d20 Modern and Spycraft

[dpmcalister]

Heck, take a look at some of the web pages out there. There is some decidely slick Spycraft campaigns and alternate rule sets out there, and they don't get stepped on for mentioning "this is stuff for Spycraft". We put links to their pages from the main Spycraft page when we find out about them .

I can vouch for this comment (if it really needs vouching that is ). Both Scott (Morgenstern) and Patrick Kapera have been more than helpful when it came to my site. More so than I had any right to expect.

 

[LcKedovan]

Are you thinking of me maybe ? 'Mortaneus' and 'Morganstern' could be easily confused.

§%&$% dang it. I am away from the msg boards for a month and now ppl. Like Morgenstern are posting here along with David from Modus Operandi.... sheesh. I hate real life sometimes... I really... really do.

-W.

 

[LcKedovan]

Really, your arguments sound just like Atari, Commodore, BetaMax, and the hundreds of other companies that didn't make it because they refused to allow for open distribution of their products, when facing competition from open systems.

You mean like Microsoft... wow what a failure they have been with that tactic.



-Will

 

[dpmcalister]

Off Topic

§%&$% dang it. I am away from the msg boards for a month and now ppl. Like Morgenstern are posting here along with David from Modus Operandi.... sheesh. I hate real life sometimes... I really... really do.

-W.

I didn't know that I was that well known... or is that infamous...

 

[LcKedovan]

Re: Off Topic

I didn't know that I was that well known... or is that infamous...

Haha Well I posted a few months ago with you about that, but since then I've been away and now ppl who work with Spycraft are posting here .

P.S. I want to talk to you about a proposition

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA

-W.

 

[dpmcalister]

Re: Re: Off Topic

P.S. I want to talk to you about a proposition

Feel free to drop me an e-mail at dpmcalister@modus-operandi.co.uk

 

[Mistwell]

Sez who ?
There is a lot of modern-day setting writing going on out there, and as a core set of mechanics, Spycraft can suport a lot of them very cleanly. The Shadowforce Archer books have done very well in demonstrating that with a new base class or two you can alter the whole feel of the system, while still having a streamlined firearms combat, a massive pool of feats to draw on, and a skill system with criticals. Take the Explorer class from Hand of Glory and you can do Indian Jones-type action right now, no waiting. That took two pages and some trust in the GCs who want to do that at their tables. Imagine what a third party publisher with a powerful idea can do with the system in a hundred pages. I've seen it already, and frankly, I wish I'd written it. It's that cool 8).

Devlopers look at the tools they're given to work with. Spycraft is a very good tool .



Define beaten. Spycraft does a healthy, sustainable trade right now. Enough to merit its support for years.



Do I know you ? Because all of the negotiation I've been party to has been pretty straight forward. AEG does allow third party folks to put out products. Are you aware of some failed proposal I'm not privvy to? Don't think companies don't have to jump through some (minimal) hoops to put a "D20 System" stamp on their books, or that D20 Modern doesn't have some rather explicit rules about what you can and can't do in a book that's going to claim kinship to it. Why you insist that having to take a few hours to talk to AEG to assure them you aren't doing kiddy porn in your book and then slapping "Spycraft" on the cover is some how going to kill off creativity among those folks who are interested in doing a Spycraft-based product is simply beyond me . The kind of negotiations involved are right there on the order of due diligence in any serious publishing activity. How many D20 publishers who go to print do you think haven't stopped to talk to WotC to make sure everything they're doing is permisible under the license? There are certainly a few who didn't in the past, and had to recall their books. Ouch.

Heck, take a look at some of the web pages out there. There is some decidely slick Spycraft campaigns and alternate rule sets out there, and they don't get stepped on for mentioning "this is stuff for Spycraft". We put links to their pages from the main Spycraft page when we find out about them .

Don't worry too much about Spycraft's longevity, Mistwell . Having seen the line up for the next few years, I'm not even a little worried.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I think business folk in many gaming companies (perhaps you are one of the business people at AEG, I don't know, so I won't include AEG itself) would also disagree with some of the things you have said. I know that you throw those words "due diligence" around like it is a water pistol, when us attorneys know that's a nuclear device you are so casually batting around. I also know the negotiation process to obtain the license to use the Trademark Spycraft on your product is more than passing a kidding-porn test, nor is it a few hours of chat.

Perhaps you know something I don't, but my understanding is that nobody was forced to recall any books - just told to fix things in future versions. I could be wrong on that.

Again, I think we just need to agree to disagree. I think third party publishers view publishing a Spycraft game as more difficult than publishing a d20M game, whether than is a faulty perception or not, and that ultimately that will damage AEG. You obviously disagree, and I hope you are right (since I like Spycraft).

 

[Mistwell]

You mean like Microsoft... wow what a failure they have been with that tactic.



-Will

Microsoft is a great example - if I want to write an application that works for IE, I just have to follow the license and do it. In fact, they have standard licenses for most of their products (particuarly those that have competition). Thanks for pointing that one out.

 

[Mistwell]

I can vouch for this comment (if it really needs vouching that is ). Both Scott (Morgenstern) and Patrick Kapera have been more than helpful when it came to my site. More so than I had any right to expect.

Try selling your material for Spycraft without their permission.

I'll offer you my legal services (normally $225/hr) for free in defending you from their lawsuit

That comment from him would make the legal folks at AEG (if they have any, which they should) CRINGE! It's more evidence to me that we are hearing from a development person at AEG, and not one of the business people. Anyone who would endorse trademark and copyright infringement, as long as it is "slick looking", and list in their signature that they are at least possibly speaking on behalf of their company as agent, is NOT one of the business people for a company (I hope).

 

[Ranger REG]

Again, I think we just need to agree to disagree. I think third party publishers view publishing a Spycraft game as more difficult than publishing a d20M game, whether than is a faulty perception or not, and that ultimately that will damage AEG. You obviously disagree, and I hope you are right (since I like Spycraft).

Mistwell, by that logic, you've just applied that to ALL d20-based products from third-party publishers. You even makes it so negative that third-party publishers may want take a step back to and reconsider this entire d20/OGL business plan.

I mean what do you have against Spycraft and to some extent, other third-party d20 products? Are you concern that it may have a short lifespan, or that it focuses on a specific audience?