"Alexander P. Macris" wrote:
> Ok, I just read the article by Ryan that Maggie kindly referred me
> to. The talk of �network externalities� set off alarm bells all over
> the place. Now I am *really* suspicious�
>
> >From what I gleaned from the article, WOTC is not pursuing a strategy
> of �Open Gaming� at all. They are pursuing something more like
> Microsoft�s strategy with regards to Windows... D20 is like Windows,
> the �operating system� which will succeed by virtue of its ubiquity
> rather than its excellence. The D20STL is essentially a �game
> developer kit� (like a Windows SDK) which allows you to make content
> compatible with the operating system, D20. The goal is to get all the
> developers working on content for D&D, killing off other systems and
> allowing WOTC to earn monopoly profits from its exclusive sale of D20!
You, like so many others before you, are mixing up the D20 trademark
license and the OGL.
The D20 trademark license is pretty much exactly like what you're
describing (although without the Evil Empire resonances): It is WotC
opening the door for third party developers to develop supplemental
materials for the D&D game. This is good for WotC, because more
supplements on the market (so the thinking goes) means that there will
be a higher demand for the core D&D books. This is good for the third
party devlopers, because they're able to create and sell supplements for
the biggest game on the block (which makes them money).
The OGL, OTOH, allows you to develop product completely separate from
D&D. In fact, with the OGL you could write up your own version of the
PHB and attempt to sell it on the market. If you managed to put together
a PHB which was even better than WotC's, then WotC would be at risk
(because now there's a better PHB out there -- suddenly the D20 license
is driving sales of *your* PHB, not theirs). Of course, the chances of
you putting together a PHB which was sufficiently better than WotC's to
claim market leadership seems highly unlikely. (Although I do have
thoughts on ways in which you could design a PHB-equivalent which would
be better than the PHB at specific functions -- i.e., a book which would
serve better as a specialized volume, whereas the PHB is a generalized
reference manual).
> Fortunately, I think I have figured out a clever loophole using a
> combination of the OGL and the D20STL which we can use to avoid the
> need for PHBs. Hehehehe.
Difficult. Since if you use the OGL you are specifically prohibited from
referencing the trademarks the D20 trademark license covers.
That being said, I know *exactly* how to write a game using only the D20
trademark license which will stand completely independent of the PHB.
(And, no, I'm not going to tell you how to do it.) Even with that being
true, however, I still suspect that my game will fuel sales of the PHB
(if it were ever to fall into the hands of someone who wasn't already
familiar with D&D).
Justin Bacon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
