On Friday, May 12, 2000 6:27 PM, Jeffrey J. Visgaitis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yes that would make things much easier for all involved, but as a
> publisher I do not want any more restrictions placed on what I can do
> with the rules. So basically our motivations and desires are different,
> and what we want out of all of this is at the opposite ends of the
> spectrum. If a pie chart is confusing to you then I say we scrap that
> idea. Maybe if we put something on the back of the module like this:
Er...no. This is the point I'm trying to make. You want my money, right?
I realize that's a little blunt, but after all the point of using the D20
logo is to try and tap into the D&D market base. If you want to do that, you
should be thinking first and foremost about the needs of that market you're
trying to serve. The less a D20 product has to be compatible with the
baseline, the less valuable that logo is to a prospective publisher and to
the consumer.
> The Airahk Horde is a D20 System module and contains the following
content:
> New rules for combat
> New magic items and spells
> New monster races and a new prestige class: The Goblin Slayer
Again, this example is not something that I think the average consumer would
find scary, because the new material are "components" which are reasonably
self-contained. In other words, if I choose not to use your combat system,
that's not a problem. If it IS a problem, you alienate your market.
But if you (say) rolled all statistics on a D12, for example, then I can't
port things between worlds without additional work, and then it's not useful
to me.
Or if instead of having just new spells, you dump the spell level system and
replace it with a point system, then I can't use the spells in your system
with any other D20 product.
There is, and always has been, a chunk of that market that is interested in,
even fascinated by, alternate rules. I can think of a large number of
articles and products over the years that were aimed at that market chunk,
and that's fine. There's no reason that publishers shouldn't address that
segment. But I would argue that D20 branded products should be intended to
act as accessories or add-ons to D&D and not tweak for the sake of tweaking.
If you want to create a D&D inspired game, just go OGL. Don't dilute the
value of the D20 brand.
> Also, if they are other consumers on this list like Kevin Brennan I'd
> love to hear your thoughts and concerns on all of this.
Well, not exactly. I'm an occasional freelancer (I worked on stuff for GDW,
and have had a review in Pyramid, with some stuff in the planning stages),
and am the co-owner of a somewhat theoretical game company (Third Millennium
Games). I've also worked for a consulting firm doing strategic planning and
market analysis. So I have interests on both sides of the fence. Just so you
know.
_____________________________________________________
"The problem is that once you have done away with the ability to make
judgements as to right and wrong, true and false, etc., there's no real
culture left. All that remains is clog dancing and macram�. The ability to
make judgements, to believe things, is the entire point of having a
culture."
--Neal Stephenson
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
