[FAUST REPLIED]
> Nothing about "D20" (or incidentally "Requires
> the D&D Players' Handbook")in any way suggests > compatibility with ANYTHING.
>Therein lies one
> of the problems for me right now. I *think* most
> people will assume (like I did initially and like
> you seem to be doing) that D20=compatible UNTIL
> they get stuck for $15 or $20 for a D20 game
> that ISN'T, but seems to represent itself as such.
I really can't agree with this at all. D20 is the basic rulesystem. If two separate
products are using the same rules, some degree of compatibility naturally suggests
itself. It certainly implies compatibility by the vary nature of the D20 Trademark &
License. But ultimately, you are correct, the market will decide. However, this is a
highly networked market and not an entirely dumb one.
If the product says D20 and it's an Old West adventure with train robberies, Miss
Kitty's Saloon, and Gabby Hayes, people are not going to assume it's gonna work with
D&D. They are going to assume, and rightly so, that it uses a familiar rulesystem and
will be easy to adopt into use.
On the other hand, if the D20 Logo is on the cover of "Knights of the Round: epic
adventure in Dark Age Britain" by "Dragon of Avalon Fantasy Games" where you can play
heroic knights, dastardly princes, and powerful wizards vying for power in Brittania,
it wouldn't be entirely off-base to assume some measure of D&D compatibility. Most
likely, you're right.
But here's the kicker, if it isn't D&D, the networked nature of the market will take
care of it. You will know that "Dragon of Avalon" doesn't do D&D and people will avoid
the company & its products if they are looking for D&D-like adventures.
You will also know that some company called "Orcs R Cool" publishes D20 adventures
that run just like something WotC would produce under the D&D brand, only better. The
market will understand this and will buy "ORC" games. Because of the way the market
works, the ORC campaign setting will be known as a quality world and gets itself a
piece of the gaming audience. Heck, it even has the chance to become the most popular
D&D setting for gaming. Why would you want to play in a stagnant setting like Greyhawk
with no forward timeline and characters based on old PCs of people who probably don't
even play anymore when you could be an ORC player? Granted, these are somewhat
exaggerated examples, but to me this seems to be the way that D20 will work in the
marketplace.
> One proposal could be to have a MORE RESTRICTIVE
> "D&D Compatible" license or an alternate trademark
> that did this that did not look so much like
> "D&D" as to dilute the trademark.
The danger with that kind of license is that someone has to determine what is and
isn't compatible. Would that be WotC? I hope not. I don't want one company controlling
all the rules and content. Would that be the OGF? They don't have the time or
resources to do it. Besides, there already is a more restrictive license/trademark
available. It's called D&D and anyone can contact WotC's licensing department to
attempt to use it, as long as you play by their rules. Of course, I could just use D20
for free and get a similar recognition, but without the benefit of the D&D brand. (And
why would ORC want to confuse the ORC brand with the D&D brand? ORC's got better
writing, art, and free dice!)
> So it is probably best to let the issue drop
> and content ourselves with "D20" - but be careful
> to understand all of the ramifications if you
> are going to develop in it...
I couldn't agree more. But ultimately, no matter what the developers do to create
their product, the market will decide what stays and what goes. And that's part of the
theory behind OGL/D20.
-Andrw
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
