Let's say you're picking up a game book which uses an original system. It's well written, it has a lot of perks, but in the back of the book is everything you'd need to run the setting in a d20 game. It'd cover the basics for the d20 system, and then give all the rules for character archetypes as classes, list various Feats and such for in-game stuff... Basically turning the setting into a d20 setting.

I imagine that I could keep this down to as little as 32 pages, if I discard the idea of art in the appendix. Which I would (for the most part), given that it's basically just a list of officially playtested rules.

So, would this offend you, perhaps turn you off buying the game book? Perhaps instead I should make the d20 Appendix a downloadable PDF or a small, 32-page supplement instead?

At 32 pages, I'd probably be offended. If you really need that much to do it justice, save your buyers a bit of cost, and put that money into making it downloadable (though if you wanted to minimize how much Product ID was in the free download, you could put a few pages of NPC stats in the back of the book and not offend me).

Edit: hmm, this really sounds like an opinion poll.

Frank

Not to give an opinion, I'm curious as to how it can be done without violating the licenses. I was pressured some time back to do a conversion of Multiverser under the licenses, and the problem I had was that if the conversion allows me to create characters using Multiverser rules and then turn them into D&D characters I've violated the restriction against publishing an alternate character creation method.

However, it's been quite a while since I looked at any of the documents, so it may be that this can be done at one level but not the other.

From a game design perspective, I have my doubts. To put them in perspective, let me call attention to the way we do Multiverser interfacing rules.

In Multiverser, a character could find himself inside the game world of another game. Part of the argument behind this, in Multiverser terms, is that such worlds must exist because they have been imagined by someone (there is no fiction, so whatever can be imagined must be true somewhere somehow). However, such game worlds have their own rules. Thus the way a Multiverser conversion works, the character is translated into terms of the other game (e.g., he becomes a D&D character with attributes on the D&D game scale), with Multiverser abilities that do not translate covered by Multiverser mechanics if they logically could work in that world. The reason for this is there is an inherent assumption that the mechanics of a world are part of that world, and you do not truly recreate the world if you change the mechanics.

By including a D20 conversion in the back of your book, you communicate to me that your system doesn't matter. What matters is a game world you've created, and any system could be used within it without significantly altering the world. I don't believe that. I believe that the feel of the world is built into the system, and must be preserved by keeping the system linked to the world as much as possible.

It also strikes me that if the system doesn't matter, then what you're really offering to sell me is setting material. I actually don't need to buy setting material. I can get that from any book, any television show, any movie. Your setting material only interests me if it is solidly connected to a system. What you propose suggests that you're publishing a setting for use with D20 which also can be used with a system you've developed for it. That doesn't matter too much to anyone--once we've reduced it to setting material, your system is wasted effort on your part.

Finally, if you can convert it to D20 without losing anything at all of the feel and reality of the game world, why did you bother writing a different system for it? I'd like to think it was because you thought the world would not be the same if you used the generic D20 system (or some other generic or universal system, for that matter, even mine). If that's not true, then why did you go to all the trouble of creating a system specific to the setting? If it is true, then why pretend that someone can get the same game experience running it in D20?

Either the system you designed for this world is important to the world, or it isn't. If it isn't, throw it away. If it is, make it clear that using another system will not do the world justice.

This comes from someone who produces settings for a universal game constantly. Take it seriously.

--M. J. Young

I wonder where that would leave you legally, if you made a new system with character creation in it. But then you had a conversion from your system to D20. There, no alternative D20 character creation.

Anyway, clearly you can do character creation under the OGL...you just can't have the D20 sticker on your book anywhere. Much as Mutants and masterminds did, you can however say that it uses a system much like a very popular and widespread game. :)

The D20 license prohibits any character creation system, so you could not put a D20 conversion at the back of a book and still use the D20 logo (or name). However, you could use the OGL to put in conversions that would be fully D20 compatible. The trick there is to just watch your language and be sure that you don't use terms or make claims that would require the full D20 system license.

I'm pretty skeptical about this being an advantage for several reasons:
1) 32 pages is almost big enough to be its own book.
2) From what I hear, D20 books are selling less well than original systems (assuming publishers of the same size, etc). So there's obviously a shrinking market.
3) Does your D20 conversion give D20 players something they can't get elsewhere? I mean, there are at least six D20 pirate supplements out there - I seriously doubt that a new pirate game would benefit by putting D20 conversions in there. I don't know what your game is, but I'm sure something similar already exists for D20.

And, for my personal opinion - I feel like someone who puts a D20 conversion in their book is either not confident in their own system or is not confident in their ability to sell their own system. Either way, I'd rather put my money with someone a little more decisive. (And yes, I know that this is a prejudice that may or may not be true, but I think you can judge a book by its cover).

...Guardians of Order's BESM d20 has a point based character generation system of a kind...basic d20 rolls, but also with a point buy system. I haven't seen them come under any fire for that use...

Can you clarify why you would want to write such a thing? I can see a lot of down-sides, and so can other posters, but I don't see the up. What's the motivation?

Hmm, some counterpoints to the: "one setting one system" idea that "if your setting can't ideally be done in d20 then why publish a d20?

In large part, I agree with this, however, we have seen numerous settings be published under multiple sets of rules. Some justifications:

- The original rules didn't capture the setting very well, so here's a new set of rules (both Glorantha and Tekumel are good examples here).

- The setting is so cool, that it is worth it to make the setting more accessible (many settings have been re-published under d20 for this reason, or the next).

- Your custom system may be cool, but the reality is there is a huge demographic that almost refuses to play anything other than d20.

- You hope that by publishing a d20 version that people will see your cool setting, and be willing to try it under d20 which they know and love, and then wonder how it might be better when played with the non-d20 rules.

Tekumel probably actually fits under most of these points (Tri-Stat and d20 rules for Tekumel are supposedly on the way). Oh, and I don't expect we'll ever see the actual set of rules professor Barker uses to run his Tekumel campaign (in part because they aren't a firm set of rules - by the sounds of it, he usually just calls for a dice roll and decides on the spot what the success chance should be).

Any time you plan to publish a setting or scenario under multiple rules, you need to ask yourself why.

One interesting reason is that perhaps it's reasonable to have different rules sets for different types of exploration. For example, I can see Star Wars supporting game systems for Nar, Gam, and Sim purposes. But even within the idea of one CA, it might support multiple rules sets. There might be a Sim system supporting games of the same style as the movies, and there might be another Sim system supporting some other exploration of the setting.

Frank

One thing to keep in mind is that if you include open game content (using the open game license with or without the d20 license) in a work, the license covers the entire work -- you can't just say "the d20 appendix is covered, the rest is not."

You could designate the non-d20 part as product identity (which others can't copy without permission) and the d20 part as open content (which can be re-used without permission under the terms of the license). Regardless, the provisions of the open game license (and the d20 license, if you choose to use it) will apply to the entire work. For the most part, this isn't a problem - the OGL mainly forbids you from stating compatibility with trademarks - but it's worth being aware of.

If you did decide to do the work of doing a dual-system version, I think publishing them separately (either as separate books or separate PDFs) is a better idea. One book with two systems is hard to position so that it appeals to both the d20 and non-d20 audiences, and you're likely to lose some of each audience because they're upset that x percent of the book isn't useful to them. Two separate works can be separately marketed to each audience.

I think the bigger question from my perspective has less to do with licenses or the merits of d20 marketing and more to do with how the game plays.

d20 delivers a fairly complete game experience. Some of the rules difference between the various flavors of d20, and some of the setting specific feats change the experience incrementally; but, on the whole, a d20 game is a d20 game experience.

There are certain assumptions about how to play the game that are built into the game system itself. Assumptions about things like turn order (initiative in combat, free form out of combat), the relationship between attributes and skills and skill difficulty, the general progression in power level throughout play...etc, etc.

If you have a unique game, a unique game world, and a unique game mechanic...will the experience you want translate well to the d20 experience? If the game is primarily take a turn, roll to hit, roll for damage...take a turn, roll to hit, roll for damage...then the experience is probably similiar enough that the actual mechanics of how to roll to hit and roll for damage is of lesser consequence. But if the core of your game doesn't revolve around that sequence...then playing under d20 will completely alter how your game feels to play.

If this is for the better...then perhaps the game should be OGL to begin with. If for the worse...then you really shouldn't try it at all.

Tav_Behemoth wrote: One thing to keep in mind is that if you include open game content (using the open game license with or without the d20 license) in a work, the license covers the entire work -- you can't just say "the d20 appendix is covered, the rest is not."

First off, if you're looking for "What would consumers think of it", this is probably the wrong place to ask.

My opinion: if it works as a d20 game, go ahead and put an OGL conversion in the back. A horrible d20 guide is better than no d20 guide.

ffilz says:

The setting is so cool, that it is worth it to make the setting more accessible (many settings have been re-published under d20 for this reason, or the next)

Have you ever read a campaign setting called Godlike? I had the displeasure of reviewing it for Gaming Frontiers, and it tried to do exactly what you are describing. It was aweful. If you're trying to sell a new system, sell the new system. If you're creating a d20 supplement, make a d20 supplement. But you cheapen your product when you try to be both. I've seen it done in a few other PDFs I've found, and it just is messy.