>Actually, the draft STL does not REQUIRE this language,
I never said it did ...
>I think anyone counting on
>D20 as a marketing aid would be well advised to also use this language.
>It's
>not the ringing endorsement that Ryan fears "compatible with" would be;
>rather, it's a simple statement that "This game is not complete without the
>PHB."
>For practical purposes, I think this language is both as close to
>"compatible with" as WotC will allow and as close as we need.
"As close as we need?" Only if you don't care about your customers being
confused. Very soon Star Wars and LotR will be out in D20 and people will
be writing (and selling) D20 modules and supplements that will work under
those systems but will not work under D&D. How are you going to
differentiate your D&D module from a Lord of the Rings module so that your
customers are not confused?
Or worse yet, how are you going to differentiate YOUR STUFF so that the
OTHER FOLKS' customers are not confused - since >all< of the products will
probably have "Requires the D&D Players' Handbook" on the cover.
So how are you going to explain to those newbie LOTR fans that the old guy
in the white robes on your cover is not Gandalf if you can't say "This
module is intended for D&D?"
There are still some major issues here for small producers ...
Faust
See the OGL FAQ at:
http://www.earth1066.com/D20FAQ.htm
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
