[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Regardless of the truth, regardless of the intentions of Ryan and WotC ...
> public perception is going to lean towards "it's _just_ a WotC marketing
> ploy." If the OGL and the OGF are going to be more than that, then we need
> to make the public believe that fact ... because that's the nature of public
> perception. People will not take the time to read between the lines and get
> to the facts.
I think you're right. Getting another company involved may not be necessary,
though it would be beneficial. We may see a lot of faith generated in the OGF by
the independent authors and associated distributors who make use of the OGL.
That, I think, will actually do a lot of the work for making it appear separate
from WotC. That will help define the OGF further. Also important, in the longer
term, is to illustrate the benevolent relationship between WotC and the OGF. I
mean, WotC can do some very powerful things with the OGL (they enploy the
original D20 designers and have greater capital than most any other game
producer). As long as their projects are seen as *part* of the OGF communities,
and are then utilized outside of WotC in expanding circles of interesting and
valuable product, it will validate the OGF further. It will show consumers that
WotC and smaller-scale authors can all use the OGL in the same way.
Still, just as my two cents, I would have to recommend Atlas Games as a
cooperative element in the OGF. "Three Days to Kill" is already a good example,
of course. What's more, I think Atlas Games has the ear of a number of gamers not
so accessible from WotC's position. Both companies mutual interest in the OGF
would be valuable (and illustrative) praises indeed.
word,
Will
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
