ON Friday, May 12, 2000 12:58 PM, Kal Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Responding by putting more restrictions on many people is
> fundamentally antithetical to open gaming. I WANT people to be
> allowed to innovate the SRD beyond what YOU consider "compatible"
> and still have access to the D20 market.
IMHO, I think a lot of the commentary here may be looking at the issue from
the wrong perspective.
Basically, most people seem to be concerned that the D20 license may limit
their ability to change the game rules to reflect their vision. Fair enough.
But, as a CONSUMER of "D20 Brand Products", what I want to know is that I
can use this material easily in my D&D (or other D20) game. In this respect,
a restrictive license on this logo is in the consumer's interest because it
prevents all the confusion that people on this list are threatening to
create. If I have to learn a whole new set of rules, and I can't just drop
it into my D20 game, then I DON'T CARE if it's a similar system, any more
than it does me good today to know that the Palladium rules are heavily
derived from D&D, or that Storyteller is a descendant of Shadowrun. All this
pie chart stuff is just confusing, and does nothing to help the purchaser.
_____________________________________________________
"The problem is that once you have done away with the ability to make
judgements as to right and wrong, true and false, etc., there's no real
culture left. All that remains is clog dancing and macram�. The ability to
make judgements, to believe things, is the entire point of having a
culture."
--Neal Stephenson
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
