I don't think Ryan was suggesting the products will not sell. He was
referring to potential loss of creative property due to the pseudo-legal
nature of the license.
At 05:05 PM 9/26/2000, you wrote:
>Ryan said,
>
>"Because we wanted to make sure there were 3rd party D20 products at GenCon,
>we permitted manufacturers to use the D20 logo on their products under a
>"gentleman's agreement" to abide by the terms of the draft license, with the
>proviso that the license might be substantially changed before it was made
>formal...."
>
>"In short, I think publishing a short adventure, or even a relatively
>rules-light sourcebook is probably reasonably cautious, proceeding with a
>more ambitious release at this time is a highly risky venture."
>
>
>However, It should also be noted, that the companies that got coverage by
>Wizard's Attic and were early adopters are SELLING OFF THE SHELVES.
>
>I monitor many of the same lists other members here do and I speak with
>distributors frequently and these bad boys are hot hot hot. I think this is
>due to the novelty, the co-release of 3E, and the quality of the products
>that have been promoted at the conventions.
>
>I remember comments from WotC (I think even Ryan) about the
>non-profitability of modules, so let's make sure we don't succeed too much
>;) (I'm kidding of course)
>
>Call your local retailer and ask them about d20 products ... they'll tell
>you the truth ... and make sure you produce quality stuff...
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jared Nielsen
>
>
>
>-------------
>For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
