d20 license & SRD update coming

[Bagpuss]

Isn't Arcana Unearthed released as "An Alternative Player's Handbook"? Not part of the title, but...

Doesn't matter it's not D20 either.

 

[The Sigil]

I feel the other way. I wish more companies would abandon the d20 license and go completely OGL. I love the Pocket Player's Handbook and hope they do versions of the DMG and MM as well.

To be honest, I think we're seeing more and more of that now that companies have built and established their own brands, above and beyond "d20" (e.g., people recognize "Green Ronin" or "Mongoose" as much as, if not more than, "d20" - by which I mean people "trust" or "look for" the name/logo of Green Ronin more than they look for d20 these days... part of that is branding, part of that may be a side effect of the early flood of substandard d20 products). Regardless of cause, now that their own brands are established, I think publishers are starting to find the d20 license confines - especially with the ever-changing rules - a little more restrictive than they'd like. And with their own brand name built up there is less incentive to slap a d20 logo on their product than there was, say, 3 years ago, when EVERYONE was unknown. This points to companies being more and more comfortable with putting out a product without the d20 logo and relying instead upon their own brand name to sell books. I'm NOT saying it's yet to the point where publishers feel that the d20 logo is more a burden than a help, but I am saying that there are products where it may be preferable to go with just the company logo and not the d20 logo. I think the d20's "brand value" and "brand recognition" has been eroded somewhat by individual company "brand value" and "brand recognition" and that this process is going to continue. I predict that as time goes on, the d20 logo will become increasingly irrelevant to "established brands." That doesn't mean they'll ditch it on a lark, but it does mean that they won't feel as "dependent" on the logo and will be more likely to consider jettisoning it than before.

And that's not a bash on WotC or anyone else... it's just a fact of business, IMO, that once your own brand name carries more weight/value than a "borrowed" brand name, the decision to go with your own rather than the borrowed one is much easier.

--The Sigil

 

[jaerdaph]

I feel the other way. I wish more companies would abandon the d20 license and go completely OGL. I love the Pocket Player's Handbook and hope they do versions of the DMG and MM as well.

I'm on the fence - in many ways, it's a good thing, but if everyone does it, by the time D&D 4.0 rolls around, will WotC decide to end the d20 System License, or even release 4.0 material as a SRD?

And will it even matter if they don't (if strong brands are published under the irrevocable OGL only as The Sigil pointed out), which I guess is another topic entirely.

 

[PosterBoy]

Ah, I was wondering. Thats actually too bad, I was hoping it would. I know that in the end it doesnt matter and the materials would be just as compatible, but I'd have felt better using it if it was d20 licesenced. Oh well. :-D

Well, the point of this book is to provide a cheap alternative to $40 HC. At least once a week someone tells me they want to buy DW2 but don't want to spend another $40 for the core modern rulebook.

So even before this change in the d20 license, we couldn’t use the logo.

 

[Greyline]

Alright, maybe I'm clueless, but I thought the d20 license was the OGL? Apparently that's not the case. What can you do with the one and not the other?

Greyline

Alright, stopped over at wizards' website. No longer clueless.

 

[The Sigil]

Alright, maybe I'm clueless, but I thought the d20 license was the OGL? Apparently that's not the case. What can you do with the one and not the other?

Greyline

Alright, stopped over at wizards' website. No longer clueless.

Though you're no longer clueless, a quickie explanation might be in order for those who don't want to spend the time. In one sentence: the OGL lets you use the Rules (enumerated in the SRD), the d20STL lets you use the black,white, and red LOGO.

Of course, IANAL, TINAL, and the above is a VERY abbreviated quickie... the exact differences and terms are more complex, but it's the quickest way to point out the most obvious difference.

--The Sigil

 

[BrooklynKnight]

Well, the point of this book is to provide a cheap alternative to $40 HC. At least once a week someone tells me they want to buy DW2 but don't want to spend another $40 for the core modern rulebook.

So even before this change in the d20 license, we couldn’t use the logo.

Really? I was under the impression that was was an expansionary book. Kinda like the Modern Players Companion but bigger...

Hrm... :-(

 

[Ranger REG]

Don't d20 publishers have a members-only developer's mailing list in which you get the first peek at the changes? Or do you get to see the changes with the rest of the public?

 

[Maggan]

As far as I can tell

Don't d20 publishers have a members-only developer's mailing list in which you get the first peek at the changes? Or do you get to see the changes with the rest of the public?

That wasn't the case when the last revision hit the fan. The list you might be thinking of is the ogf-d20-l list, which is frequented by many industry insiders.

http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-d20-l

But, if there is an additional secret list, I wouldn't know about it, not being a publisher of d20 stuff. But I doubt if there are.

M.

 

[Flyspeck23]

As far as I know, there was such a list prior to 3.5, where every d20 publisher, who already had at least one printed book published (ePublishing didn't count), could've been added (after request) to receive the changes before the 3.5 rulebooks were published.

I don't think this list is still in use. But I'm not entirely sure (seeing that I'm just an ePublisher ).