Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Rumor control: Lucca 4e seminar report inaccuracies
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Najo" data-source="post: 3883623" data-attributes="member: 9959"><p>I find that the vocal minority can really make something into a bigger issue than it is. There is no need to take and have WOTC police a tighter d20 logo program. All they need to do is take the designer guidelines and developer notes, put it in a package and charge a liscensing fee to the 3rd party publishers who want a d20 logo. Then the D20 logo = my product had the same resources guiding is game developers that WOTC had. Therefore it is more likely to be better than those without this logo on it. </p><p></p><p>Regardless of talking about lazy retailers, distributors or customers, logos are used to create brand recognition and communicate to customers a method of sorting through products quickly. Instead of walking up to a wall of mixed product and having to read every one, I could choose to only look at the ones with d20 logos. By redefing the criteria needed to get that logo, you are communicating to the customers to give it another shot. </p><p></p><p>Besides, it is not laziness on the retailer or distributor when they are having to place their own money week after week onto products that they have no clue whether or not they are going to be any good. Those products that retailers ordered to give selection to their customers that are now sitting there, those retailers ate that...it was money lost. Especially the d20 stuff that will never sell. So, who can blame a retailer or distributor for being cautious or special ordering? They want to stay in business.</p><p></p><p>The average customer has limited time as well. The d20 logo was trusted in the beginning. I am just saying rebuild that trust. Put something into the requirements that make the d20 publisher have to pay attention to the details and build the game mechanics in the book right. </p><p></p><p>A perfect example of this, is when White Wolf launched their Creature Collection ahead of the 3.0 Monster Manual. White wolf's book was the first monster book to market. It sold like crazy. But, once people got used to the game systems and more source material came out, it turned out that White Wolf didn't follow the SRD or any true monster mechanics at the time, they basically made the monster profiles up. So the monsters had extra feats, skill points, wrong hit dice, and powers that weren't written properly. This is the sort of thing that would have been avoided with developer kits and game mechanic standards. My example is extreme, but it makes my point.</p><p></p><p>This is all that needs to happen:</p><p></p><p>Publishers can either publish as OGL or D20 TM. As OGL it is business as usually. As D20 TM, they pay a reasonable fee and then agree that their product:</p><p></p><p>* Meets the content decency standards (i.e. no real world religion, no sex, etc)</p><p>* Does not include how to generate ability scores or use experience to level a character.</p><p>* That the writers/ game designers/ developers made use of the official design document kit giving to them and made sure that they use all of the same materials WOTC uses to make new rules. This is extremely important, more so than many realize. </p><p></p><p>In turn, the publisher gets to put on the product:</p><p></p><p>* The D20 logo (or whatever logo WOTC uses to show it is official)</p><p>* The 'requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition Player's Handbook' or whatever other compatiblity langauge WOTC wants to allow.</p><p>* Limited D&D Trade Dress. This would be graphic design elements that tie in with the logo, allow the publisher to use some, none or all of a selection of style elements made for the 3rd party D&D product lines. These become visual cues that the products are part of the new D20 logo.</p><p></p><p>I would even go further myself, and offer the whole "official wotc approved product" logo, like what Kingdoms of Kalamar had. These products pay a royalty fee on top of their liscense fee. The royalty fee does not give WOTC rights to any IP of the company, just a percentage of sales out to a certain number of copies. What official products get are:</p><p></p><p>* WOTC editor and developers to smooth the product over.</p><p>* The ability to put the Dungeons and Dragons logo on the product in a non-prominment way that doesn't detract from official WOTC products.</p><p>* Tie-in with official D&D products instead of the SRD, that way those products could reference new products that aren't in the SRD. </p><p></p><p>I say WOTC goes for it and treats D&D like a console game system. They can make their own high quality products (like Nintendo does with Mario, Zelda or Metroid) and then they can end up getting some really good, creative teams in their from other companies (like console third party companies). The only way to make that happen is provide developer packages like what I am talking about or create a legal deal with each and every company on a one on one basis, and that second option is more expensive.</p><p></p><p>The only other option is just go here is the OGL, go for it. And you will end up with 3.0 part two. I guarantee. It is just a huge pile of good, ok and bad companies thrown together and customers having to wade through it. Even the good copanies can benefit from designer guidelines and in house design documents.</p><p></p><p>In fact, I would bet that Piazo did have access to some or all of those documents while they were working on Dragon and Dungeon, and that is the reason their mechanics are as tight as they are.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Najo, post: 3883623, member: 9959"] I find that the vocal minority can really make something into a bigger issue than it is. There is no need to take and have WOTC police a tighter d20 logo program. All they need to do is take the designer guidelines and developer notes, put it in a package and charge a liscensing fee to the 3rd party publishers who want a d20 logo. Then the D20 logo = my product had the same resources guiding is game developers that WOTC had. Therefore it is more likely to be better than those without this logo on it. Regardless of talking about lazy retailers, distributors or customers, logos are used to create brand recognition and communicate to customers a method of sorting through products quickly. Instead of walking up to a wall of mixed product and having to read every one, I could choose to only look at the ones with d20 logos. By redefing the criteria needed to get that logo, you are communicating to the customers to give it another shot. Besides, it is not laziness on the retailer or distributor when they are having to place their own money week after week onto products that they have no clue whether or not they are going to be any good. Those products that retailers ordered to give selection to their customers that are now sitting there, those retailers ate that...it was money lost. Especially the d20 stuff that will never sell. So, who can blame a retailer or distributor for being cautious or special ordering? They want to stay in business. The average customer has limited time as well. The d20 logo was trusted in the beginning. I am just saying rebuild that trust. Put something into the requirements that make the d20 publisher have to pay attention to the details and build the game mechanics in the book right. A perfect example of this, is when White Wolf launched their Creature Collection ahead of the 3.0 Monster Manual. White wolf's book was the first monster book to market. It sold like crazy. But, once people got used to the game systems and more source material came out, it turned out that White Wolf didn't follow the SRD or any true monster mechanics at the time, they basically made the monster profiles up. So the monsters had extra feats, skill points, wrong hit dice, and powers that weren't written properly. This is the sort of thing that would have been avoided with developer kits and game mechanic standards. My example is extreme, but it makes my point. This is all that needs to happen: Publishers can either publish as OGL or D20 TM. As OGL it is business as usually. As D20 TM, they pay a reasonable fee and then agree that their product: * Meets the content decency standards (i.e. no real world religion, no sex, etc) * Does not include how to generate ability scores or use experience to level a character. * That the writers/ game designers/ developers made use of the official design document kit giving to them and made sure that they use all of the same materials WOTC uses to make new rules. This is extremely important, more so than many realize. In turn, the publisher gets to put on the product: * The D20 logo (or whatever logo WOTC uses to show it is official) * The 'requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition Player's Handbook' or whatever other compatiblity langauge WOTC wants to allow. * Limited D&D Trade Dress. This would be graphic design elements that tie in with the logo, allow the publisher to use some, none or all of a selection of style elements made for the 3rd party D&D product lines. These become visual cues that the products are part of the new D20 logo. I would even go further myself, and offer the whole "official wotc approved product" logo, like what Kingdoms of Kalamar had. These products pay a royalty fee on top of their liscense fee. The royalty fee does not give WOTC rights to any IP of the company, just a percentage of sales out to a certain number of copies. What official products get are: * WOTC editor and developers to smooth the product over. * The ability to put the Dungeons and Dragons logo on the product in a non-prominment way that doesn't detract from official WOTC products. * Tie-in with official D&D products instead of the SRD, that way those products could reference new products that aren't in the SRD. I say WOTC goes for it and treats D&D like a console game system. They can make their own high quality products (like Nintendo does with Mario, Zelda or Metroid) and then they can end up getting some really good, creative teams in their from other companies (like console third party companies). The only way to make that happen is provide developer packages like what I am talking about or create a legal deal with each and every company on a one on one basis, and that second option is more expensive. The only other option is just go here is the OGL, go for it. And you will end up with 3.0 part two. I guarantee. It is just a huge pile of good, ok and bad companies thrown together and customers having to wade through it. Even the good copanies can benefit from designer guidelines and in house design documents. In fact, I would bet that Piazo did have access to some or all of those documents while they were working on Dragon and Dungeon, and that is the reason their mechanics are as tight as they are. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Rumor control: Lucca 4e seminar report inaccuracies
Top