[LPJDesign] OGL 3.5 logo created to replace D20 Logo for 3rd Party Publishers

[HinterWelt]

There's no Product Identity in the logo...

Also, there's no claim to compatability with D&D or the d20 System, both of which are WotC trademarks, either.

It does have a claim to compatibility though, to the 3.5 System. I could see this easily being argued that it is infringing on the "indicating as to compatibility" part. Again, not a lawyer just trying to anticipate any problems down the road. I always thought the whole claiming your game is compatible with a system to be verboten. Believe me, I would love to be wrong here.

Bill

 

[jaerdaph]

But the OGL is saying you can't use Product Identity to claim compatability. And no PI is being used in the logo.

Edit: And since I don't start law school until the fall and really have no vested interest in this either way, I'm going to shut my pie hole now.

 

[Urizen]

It does have a claim to compatibility though, to the 3.5 System. I could see this easily being argued that it is infringing on the "indicating as to compatibility" part. Again, not a lawyer just trying to anticipate any problems down the road. I always thought the whole claiming your game is compatible with a system to be verboten. Believe me, I would love to be wrong here.

Bill

I'm not a lawyer either, but it would seem to me that saying 3.5 System compatible is different than saying Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 Compatible. Obviously that's open to interpretation, but then again, what do I know.

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

The logo is pretty but I would not use it for one simple reason:

This logo promotes a license, not a system.

OGL does NOT equal 3.5 system. OGL is a way of releasing game material, and has been used to release the d20 system via the SRD/MSRD, but also the Action! system and the Fudge system and the Fate system. All those are OGL games, not to mention M&M, True20, a crapload of stuff released by Mongoose, etc. This logo does not help me tell my customer that my product is 3.5 (yes, I know it says 3.5 System, but it's the smaller font, and at a reduced size, it clearly becomes the secondary message conveyed).

The reason this is such a sticking point is that the OGL does not care what system it promulgates, but for far too long people have used the terms "OGL" and "d20 System Compatible" interchangeably when they are not. This in turn has created the very issue that is now being debated where the 4e GSL is trying to curtail 3.0/3.5 support and erroneously used OGL as a substitute term, which in turn had the effect of creating a much more draconian reading of the purpose of the license.

Make a logo that indicates 3.5 rules compatibility first and foremost and then there might be grounds for consideration.

Again, OGL does NOT equal 3.0/3.5/d20 System compatible.

 

[jaerdaph]

Methinks thou doest nitpick-eth too much.

*shrugs* The logo tells me, albeit a mere customer and consumer, that the product uses the OGL AND is compatible with the 3.5 rules of the world's most popular RPG.

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

Methinks thou doest nitpick-eth too much.
*shrugs* The logo tells me, albeit a mere customer and consumer, that the product uses the OGL AND is compatible with the 3.5 rules of the world's most popular RPG.

If the logo inverted that information, it would be a lot more successful in transmiting its message.

Yes I know I nitpicking but honestly, not that much. There is a distinction between the two. For the longest time it didn't make a difference because d20 was the only system released through the OGL, but right now, and especially in view of what the GSL intends to do (curtail the support for the older version while promoting support for the new one), it becomes imperative that the d20 System rules as found in the SRD/MSRD be separated from the OGL.

 

[Alzrius]

Hm, Daniel makes a good point. I wonder if, at a glance, a logo that had "3.5" in large font, with a smaller reading that said "OGL" or "OGL product" would be more helpful.

 

[Nellisir]

Hm, Daniel makes a good point. I wonder if, at a glance, a logo that had "3.5" in large font, with a smaller reading that said "OGL" or "OGL product" would be more helpful.

Why say OGL at all, then? The only way you could be "3.5" would be via the OGL, so one subsumes the other. Personally, I like this logo because you could use it for different systems - I don't know if Mongoose will adopt it, but I could certainly see "OGL: Runequest Compatible" or "OGL: Action! Compatible" logos.

 

[HinterWelt]

Why say OGL at all, then? The only way you could be "3.5" would be via the OGL, so one subsumes the other. Personally, I like this logo because you could use it for different systems - I don't know if Mongoose will adopt it, but I could certainly see "OGL: Runequest Compatible" or "OGL: Action! Compatible" logos.

See, this is exactly the kind of thing I though Section 7 forbade. I thought you could not make any claims of compatibility with another system.

Bill

 

[Goblinoid Games]

Hm, Daniel makes a good point. I wonder if, at a glance, a logo that had "3.5" in large font, with a smaller reading that said "OGL" or "OGL product" would be more helpful.

That's exactly what I suggested above, though no one responded.

(reposted from the RPGnow forums)

@Daniel - I'm so glad someone else has said this (about the OGL !=d20). Every time I bring it up all I hear are crickets in response. I've seen a number of publishers say something like, "The difference between 'OGL' and 'd20' is meaningless to customers."

Well, that is true, but it is true because publishers keep advertising that OGL = d20. If you want customers to see a difference, tell them there is a difference. But of course, that's the root of the problem that no one talks about, and that is that publishers have wanted customers to equate OGL with d20 because it allows an indication of compatibility with D&D without the pesky d20 license.

I'm not saying anyone was "wrong" to do this, but with 4e moving away from the OGL and more and different systems being released under the OGL, I think it is time to cut the license loose and use it as it was meant to be used, not try to shoe horn it into a brand. IMHO. To me if you want to see it as a "symbol," it should be a symbol of open gaming in general.