Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 1112984" data-attributes="member: 5100">Or not.&nbsp; INAL, but it's my understanding that if you can use the entirety of the SRD, plus character generation and advancement rules, under the OGL.&nbsp; Really, the only advantage of the d20 logo over the OGL is brand recognition.&nbsp;All we need is for some reasonably well-known, well respected and stable person/group/company to publish a substitute SRD with a d20-type liscense that would become the new brand ID.&nbsp; Three that come to mind are our very own ENWorld, Sword &amp; Sorcery Studios (WWGS), and Malhavoc.&nbsp; With no offense to either of the others, I think S&amp;S is the best bet, mainly because they actually have printing presses and a brick-and-mortar business.&nbsp; Instead of using the d20 liscense, we all start looking for the &quot;SS20&quot; (someone, please, come up with a better name) logo.&nbsp; Besides that, the name &quot;Swords &amp; Sorcery&quot; is almost as iconic (because of the genre, not their own longevity) as &quot;Dungeons &amp; Dragons&quot;.&nbsp; I certainly wouldn't feel bad about pulling out my &quot;S&amp;S&quot; Player's Handbook.&nbsp;Now, it should be noted that, although I haven't read it and fully acknowledge that I may be completely mistaken in my impressions, I'm not really a big fan of the concept of the BoEF.&nbsp; I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with it and can't really blame WotC for trying to find a way to distance themselves from it.&nbsp; My main beef with the relicense is that, as Mr. Dancey says, it opens up d20 publishers to far too great a risk of liability to and oversight from WotC.&nbsp; I'd much rather have the BoEF or even the &quot;d20 Book of Pornographic Fantasy&quot; than have the d20 license hamstring the way it now is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 1112984, member: 5100"] Or not. INAL, but it's my understanding that if you can use the entirety of the SRD, plus character generation and advancement rules, under the OGL. Really, the only advantage of the d20 logo over the OGL is brand recognition. All we need is for some reasonably well-known, well respected and stable person/group/company to publish a substitute SRD with a d20-type liscense that would become the new brand ID. Three that come to mind are our very own ENWorld, Sword & Sorcery Studios (WWGS), and Malhavoc. With no offense to either of the others, I think S&S is the best bet, mainly because they actually have printing presses and a brick-and-mortar business. Instead of using the d20 liscense, we all start looking for the "SS20" (someone, please, come up with a better name) logo. Besides that, the name "Swords & Sorcery" is almost as iconic (because of the genre, not their own longevity) as "Dungeons & Dragons". I certainly wouldn't feel bad about pulling out my "S&S" Player's Handbook. Now, it should be noted that, although I haven't read it and fully acknowledge that I may be completely mistaken in my impressions, I'm not really a big fan of the concept of the BoEF. I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with it and can't really blame WotC for trying to find a way to distance themselves from it. My main beef with the relicense is that, as Mr. Dancey says, it opens up d20 publishers to far too great a risk of liability to and oversight from WotC. I'd much rather have the BoEF or even the "d20 Book of Pornographic Fantasy" than have the d20 license hamstring the way it now is. [/QUOTE]

Verification