Revised d20 mark?

[Dr_Rictus]

I think the joke is saying it will take hours.

I have a suspicion that you aren't really accounting for how quickly an hour can go by. It doesn't have to be a difficult process to be time-consuming, and it doesn't take statting up very many creatures to equal even one hour of my time. That's already worth more than the 15 bucks I paid for the book. When I buy a product, I'm paying someone else to do that work for me. RPG designers may be paid peanuts, but that's not me. If I'm going to add much at all onto the prep time I already have to spend on a module, the harsh truth is that it basically isn't worth jack to me.

Whether you believe how I make my purchasing decisions or not is not my problem, but there it is.

 

[Goobermunch]

d20 and 3.0 or 3.5 are different creatures. If I'm using the d20 rules, I'm not bound by what is in the PHb, the DMG, or the MM.

Witness: the Star Wars RPG, the WoT RPG, Spycraft, and any of a number of different non-D&D games.

As far as supplements designed to work with 3.5, publishers will probably want to mention that they're drawing from the revised SRD. I'd suggest something like: "Uses the Revised d20 System."

--G

 

[Fiery James]

Re: Re: Here it is...

Yes, that would be great. That's exactly what we're talking about. The question remains, is there any indication that they're changing the license to allow it?

Yes. This is the basic idea that came from WotC.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Re: Re: Re: Here it is...

Yes. This is the basic idea that came from WotC.

The sound you do not hear (since you do not hear me) is a sigh of relief being heaved. Glad to hear they're on top of this.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I'm a little curious....since the SRD is being changed to update to the Revised rules, will that mean that the 3e rules are no longer Open Content? I'm not a lawyer or an expert on the OGL, just a little curious about how this will be handled.

 

[woodelf]

Sure, but that's not the point. The point is, how do I as a consumer know whether a product uses the 3.0 rules or the 3.5 rules? The language you can use to indicate compatability is very tightly restricted by the d20 license, and there are significant differences between the two versions.

Currently, the D20 logo means "Just like D&D3E--sorta. Unless we changed that part. Or had a better idea. Or just don't use those rules." It seems to me that the differences between a D20-logoed product and D&D3.5E are likely to be roughly the same as those between a D20-logoed product and D&D3E. Or, put another way, i think the differences between 3E and 3.5E are miniscule compared to those between most D20 products and either edition, so i don't see the big deal. Heck, it's WotC that keeps insisting there will be total backwards-compatibility between the two editions. Now, i don't really buy that, but i do think they're close enough that, given we're already talking about optional add-on rules (since that's what a D20 product is, by definition), they'll be just as compatible with one edition as the other.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Or, put another way, i think the differences between 3E and 3.5E are miniscule compared to those between most D20 products and either edition, so i don't see the big deal. [/B]

Sure, plenty of d20 products are books of variants, or distinct games based on the rule set. What I'm interested in mainly are published adventures and such. In my experience, there's a big enough wheat-vs.-chaff problem there that I don't want another headache to add to it.

 

[woodelf]

I'm a little curious....since the SRD is being changed to update to the Revised rules, will that mean that the 3e rules are no longer Open Content? I'm not a lawyer or an expert on the OGL, just a little curious about how this will be handled.

From what i've heard, it sounds like WotC will likely remove the current D20SRD from their website. However, there's nothing they can do to revoke their open-content status. Once something is released, it's pretty much released in perpetuity (well, i have heard one person suggest that they might go from OGC to public domain when the underlying copyright expires--that'd be ~2091 IIRC). Anyway, i'm pretty certain that Ryan said he was going to keep both versions on the Open Gaming Foundation website, and i can't be the only person who has squirrelled away a copy of the 3E SRD just in case it disappears and the new one sucks.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm a little curious....since the SRD is being changed to update to the Revised rules, will that mean that the 3e rules are no longer Open Content? I'm not a lawyer or an expert on the OGL, just a little curious about how this will be handled.

Technically, the 3e rules are never open content to begin with, just the ones in the SRD.

I may have to resign to the fact that while the current original SRD will forever remain OGC, it may not be available for download on the Wizards' website. It will be replaced with the Revised SRD to reflect the change and keep confusion to a minimum.

I do have a question for Wizards, though: Will the Trademark License force publishers to update their current d20-labeled products or developing d20-labeled products to Wizards' Revised SRD?

 

[Mark]

Technically, the 3e rules are never open content to begin with, just the ones in the SRD.

...and technically speaking, just the rules in the finalized SRD. Up until a couple/few months ago, for those who may not know, the SRD was (in effect) a living document, by virtue of a "Gentlemen's Agreement." That agreement included a stipulation that no new material would be produced using pre-finalized SRD versions once the finalized SRD was completed. The working theory regarding OGC was that the original SRD would be finalized, materials would be continually added to from various supplements from WotC post-core rules, and added to the pool of OGC from various d20/third party publishers. In practice, the SRD was available but not set in stone until after the third edition of the rules was, in the eyes of WotC, on its way out.

I may have to resign to the fact that while the current original SRD will forever remain OGC, it may not be available for download on the Wizards' website. It will be replaced with the Revised SRD to reflect the change and keep confusion to a minimum.

Being available on the WotC website makes little difference since it is OGC and available from a number of other sources. If WotC does decide to pull the original SRD from their site in favor of the 3.5 SRD and it avoids confusion from d20 publishers and end users/consumers, this is likely a good thing. Already in this thread there is concern that there is going to be confusion about which future products will be compatible with which version of the SRD. If the price of less confusion is one less source for the original SRD, is that really a problem?

I do have a question for Wizards, though: Will the Trademark License force publishers to update their current d20-labeled products or developing d20-labeled products to Wizards' Revised SRD?

I'm not sure who is taking over AV's regular duties (if those include answering to questions on message boards), so I am not sure that you will get an official answer on these boards from a WotC source. Judging by what James has said above, that does not seem likely. I think it is worth noting that the d20SL is not the only license that can be used in conjunction with the OGL. There is nothing to stop someone from creating a logo symbolizing compatiability with the original SRD (along the lines of, say, pre-31/2. It need not be done by WotC, either. They have no more input over the proper use under the OGL of the original SRD than anyone else, save how it be used in conjunction with their additional licensing via the d20SL or the D&D logo. I do not think that WotC would want to start dividing camps by excluding use of the d20 logo from those working with the original SRD, though I may be very much mistaken. I doubt it is in their best interests to do such a thing.