log in or register to remove this ad

 

4E Rumor control: Lucca 4e seminar report inaccuracies

Scott_Rouse

Explorer
Wulf Ratbane said:
Obviously there's no tiered OGL, since the OGL is what it is. It can't be changed. (Or rather, if it's changed, anyone can just use a prior version and sidestep any changes they don't like.)

Obviously, the key point is whether or not there will be a tiered d20 STL.

Specificity would be appreciated. Unfortunately, at the moment Scott appears to be either (a) engaging in a bit of doublespeak or (b) misusing terms he should be more than familiar with.

or

c) you not reading what I wrote or taking what I said as literal. There will be the OGL and Wizards D&D products period. No d20 STL (tiered or otherwise) to be even more clear.

1) there is no tiered licensing structure to the OGL. There will be D&D and the OGL as I explained here: Tiered OGL

There will be Wizards official D&D products (which will include licensed D&D products for foreign language translation) and OGL products made by third parties like Paizo, Expeditious Retreat, etc.

This seemed pretty clear to me.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Scott_Rouse

Explorer
Wulf Ratbane said:
I think that's covered under (b) misusing terms he should be familiar with.

You know what they say about assumptions? :p

Go back and read the post. Seems pretty clear to me. :heh: :lol:

Sorry I am feeling snarky today. :]
 

JohnSnow

Adventurer
Wulf Ratbane said:
No, it's not specific. It's exactly as specific as, "We have no immediate plans to release 4e."

It's not specific because Scott is not ready to be specific. If he was, we would have a specific answer from WOTC as to the dispensation of the d20STL.

You can't make business decisions based on, "We are not looking to implement a tiered licensing structure."

I don't mean to disagree Wulf, but I think Scott's been pretty clear.

d20 and the OGL was, by its very nature, a tiered licensing structure. From what I understand, Scott's saying they won't do that.

This has nothing to do with the parts of the game that are covered by the existing OGL. This has to do with whether the new mechanics of 4e will be OGL, and we've been told they will be. By dumping the distinction between OGL and d20, WotC would lower the burden on itself to monitor third party content to determine whether it should be "d20" or "just OGL."

Given the number of high-quality books previously released as "OGL," and the number of low-quality books that were released as "d20," I don't think WotC believes the branding distinction is significant enough to preserve. As a result, Scott may very well be lumping the terms because, going forward, there is no difference.

When he says no tiers, I'd assume he means "no tiers." Not just "not 3 tiers" but not even two. And "d20" for one tier of product and "OGL" as another IS two tiers.

Now it's just going to be "D&D products" and third-party "d20/OGL" products.

EDIT: Since Scott just confirmed they're dumping the d20 STL, I'm glad I'm not a betting man.
 



Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
JohnSnow said:
I don't mean to disagree Wulf, but I think Scott's been pretty clear.

Trust me when I tell you, John, as someone who has published under both the OGL and the d20STL, it was not clear. I'll take Scott's admonition that the misunderstanding was mine in good stride, but believe me,

THERE WILL BE NO d20 SYSTEM TRADEMARK LICENSE FOR 4e

is big news.

And it's very easy to be exactly that specific.

EDIT: Since Scott just confirmed they're dumping the d20 STL, I'm glad I'm not a betting man.

Well there ya go. Confused you too.
 
Last edited:

JohnSnow

Adventurer
Wulf Ratbane said:
Trust me when I tell you, John, as someone who has published under both the OGL and the d20STL, it was not clear. I'll take Scott's admonition that the misunderstanding was mine in good stride, but believe me,

THERE WILL BE NO d20 SYSTEM TRADEMARK LICENSE FOR 4e

is big news.

And it's very easy to be exactly that specific.



Well there ya go.

Since you probably missed my pre-edited post, I had bet they'd just let everyone use the "d20" logo so that compatible products were more easy to identify. Turns out I was mistaken, which is why I'm glad I didn't bet on it.

As an aside, do you think the dropping of the d20 STL will make things easier or harder for independent publishers? Was the d20 logo worth anything? And, if it was, if it no longer exists, will it still matter?

Just curious as to your opinion.
 

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
JohnSnow said:
Since you probably missed my pre-edited post, I had bet they'd just let everyone use the "d20" logo so that compatible products were more easy to identify. Turns out I was mistaken, which is why I'm glad I didn't bet on it.

That's why it's big news. 3rd party publishers will have no way to indicate compatibility with the 4th edition of the world's most popular fantasy roleplaying game (other than saying exactly that).

Or licensing the D&D brand outright, as Kenzer did for their Kalamar line.

As an aside, do you think the dropping of the d20 STL will make things easier or harder for independent publishers? Was the d20 logo worth anything? And, if it was, if it doesn't exist, will it still matter?

Just curious.

Regardless of what damage you think was done to the d20 System Trademark Logo over the course of its history, it did serve a useful function in distinguishing products that were d20 compatible. The problem is that folks expected it to be a mark of quality, which it most emphatically was not.

So... No d20 logo at this point cuts out a lot of folks in the middle.

If you are a small enough publisher, primarily PDF, you won't be much affected.

And if you are a large enough publisher, with a proven track record, access to distribution, and an established brand of your own, you won't be much affected.

If you are a middle tier publisher, or any new publisher looking to actually print books and see them in distribution on the shelves of brick-and-mortar game stores, I think you have some hurdles. There will be no easy way to quickly (easily and visually) establish compatibility on the store shelf.

Or, more importantly still, the effect it will have on the buying habits of retailers.
 

Kevin Brennan

First Post
Yeah, this is the first time anyone at WotC has actually come out and said this. There's been speculation before that the d20 STL would be dropped, but never any official confirmation.
 

Goken100 said:
Ya, that sounds fine to me. As long as the errata are corrections of mistakes or completely broken rules and NOT revisions.

I'd be fine with any change they want to make in errata, as long as they release the errata for free on the website and update the system reference documents accordingly.

[/passive aggressive comments about the Rules Compendium]
 

BadMojo

First Post
Wulf Ratbane said:
Or, more importantly still, the effect it will have on the buying habits of retailers.

Yeah, it's certainly a big kick in the teeth for anyone looking to sell print products. Very disappointing. The average consumer won't even need to worry about which books will be compatible with 4th edition since many retailers will probably stop stocking products from anyone but the big names like Green Ronin, Necromancer, Goodman, etc.
 

Amphimir Míriel

First Post
Deset Gled said:
I'd be fine with any change they want to make in errata, as long as they release the errata for free on the website and update the system reference documents accordingly.

[/passive aggressive comments about the Rules Compendium]

Hear, Hear!

Make all classes OGL!
 

Scott_Rouse

Explorer
BadMojo said:
Yeah, it's certainly a big kick in the teeth for anyone looking to sell print products. Very disappointing. The average consumer won't even need to worry about which books will be compatible with 4th edition since many retailers will probably stop stocking products from anyone but the big names like Green Ronin, Necromancer, Goodman, etc.


Are you saying the end of the D20 STL is a kick in the teeth?
 

Henrix

Explorer
A kick in the teeth is a bit of an overstatement, but it would be nice if there's a good way to say "this is fairly compatible with D&D4E" rather than just "uh, it's OGL, like so much else".

That wasn't quite what the D20 STL did, but that was one of the things it was used for.
 

BadMojo

First Post
Scott_Rouse said:
Are you saying the end of the D20 STL is a kick in the teeth?

Yeah, I didn't quote very well back there.

The end of D20 STL is going to make it very, very hard for smaller publishers to move print product. I'd imagine a lot of retailers are going to look at "Compatible with the 4th Edition of your Favorite Roleplaying Game" and then just shrug while they order a few more copies of the Player's Handbook.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I think this is some sort of malicious plot by the Evil Megacorp to destroy small publishers and I think I even understand why the D20STL is gone. It does seem like it's going to be tough to get a print product sold for the uh, 4th Edition of That Game We All Like.
 

WhatGravitas

First Post
Henrix said:
A kick in the teeth is a bit of an overstatement, but it would be nice if there's a good way to say "this is fairly compatible with D&D4E" rather than just "uh, it's OGL, like so much else".

That wasn't quite what the D20 STL did, but that was one of the things it was used for.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. It was better than "compatible with the 4th edition of the world's most popular RPG" or "for use with the 4th edition" or other strange ways to say "that's stuff that is for use with D&D 4"
 

tenkar

Old School Blogger
The D20 license was an experiment that failed overall.

The OGL was a success.

I figure WotC did well in making this change.

Course, I figured that the D20 license was going to change greatly or die... based on what i thought was Scott's attempt to avoid answering the question directly. I was right for the wrong reason.

D20 is dead... long live games based on the D20 system of the world's most popular game using the Open Gaming License... eh, doesn't have the same ring ;)
 

Bacris

First Post
Scott_Rouse said:
Are you saying the end of the D20 STL is a kick in the teeth?

It kind of is, but it kind of isn't.

Sure, I can produce a product using the OGL and have it entirely based off the core rules in the SRD, but there's no "quick" way for me to indicate it's compatible with the core rules, which was a nice feature of the d20 STL, even if there was a perception of negative brand equity - I could still quickly indicate that it was compatible without requiring some "Compatible with the world's most popular role-playing game" blurb.

Hrm, maybe a "CWtWMPRPG" logo? Not quite as concise as 'd20'
 

Scott_Rouse

Explorer
We are looking to incorporate some sort of compatibility language within the new version of the OGL. Something like "Compatible with the 4th Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying game..."
 

Presents for Goblins

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top