D&D 4E What will happen if 4E doesn't use the OGL?

[Mark CMG]

But because the d20 logo flopped, (. . .)

Your reservations about the quality of some d20 products is certainly valid but to say that the d20 logo flopped? I cannot agree with that by any standard.

 

[kigmatzomat]

While WotC could reject any d20 license, the only times they did were abuses of their morality clauses, AFAIK. Had they mandated some rules adherence it might have been different. That gave d20 something of a poison pill: in the beginning everyone was desperate to be completely 3e compliant to get the most share of the flash market.

Afterwards people started diverging, typically in products that were competing with WotC. E.g. Mongoose's Quintessential x was competing essentially with WotC's Complete x (though it would be more precise to say Quint was competing with S&F, T&B, etc) and the settings were fighting with the 3.x FR and Eberron.

Divergence worked in WotC's favor as it caused market fragmentation and the devaluation of the d20 licence. After about the 3rd year, people started losing confidence in d20 products being compatible with D&D. There was a resurgence with 3.5 but the honeymoon was relatively brief as people again became disenchanted.

IMO the M/R/SRD publishers & the Open Gaming Foundation should get together and make up their own logos to reflect the rules in use and if it is a strict adherence or not. The licensing terms, IMO, should only be based on whether the supplement actually adheres to the xSRD rule set or not. If the product rewrites core mechanics it would have to use a "Variant" or "Alternate" logo, as would any supplement that relies on an SRD variant rule set.

This would mainly benefit settings and books covering mechanics not addressed in the SRD. Alternate rules are probably the largest number of products which will, as usual, get little benefit from the d20 logo.

 

[jmucchiello]

Your reservations about the quality of some d20 products is certainly valid but to say that the d20 logo flopped? I cannot agree with that by any standard.

Any standard? The d20 logo is as relevant today as it was 5 years ago? Getting into the distribution channel with a d20 logo today is as easy as it was in 2000?

Remember I said "It's value was destroyed a long time ago." I never said it flopped. I said that it no longer carries any value, thus the use of destroyed. "Long time ago" is perhaps inaccurate or hyperbole. Accuse me of thinking in internet time if you will. But can you disagree that the d20 logo has lost its oomph?

Also, what of my other assertion? If WotC approached CMG for a private license to put out 4e compatible products but wouldn't allow you to stamp them "official 4e content for D&D", would you do it? My feeling is a new d20 style logo (indicates vague compatibility rather than explicit compatibility) would not have the sizzle the d20 logo had and would perform poorly. IOW, they've seen this before and the retailers won't "fall for it" again. They'll be just as cautious as they'be been in 3.5e era. The new logo would have to be emblazened with D&D goodness for me to take that kind of chance. (Not that WotC would approach TDG to license their material.)

 

[Ranger REG]

If he doesn't, I will.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the d20 license go away and be replaced by something a little more exclusive - something that requires some cash up front. Probably not a wholesale D&D license, but closer than the d20 license.

So you think the d20 license wasn't strict enough? :\

They don't have enough guys on the payroll to review developing products, and edit submitted material for their own.

 

[Mark CMG]

So you think the d20 license wasn't strict enough? :\

They don't have enough guys on the payroll to review developing products, and edit submitted material for their own.

I don't believe that WotC ever really wanted to get into the business of reviewing d20 products (barring those that used some IP by permission, or those that were outrageously in violation).

 

[Mark CMG]

I never said it flopped.

My apologies for misquoting you.

Also, what of my other assertion? If WotC approached CMG for a private license to put out 4e compatible products but wouldn't allow you to stamp them "official 4e content for D&D", would you do it?

I would need a lot more details. Details about what material (new SRD?) are available. If those materials are available to just anyone. In short, what benefits the license gives over not having it.

 

[Nellisir]

So you think the d20 license wasn't strict enough? :\

I don't have an opinion on the "strictness" of the d20 license. I do think the glut of products, and their mixed quality, sank the market value of the d20 logo.

They don't have enough guys on the payroll to review developing products, and edit submitted material for their own.

Who said anything about reviewing or editing products? I said a more exclusive, for-money, license. The current d20 license is not exclusive and is free. WotC doesn't have to vet products if they vet companies.

 

[Ranger REG]

I don't have an opinion on the "strictness" of the d20 license. I do think the glut of products, and their mixed quality, sank the market value of the d20 logo.

So's the dot-com bubble burst in the 90's. That didn't sink the commercial value of the internet.

 

[Ranger REG]

Who said anything about reviewing or editing products? I said a more exclusive, for-money, license. The current d20 license is not exclusive and is free. WotC doesn't have to vet products if they vet companies.

You assume that if the company pays for such a license, they'll make better products? :\