Re: [Ogf-l] Two versions of the same work with and without the d20 license?

[Tavis Allison]

"Staggeringly bad idea" ought to be enough for me to talk my fellow Behemoths out of using the d20 license for Masters and Minions. However, I think it's possible that others might benefit from carrying the idea further, especially since bad ideas are often the most instructive. Let's assume that one or more OGL rules-light systems (like Castles and Crusades' or S. T. Cooley's) succeeds to the point where a demand is created for supplements usable in that system without conversion. A PDF or small-press publisher might fit well into that niche by releasing versions of their existing d20 products for the new audience using the rules-light system. Such a publisher (I'll call them Old Guard Press, or OldGP) doesn't have the option that Behemoth3 has--simply choosing never to get involved with the d20 license. Will it ever be safe for OldGP to have both the d20 and OGL versions on sale at the same time? (What does it mean for the two versions to be 'in direct competition with one another' in this context?) The issues that have been raised seem to me to fall into several categories: 1) Distinguishing the Versions. When I emphasized using similar titles, I assumed that a publisher would want to make it clear that both versions were essentially the same thing. If (for example) OldGP's original release had been titled "RPG Options: Foot in your Face", they might want to title the new version "RPG Options: Rules-Light Foot in your Face." Would this be a strong enough distinction between the products to avoid charges of trademark dilution? 2) Marketing. Avoiding confusion between the versions on the part of customers, distributors, and retailers is clearly important. However, wouldn't calling one version "Foot in the Face" and another "Kick to the Kisser" create the impression that each had different content, which would disappoint people who already owned one and bought the other hoping for more new boot-to-the-head action? 3) Content. Would it matter whether the text of each edition covered 'some of the same ground' or as nearly as possible the same ground except for the difference in the rules systems? I would assume that OldGP would not want necessarily want to write new material for or otherwise revise the rules-light version of "Foot in the Face", since there would be no intention of attracting people who already owned the d20 version. - Tavis Bruce Baugh wrote: This strikes me as a staggeringly bad idea. Steve Trustrum has pretty well covered the ground, but I'll tally my own concerns. 1. I see a very real ground for WotC to assert that you're creating product confusion and diluting the d20 logo unless the products are strongly distinguished. 2. Most customers don't have any clue about the difference between d20L and OGL, but some do, and among those who do, those who seek a particular version are likely to be unhappy if they get the other one. And not all online retailers or store proprietors will be as attentive as such customers would like. I guarantee a steady volume of unhappy customers as long as the books are selling at all. 3. Among customers who don't grok or care about the differences (as may be), there's going to be substantial simple confusion. They notice that the two books are nearly the same, can't readily figure out the differences...and are most likely to set them both back and go on to books that don't confuse them. So it seems to me legally risky and poor marketing. Don't do it. Even if you want to cover some of the same ground in d20 and OGL releases, do so in books that are obviously distinguishable and not in direct competition with each other.

_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l