On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Clark Peterson wrote: > "On the other hand, if Necromancer games appears to be > purely focused on fantasy, why should they be included > just because they've put out d20 material?" > > Becasue if I felt like it I could put out high quality > d20 modern material. I could start a new imprint at > any time. Clearly, WotC would love us to do d20 > modern. The issue is the ability to get out a product, > not current focus. > > Besides, if Modern is OGC, I can use that material > even in a fantasy campaign. So my use of that OGC > would drive the sales of the rulebook for d20 Modern. > > But I dont actually have any interest in d20 modern or > its rules so I havent asked to be on the list.
Exactly. I didn't mean any offense by using Necromancer as an example Clark, but it was the first established d20 publisher that popped to my mind that I didn't think would have a very strong interest in d20 Modern because of your companies focus. That whole "First Editioin feel" thing. If you asked I'm sure you'd be permitted to join, but I wanted to point out that WotC would be perfectly within their rights to say to you "Why do you need to see d20 Modern now? You seem very focussed on fantasy - what do you plan on publishing to support d20 Modern in the next 6 months?" before they let you on the list. I realize Anthony doesn't really have the time to personally check every single person who asks to be on the list, but requiring some evidence that an actual d20 Modern product will be point out within 6 months of d20 Modern's release would seem an even better requirement for membership on the list than simply being a publisher. Everyone's going to get to play with d20 Modern OGC eventually - only those publishing within the next year really need to join the list now. alec _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
