>From: "Jeffrey J. Visgaitis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hey Jeff. I agree with all of your points in principle. I have a comment
on just one...
>exposure for their products because it doesn't carry the "Official"
>logo, but you get the next best thing - compatible with D20. And really
[FAUST REPLIES]
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 *think* (as I am not 100% sure I understand all the issues) that this is
the same concern WotC would have with us using D&D - there is no language in
the D20 license that prevents someone from using it in a misleading fashion.
All it takes is a few of these and the D20 "Brand" becomes synonymous with
"garbage".
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. Ie: how about the word "Dungeons" or the phrase
"Dungeon Compatible"... This license could contain more restrictive
language that did ensure a certain measure of compatibility.
I am getting a sense, however, from the way Ryan is approaching these
questions that (for one reason or another) something like that is absolutely
out of the question with Hasbro management...
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...
Faust
See the OGL FAQ <unofficial> 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
