><< >Actually, the draft STL does not REQUIRE this language,
>
>I never said it did ... >>
>
>I know the list has been "hot" of late, but please don't be so quick to
>take
>offense where none is intended.
Point taken and I also apologize. The list >has< been "hot" of late and
this has put me on the defensive... Too many misquotes and not enough
effort put to understanding the other person's point of view...
><< >For practical purposes, I think this language is both as close to
> >"compatible with" as WotC will allow and as close as we need.
>
>"As close as we need?" Only if you don't care about your customers being
>confused. Very soon Star Wars and LotR will be out in D20 and people will
>be writing (and selling) D20 modules and supplements that will work under
>those systems but will not work under D&D. How are you going to
>differentiate your D&D module from a Lord of the Rings module so that your
>customers are not confused?
>
>Or worse yet, how are you going to differentiate YOUR STUFF so that the
>OTHER FOLKS' customers are not confused - since >all< of the products will
>probably have "Requires the D&D Players' Handbook" on the cover.
>
>So how are you going to explain to those newbie LOTR fans that the old guy
>in the white robes on your cover is not Gandalf if you can't say "This
>module is intended for D&D?"
>
>There are still some major issues here for small producers ... >>
>
>Granted ALL of these very valid points, I still cannot see how "Requires
>the
>D&D Players' Handbook" will lead to confusion, if "Compatible with D&D"
>(the
>issue I was addressing) will not. People who want to claim compatibility
>with D&D should be reasonably happy with "Requires..."; people who want to
>distinguish themselves as a separate game can add copious explanatory text;
>and the only people with some confusion will be those who want to be
>compatible with some non-D&D D20 product. These people will need some sort
>of additional license
>(DON'T hold your breath waiting for Lucas to approve a
>tacit "Compatible with Star Wars" unless the Wizards team is REALLY
>persuasive); but since the vast majority of "compatible with X" threads on
>these lists so far have assumed X=D&D, I was addressing the majority
>concerns.
Of course, but if we assume the success of OGL then we should assume that
their may be a time in the future when D&D might not be the major player.
Sword and sorcery is not exactly a "hot" genre right about now ... and there
really is no evidence for a resurgence (as far as I have seen) - WotC hopes
notwithstanding.
>And where did you hear about LotR? That's news to me! I MUST KNOW MORE!
>TELL
>ME NOW! NOW! NOW, I SAY!
On other lists I have heard that ICE lost LotR and that the only conclusion
was that WotC would / had picked it up. This could be disinformation,
though - anybody know details?
>Whew! Sorry. But I've never been hapy with the I.C.E. stuff, and I've never
>felt D&D captured the feel of LotR. What Star Wars is to many D20 fans,
>LotR
>is to me.
I agree and I see the LotR as the great hope for a resurgence in broad
interest in the Sword and Sorcery genre.
Faust
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
