> [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 can see your point here and that is just the nature of the beast. I'm
sure that some people will try and take advantage of that, but hopefully
through the use of the internet and the registry we will be able to
circumvent most of these problems with reviews and the like of each product.
> 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".
I'm sort of in agreement here, but keep one thing in mind, gamers are
basically a more intelligent market then say someone who just walks in
off of the street. While this may hurt some people, I believe the
majority of the market will understand this and will also understand the
nature and the risk of buying a D20 compatible product. Its not like
were trying to push a new idea to new people. I think everyone can
easily understand the concept of D20 (just not all the legal mumbo jumbo
behind it). While this will alienate some potential customers I think
that after a brief amount of time we will all be at the same level and
have the same understanding of what D20 is, and what D20 represents. It
basically comes down to us, the publishers, making sure that we educate
our customers and making sure we explain and peddle our wares
effectively. If we can do that well, I think we will be able to avoid
around 90% of the problem.
> 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.
Aargh! I wouldn't be in favor of this at all, and I think a separate
trademark just creates more problems for the OGF.
> 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...
Amen!
I think you also wrote up a suggestion that would allow people to know
what the amount of content of a product contained (I must of trashed
that message). Rather then create a new logo I think the best way to
accomplish this would be to use some sort of graphic that contained a
pie chart showing the amount of new content that the product contained.
This would be done by a word count and you'd simply get a percentage
based on the size of the entire work. To me this would be the only
viable solution as to do it any other way there would always have to be
someone there who decided what was compatible and what wasn't. And I
believe that we all agree that none of us want that.
--
Jeff Visgaitis
Art Director
Roc Games
www.roc-games.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
