Nekromanti Det snackas en massa nu... (mycket långt)

[Magnus Seter]

... för er som inte är med på OGF-d20-l-listan, postar jag här kommentarer från några personer:

Matthew Sprange, Mongoose:

Hi guys,

Anyone getting bored with this yet? Thought it might have run its course by
now. A few observations, however;

1. The most important people in this whole discussion are the end users,
those long suffering guys and gals we call gamers. Rest assured, if you are
an avid gamer, no matter what happens and no matter what publishers end up
doing, you will still get the books you are after. Ignore any posturing
that goes on and keep visiting you local games store - we thank you, one and
all.

2. If you are a freelance writer, I believe there are two main concerns.
First off, you should try to avoid the appearance of _telling_ publishers
what they ought to be doing ('hey guys, I have figured out the thing we must
all do. . .'). This is a more ego-driven industry than most and it is a
truism that few business owners like being told how to run their own
business. Even if you have the best idea in the world with regards
licensing, it is likely to get ignored. Sorry, but that is just the kind of
industry we all work in. What should be of greatest concern is how this
little scuffle affects any projects you are working on. Chat to your
publishers and see what they are thinking - be prepared to wait a few days
before everyone calms down.

3. Small publishers. Always sounds kinda insulting, I thought, especially
if you lump 'PDF' into the title . One gentleman here pointed out that
we are all small publishers once the likes of WotC is brought in for
comparison, and he is absolutely right. However, even in this tiny corner
of the industry, there are tiers. Without starting a debate, small
publishers know who they are in this context. My advice would be to do your
own thing and bugger what the bigger guys are doing. The bigger guys are
really only going to be looking after the bigger guys, and they will spend
most of their time squabbling anyway. If they even talk to each other.
Just make sure you are compliant with either the d20 licence or the OGL -
make your own choice and don't listen to the knee-jerkers. If you believe
you cannot print _anything_ about, say, the Christian Church, then you just
plain ain't read the licence right. Don't, however, get involved in any
creation of a new logo. It won't happen (or, I should say, won't happen
successfully) without the bigger guys, and I can see some unpleasantness
brewing there anyway. Don't pick sides, stay well out of things and, well,
enjoy the show If (if) a clear winner emerges in the Logo Wars, grab it
then - they will still want all the support they can get and you won't have
lost a thing. Basically, carry on doing what you do best, get your books or
PDFs out and be disparaging about the willy waving. If you have any doubts,
for Lord's sake don't ask anyone here. If you are serious about publishing,
talk to WotC instead.

4. Talk to WotC. Greg was absolutely right. In fact, if you consider
yourself anything other then a purely 'hobbiest' publisher and you have yet
to discuss this situation with WotC, then what the hell are you doing?
Running your business on autopilot with the blinds drawn and your fingers in
your ears? Seriously, if you have any concerns, talk to WotC (as you should
have done on, what, Monday?). They are remarkably nice people.

5. For those of you considering making a public list of all past
publications that fall foul of the new licence, go ahead - it is absolutely
the right thing to do if you want to ensure games companies won't touch you
with a barge pole in the future. WotC is not an ogre and if certain titles
are left in the past, it may well be that this is where they will stay.
Once you bring them into the light, it becomes a problem, see? Note: some
publishers have already started something like this to hit their
competitors. This smacks of really having nothing better to do but worry
not - we are pretty sure we know who you are

6. We have been bombarded by mails this week from various parties looking
to create a new logo. I would be _amazed_ if any of them worked and
actually took off in the way that existing trademarks have. You see, you
need _all_ the main publishers to agree to go along with it. If every
publisher bar one moves off to a new logo, the one who stays will be
laughing as he enjoys the entirety of the d20 market. Don't kid yourself
that everyone automatically knows now what OGC means. I can tell you it
ain't true - the d20 logo still has tremendous value. Think, for a moment,
of all those gamers who do not know of RPG.net and EN World. There are more
than you might think. Ryan, I believe, mentioned that there are some
irreparable differences between some of the larger publishers. This is
true. Now, some people reading this will laugh out loud, but Mongoose would
be happy to work with pretty much anyone - for all the unpleasantness that
goes on, we do not take things personally and assume it is just business.
However, I am also pretty sure that if we had anything to do with a new
logo, there would be a couple of publishers who would not cross a road to
spit on it if it was on fire. . .

7. That said, I do have one suggestion. No one will want to hear it but I
have one. In October, we release the Mongoose Pocket Player's Handbook.
The complete PHB/SRD (minus examples and artwork, plus a lot of re-writing
and char gen, etc), released as 100% Open Game Content. _If_ a new logo was
agreed upon, how easy it would be to just slide it on that book, giving the
logo not only a start but a Core Rulebook to work upon? We could even make
such a logo Open Content itself, so there would be no silly licence business
(beyond the OGL itself). Could work. However, see previous paragraph about
roads and fire. There is also the fact that we fully intend to go on
supporting d20. . .

8. It belongs to WotC. If you don't like what has happened you can do one
of two things. If you are a gamer, you can boycott WotC books. A little
silly, as you are still going to get cool stuff anyway (whether it is d20 or
OGC) and WotC do release some pretty cool stuff themselves, which you'll be
missing. And, sooner or later, you'll be buying D&D V4. You know it and I
know it If you are a publisher and were planning to release content
that is now banned under the licence then you have no choice - move to OGC
or move away from this game system altogether. That is it, game over. You
have been sussed out and reported to matron. Incidentally, WotC has always
had the ability to revoke your d20 licence which, to be fair, is as good as
killing a small business relying on the logo. For some of the bigger guys,
it would be inconvenient but, if they have had their heads screwed on, they
would have made provisions for this in their initial business plan. It is
something that could always have happened in one way or another. On this
note, I find it difficult to credit the surprise of some here - if you
hadn't heard about this whole change a few months ago, you really are out of
the loop. Not that this is my concern. It is not my business, after all.

9. I am going to point out that it belongs to WotC once more. It is their
baby and they are not going to give it up. If they want to break it in the
sand pit, they have a perfect right, and throwing your teddy in the corner
because of it will not help you one jot. Every time something like this
comes down the chain, run your risk analysis once more - it is going to come
up as worthwhile, time and again. If the new rule in V6 is that publishers
have to drop their trousers (pants) whenever a WotC official passes their
stand at Gen Con on pain of licence loss, it is enforceable and I imagine
most of the larger publishers will still do it, because d20 is _worthwhile_.
True, other brands have forged their way into the market and I imagine books
like the Quintessentials or Slayer's Guides would have no problems if we
removed the d20 logo. But what about our brand new Orc Dingbat range? Or
the fact that the new licensed game we do (this comes when Lucasarts finally
see the light and answer our phone calls) is _also_ d20? It has real value
on the shop shelves and just a whiff of officialdom which, incidentally, is
the hardest hurdle for a 3rd party publisher to overcome in this market.
Publishers will stick with d20 because it keeps people employed.

My tuppence

Matthew Sprange
Mongoose Publishing

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com

Clark Peterson, Necromancer Games:

I've talked to some people at WotC.

They were surprised by the reaction.

Really, this is a case of people not seeing things
from the other side.

Their view: This is a small change. We are bringing
one licnese (the d20 license) in line with the 40
other things we do that have content restricitons.

Our view: This is a big change. They added
restrictions to our license.

They also apparently forgot two gamer truisms:

1. gamers in general, and people on the internet
communities, have "censorship" as a hot button topic.
Anything that can be spun in any way to be considered
censorship will be a big deal to gamers.

2. gamers in general have an anti-corporate spin and
will take any chance to spin something to fit the
"corporations are evil" view of the world that they
have.

Of course, just as much as WotC should have seen these
things coming, we didnt help matters by acting right
in line with our stereotypes.

I'm as guilty as anyone else. I was mad at WotC.

I have talked to people at WotC and have been assured:

1. business is normal. they have no intention of
changing their normal way they deal with d20 products.
they are not going to change how they review anything
from how they have been doing it all along.

2. they support d20. they are not trying to cripple
d20.

3. this is not some secret plot to set up 4.0 being
not open.

Seriously, they viewed this as a minor tweak to bring
one license (the d20 license) in line with their
standard practices with other licenses.

You know what their question to me was? "Did we do a
bad job with the change?" They didnt see this like we
saw it, like gamers who are hyper-paranoid about
censorship and are anti-corporate in general. That
question told me this was no big deal.

I have also recieved very open responses to my offers
to help talk about publishers' concerns when the dust
clears with all this.

I predict in 3 to 6 months when the dust settles and
publishers have talked to WotC there will be some
slight tweaks to the license terms to take into
account our concerns. They were very interested in
what I had to say and very open to doing whatever met
everyone's interests.

The one thing that is clear is that content
restrictions are here to stay.

So if you want to abandon d20, do it because you dont
want the content restrictions. Dont do it because you
think WotC is killing d20 or they dont care or because
they are evil or any of that other stuff.

I will continue to talk to WotC and try to moderate
this whole thing. I'm sure others will too. I know for
a fact I am not the only one talking to WotC about
this.

I think we will be able to remove any of the "added
risk" we were worried about as a result of the
changes.

Frankly, I see a good opportunity (and a PR
opportunity for WotC) for them to show they support
the d20 community and are receptive to our concerns.

However, nothing will happen any time soon. First,
corporations just dont react that fast. Second, I
think there is a bit of a "if we fix it to soon it
looks like we did something wrong" mentality. Third, I
(and others) need to show WotC that, while not wrong,
their move was marred by failing to understand how
gamers and the community percieves such things.

I predict that in 3 to 6 months we start to get things
ironed out and some tweaks to the license made.

But WotC is definately listening and cares. Or that is
my experience over the last few days with the people
in charge.

Clark

=====
http://www.necromancergames.com
"3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel"

Clark igen:

I wont support numbers just because a large number of
people want to do something if I think it hurts the
community.

I'm still considering the logo thing. I am talking
with Ryan and others.

Let me just say that right now I dont have any
intention of hooking up with the previously created
logos. Open Die isnt right for what I want. Prometheus
has too many intervening levels of meaning and doesnt
by its design say "OGL, D&D".

Coould there be one, yes.

But I am not just going to jump on board the logo
movement because lots of others are.

I think for the long term life of this community we
need to stay d20. I think leaving d20 is bad and
fractionalization is bad. Bad for the community. Not
bad for Necro.

The core problem is: if not the d20 logo, give me a
good reason why a replacement logo is needed? Answer
that for me persuasively.

Here are some premises. I dont believe there is much
purchaser value to d20. I dont think that logo has
proved to be very valuable, but there is some value.
SOME few people understand what it is. The real
problem as I see it is distributors. I dont think
distributors will for very long carry non-d20
products. Why should they? They will continue to carry
Mongoose and SSS and AEG etc. But that is just the
bigger small companies. I dont want to lose the
smaller companies. I dont want to see them go out of
business because distributors first say they will
carry non-d20 stuff from small companies but then
after a few months dont. I think the smaller companies
help expand d20, which I think is good.

Clark


=====
http://www.necromancergames.com
"3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel"

Ryan Dancey, OrganizedPlay (och den som anses vara d20-satsningens fader):

As you can imagine, my inbox has been filled by people asking me when or
how the D20 trademark can be replaced.

These are my general thoughts on the matter.

First, just "replacing" the D20 trademark is probably not a useful
effort to pour resources into. Unless Wizards of the Coast could
somehow be induced to put the "replacement" mark on the D&D and Star
Wars core books, the D20 trademark cannot be "replaced". That's because
the fundamental purpose of the D20 trademark is to make an explicit link
between 3rd party products and D&D and Star Wars.

Second, the needs of the D20 trademark are different than the needs of a
new trademark authority. Wizards of the Coast has specific, strategic
reasons for certain aspects of the D20 trademark license which do not
apply to a mark created by a consortium of 3rd parties. Likewise, such
a consortium probably has strategic needs that are different from those
of WotC itself. Thus, a 3rd party trademark effort needs to start at
ground zero and define exactly what it itends to accomplish, rather than
just mirroring WotC's prior art.

Third, the only way to move forward on such a project is to have buy in
and support from a large number of 3rd party publishers, and
specifically to have support from the biggest 3rd party publishers. And
by "support" I mean cash as well as moral support. The D20 trademark
was built on thousands and thousands of dollars of marketing, and any
3rd party trademark effort would need to be prepared to mount a similar
level of effort.

Taking into account the above, here is a proposal to consider. I don't
want this proposal to be considered definitive, or even something I
would necessarily have the time to work on myself, but it is an example
of the kind of process that I think needs to happen if a 3rd party mark
is to be created.

1) The objective of the mark is to show compatibility in features and
rules between similar works, so that players know that the rules they
learn once can be used again without retraining.

2) In the absence of an actual baseline product, the consortium would
need to develop and endorse a virtual baseline, consisting of rules of
character creation and advancement, a list of defined terms that cannot
be altered, and a set of common, core mechanics that all products
bearing the license would share.

3) The mark should be supported at launch by print and on-line
advertising directed at consumers and retailers to explain the mark, and
explain how the mark adds value to the products that bear it. This
advertising should be coordinated centrally to ensure consistent message
and application, although the actual ads should be paid for by the
publishers in the consortium as their individual resources permit.

4) The consortium should establish itself legally, with a written
charter, and bylaws that spell out how the mark will be managed, and how
the consortium itself will be formed, altered, and held accountable.

Ryan

Och slutligen, troberg, agitator:

GURPS RULAR!!!!

Ett av dess inlägg är påhittat av mig. Nån som vill gissa vilket?

Observera att jag inte gör någon som helst bedömning om huruvida dessa herrar har rätt eller fel, om de ljuger eller talar sanning. Jag postar bara det de säger för att ni inte ska missa något.

M.