Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3982179" data-attributes="member: 18280"><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />&nbsp; This must be some strange new meaning of the term &quot;OGL&quot; that I'm not familiar with.&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />Let's see.&nbsp; From <a href="http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/11618.html:" target="_blank">http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/11618.html:</a>When Wizards of the Coast introduced the OGL in 2000, WotC also inaugurated a program that provided a separate license--the d20 System Trademark License (STL)--that allowed third party publishers to use some of WotC's trademarked terms and a distinctive logo to identify these products (see &quot;d20 and the Open Gaming System Explained&quot;).&nbsp; All d20 STL products were required to be tied to a D&amp;D core rulebook (published by WotC) and were also required to acknowledge the requisite core rulebook clearly.Now we seem to have a license with terms that can be used (but which is not, unlike the OGL, actually open), that requires distinctive wording and/or graphics (which sounds alot like a distinctive logo, even if that isn't what they want to call it), are required to be tied to a D&amp;D core rulebook (published by WotC) and are also required to acknowledge the requisite core rulebook clearly.That sounds strangely like the STL to me.And, if you pay $5,000 you get to do things you don't get to do if you do not.&nbsp; That sounds strangely like a tiered system to me.Whether you call it an OGL or an STL, the &quot;L&quot; stands for &quot;license&quot;.&nbsp; &quot;Tiered license&quot; is jargon for a license according to separate, incrementally distinct quality.&nbsp; &quot;Providing some measure of first-mover advantage to those who are willing to spend the $5,000&quot; makes it a tiered license, whether you believe it to be so or not.Go back toWizards of the Coast will use a 'three tier' system for licenses. The d20 System logo will be - it seems - a traditional WotC trademark licensed just to some big publishers (Mongoose, Paizo, Green Ronin) while other, smaller publisher will have to ask for some support from a bigger publisher that will 'guarantee' that the smaller publishers publish 'quality' books. It seems that the main reasons for this are avoiding the appearance of controversial products such as The Book of Erotic Fantasy and of third rate products that could hurt sales.and we can see that &quot;big publishers&quot; (those who can afford the $5,000 fee) are being favoured over from other, smaller publishers (those who cannot afford the $5,000 fee) [EDIT:&nbsp; If the fee isn't for WotC to make cash, then this is the only reason for it] and that the 4e &quot;OGL&quot; will include language clearly aimed at &quot;avoiding the appearance of controversial products such as The Book of Erotic Fantasy and of third rate products that could hurt sales&quot; (i.e., the &quot;community standards&quot; clause).Once more, denied information turns out to have more than a grain of truth.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3982179, member: 18280"] :lol: This must be some strange new meaning of the term "OGL" that I'm not familiar with. :lol: Let's see. From [url]http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/11618.html:[/url] [indent]When Wizards of the Coast introduced the OGL in 2000, WotC also inaugurated a program that provided a separate license--the d20 System Trademark License (STL)--that allowed third party publishers to use some of WotC's trademarked terms and a distinctive logo to identify these products (see "d20 and the Open Gaming System Explained"). All d20 STL products were required to be tied to a D&D core rulebook (published by WotC) and were also required to acknowledge the requisite core rulebook clearly.[/indent] Now we seem to have a license with terms that can be used (but which is not, unlike the OGL, actually open), that requires distinctive wording and/or graphics (which sounds alot like a distinctive logo, even if that isn't what they want to call it), are required to be tied to a D&D core rulebook (published by WotC) and are also required to acknowledge the requisite core rulebook clearly. That sounds strangely like the STL to me. And, if you pay $5,000 you get to do things you don't get to do if you do not. That sounds strangely like a tiered system to me. Whether you call it an OGL or an STL, the "L" stands for "license". "Tiered license" is jargon for a license according to separate, incrementally distinct quality. "Providing some measure of first-mover advantage to those who are willing to spend the $5,000" [i][b]makes it[/b][/i][b][/b] a tiered license, whether you believe it to be so or not. Go back to [indent]Wizards of the Coast will use a 'three tier' system for licenses. The d20 System logo will be - it seems - a traditional WotC trademark licensed just to some big publishers (Mongoose, Paizo, Green Ronin) while other, smaller publisher will have to ask for some support from a bigger publisher that will 'guarantee' that the smaller publishers publish 'quality' books. It seems that the main reasons for this are avoiding the appearance of controversial products such as The Book of Erotic Fantasy and of third rate products that could hurt sales.[/indent] and we can see that "big publishers" (those who can afford the $5,000 fee) are being favoured over from other, smaller publishers (those who cannot afford the $5,000 fee) [EDIT: If the fee isn't for WotC to make cash, then this is the only reason for it] and that the 4e "OGL" will include language clearly aimed at "avoiding the appearance of controversial products such as The Book of Erotic Fantasy and of third rate products that could hurt sales" (i.e., the "community standards" clause). Once more, denied information turns out to have more than a grain of truth. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification