OGL? SUccess or failure?

[Len]

Just so I understand you-- with the OGL in place, alternate (non-D&D) systems continue to thrive.

When the non-OGL, 4th edition arrives, non-D&D systems (which, at this point, will include all d20-based OGL systems) are suddenly no longer viable?

That's right. Grim Tales will burst into flame and burn to ashes. That's why I keep my copy in a fireproof box. I hope your warehouse is insured.

 

[Rasyr]

Just so I understand you-- with the OGL in place, alternate (non-D&D) systems continue to thrive.

Going by the information found at the link that Staffan had posted, yes, and even better than I had thought.

When the non-OGL, 4th edition arrives, non-D&D systems (which, at this point, will include all d20-based OGL systems) are suddenly no longer viable?

I never said that. IF 4E is not OGL, I fully expect the d20 logo to be pulled. If that happens, a lot of companies using the OGL and the logo are going to be severely hurt.

Those companies producing OGL based games that do not use the logo should do just fine, unless WotC's lawyers decide to go over them with a fine-toothed comb looking for license violations (and I am NOT saying that they would do this, only that it is a possibility that these companies have to consider). However, while they are doing just fine (no better and no worse than any non-d20 company really), they would no longer be considered to be linked to D&D, and in the long run this could be detrimental. I also think that over time (a long time, like 10 years or so), these companies would quite likely move away from the OGL to their own house systems, or perhaps something else.

 

[Turjan]

I also think that over time (a long time, like 10 years or so), these companies would quite likely move away from the OGL to their own house systems, or perhaps something else.

Actually, I think that they already do that, with a few exceptions. Just look at Mongoose and how much effort Matthew Sprange personally puts into getting a new version of Runequest out by next year. The fear from 4E is already tangible.

 

[Rasyr]

Actually, I think that they already do that, with a few exceptions. Just look at Mongoose and how much effort Matthew Sprange personally puts into getting a new version of Runequest out by next year. The fear from 4E is already tangible.

Yes, it is. And there are quite likely very valid reasons for that.

 

[Ranger REG]

Going by the information found at the link that Staffan had posted, yes, and even better than I had thought.

I never said that. IF 4E is not OGL,

Technically, 3e is not OGL, at least the three main print-published WotC books.

I fully expect the d20 logo to be pulled. If that happens, a lot of companies using the OGL and the logo are going to be severely hurt.

I disagree with your exaggeration. Perhaps many new small print presses may be if they consider the d20 logo their lifeline, but veteran publishers like Green Ronin and Mongoose, they're ready to drop the logo if need be, or better yet, support the other WotC's d20 rules, d20 Modern (via the Modern System Reference Documents).

So, I really can't see how you consider it a failure. Perhaps by your ... hehehe ... criteria, it might (you make it sound like the OGL is the "WMD" against WotC's competitors and for that I have to laugh harshly til I pee) but I doubt that's the goals WotC had in mind (though it goes without saying that ALL RPG publishers have the same agenda of working to be the "top dog" in the industry).

 

[Rasyr]

REG - please note that in the section you quoted from me, that I did say using both the OGL "AND" the logo. Please also note that in my first post, that I do mention the fact that a number of companies are already moving away from using the logo, and presenting their own house versions of d20.

As for your last paragraph, all I can say is... "Huh?"

 

[Ranger REG]

REG - please note that in the section you quoted from me, that I did say using both the OGL "AND" the logo. Please also note that in my first post, that I do mention the fact that a number of companies are already moving away from using the logo, and presenting their own house versions of d20.

As for your last paragraph, all I can say is... "Huh?"

So, you're worried about the d20 System Trademark License. Big deal. WotC have the right to revoke the license at any time, so for some companies that are riding on WotC's coatttail, just enjoy the ride while it last ... until D&D 4e or d20 Modern 2.0 is released.

 

[philreed]

. . . or d20 Modern 2.0 is released.

I don't think that's very likely.

 

[Maggan]

Bring it on!

Now that is a sweet list -- thanks, Staffan! Only one problem with the site -- the author totally left out Arcana Unearthed (2003), and even Arcana Evolved (March, 2005). I wonder if there are any other large omissions? Even so, it's still a much better resource by year, and there were a HECK of a lot of games over those 10 years, more than I could have guessed.

Yeah, that's a very good site to have as a reference.

I did some research way back to refute the fact that "all new stuff is d20" and I found that while d20 had it's fair share of new releases (about 25%), non-d20 was around 75%.

Of the titles released that is. But then again, many of those were minor releases, and when it comes to titles that showed up in stores, that's an entirely other ballgame.

Cheers!

Maggan

 

[Rasyr]

So, you're worried about the d20 System Trademark License. Big deal. WotC have the right to revoke the license at any time, so for some companies that are riding on WotC's coatttail, just enjoy the ride while it last ... until D&D 4e or d20 Modern 2.0 is released.

I know that they have the right to revoke it at any time. They changed it to prevent Anthony Valterra from putting his book under the d20 logo and in doing so gave themselves an easy method of revoking the STL for just about any reason.

Yes, I am worried about things like this. They will and can affect the whole market, not just d20 sales.

And finally, please note that I was not attempting to convince anybody of anything in this thread. I had made a statement of opinion in another thread, and a couple of folks asked to hear my reasoning, and asked me to post it here in General, so I did.

If you think I am wrong, that is fine. I even admit the possibility that I could very well be wrong about these things. You read a little more into what I had said than I had been attempting to say. No biggie, happens all the time. However, I did not start this thread to start a debate or disussion or convince anybody of my views. If you don't think that I am right, then more power to you.