> 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.
Yes, I want your money, but that isn't entirely the point. If I was just
in this for the money I would drop the freelance art career and take up
a job as a 3D Animator. The initial beginning of D20 (as stated by Ryan)
was to create the perfect RPG. The best way to accomplish this is to
find out what people like in a game the best. Do they want a classless
system or a system with classes? Do you want fire and forget spells or
spell points? It is my sole intention to release my perfect vision of
what I think D&D should be, but to stay afloat release some modules and
supplements that I think are written very well and can contribute to a
positive D&D experience. The thought of releasing a product for the game
that has kept me captivated for the last 18 years is very gratifying,
and I want to give back to D&D what I think it needs so it can be the
best RPG of all time.
> 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.
I couldn't agree more. Our marketing strategy will tackle both of these
fronts. We will be releasing adventures and supplements that will be
perfectly compatible with the D20 Core Rules, but we will also be
releasing a major campaign setting that will bring all sorts of new
options and rules to the game. We do feel that this campaign setting
will be good enough to stand on its own, so we are toying around with
the idea of also releasing it as (what we've come to call) a Core
Product. That being no now rules and sticking to the letter of the new PHB.
> 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.
A very good and very sound argument. I'm not sure if you've followed my
previous postings, but I we can safely guarantee some dilution with D20
. . . but that's not all bad. I really don't think that the D20 branded
products will become diluted in the long run. Yes, there will
segmentation, but the products that don't contribute will slowly fade
away and never be seen again. So in the end we'll have an even better
game to play, and perhaps even something to look forward to: 4E, "The
Gamers Edition."
> 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.
Thanks for the info I'm pleased to know your motivations in all of this.
--
Jeff Visgaitis
Art Director
Roc Games
www.roc-games.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
