Third Party Publisher designation and logo

[tensen]

All releases under the OGL are Third Party after a fashion, perhaps even fourth or fifth, for that matter. Strictly speaking "Third Party" means "other than the principles" and as a release under an Open Game License is meant to place material under that license and possibly on an equal footing within the greater marketplace, the designation and logo seem very appropriate.

It is the Third Party of what exactly?
Does the customer know by that logo, that the material is the 3rd party support of Dungeons & Dragons? (Nope.. no Dungeons and Dragons logo on it.)

Third party support of d20? (But then, they have to know that d20 means that it is a 3rd party of Dungeons & Dragons... or at least something equivalent in their minds and even if they know that.. they question just what the product is a third party of... since they then have the possibility of not picking it up thinking it is support for an existing setting or whatnot.)

If it is an OGL product, it can contain a complete working system. What then is it a third party support of? Nothing... because it is the system. Adding that logo would confuse customers.

So... I don't understand what it is attempting to accomplish at all. Please explain.

 

[tensen]

All releases under the OGL are Third Party after a fashion, perhaps even fourth or fifth, for that matter. Strictly speaking "Third Party" means "other than the principles" and as a release under an Open Game License is meant to place material under that license and possibly on an equal footing within the greater marketplace, the designation and logo seem very appropriate.

That is correct from the perspective of the game rules, however not from the materials.

If I design a setting utilizing the game mechanics of d20...
I am a third party to the d20 materials.
I am a first party to the setting.

The third party to the setting would be someone I allowed to use the setting.

In the case of an OGL gaming product... a complete gaming product that happened to use the SRD for instance.
It is technically a 3rd party. But by using this 3rd party logo it would be expected by the buying public that the product is in support of something else in existence... which definitely would not be the case, and would hinder sales.

 

[Planesdragon]

Mark:

You're a bit mistaken on the OpenDie. It will likely be an OGL release backed by a marketing effort to define "OpenDie" as "all text in this book is OGC.", thus neatly placing the onus on the producter to clearly mark what they want closed.

A few points:

Nothing will ever mean "Compatibility" since that will always be in the eye of the consumer and must be decided on a product by product basis regardless even if the products are released by a single publisher.

Compatability can indeed be defined, marked, and overseen. While this would be "lowest-common-denominator" compatability, it would be enough to give meaning to a logo.

Easy example: "Anyone using the PCL must use the 1d20+X vs. DC mechanic, and mark any places that they vary from the rules of the PCL reference docs."

It is the defining of those restrictions, the licensing of them, and the fact that they can change in ways that cannot be foreseen that foster fractionalization, IMO, and that is a Bad thing.

The PCL's restrictions will never, ever, EVER get any worse than they are in the initial 1.0 release. The "you must update" clauses were there only for the Draft; with the final released later today, we would have to go to court and bribe a judge to enforce a later version of the PCL on someone who wanted to keep using 1.0.

Compatibility with what, with whom, and for how long?

What: The PCL reference documents, which bear a striking resemblance to the world's most popular fantasy RPG.

With Whom: With anyone else who uses the PCL. (this will, of course, create a bit of an inbalance problem, but that can and does happen anyway.)

For How long: Forever. The PCL is perpetual, and written to make any restriction of the license or logo optional.

 

[Mark]

It is the Third Party of what exactly?

...

So... I don't understand what it is attempting to accomplish at all. Please explain.

Third Party...to the OGL. It's simply a designation that allows someone using the OGL to identify that the product is using the OGL. No tie in to a trademark or system of any kind. No forced restrictions as to what is required (beyond use of the OGL) or quotas in content. It's really not as complicated as you are trying to make it out to be.

It's perfectly simple.

I think folks are so inundated with talk of compatibility that they gloss over the fact that no logo is an actual assurance of compatibility...or quality, or anything else for that matter. That's one of the reasons WotC is changing their compatibility logo and will probably change it again.

For my own part, I love being part of a larger community, I don't like the idea that a major part of marketing strategy can be taken away from me on the whim of another company/corporation. If things went really well for a company and the major part of their revenue were tied to a logo that suddenly was no longer available to them, how does it look to the general public?

I'm new enough to the market that it really doesn't matter to me if I make the switch now. There's a new edition (or major revision) of the rules for the world's most popular roleplaying game roughly every three to four years. There have been rumors (somewhere on the ogl-listservers within the last month) that led me to believe when the next revision/edition one rolls around the current wisdom is to greatly restrict the compatibility logo licensing. If they decide to hand-pick only a few to continue carrying the logo, I do not wish for my company to be tied to three or four years worth of recognition primarily associated with that logo on the off chance that I wind up as one of "the chosen few". No, thank you.

And so, the best time to do something pro-active is now. It's the beginning of a revision cycle. We've all had a chance to see what the market can do, what the keepers of the compatibility logo licensing are capable of doing, and how well something can do, or cannot do, without that crutch. Some might say that a company can get away with murder if they use the compatibility logo and still manage to sell products. Other might believe that the only way they will ever have a chance of making a go of it as a publisher is if they are tied to that compatibility logo. Others still might be of a mind to believe without that logo there is simply no point to publishing at all. They might all be right to varying degrees...for themselves as publishers, but I do not number among them.

I applaud the FGA. I am beyond doubt that they have their hearts in the right place when it comes to "Openness" (though not compatibility) but I am simply unwilling to exhange one set of restrictions for another in regard to licenses. My solution is entirely open, and while there are surely some clear downsides to it (chiefly not being tied to the major compatibility logo), I believe that the downside of continuing on the same course that I had originally planned has far greater potential risks, limited actual benefits at this point (for me, at least), and no recourse should someone pull the plug.

You can ask me until you are blue in the face what benefit another publisher will receive from using this and all I can ever say is that I do not know. This is something I have done for myself and left open so that others could decide for themself if it is something they believe they will also find a benefit from using.

The Third Party Publisher designation and logo allows for me to steer my own course, for good or ill, and is open enough to anyone publishing under the OGL. It's truly as simple as that.

 

[Mark]

What: The PCL reference documents, which bear a striking resemblance to the world's most popular fantasy RPG.

Therein lies the fly in your ointment, IMO. If you think for one minute that you are going to manage to do an end-around on the compatibility issue without WotC/Hasbro slapping you down, you have more faith than I in how you are investing your time and energy. I wish you well and am sure we can revisit the topic of the FGA's efforts in another thread, after the ship has launched and we see who controls the waters.

The Third Party Publisher designation and logo suggests no claims of compatibility since it is tied only to the OGL and not to any given system, trademark or copyright.

 

[Mark]

My apologies for the double post.

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

The problem with this concept is the same as for the open die concept; a lack of identity. As is, I could slap it on a D20, Action! or Prometheus product, or any of the future systems released under the OGL. So when a consumer sees it, there will be no association with an existing game system. So they aren't going to know from the logo that any particular product will be suitable for their needs.

If anyone were to use this logo, I'd suggest not grouping it with any game system logos and instead group it with company and organizational logos, which should hopefully prevent it from quickly polluting game system associations such products rely upon.

 

[Mark]

The problem with this concept is the same as for the open die concept; a lack of identity. As is, I could slap it on a D20, Action! or Prometheus product, or any of the future systems released under the OGL. So when a consumer sees it, there will be no association with an existing game system.

...and its strength. It isn't meant to be associated with any single system. It is absolutely *not* a notice of compatibility. It is, however, a designation to the consumer that the company is part of the Open Game Community, for which they should be given a good, close look.

So they aren't going to know from the logo that any particular product will be suitable for their needs.

That's what a company logo (in the case of a company dedicated to a single system) or particular branding marks and product line associations (in the case of a company that utilizes a number of systems) are meant to represent. But I think you understand this concept already. One of the great failings of current compatibility logos, and their widespread use, is that some companies have used them as a crutch. The marks or logos get propped up as being more significant than an individual company logo. In the end they mean nothing to the consumer by way of quality or consisitency as they become associated with far too wide a spectrum of output. They become insignificant to the consumer as anything other than a loose association, or worse, become a mark of inconsistancy (the opposite of their ideal association).

If anyone were to use this logo, I'd suggest not grouping it with any game system logos and instead group it with company and organizational logos, which should hopefully prevent it from quickly polluting game system associations such products rely upon.

I agree with your suggestion of usage but I think you misunderstand the potentional problem. It isn't a logo that pollutes a brand. It's a lack of consistency within the material from product to product produced by one or more companies relying more on the logo than on a baseline of quality that pollutes a brand. (read that again)

Take a look at the various systems released under the OGL to date, and the range of quality exemplified by the products bearing the marks of those given systems. Truth to be told, you cannot blame a company for keeping a tight reign on any logo that suggests compatibility with their line as it is the only way to signal to the consumer that the logo means "quality" and to maintain the strength of that logo.

IMO, the market has long needed a new approach that relies on individual company efforts to show quality as represented by that particular company logo, and with a secondary logo that merely represents publishing with the intent of sharing Open Content with the greater community (regardless of the system). Now we have one.

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

...and its strength. It isn't meant to be associated with any single system. It is absolutely *not* a notice of compatibility. It is, however, a designation to the consumer that the company is part of the Open Game Community, for which they should be given a good, close look.

You overlook the fact that the bulk consumers don't give a rat's right testicle about OGC beyond the fact that it means companies other than WotC are producing material they can buy for their D&D games. And there is nothing in the Third Party Publisher mark license that enforces any manner of quality, so you're back to square one on that ground as well.

That's what a company logo (in the case of a company dedicated to a single system) or particular branding marks and product line associations (in the case of a company that utilizes a number of systems) are meant to represent. But I think you understand this concept already. One of the great failings of current compatibility logos, and their widespread use, is that some companies have used them as a crutch. The marks or logos get propped up as being more significant than an individual company logo. In the end they mean nothing to the consumer by way of quality or consisitency as they become associated with far too wide a spectrum of output. They become insignificant to the consumer as anything other than a loose association, or worse, become a mark of inconsistancy (the opposite of their ideal association).

You seem to be unaware that the entire purpose of ANY mark is to establish some manner of identity. The D20 logo identifies material compatible with D&D or D20 Modern. The Action! logo identifies products compatible with the Action! System. The GAMA logo identifies products manufactured by GAMA members. Your company logo identifies products created by your company. Every single mark on the face of the planet is meant to function as a crutch. They have never been any indication of quality or consistency. And logos need to represent a precise identity, rather than this ideological crap people have been trying to push with both the Third Party Publisher and Open Die logo concepts. A very limited number of consumers buy or use anything based on ideologies. The majority buys things because they can use them. At best, the Third Party Publisher mark could only hope to be an identifier between publishers looking to incorporate the works of others into their own projects. It certainly won't do anything to help sales at the consumer level. Go down to your FLGS and spend a day conducting a multiple choice response poll of customers, I'm positive the result will be that they buy D20 material because they can use it in D&D, not because there are sections of text they can copy wholesale without fear of getting in trouble.

I agree with your suggestion of usage but I think you misunderstand the potentional problem. It isn't a logo that pollutes a brand. It's a lack of consistency within the material from product to product produced by one or more companies relying more on the logo than on a baseline of quality that pollutes a brand. (read that again)

Take a look at the various systems released under the OGL to date, and the range of quality exemplified by the products bearing the marks of those given systems. Truth to be told, you cannot blame a company for keeping a tight reign on any logo that suggests compatibility with their line as it is the only way to signal to the consumer that the logo means "quality" and to maintain the strength of that logo.

IMO, the market has long needed a new approach that relies on individual company efforts to show quality as represented by that particular company logo, and with a secondary logo that merely represents publishing with the intent of sharing Open Content with the greater community (regardless of the system). Now we have one.

I produce 10 books for D20 and put the Third Party Publisher (TPP) logo on them. I produce 1 book for action! and put the TPP logo on it. End result: a lot of irritated consumers who picked up the book after seeing the TPP logo and expect D20 content, and many consumers angry that they bought the Action! book with the expectation of D20 content due to seeing that TPP logo on so many D20 books. That's how the TPP logo creates brand pollution.

 

[tensen]

You can ask me until you are blue in the face what benefit another publisher will receive from using this and all I can ever say is that I do not know. This is something I have done for myself and left open so that others could decide for themself if it is something they believe they will also find a benefit from using.

Actually Mark that answered it.

The other logos had some sort of intending goal. You didn't. Makes it much simpler than having us try and read something into the intended goal.
With the amount of other logos floating around, and the timing, I made the mistake of assuming that you were intending the same sort of goal as them.

'nuff said.