Update on the Compatibility Issue…

To follow up to yesterday’s thoughts about that the lack of an STL is going to mean for publishers trying to demonstrate compatibility —

Scott Rouse posted a comment on ENWorld where he says:

We are looking to incorporate some sort of compatibility language within the new version of the OGL. Something like “Compatible with the 4th Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying game…”

Which would take care of the problem quite nicely.

He’s still ignoring the multiple posted questions about WHEN the publishers will see the rules…. to the point where it is now obvious that he’s doing so. The pessimistic side of me has the sinking feeling that is right, and that the answer is going to be “when the books are released.”

6 Replies to “Update on the Compatibility Issue…”

  1. Yep, I think you’re dead on. Which is a decision I understand, but don’t agree with from a personal, or even a larger non-OGL publishing standpoint. In his shoes it isn’t the choice I’d make.

  2. Can you explain why this makes sense? I’m absolutely not getting it here. Wasn’t the d20-compatible license one of the factors which caused 3rd Edition to grow so quickly?

  3. The pessimistic side of me has the sinking feeling that iamnikchick is right, and that the answer is going to be “when the books are released.”

    I’m going to disagree here. I don’t know anything for a fact, but I have reason to believe that the problem is simply that certain aspects are taking longer than expected.

    I truly believe that publishers–some of ’em, at least–will have material before release.

  4. I’m not keen on the idea of that compatibility language being written right into the OGL. Doing so dilutes the purpose of the document. OGL v1 is a generic document that doesn’t necessarily have to have anything to do with WotC. If they add a line item detailing how to indicate D&D compatibility then it stops being a universal document and becomes a D&D document. I think trademark compatibility should be addressed in either 1) a STL-like document, 2) the preamble of the SRD, or 3) a statement in the book akin to the Product Identity declarations we make now.

  5. It makes sense because you can look at the d20 glut and subsequent downturn in sales as a watering down of the D&D Brand. (I don’t agree with that, but I know very smart people who do.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.