Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1456738" data-attributes="member: 10201">5. D20 System reinforces the myth that two RPG supplements have to be written with exactly the same ruleset to be useable together. This, in turn, increases insularity and fractiousness in gamers. Which increases the demand to have everything use one system, which creates more D20 System products, which makes it easier to stick to one system and still get what you want [in terms of genre, setting, etc.], which reinforces the myth that if they aren't of the same system they won't work together [because clearly it must be necessary, since the producers are doing it], and so on, in a vicious circle. This mentality of mechanical identicality being necessary for compatibility, as well as being BS, grows the market for D20 System games at the expense of other game systems, so that game companies have a pressure to make a new game D20 System, even when the design pressures might dictate otherwise. [Admittedly, in the past, there was a pressure to make a new system for a new game, even when the design considerations would've indicated using an existing one, and that's just as bad. We need a happy medium.] Furthermore, there's a design pressure towards homogeneity--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--given a choice between a cool improvement to the mechanics, and maintaining compatibility, many will choose compatibility. And thus we don't see as many cool mechanical innovations as we might otherwise.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. Used to be, while there wasn't a lot of law on the books to answer the question definitively, what there was pointed to the conclusion that RPG mechanics, like other game mechanics, probably couldn't be owned--no copyright, no trademark [the name could be trademarked, perhaps, but not the mechanical elements], and no patent. IOW, all those D20 System supplements out there right now? All perfectly legal without the D20STL and WotC OGL (just ditch the D20 System logo on the cover) [well, not all of them--those that include large swaths of verbatim text from the D&D books, such as the Pocket Players Handbook, would be copyright infringements]. 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. However, WotC wanted to assert greater ownership. So they give away the content, but tie it to a license with more-restrictive terms on trademarks. Now, nearly 4 years later, if it should come to a court case, WotC can point to the truckloads of D20 System stuff and say, "Well, if we don't own this material, why did all these people agree to a license that says we own it? Why didn't they just use the material without a license, especially since the license they agreed to clearly restricts their rights in some ways that could make doing business more difficult?" Similarly, i'm convinced that the only way they got a registered trademark on "D20 System" was through ignorance of RPGs at teh trademark office--normally, simple descriptives and common nouns are both off limits for trademarks, and D20 System is both, in the RPG world. It's not only a poor mark, but it may allow them to do an end-run around their inability to trademark "d20"--if enough people come to associate "d20" with "D20 System", they may be able to claim it as a trademark, even though, on its own, originally, they never would've been able to do so. You'll note that the D&D3.5E books include "d20", without further qualification, as a claimed trademark, though earlier books do not--they're already moving in that direction.Despite all this, i should be clear, i don't automatically ignore a game because it's D20 System. If it sounds interesting, i give it a look. And sometimes i like it, occasionally i love it, but, usually, if it's D20 System, i don't like it, or quickly tire of it. The same is true of any other high-crunch system (GURPS, Hero System, RMSS, etc.) and most middling-crunch systems (Storyteller, others). But i love Spycraft [frex], and am really jonesing to play it--despite not only disliking D20 System, generally, but being pretty much a non-fan of the espionage genre (i've never liked James Bond, Mission Impossible, or most other espionage TV/movies, and the only ones i do like are generally due to other genre influences, and it's despite the espionage elements, not because ofthem--Nikita being an excellent example). For that matter, i've given pretty much every WotC D&D book a pretty thorough look. And i played in a D&D3E game for 2.5yrs.  I'll play D20 System. But i don't think i'll play D&D3[.5]E again, and i haven't seen a WotC RPG book yet that i'd pay even half cover price for, even if all i were running and playing was D20 System. But that's not a critique of D20 System, that's a critique of WotC.Also, i'm aware that the system can evolve. Now, after 3+ years, we're finally really seeing a lot of experimentation with the rules, and i'm finally seeing more D20 System games that i like than those i dislike--just as a lot of gamers i've talked to, and to a lesser extent the market, are finally getting burned out on it and starting to backlash a bit.  For me, the further it gets from D&D3E, the better i'm likely to like it--depending, of course, on which direction the changes go. But i dislike so many elements of D&D3E, that most changes, if well done, are likely to be improvements in my eyes. BTW, in response to those who espouse any of the 4 philosophies you enumerate above:1: that is exactly the philosophy behind the creation of the D20 System--WotC's survey showed that most people only play 2 games, and The Powers That Be concluded that this was because people didn't like to switch systems [though, if that's the case, why do most people play 2 games? why not 1?], so people would continue to buy RPGs longer if they didn't have to switch systems. Which ignores the fact that, based on the data released, one "stopped playing/buying RPGs" if one was no longer playing or buying D&D products, even if still buying and playing lots of RPG products. And the fact that those who played more than one system bought more RPG stuff--just less D&D RPG stuff. So, you can hardly complain about such people [one-system-ers] existing, because they're part of the reason D20 System has done as well as it has.2: To each their own. They should accept that different people like different systems, and even different styles of play.3: Well, like you said: would *you* want to play with someone who thinks a game is great because it's D20 System, regardless of its merits, and dismisses any non-D20 System RPG without even giving it a chance? And there are enough of those, and more as D20 System gets more entrenched [at least, from what i hear from the FLGS employees], to drive a way a lot of potential gamers.4: Anybody who thinks D&D3E is a "dumbed down" or "simplified" version of D&D clearly hasn't read D&D3E (or isn't familiar with AD&D1/2). Yes, it doesn't require subtraction for attack rolls, and has ditched a couple of the more-complex bits like weapon-vs.-armor type, but, overall, it's probably the most complex version of D&D yet (save, perhaps, Players' Option with all the stops pulled out).</blockquote>

Verification