To all publishers: 3.0&3.5 logo for you

[Flyspeck23]

As you might know (well, chances are: you don't...) The Other Game Company (TOGC) will use the following logo to indicate that their products marked with it are fully compatible with both editions of the D20 rules:

We think it's a neat idea... but it won't do the community any good if we're the only ones using it. So here's what we came up with:
We'll designate the logo as open. Meaning: you can use it for your own publications or your website, if appropriate.
All we're asking for is: put a copyright notice in your product / on your website, and link to us (in return we'll link back to you).

The logo page:
http://www.theothergamecompany.com/projects/proj_third.htm
There you'll find all the information on this topic, as well as the eMail adress to contact us, what kind of graphic formats are available etc.

I don't know if you like the idea, so let me know
I'm open for any suggestions.

 

[Scorpio]

My .02- that is a very cool idea, and a very gracious offer! Plus, the logo is good!

 

[Bernal Donnerburg]

Oh my…what a wonderful idea

 

[Sir Whiskers]

But what exactly does 3.0/3.5 compatible mean? At the bare minimum, it could mean the publisher just put a 1-page errata at the back of a book with sentences like: "On page 3, paragraph 4, line 2, replace Spell Focus with Spellcasting Prodigy..." Such a product might technically be compatible, but as a customer, I would not consider it to be so.

To be truly compatible (which means I can use it with either system with a minimum of effort), I would need two separate write-ups for each classed npc (if any differences), each monster (keeping in mind that some CR's have changed), and possibly some magic items. Encounter strategies might change significantly given the changes to spells, magic items, and feats. In addition, the extra material would have to be easy to access, regardless of which system I use, not confusing, cluttered, or scattered, and certainly not require me to manually make the changes. To me, this seems to be a very tall order.

I can see two types of products which could more easily meet those standards: products filled primarily with flavor, and pdf products. A module, however, would be extremely difficult - imagine converting RttToEE to 3.5! Even a simple module might change significantly depending on which system is used. And while pdf products could be produced for both systems, most publishers won't want to go to the trouble of writing two separate products for one price.

Flyspeck, don't get me wrong - I appreciate your foresight in offering a logo for publishers to use. Any extra information that helps me, as a customer, make good decisions is worthwhile. But unless the standards for compatible are defined and adhered to, I suspect the logo won't actually have much meaning. Even more than before, I'll have to wait for a review to tell me how easily a product can be used with whichever system my group ends up using.

 

[Flyspeck23]

Sir Whiskers, your remarks are dead on. That logo is not supposed to be a "marketing tool", but rather a cohesive system for potential customers to base decisions on.

I, for my part, wouldn't use the logo if I'd just added a one page errata. As you point out, that would be cheating.

So what's called for is more rules for publishers (or just for TOGC, for that matter...) to use the logo?
Something like: "either your product can be used for both editions right away, or you've got to provide two versions."

What do you think?

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Flyspeck, as a customer, I would have to say the minimum standard is that I can use the product "out of the box", i.e., as is, which is the standard you mentioned. I see a difference between saying that a product can be used in either system, and a product which is designed for use in either system. Virtually anything qualifies for the former, if the customer is willing to put in the effort. To qualify for any special designation, I would (as a customer) insist on "out of the box" functionality.

Of course that raises the question, what can publishers do to sell the same product to customers, regardless of which version they use? I expect very few older products will be updated - for most products, it's just not good economics. For those that are, I expect that the material will consist of little more than errata, or stat blocks, likely organized in a web enhancement of some sort.

For new products, are publishers planning to design them for a specific version (most likely 3.5), and simply include guidelines for the customer to convert the product? If a publisher is designing a specific product for both systems, how are you doing so? I'd be interested in knowing what to expect as a customer. I realize that there are limits to what a publisher can do to bridge the systems with a single product - that's why I'm curious what the publishers who've already seen the 3.5 rules are planning to address this issue.

 

[Walter_J]

Sir Whiskers, your remarks are dead on. That logo is not supposed to be a "marketing tool", but rather a cohesive system for potential customers to base decisions on.

I, for my part, wouldn't use the logo if I'd just added a one page errata. As you point out, that would be cheating.

So what's called for is more rules for publishers (or just for TOGC, for that matter...) to use the logo?
Something like: "either your product can be used for both editions right away, or you've got to provide two versions."

What do you think?

I think that if you want the logo to mean anything you'll need to decide what standards a product must meet in order to use the logo and then create some sort of "user guide" that lists those standards/publisher requirements. To take that a little further, you'll have to maintain ownership of the logo. Meeting the standards set down in the user guide grants a publisher royalty free ability to use the logo.

Other wise the logo will only come to represent the lowest possible standard a publisher could possibly come up with and still say "It is 3.0 and 3.5 compatible." Posting an erata sheet on the publisher's website is a likely example.

 

[Flyspeck23]

Very true, both of you. Reading our "3.0&3.5" logo page once again, I think what you don't like is the part about "(...)or you'll provide an appendix for all changes necessary."
Well, that has changed. Now it says: "either all the material in your publication is per se compatible with both edition, or you'll provide two versions of your book in one bundle (ePublishing only)". Better?

I just hope that now the guidelines are not over-protective. But I guess it's better if few publishers (if any besides TOGC) comply with them and the logo stays true to its intention.

Now there are also guidelines for non-publisher (meaning: fan) sites to use the logo. And we'll establish a mailing list for all participants.

As a sidenote: I've added an example of an upcoming TOGC eBook which won't use the logo on the "3.0&3.5" logo page.

 

[Walter_J]

Very true, both of you. Reading our "3.0&3.5" logo page once again, I think what you don't like is the part about "(...)or you'll provide an appendix for all changes necessary."
Well, that has changed. Now it says: "either all the material in your publication is per se compatible with both edition, or you'll provide two versions of your book in one bundle (ePublishing only)". Better?

I just hope that now the guidelines are not over-protective. But I guess it's better if few publishers (if any besides TOGC) comply with them and the logo stays true to its intention.

Now there are also guidelines for non-publisher (meaning: fan) sites to use the logo. And we'll establish a mailing list for all participants.

As a sidenote: I've added an example of an upcoming TOGC eBook which won't use the logo on the "3.0&3.5" logo page.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I like the idea of the logo and, more importantly your intentions for it. I threw my two cents in cause I'd hate to see less scrupulous types come along and make amockery out of it. I think the guidelines cover the ony ways I can see how a publisher could use the logo. (BTW I'm not a lawyer.)
Looks good!

 

[Flyspeck23]

I'm not a lawyer either. And they'd better keep out of this
That's the reason I'd like every participating company to link to the "3.0&3.5" page, because I could name any company misusing the logo.

On the guidelines: what about "either all the material in your publication is per se compatible with both edition, or you provide a reasonable sized appendix detailing every change necessary, or you'll provide two versions of your book in one bundle (ePublishing only)". Better? Or is it getting worse?

See it this way: a company could easily come up with their own logo (it better shouldn't look anything like mine ), so the guidelines should be usable two ways: for the potential customer (or else they wouldn't see the logo as something helping them), and to the company (or else they would just do their own thing).