<<If the d20 publishers were claiming compatibility with their own shared OGL 3.5e SRD based core rulebooks, they couldn't use the d20STL any more.>>
Are you referring to WotC here? WotC is not bound by the d20 STL when producing their own products. And others can certainly claim compatibility with their own products even under the d20 STL. This was confusing to me.
<< Publishers would then need to have
a replacement compatibility logo and given all the questions about licensing restrictions,
that have been mentioned here and on the d20 list, I'm sure that any new logo licence
would be worked over,>>
Mongoose has their "OGL" line. They already have developed an independent brand.
<<
(It would also end the confusion between OGL products that are *really* "d20 products that
don't qualify for the d20STL", and OGL products that are totally incompatible with the d20
System.>>
That's one problem with Mongoose's OGL brand, it confuses the license (which serves several systems) with a single system.
<<
Prometheus and the Open Die logo would get a lot more support, than
they do now and if publisher didn't like their licences then they would create ones that suited them. In the end the need to market together to survive would encourage people to
agree more.)>>
Actually, I doubt it. I expect one of the major third party publishers would come up with a brand identity which served their own needs and then either everyone else would do the same, or they would license a major brand identity. Prometheus and Open Die just don't currently have the weight behind them yet to make them major trendsetters in spite of the fact that I have seen some parties who have licensed their stuff.
<<So *if* the 4e D&D and the SRD are separated, the publishers that stay in business are
likely to have freedom to do a lot more than they do now.
>>
Why more freedom? Again, I didn't understand this.
<<On the other hand, now that WotC have introduced the OGL and SRD, I think that trying to
stop support for it could have a very bad PR effect with their existing customers.
>>
Most of their existing customers are probably only vaguely aware of the OGL at all.
I think they will not oppose the OGL or leave support for it behind. Why? Because they'd just end up in the legal morass of the old days -- with people claiming compatibility to their trademarks and using some of their system elements anyway. Maybe they'll be foolhardy. But even if they don't actively support it, I doubt that they'll oppose it.
<<(I know that CCGs are not the same as RPGs, but I think they are similar enough that the
flames I saw on the Star Wars forums when Lucasfilm ditched their old CCG supplier,
indicate that customers don't like being told that their purchase is no longer worth
having, and that they should replace it with a new system.)
>>
That's a TOTALLY different situation. If they have a 4e without a 4e SRD the game will still be supported, but just primarily by WotC. Consumer buying will be consolidated around the industry leader.
Some CCG players see 90% of their play time because of the supported tournament environment, so when that collapses, they really don't have more than a handful of people to play with.
Moreover, sometimes licensed CCGs go out of print due to the expiration of the license.
D&D is not going out of print any time soon. It is not a product that Hasbro has a limited license on. It is not going to end up on the heap of unsupported games.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
