> From: David Shepheard > > Even the d20 System logo isn't entirely useful for customers as it gets > used > for both fantasy and futuristic games. A product with the d20 System logo > might be compatible with Dungeons and Dragons or d20 Modern. The only way > to > really tell if something is compatible, with the type of game rules you > prefer to use, is to flick through the book (or download a preview).
Or (as I saw someone mention elsewhere the other day), open to the OGL page and read the section 15 and see what it mentions. Although as RQ itself used some of the d20 SRD there's references to that in there in addition to RQSRD, which only adds to the confusion - and as you mention below there's the problem of shrinkwrap too :( > BTW: Talking of RuneQuest - How is the RuneQuest Development Kit is going > to > work? Will there be a RQSRD that has got all of the Glorantha material > removed from it or will people have to sift through the RuneQuest books > and > hunt for PI themselves? There is an SRD for RuneQuest, available for download at: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/series.php?qsSeries=39 (scroll down to the RuneQuest SRD link near the bottom of the page - I won't link direct to the SRD file in case they make amendments and rename it) By the way, anyone interested in RuneQuest may want to come join the RQ Game Designers list over at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RQ_OGL > I generally don't trust books that say "OGL Compatible" as they may or may > be compatible with the SRD, the MRSD or something else entirely. If I > can't > download a preview and the books are shrink-wrapped, I won't buy them. > Many > UK RPG shops shrink wrap everything now (something that was only done with > boxed sets in the 1980s) so it is much harder to make a purchasing > decision. > It is sometimes even hard to tell the difference between a stand-alone > product and an add on book. Some publishers provide this sort of > information > inside the book, but with shops shrink-wrapping the books this message > doesn't get to me. I look at an "OGL" logo as meaning pretty much sod all, as well :) > I think that the Promethus logo helps a bit, as it can only be used for > documents that are compatible with the SRD or MRSD. However it still has > the > two system problem that the d20 System logo has. I'd also seriously doubt whether the average game-buying customer would know what the Prometheus logo stood for anyway. I know most either go for a brand logo they know (e.g. Swords & Sorcery), a manufacturer they're familiar with and can check with the community for (e.g. AEG,Mongoose), or want avoid D&D/d20 material completely because they're fed up to the back teeth with it :) > I think I'd like to see publishers of OGL systems (that are alternatives > to > the SRD or MSRD) all providing their own compatiblity logo. And I'd also > like to see all publishers of OGL books that are based on the SRD or MSRD > finding a better way to show that they are compatible. Well for RuneQuest there's a logo licence available (details are in the SRD download). It's got similar terms to the d20 licence (with the exception of not requiring a minimum percentage of open content) - pretty much that you have to refer to trademarks in a particular way, put the rulebook requirement notice in, RQ logo has a minimum size on the cover, and you cannot tell the reader how to generate characteristics. I can't see any OGL publisher wanting to make a condition-free logo available, they want to use your product to sell their core rulebook the same way you want to use their core rulebook to sell your product. I don't foresee any problems using the RQ logo while it's an option. Obviously there is nothing to say it will always be there, but it's a lot easier for publishers to use it while it is and get people to know their products through it. I'd do the same with any other logo - use it while it is available, and hope I embedded myself in with the player community enough for them to go for my products on my own brand recognition if the logo was ever pulled. That approach has worked for a lot of companies with the d20 logo - the only problem is you have to be there in the beginning before everyone else jumps on the bandwagon and dilutes the meaning of the logo. The likes of Necromancer and Mongoose worked it pretty much perfectly - they used d20 logos all over the place, people got to know their products, and now they can get away with dropping the logo because people know them. The problem really is what can a relatively unknown publisher do to make themselves known in the d20 market today. Personally, I'd suggest if people don't know you already, avoid d20 - unless you are either working with a licenced I.P. or have such an amazing launch product that it is going to gain you recognition on that alone. Otherwise just stick your product on the d20 shelf on RPGNow (or mark your printed book with something about third edition fantasy rules), cross your fingers and hope that it sells a few copies. It's not that I don't think a third party logo would work, it's that I can't see enough people cooperating to do it for it to work :) If one of the larger publishers adopted an "open" logo, that would help everyone else a great deal - but why would they want to? Everyone already knows who they are, it's just the smaller guys that need a promotional crutch to say "hey, our stuff, which you've probably never heard of, works with those rules too". The smaller guys are, it appears, on their own. > I know that it is against the OGL to claim compatibility, but is it legal > to > claim that you are *not* compatible? (i.e. if Mongoose wanted to, could > they > put "The RuneQuest fantasy role playing system is a role playing system > created by Mongoose. It is released under the OGL, but is not compatible > with Dungeons and Dragons or d20 Modern" onto the back cover of a book?) Possible infringement on WotC trademarks, I would guess. I can't pretend to know how Mongoose think on this, but I can say that in my own store over the past few weeks RuneQuest outsold any other RPG product we've ever carried (D&D PHBs included, but most likely because the store didn't exist when that was launched) - it seems to sell quite well enough on its own merits without having to say anything else. RQ sells because it has a known brand name (and possibly because it has a known publisher as well), the problem is more what to do when you don't have a known brand name to identify your product with. What it would take, IMHO, is for a third party to organize a logo (in the way Prometheus have done), get support from third-party publishers, and make a concerted effort to promote that logo. I mean flyers in stores that can go next to the shelves and explain what the heck that funny little cogwheel means and banner ads on RPG sites. If third party publishers want "in", they'd have to help with the promotion costs. Personally I'm just avoiding d20 altogether now unless someone specifically wants to hire me to write something for it ;) > Surely SRD (and MSRD) are the things that should be included in a logo (or > better still 2 logos). Because System Reference Docment is a bit > non-descript it would be good to add something that indicates that it is a > fantasy role playing system. That's good until you see SRDs popping up for non-d20 games. I think you need to be able to say say "d20" and "d20 Modern" (and "d20 Future") without saying "d20" :) Both "SRD" and "OGL" are too generic and increasingly being used for non-d20 material. > If I saw a book that claimed "This OGL product is compatible with the SRD > Fantasy Role Playing Rules", I'd be far more likely to buy it than a > product > that just claimed "OGL compatible" or "Open Content". I think you're right here - most people would know what that meant. I'd have a moral objection because there are other fantasy rules using the term "SRD" as well, and I'd look at it as hijacking the term to mean a specific set of SRDed rules. It would be like Microsoft claiming the term "software" to mean anything that runs under Windows. Of course I don't see why anyone here should care about my morals, just as I'm fairly certain Mr Gates would love do exactly what I just described :) > I wish I could say the same thing for books claiming "This OGL product is > compatible with the MSRD Modern Role Playing Rules", but I was extremely > disapointed with the d20 Modern Role Playing game. d20 Modern is also an > ambigous name as it can also be used to run games in the past and future. > WotC should really have provided d20 System type logos for the different > time periods where the MSRD might be used. I think a fairly easy way to get around this is to use a little rectangle divided into two squares, horizontally. On the left you put a d20 logo, on the right you can put a sword for fantasy, a microchip for modern, or ... erm... well, something for future - the head of a little green alien? :) - Matt Matt Thomason DancingDryad.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
