From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brad Thompson
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 2:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] OGL and Intellectual Property
<< Adventure no, but adventures are only one small aspect of a
setting/theme/genre. Kevin was talking about lots of different kinds of
supplements, including but not limited to adventures.
If a d20 work becomes popular (and profitable) enough, others will want to
create material for it. >>
Then if it is closed, let them work out a license agreement with the
creator. Just like if you want to make Forgotten Realms material, you'll
have to license from WotC (UNLESS they make it open).
<< These names are too generic to 'lock down' except in a specific context.
Just because you create 'snakemen' doesn't mean I can't create my own, so
long as they are different from yours in a significant way. >>
Please take the following not as a criticism, but more as an
observation/suggestion for the group as a whole. I don't want to flame, but
simply reduce the likelihood of flames. And I know you probably get this
point; but I feel it's a point that must be made, because I see a lot of
confusion going on around the point. So my point is this:
When people on this list propose a race or a story or a rule as an example,
PLEASE take care in attacking the example as "too generic", "not original",
"not useful", etc. We're trying to make and explore points here, not
actually do the work of game design. And it's VERY difficult to make points
about the theory of closed content if we must actually create something
suitable for closing -- a time-consuming effort -- and then actually publish
that possible closed content to the list just so we can discuss whether it
could be closed or not. None of us can spare two weeks inventing a really
useful rule just so we can then use it as an example of how useful rules
might be open or closed.
There is a place for discussing whether a particular idea can be closed or
not; but it's not necessarily this list, because discussion here will weaken
its value as closed content. So please realize that the examples people pose
probably AREN'T good closed content in the long run. Please think of them as
examples of a principle, not necessarily something that would prove closed
on careful examination. Please give us a little slack for the purpose of
exploring the principles.
Now on the other hand:
<< I could go out right now and create a 'Mind Flayer' with a mental attack
form, though if I also called it an Illithid and described it as a highly
intelligent humanoid creature with a purple octopus head I would be in for a
world of hurt, regardless of how many other differences there were between
my 'Mind Flayer' and WotC's. >>
This is a GOOD example of generic vs. specific. I don't think generic vs.
specific is a bad topic for our discussion. I just worry when the topic is
open vs. closed, and the discussion gets sidetracked onto "that's too
generic". I feel we lose a useful discussion in the specifics of a given
example.
Martin L. Shoemaker
Emerald Software, Inc. -- Custom Software and UML Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.EmeraldSoftwareInc.com
www.UMLBootCamp.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
