License wars: d20/OGL or OGL-only

[HalWhitewyrm]

Well, with the release of EverQuest RPG we will see (AFAIK) the first major product to be released under the auspices of the OGL alone, without the d20, meaning it uses the SRD but does not carry the d20 logo, nor announces compatibility with WotC/D&D.
I asked about the reason for this decision to the folks at WW and their reply, paraphrased here, is that they wanted to include a character generation chapter and other things to not create the illusion that in order to play you need 2 books (EQ and D&D) when you simply need the EQ book.
I completely agree with them, and I applauded them the decision to drop the d20 license in this case and go with the OGL/SRD choice. I wish Spycraft had done this as well.
I guess my question is, do you think we'll see more OGL-only products that dispense with the d20 license?

Frankly I hope so. While there are products that ARE meant to be used with the d20 license, I think there are some (like the aforementioned Spycraft) that would benefit from freeing themselves of the limitations of the d20 license in order to create fully fleshed-out rules instead of relying on another book.

I guess in the end this line of reasoning makes me question, do we really even NEED the d20 license anymore? When 3e came out the d20 license helped draw associations between D&D and the new publishers. But after 2 years do we need to continue doing this?
As I said, some products ARE d20, period. And that's fine. But perhaps publishers will begin to release the security blanket that is the d20/D&D association and venture into making SRD/OGL-only products to move in new directions.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

 

[Ranger REG]

Do we really need the d20 System Trademark License?

Yes.

The tiny little logo or brand that they have been building up its value in recognition makes it an instant appeal for those d20 gaming customers, who are at first D&D gaming customers, which is the largest source of income for game publishers. At least the little logo will tell them instantly that the product uses a rules system that are familiar to them.

 

[trancejeremy]

I'm surprised Mongoose didn't go the OGL only route with Judge Dredd. Like Everquest, it has a recognizable name, and fans would likely be more interested in a standalone game than a d20 game.

 

[Blacksad]

I'm surprised Mongoose didn't go the OGL only route with Judge Dredd. Like Everquest, it has a recognizable name, and fans would likely be more interested in a standalone game than a d20 game.

I'm not that surprised myself, when you have license I think you do not really lure many fan of the license in the RPG, you mostly get rpg fan who like the license.

that is IMHO

 

[Psion]

I completely agree with them, and I applauded them the decision to drop the d20 license in this case and go with the OGL/SRD choice. I wish Spycraft had done this as well.

Oh? And what do you think they would have done different if they had. Spycraft gave their own advanement material without diverging from the d20 STL. The one thing that they did deviate from the d20 for they simply asked, and there game is more consistent with existing d20 material for their efforts.

If WW had a good reason to NOT use the d20 STL but to still use the OGL, then by all means they should do so. But I really wonder if their reasons are good... I guess we will see. But I see no reason that spycraft would have benefitted.

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

Do we really need the d20 System Trademark License?
Yes.
The tiny little logo or brand that they have been building up its value in recognition makes it an instant appeal for those d20 gaming customers, who are at first D&D gaming customers, which is the largest source of income for game publishers. At least the little logo will tell them instantly that the product uses a rules system that are familiar to them.

Like I said, I am fully aware that there are products that are simply made to be d20, period. My point in asking is, now that the association between D&D and d20 has been made, do we need for the d20 logo to appear in every single product made? Answer: no, I don't. I think the d20 logo/license is helpful for many and is a good tool, but I also think that it may have hurt products that could have used the freedom of not having to conform to the bindings placed by the d20 license.
That's all water under the bridge now. My question is now more towards the future. Does every single product made needs the d20 license?
I still think no.
I think a crator/publisher needs to think it well and through, but I think enough groundwork has been laid for the d20 license to be left at home for some projects.
I guess we'll see.

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

Re: Re: License wars: d20/OGL or OGL-only

Oh? And what do you think they would have done different if they had.

For one thing not have a modern espeionage game refer back to a book that is all about pseudo-medieval fantasy in order to get the basic building blocks.
I just feel that Spycraft is a game that would have benefited even more from having a cohesive, all-in-one-book-and-one-voice rules system tailored from start to finish to its specifications instead of having espionage "dresses" for the fantasy "body". When I look in the book, under classes, and in the first few sentences it tells me, paraphrasing: "Go take a look at the D&D book, see the classes there? Forget them, these are the ones we use." I think it would have been so much better, both in terms of convenience for the new Spycraft player and for the sense of atmosphere being created if all the relevant info had been presented right there and then. As it is, I am constantly being referenced (either physically--as in, go get the book and read X--or mentally--as in, I don't haev to read the book cause I know the rules already but I know them from a fantasy standpoint) to a book written for a completely different theme and atmosphere which simply breaks apart the sense of immersion in the new universe these writers worked so hard to create.

Spycraft gave their own advanement material without diverging from the d20 STL. The one thing that they did deviate from the d20 for they simply asked, and there game is more consistent with existing d20 material for their efforts.

Which is all more a testament to the writers than anything else. But let's face it, this was added work that was, technically, not needed.

If WW had a good reason to NOT use the d20 STL but to still use the OGL, then by all means they should do so. But I really wonder if their reasons are good... I guess we will see. But I see no reason that spycraft would have benefitted.

Which is cool, I am not looking to sway your opinion; that's simply how I see it.
As far as WW and EverQuest, we'll indeed see. Regardless of, this will be the first major product released without adherence to the d20 license but still fully compatible with D&D. That has it's pros and cons, so I guess it is a toss-up. I still get 300+ pages of OGC, so I am happy either way.

 

[Ranger REG]

Hehehe. That depends.

You see, the trademark license has a minimum limit of OGC that must be in your product, at least 5%. The OGL do not have any restriction at all, only that if you have at least 1 OGC in your product, you must attach an OGL to your product. I mean you could have an two-sentence OGC and that's it.

Hehehe.

Seriously, I assume they're going to use some of the SRD's OGC ... so it'll be more than 3%. LOL.

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

Hehehe. That depends.
You see, the trademark license has a minimum limit of OGC that must be in your product, at least 5%. The OGL do not have any restriction at all, only that if you have at least 1 OGC in your product, you must attach an OGL to your product. I mean you could have an two-sentence OGC and that's it.
Hehehe.
Seriously, I assume they're going to use some of the SRD's OGC ... so it'll be more than 3%. LOL.

Heh, you're right. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.