

It is advantageous to be as compatible with the current version of D&D as possible, which distorts game design even within D20 System games

What are the best selling third party d20 products? If the top 10 includes titles that AREN'T perfectly compatible with D&D, I'd say your logic just went south. Well, rpgnow lists "Elements of Magic" and the "d20 Modern Player's Companion" -- neither of which is particularly compatible with D&D (one intending to replace D&D magic and the other not even FOR D&D)

6. The D20 System Trademark License (and, to a lesser degree the WotC Open Games License) looks like a way to do an end run around legislation and courts to get what you want.

Or, it looks like a way to make the rules of the game very clear to everyone playing. Like you say, the question used to be quite open to debate. Only a publisher willing to take the risk that the courts would go their way would be willing to publish material using existing rules. And even if it WAS legal, there was nothing to stop TSR or WotC from SUING you just to kill you with legal fees.

At least now publishers know that's impossible. Sure, they have to acknowledge that the rules have an owner. And it's obvious from what's happened that making that acknowledgement was worth the legal certainty for most of them, and what's more, it's working out pretty well for them.

simple descriptives and common nouns are both off limits for trademarks

Microsoft Windows. Trademark for the term "Windows" is certainly under dispute right now, but the mark was definitely granted in 1995. So your statement is not in fact true.

 

[JoeGKushner]

One of my friends loves gritty future games like Battlelords of RedDawn where every shot is precious and feels that d20, even Modern or Call of Cthulhu, fails at that. To a certain extent, I agree.

On the other hand, this guy also runs an Oathbound campaign.

 

[S'mon]

Or, it looks like a way to make the rules of the game very clear to everyone playing. Like you say, the question used to be quite open to debate. Only a publisher willing to take the risk that the courts would go their way would be willing to publish material using existing rules. And even if it WAS legal, there was nothing to stop TSR or WotC from SUING you just to kill you with legal fees.

At least now publishers know that's impossible. Sure, they have to acknowledge that the rules have an owner. And it's obvious from what's happened that making that acknowledgement was worth the legal certainty for most of them, and what's more, it's working out pretty well for them.

It is a bit of an odd situation - TSR in its later years always claimed ownership of far more than they were entitled to under any reasonable interpretation of copyright law; Wizards has not retracted those claims but has got most people to accept them by signing up to to the OGL or d20 license; and it's arguable that this has actually strengthened WotC's hand should a dispute come to court.

One point worth noting though re commercial publishers & their lawyers is that they almost all love to take an absolute-maximalist approach to all questions of IP law - I get the impression that they because they see themselves as IP producers rather than consumers, so they feel it's in their interests to all concur in a kind of consensual illusion as to the scope of IP protection. This dates back to well before the 1709/10 Statute of Anne that created modern copyright law in UK (and thus USA).

Perhaps the weirdest thing of all though now are the many noncommercial, private individuals posting stuff (rules, scenarios, etc) online under the OGL, as if they were going to be held liable for copyright or trademark infringement otherwise!
I think it's amazing. One point re trademarks - to infringe a trademark you do have to be using it _in the course of trade_...

 

[evildmguy]

Wow!

With the unfortunate exception of one person who attacked people on a personal level, including myself, I think this has been a great thread! Thanks!

Again, I can only speak for myself. As others have said, I am not down on all aspects of d20. There are some d20 games I would like to try because I think they will be good games (Spycraft or more preferably, Stargate), because I think they capture the spirit of the game well (Star Wars) or because I would like to try it. (d20 Modern, probably d20 Future when it comes out.)

I was really excited about 3E. I could feel myself getting burned on on 2E. I remember having long email discussions with friends about how 2E characters are too similar. I was at the point where I thought a fighter was a fighter, dwarven or human, in 2E. Yes, there were role playing differences, don't get me wrong. The game mechanics which is a lot of what this discussion is about to me, though, were all very similar in 2E within the same class.

When 3E came out, I loved it! It renewed my love of DND. However, within three years, I had the same arguments, even with all of the new choices, and was again emailing and talking about it with my friends. There were more choices but the things that I didn't like about the system (class, level, hit points, magic, "upping the numbers") were still there. Therefore, I did something about it and started using a different system.

As others said, while there are some very good things about the d20 system, including the OGL and SRD, I don't think one system can do it all. That's just me, though. In saying that, though, one thing that is very nice is that my "old" group can get together the few times we do (maybe two or three times a year) and play DND, or d20 Modern or other similar game, and start with a working knowledge of about 80% of the system. That's pretty cool to me! This allows us to try some different genres but use the same rule system that everyone knows.

I would still like to see a d20 Fantasy, more in line with the d20 Modern ideas, or using some of the Unearthed Arcana ideas. However, given what I have, if my group ever wanted to play DND again, I could probably create or use enough d20 rules from the various systems to make us all happy.

And, in the end, that's what is important to me.

Good discussion! Thanks all!

Have a good one!

edg

 

[buzz]

D20 System reinforces the myth that two RPG supplements have to be written with exactly the same ruleset to be useable together.

I think you're the only entity reinforcing this myth. You can read the story hour in my .sig to see an example (among many) of someone bringing disparate d20 products together to create a campaign.

Oh, and there's tons of legal precedent to support being aple to put "Compatible with Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover of your book, so long as (1) the statement is true and (2) you properly identify others' trademarks and make it clear that the product is not licensed or approved in any way.

Yeah, that worked great for RoleAids. How long ago did they get sued out of existence?

 

[buzz]

It is a bit of an odd situation - TSR in its later years always claimed ownership of far more than they were entitled to under any reasonable interpretation of copyright law; Wizards has not retracted those claims but has got most people to accept them by signing up to to the OGL or d20 license; and it's arguable that this has actually strengthened WotC's hand should a dispute come to court.

Well, I don't see WotC getting all sue-happy with every dang fan Web site, at least.

 

[Psion]

Well, I don't see WotC getting all sue-happy with every dang fan Web site, at least.

This is true.

I think the OGL is give AND take. You can do with it what you can't do under copyright law, like exactly quote lengthy blocks of text verbatim. Which is a convenience when one has the goal of creating a body of compatible game text.

OTOH, it also makes you agree to not copy PI in works you are borrowing from. Which can be aggravating and problematic. (Fortunately, most of the big abusers on this score are mellowing out.)

 

[Henry]

To add to the others already mentioned, what about

tier
echelon
grade
degree

You you could use White WOlf's term for it:

"dot."

 

[woodelf]

Was that a jab at Mongoose and Fast Forward? Man I've got shelves of that crap ay my shop. Especially the quinticential books to half-asses. That seemed to turn alot of people away from D20. I have seen the people who will not play D20 because they make everything D20 now.....

And if it weren't for Mongoose and Atlas, i'd probably have never given *any* D20 System product a chance. It was the excellent products from those two companies that opened my eyes and got me to reconsider my stance and start looking at D20 System books--and thus find a fair number of gems.

No arguments on Fast Forward. And, unlike Mongoose, i've yet to hear their defenders, so i gotta wonder who's keeping them in business.

 

[woodelf]

Not always true either.

In 1st -> 2nd revamp, there was at least one sourcebook that was labeled as compatibile with both editions. Greyhawk Adventures comes to mind.

There were actually several IIRC--though i don't seem to have any of them except Greyhawk Adventures. But, as a point of order, Greyhawk Adventures was pretty much the last AD&D1 product, and was published a few months before AD&D2 hit the shelves, so it was really a "bridge" product, not a "backwards compatible" product.