"Ryan S. Dancey" wrote:
> I welcome any and all comment and input.
Ask and ye shall recieve. In droves.
> The carrot is that they get to put the D20 system logo on their products,
> and make direct references to D&D core books, which means that they'll be
> able to get more value by indicating a direct connection to the total D&D
> network. The stick is that they'll give up the ability to create complete
> roleplaying games to compete with the WotC core RPG books, and they'll agree
> to a certain level of standardization in terminology to be consistent with
> our core rules.
If someone objects to this, they're in the running for wedgies.
> I believe that the "carrot" can consist of the rights to use the following
> materials:
>
> The D20 System logo
> Indicate compatibility with the D20 System
> (*)A collection of monster names and descriptions
> (*)A collection of magic items and descriptions
> (*)A collection of proprietary characters and descriptions
> Permission to indicate the need to use the core D&D rulebooks (but not
> permission to suggest that the material is authorized D&D material)
A carrot most of us would like to see is the ability to expressly indicate
"unauthorized compatability" with official D&D material. But you already knew
that.
> 1) The product cannot include rules for creating characters; meaning rules
> for determining starting ability scores, selecting a racial template,
> selecting a class, allocating skill points, and/or choosing feats.
Specific examples would be nice, especially as to what *can* be said. "Refer to
PH, chapter 3" is a lot easier than saying "see D20SRD section 3" and a lot more
informative than saying nothing at all.
That's a pretty big stick, otherwise.
> For example, if "Strength" is a defined term, a publisher shouldn't be able
> to redefine what "Strength" means in the game. They could opt to not use
> "Strength", and instead create a new term "Physical Power" with a new
> definition if they want to.
Could they use "Muscle" to mean Strength, instead? that would be nice to be
able to do.
> Also, the license should require the use of Open Game Content and the use of
> the Open Game License. I suggest that we impose a requirement that at a
> minimum, 10% of the text in a product bearing the D20 trademarks consist of
> Open Game content.
Why? You've previously seemed to favor market forces to curtail non-central D20
items.
> And a final issue, the license should restrict the ability of a publisher to
> create computer software. I envision a time when we will want to relax this
> requirement, but I think that we should tackle that problem in the future.
Heck, this makes sense to me. The D20 logo is as valuable to software as it is
to a game.
> 3) The license should specify the physical reproduction requirements for
> the D20 System logo, and describe how to use the trademarks in a format that
> doesn't support graphics (like a plain text file).
I'd like to see these as well.
> 4) If possible, the license could be something that the publisher can
> acknowledge but not have to reproduce fully. (Example: A line in the
> publication that says "This product complies with the D20 System Trademark
> License, version 1.0. A copy of that license can be found at
> www.wizards.com/open_gaming/. The D20 System name and logo, the Dungeons &
> Dragons name and logo, and all other aspects of Product Identity covered by
> the D20 System Trademark License are the sole property of Wizards of the
> Coast and are used with permission.)
That would, quite simply, be great.
> 5) The license should set forth a penalty for noncompliance (my suggestion
> is the loss of the right to distribute the offending content).
Sounds good. That way, the "eventual" court battle won't have someone losing
their IP--they just won't be able to distribute it. They could, however, make a
D20-less work at a later date.
Unless you want the d20STL to have more teeth?
DM
