NDA Early access to 3.5 rules for d20 Print Publishers

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

cut & pasted From GamingReport.com

Reports: "Wizards of the Coast, Inc., in cooperation with the Free Gaming Association, is pleased to announce the creation of the D&D Revised Early Access e-mail list. This list is open only to d20 publishers who have either released print d20 products or have a former Wizards R&D member that worked on the

revision on permanent staff. All applicants will be required to fill out a short survey and return a Non-Disclosure Agreement to Wizards. Applicants who meet the eligibility requirements will be added to a D&D revision e-mail list and will receive a bound printout of the Revised Players Handbook (other printouts to follow as the manuscripts complete editing)."

Interested parties may apply at http://thefga.com/NDAApplication.php We will be accepting applications from February 1st to February 28th. We will not accept NDAs postmarked after February 28th.

edit: link fixed - someone please email a copy eh?

 

[Frilf]

Uh... Burritos? This sounds great, but the link isn't working for me.

Cheers!
Ian

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

Uh... Burritos? This sounds great, but the link isn't working for me.

Cheers!
Ian

Taco's !

Link fixed -- thanks

-BFG

 

[The Sigil]

This list is open only to d20 publishers who have either released print d20 products or have a former Wizards R&D member that worked on the revision on permanent staff.

That offends me in the highest possible way, to be honest. It demeans the work that d20 PDF publishers do - some of us would LOVE to release print versions of our work but lack the startup capital to do so. Blah. This is more than a slap in the face, this is an exclusionary "big money players only" club. This goes against the spirit of the OGL and d20 system, which is supposed to be "open," IMO.

Sorry for the reaction, but that's just crap. I can think of several companies (Chainmail Bikini, Malladin's Gate, and Phillip J. Reed, for instance) that have produced products far superior to much of the stuff I see in print. I think that they should have as much right to access the material as a print publisher.

Base it on quality of work produced, not on "print or not." I can think of a half-dozen print publishers, who will remain nameless, that I don't think deserve a look half as much as the three PDF publishers mentioned above. I don't have a problem with a "merit-system" based way of doing things, but a "print or PDF" system is crap - it rewards money.

The preferential treatment to companies with ex-WotC employees on staff grates at me as well - you'll note that WotC's d20 features (on their website) ignore anything that doesn't have an ex-WotC employee involved (we're pimping Monte Cook and Chris Pramas - and rightly so - but not Clark Peterson or Mystic Eye? Come on).

/rant

--The Sigil

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

Re: Re: NDA Early access to 3.5 rules for d20 Print Publishers

...
Base it on quality of work produced, not on "print or not." ...
--The Sigil

I feel ya Coolio.

Maybe you can submit an application anyway & see if they relax their criteria.

 

[jmucchiello]

Re: Re: NDA Early access to 3.5 rules for d20 Print Publishers

That offends me in the highest possible way, to be honest. It demeans the work that d20 PDF publishers do - some of us would LOVE to release print versions of our work but lack the startup capital to do so. Blah. This is more than a slap in the face, this is an exclusionary "big money players only" club. This goes against the spirit of the OGL and d20 system, which is supposed to be "open," IMO.

Sorry for the reaction, but that's just crap. I can think of several companies (Chainmail Bikini, Malladin's Gate, and Phillip J. Reed, for instance) that have produced products far superior to much of the stuff I see in print. I think that they should have as much right to access the material as a print publisher.

Base it on quality of work produced, not on "print or not." I can think of a half-dozen print publishers, who will remain nameless, that I don't think deserve a look half as much as the three PDF publishers mentioned above. I don't have a problem with a "merit-system" based way of doing things, but a "print or PDF" system is crap - it rewards money.

The preferential treatment to companies with ex-WotC employees on staff grates at me as well - you'll note that WotC's d20 features (on their website) ignore anything that doesn't have an ex-WotC employee involved (we're pimping Monte Cook and Chris Pramas - and rightly so - but not Clark Peterson or Mystic Eye? Come on).

/rant

--The Sigil

Normally I would trim and reply but Spencer has said what I'd like to say. Hear, Hear.

 

[philreed]

The Reason for Print Only

First off, thanks for the encouragement. Each time I'm mentioned as a "quality D20 PDF publisher" I blink and read it again. I'm still getting adjusted to people enjoying my work when it isn't under the banner of an established company.

I think the reasoning behind "print only" is to cut down on the number of applications they have to process. I could see where some game groups would become PDF publishers so that they can get advance info. I don't know why they didn't set some ground rules (PDF publishers with product for sale as of February 1st or something) but I do know that there's nothing I can do about it.

PDF publishers may have an advantage. It's much easier to revise and release a PDF than it is to recall a printed product. I hope that many gamers who have so far avoided PDFs will now take a chance on a few of them. PDFs purchased today will, likely, be updated as necessary when the revised books are released. Most PDF publishers offer free upgrades. How many print publishers off to mail a free copy of the book when it's reprinted as a new edition (or even with errata fixed)?

 

[JohnRTroy]

Re: Re: NDA Early access to 3.5 rules for d20 Print Publishers

That offends me in the highest possible way, to be honest. It demeans the work that d20 PDF publishers do - some of us would LOVE to release print versions of our work but lack the startup capital to do so. Blah. This is more than a slap in the face, this is an exclusionary "big money players only" club. This goes against the spirit of the OGL and d20 system, which is supposed to be "open," IMO.

The spirit of the d20 license is for Wizards to make money on their core products, not as a "free for everybody" system.

It's not a question of subjective quality, it is a question of risk, both for Wizards as well as the publishers. PDF has little barrier of entry. Just about ANYBODY can produce a PDF document. This has a risk of giving it out to too many people, some of whom might not keep the NDA.

The other thing is, print publishers take more of a risk. They have to come up with the money to pay for their advertising, print runs, distribution, etc. Regardless of what you think about preferencial treatment being unfair--it's not. The print people take more of a financial risk, and thus have more to lose with their stuff not being PDF. Also, they are the ones who need the lead time, since publishing schedules for them take time.

Put it this way, they are trying to give the "advance look" only to those publishers who will need it--and even then, they might not accept the request. I think that's better than keeping the rules "underground" until they are released.

 

[jmucchiello]

Re: Re: Re: NDA Early access to 3.5 rules for d20 Print Publishers

Put it this way, they are trying to give the "advance look" only to those publishers who will need it--and even then, they might not accept the request. I think that's better than keeping the rules "underground" until they are released.

Speaking for myself, I think I need to see those rules before several "established" print publishers because I know that the stuff I write conforms to the rules a lot better than some of the stuff that gets printed. So I assume the so-called established pubs will be given access to rules that they will ignore like they ignore the current ones. It is a disservice to assume that this revision will not slow any of my work just because I can always fix it later.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: NDA Early access to 3.5 rules for d20 Print Publishers

Speaking for myself, I think I need to see those rules before several "established" print publishers because I know that the stuff I write conforms to the rules a lot better than some of the stuff that gets printed. So I assume the so-called established pubs will be given access to rules that they will ignore like they ignore the current ones. It is a disservice to assume that this revision will not slow any of my work just because I can always fix it later.

It's not a question of objective or subjective quality, it's a case of investment.

Again, it IS about the money. Wizards is helping those people who place more of a financial investment into their work. Print publication is still the best way to tell the real contributors to the d20 economy than the PDF guys.