Living Card Game (LCG)

^^This :D^^

Of course, I would also develop expansions... But I was trying to figure out how it would be possible to generate MORE scenarios. I remember a guy who had a $500.00 contest and collected ideas. Some people did not like that. So I figured the game should be OPEN when it comes to "expansions".

I know that's why I said it requires more thinking (aside from the logo and such). Not only rules, but also some designing guidelines.

The idea that some designer could buy the game and then design an expansion for the game. You absolutely need the game to design new expansions... I've tried to think of other ways - it's just not possible. Things like PNP (too much labour) or TGC game (just as costly as buying the game!)

So the easiest thing to do is MARKET the game to designers also.

Note: If you are looking for the XTG logos, click on "Page 1" below and scroll down...

So one example would be that the game has seven (7) distinct roles. However a expansion could break that rule and have an eight (8) role such as the "Scientist".

Another example would be addition of Planets to the game. Right now there are none. But an expansion may want to use planets and that would expand the "Game Play" area.

The concept of asteroids is in another direction. It would require additional tracking (of resources). Not 100% sure about the end-goal for that scenario idea - YET. But "Mining" could replace Trade starships (and missions) to earn extra quickSilver (qS).

I also am looking at designing both a solitary and co-op scenario. Currently the game has no total co-op scenario. That would add another dimension to the game. Some people enjoy playing co-op... So my first "expansion" would be a solo/co-op scenario. And it MAY introduce a new role such as the "Scientist"... That could be cool, solo/co-op + new role.

I have about three (3) other "expansion" ideas. But the best one by far is the solo/co-op one!

Note: I have also been thinking about adding "resources" to the game. The game already has some via the back of cards (and used in trading). But I was sort of thinking about worker placements and using resources in a more general manner.

This could use cards in a different way (as the resources). So each card has a resource value (1-5 currently) and somehow that could be used... Not sure - but the idea excites me! ;)

Personally I agree with this aspect of the license. Having others design expansions "opens" up the game and will probably lead to more popularity. It will also probably extend the lifetime (and shelf life) of a game.

So again since this is a license, I will probably need to consult with a lawyer to have the license properly worded. But I think this boils down to what YOU as a designer grant as rights to the buyer.

By DEFAULT the XTG logo stands to help distinguish between base product and expansion products. It lets consumers know if the game will have expansions in the future or if the game is a one-off type of game (not designed for expansion).

However in the game's license that will need to be one page in each rulebook, the specific license granted by the developer of the game states if derivative works may be designed by other designers...

It will be something simple, like "include clause #4 if you want to grant other designers the capability to design expansions" or "remove clause #4 to be the sole designer and allow no derivative works". Something simple like that.

As of now that is what I see as the easiest route.

#1: Let people know that there will be expansions to this game.
#2: When they buy the product they can read the license to understand if they can create derivative works.

***IMPORTANT NOTICE (You may want to reconsider Daniel)***

Just because you can DESIGN an expansion for the game, doesn't mean we grant you a license on the name of the product. The designer of the base (or original) game still hold copyrights on the name of the game.

Therefore in order to take a expansion and bring it to market, there are several steps that must be followed. This is the "rules" that I am talking about. And they will have to include things like "if you do design an expansion and submit it for review, our publisher MAY or MAY NOT publish it".

While the license grants the right to DESIGN expansions, it doesn't grant the right to use the copyright name.

So what's the deal?

Basically by setting up the license PRIOR to publishing the game, you are saying: "Yes you can design expansions - but we cannot guarantee we will publish all such expansions." Further more it will state something like: "If you do design an expansion and want it to be sold, we (the designer) can help accelerate the process for publications. By doing so, we can grant you the right to use the game's name."

All this will do is *de-mystify* how designer X goes about getting the right to create a properly licensed product. It will give expansion designer a "road to follow" to accelerate the publishing of an expansion (with your approval).

That's what I'm leaning towards. Information about HOW to get an expansion certified and published.

As of today if you look at other games on the market, you really don't know how to do this. "Cities & Knights" is an example of an expansion that was sold by placing it NEXT to Catan in store shelves (originally).

Anyhow I will post some more on this matter... I need some time to think some more!

I want to try to stick away from other notations: the game has two (2) logos, one for the base XTG product (or is a base) and the other is for XTG expansions. We have already one term which can be used interchangeably. It's simply: when you see XTG logo you know this is a modular game or expansion.

Yes I have been considering having a website to host the games that fall under the license for promotional purposes. Sort of "here are games that are expandable by nature." It's a good form of promotion for games and it would be FREE.

Maybe it could eventually expand to have a membership (FREE) for housing (storing) expansion guidelines (hosted files, templates, "guidebooks"). And perhaps have streamlined contact information to refer to the original designer of the game.

That makes a lot of sense. I need to ponder how this can be achieved. I don't want just to colour the logo, it needs to be more apparent... I'll think about this also.

Right now I am leaning on three OTHER colours:

1. Green = Free license, Open Market
2. Yellow = Submission Base
3. Red = Close product, no outside expansions

***VERY IMPORTANT***

This form of license could also help designers "control" the process of licensing. Instead of granting all rights to expansion to a Publisher, you would be allowed to define YOUR own process for submission and contact.

This is also very important because in the NORMAL world (non XTG) a designer who wants a license will 1st contact the PUBLISHER of said game. Then it depends on the relationship between the publisher and original designer... It can get a little bit "blurry" (if you know what I mean).

The XTG license would streamline the process and put the original designer FIRST if such is desired (and I think most original designers would like that!)

I have found some other Chess pieces (some SVGs and other PNGs) and I really don't like the way they look once you shrink them down to the proper size (2in x 0.5in). They are very hard to distinguish, the shapes just don't work well with the rest of the logos.

I played around with other shapes and wasn't very satisfied with the overall look of the logos...

There is another aspect regarding the licensing that I want to explore... I am thinking that the license should be applied in "layers" (something like basic, extended and full). This logical division makes more sense that just having the different licensing options.

I am thinking in contractual terms and so "basic" (Closed license) would guarantee expansions that would originate from the initial developer of the base product. Next we would have "extended" (Reviewer license) which would offer expansions from the initial developer in addition to offering peer reviews for derivative works. Lastly "full" (Open license) would offer expansions from the initial developer, add peer reviews for derivative works and allow free market development of expansions.

Something like that. The layers may not be 100% but that's kind of what I am leaning towards. It makes it much easier to draft the contracts (licensing agreements) because it works better with legalese than having three (3) different licensing agreements.

I think this will also impact how I would display the proper layers so anyone (including colour-blind people) would be able to know from the gecko what licensing is being given by any game. Basically "full" will have three (3) colour coded bars, "extended" will have two (2) colour coded bars and "basic" will only have one (1) colour coded bar.

I have worked on these versions and it's more apparent when viewing the smaller sized logos (in their actual size) which license is being offered.

Note: I used the term "layers", what I meant was something like three (3) tiers.

Note 2: It's not a typo or mistake that the second tier of the license talks about "derivative works" as opposed to "game expansions". This is because if somebody wants to design a *new* core (or base) such as a NEW edition of the base game, that could be explored (a viable possibility). The third tier only allows free market on "expansions". It would not be possible to create a new edition of the game, only expansions that use the base game.

I know these seem like *technicalities* but when it comes to legal jargon (and licensing agreements), it's very important to make the proper distinction because the wrong wording could lead to confusion... or misappropriation of ownership rights.

That's why before I go PUBLIC with the actual licensing agreement, I will be certain to have it reviewed by a legal expert. This will ensure that the agreement is lock tight and offers what it is supposed to offer...

Note 3: The "base" license which says that the developer of the game will publish his or her own expansions for the base game. In legal terms, there has to be a "cut-off" to ensure that people do not "abuse" the XTG license. This cut-off is something like a "grace period" which is given to the developer of the base game. It would specify a time limit such as two (2) years in order to design and produce his or her own expansion.

So what this means is that in order to be compliant with the XTG "base" license, you MUST put out an expansion within two (2) years of the release of the original/base game. This will protect the XTG community by ensuring only REAL modular/expandable games acquire and use the XTG terminology and associated logos. We don't want everyone to label their game an XTG and then do absolutely nothing to expand it...

@Fhizban: If YOUR game was designed to be "Expandable" then it should be branded as such. Why? Well because not all games are designed to be expandable. Many games are just "games". There are no plans for expansions...

XTG3 licensing hopes to BRAND products as being "expandable". It's a great tool to announce to the consumers and other designers that your game has been designed with the objective of having expansions.

Because this is an "OPEN" license, much like the Creative Commons license, it will offer SOME (not all) games the opportunity to distinguish themselves in the marketplace.

Personally I'm very excited about the XTG3 licensing... I hope to achieve MORE success than the PRIVATE LCG model owned by FFG.

I think you are confusing matters by thinking about PNP and other games, etc.

Don't you wonder why people create things under the "Creative Commons" licensing?! Don't you understand that every game has to have a series of rules to be observed and respected? Or in another direction, educating consumers to recognize a "type" of product (market differentiator)?

XTG3 is FAR from the Creative Commons licensing. But it is in the same vein to ensure that the brand YOU are producing is respected and that the process to determine expansion is streamlined. Not nebulous and unknown or up to a third party.

When you sign over your game to a Publisher, I hope you will figure out that you need to preserve some rights to the game...

It is my belief that it will be much harder to negotiate such terms independently versus explaining in layman terms that a product is under XTG3 licensing.

It's like saying: "My game is licensed under XTG3 'basic' licensing." Or the alternative: "Well you see I want to be the only designer that can create new products based on this brand. Yes I can agree that the brand will be published by you, however we must agree that only I can create derivative works and expansions."

The point in this case - is trying to negotiate the terms yourself, instead of going to a "de-facto" standard license that has been designed to protect a designer.

There are MANY reasons to choose XTG3... And I will educate all parties involved in the Tabletop industry: consumers, other designers, publishers, retail stores and of course the original designer.

For now I don't want to explain everything about XTG3 licensing on BGDF - just to hint at what is POSSIBLE via licensing.

Well I have searched around the Internet and I have found various licenses: master license, eula license, simple license, etc.

I'm not sure about all of these... So it will be best if I make contact with a lawyer and have something custom designed for XTG3.

I don't think standard agreements have the same scope and more detailed ones deal with other topics that I believe will just over complicate the license.

I may do so in the next few weeks...