I noticed that D0: Hollow's Last Hope was released as OGL compatible but without the d20 logo. As far as I can tell from the press announcements, it looks like this will be the case for the other modules and Pathfinder too. It doesn't bother me at all, but just out of curiosity, why not use the logo for these? I can't see what the advantage is that offsets the presumed sales hit you'd take by not having the logo.
Anyhow, just curious.
I noticed that D0: Hollow's Last Hope was released as OGL compatible but without the d20 logo. As far as I can tell from the press announcements, it looks like this will be the case for the other modules and Pathfinder too. It doesn't bother me at all, but just out of curiosity, why not use the logo for these? I can't see what the advantage is that offsets the presumed sales hit you'd take by not having the logo.
Anyhow, just curious.
More than likely because the rules for D20 are far too restrictive and don't allow for nearly as much creativity on the author's part. And not to be snipie (sp?) but Wizards are the ones that forced Paizo down this path to self expression.
Not all mistakes turn out to be tragic, eh?
Besides, I'm sure it's also a marketing thing. A lot of people are still probably wary of picking up a d20 logo book. After all, a lot of people put out a lot of bad stuff. While associated, it's not directly associated.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
There are a handful of reasons, but the biggest by far is that the d20 logo has become a scarlet letter in the eyes of:
1. Customers
2. Retailers
3. Distributors
Since we need all three of those folks in order for the line to be successful, we decided to go the OGL route.
--Erik
Interesting, I hadn't realized how much times have changed. That said, I guess haven't really bought much "d20" logo'd stuff in quite a while. I seem to have most of the rules I need now so most of my game spending over the past couple years has been on the magazines and the occasional WotC book. Anyhow, thanks for the answer.
More than likely because the rules for D20 are far too restrictive and don't allow for nearly as much creativity on the author's part. And not to be snipie (sp?) but Wizards are the ones that forced Paizo down this path to self expression.
Not all mistakes turn out to be tragic, eh?
Yeah, I guess I just figured that the restrictions were mostly against character generation rules (as far as I could remember) so it didn't really seem as much of a restriction for adventure modules. At any rate, no offense taken, and yes, I hope that this whole thing works out in Paizo's favor (though I will miss the incredible value of Dungeon).
Contributor
|
One important difference between d20 and OGL; OGL is the genie out of the bottle. It's out there and can't be withdrawn. The d20 license is owned by Wizards and can be retracted and/or modified, and all licensees must follow the new version. This has in fact happened at least once.
I don't know if this relates directly to Paizo's choice to go OGL, but I believe it is connected with some of the general ill-will towards d20.
... but Wizards are the ones that forced Paizo down this path to self expression.
This we don't know. Most of us are assuming that this is the case, but this has never been said anywhere. Actually both parties are quite silent on that issue (maybe it's the way the contract wanted it).
It could be that both saw it as better for themselves to go separate ways.
Or that Paizo thought that they would be better off on their own, with more artistic freedom and no one to take a cut.
Whatever the truth, I am not so unhappy about how things seem to turn out, but I would not rule off Paizo deciding that it was better for them to do things the way they are now (circumstantial evidence could be WotC's apparent inability to show anything for their "digital initiative", maybe they had been hoping to the last that Paizo would change their mind and keep publishing the mags).
In that scenario, it would also make sense for Paizo to go OGL and not D20.
Bocklin
|
Contributor
|
... but Wizards are the ones that forced Paizo down this path to self expression.This we don't know. Most of us are assuming that this is the case, but this has never been said anywhere. Actually both parties are quite silent on that issue (maybe it's the way the contract wanted it).
It could be that both saw it as better for themselves to go separate ways.
Or that Paizo thought that they would be better off on their own, with more artistic freedom and no one to take a cut.
It has actually been stated many times that this decision was made by WotC. Paizo is making damn good lemonade.
There are a handful of reasons, but the biggest by far is that the d20 logo has become a scarlet letter in the eyes of:
1. Customers
2. Retailers
3. Distributors
For the benefit for someone (me) who has apparently been living under a rock these last 7 years, why is that? I honestly didn't realise there was a difference between d20 and OGL.
Greg
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was also a comment recently along the lines of "D20 has negative connotations" but I forgot who made it and I'm far too lazy to search for it. I prefer my own explanation:
So like, for D&D and stuff?
While the site makes frequent use of the 3.5 SRD under the Open Gaming License, legally we can't claim compatibility with the D20 system, or use any of the logos related to it, without accepting and agreeing to the D20 trademark license.
Uh, what?
Basically it goes like this:
I had a few choices for licenses on the site, which I liken to choosing undergarments:
1. The boxer short / granny panty method.
Go it alone, and build everything from the ground up. Comfortable, but no support!
2. The Boxer Brief / Lace Boy Short method.
Comfortable and supportive without being too restrictive, this method also has sex appeal.
We can make use of the SRD, but can't use any of the D20 copyrighted material, claim compatibility to it, or make references to the books which contain it.
3. The Tidy Whitey / Thong method.
Definitely supportive, but can be restrictive, and hard to pull off correctly.
So I decided to stick with boxer briefs (or boy shorts for you ladies :) ).
It has actually been stated many times that this decision was made by WotC. Paizo is making damn good lemonade.
I know that "everybody" on these boards say this, but do we have a reliable source?
Has this ever been stated by someone at Paizo? Or at WotC? Do you have a link?
Bocklin, genuinely asking
There was also a comment recently along the lines of "D20 has negative connotations" but I forgot who made it and I'm far too lazy to search for it. I prefer my own explanation:
Thanks, that explains the difference. And it would seem to indicate why publishers/writers would have a problem. But why would retailers, distributors & customers care?
Greg
|
Has this ever been stated by someone at Paizo? Or at WotC? Do you have a link?
Bocklin, genuinely asking
Here, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence.
Here, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence.
Great! Thanks. Now I can go back to putting all the blame on WotC and unconditionally love Paizo. The world is whole again. :-)
Bocklin
PS: Pfew... My crazy theory made me feel strange for half an hour...
But why would retailers, distributors & customers care?
OK, I typed up this huge post and accidentally hit the back button, grrr!
In summary:
o Merchants/Distributors bought up anything with a d20 logo when 3.0 came out.
o Customers were buying up everything from all different game companies.
o When 3.5 came out, they were left with "useless" product. Thus came deep discounts, give aways, and lingering product (all bad for Merchants/Distributors).
o Customers also found out that there was a lot of bad product out there, see previous point.
Very nutshell, but I hope this helps.
I agree. While there is quality product with the D20 logo on it, I kind of associate it with the same sort of quality as I view the "president's choice" logo. Not necessarily bad, but worthy of scrutiny.
This isn't an accurate portrayal of the pathfinder/gamemastery line if D0 is any indication.