On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Aaron Day wrote:
> As far as preserving the value of the logo, I can hardly see anyone buying a novel
>with
> the d20 logo and being disappointed because they expected it to be a game book
>instead.
> How many people get confused by the various D&D, Battletech, and Warhammer books,
>thinking
> they are game books?
Question: Do D&D books actually have the D&D logo on them or do they have
specific setting logos, such as Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc.?
I see very good reasons for using setting logos on novels (and I'd
consider Battletech and Warhammer settings as much as rule systems). The
D20 logo however is not a setting logo but a very rules-specific logo (or
at least that's the intent) and as such doesn't really make sense for use
on novels. I can see people who develop D20 settings also publishing
novels, but I'd think using the setting trademark would make more sense
than having a D20 logo. Players of the setting would still find the books
and would be completely aware of how to use the stats. Readers of the
books could easily find the game product (through the setting logo) and be
brought into D20 that way. A generic D20 logo on a book could lead to
readers of books picking up a D20 game product that really doesn't relate
to the book they read.
(BTW, is there any evidence that the rpg related books actually bring
people into gaming? I know a number of people who read Dragonlance books
and never gamed nor had an interest to do so.)
alec
