> Failing that, I am asking the list to brainstorm some way that WOULD be
> acceptable to do this. Some have already provided suggestions and I
> appreciate them, but it is really Ryan that has to say yeah or nay.
Who would determine how 'compatible' your system is to D&D? If it isn't
you, how will you compensate them? If it is you, what guarantees can you
give WotC that your assessment would agree with theirs if they did one?
> >You are free to create/promote/market/enforce your own
> >trademarked logo and to create products under that trademark
> >which demonstrate your convictions.
>
> While I respect your suggestion, what you are asking me to do (and this
> "shortcoming" in the license is forcing) is that I, as a small time
> producer, successfully develop multiple trademarks with
> distinctly different
> connotations.
Wizards obviously chose their wording in the "Requires D &D" statement very
carefully, so as not to inadvertently indicate compatibility. If we assume
hypothetically that they would be willing to provide terms for a statement
of compatibility, then perhaps a coalition of small producers could come
together and create a set of standards for compatibility.
Alternatively, while you can't say "D&D Compatible", you can say "D20
Fantasy Roleplaying supplement, 100% compatible with the D20 SRD". This is
a far cry from "D&D Compatible" in the consumer's mind, but it does get your
point across that it is ready to work with D&D.
> The situation as it stands (not WotC intentionally so don't flame me) is
> discouraging innovation. I also do not see why it cannot be
> addressed while
> still protecting WotC's IP.
I'd say it is closer to not explicitly encouraging it in the way that you
would like it to be encouraged, rather than discouraging it. The OGL and
D20 STL offer ways to commercially innovate in the D&D universe that have
never before been available.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
