Hi,
DISCLAIMER:
Am I correct in saying that any D20 statistics printed in an OGLed product would
be, by
the nature of the License, OGC? If so, than it would be almost impossible to produce a
respectable, useful product with appropriated OGC without also contributing OGC.
The notion of utilizing OGC without sharing any new OGC is an ugly one, granted.
But,
first, it's difficult to do. If the only game mechanics in my book came from somebody
else's,
then my Closed content is going to have to be damn swell to get people to buy the OGC
again.
If it sells, this would suggest that my material is worth the cost, and I've every
right to
make that money. If I distribute it free, but Closed, then what's the big deal?
Where's the
loss?
If I use somebody else's OGC and none of my content is OGC, then I'm not really
writing a
gaming book anyway, am I? I'm writing fiction, or something else, and my work need not
be made
Open. This is the "Cook Book" example used a few times before. If I write a book of
Welsh
breakfast dishes (why, I dunno), and then put somebody else's "Snakedog" monster in
the back
as OGC, why should my recipes become OGC? They're not Gaming Content at all. The
advice I give
to GMs, the prose that describes my game setting, and the fiction that takes place
there
should not be automatically considered Game Content, or automatically Open.
Yes, someone who does what you're saying would be a "leech." Hopefully, consumers
would
recognize that and not buy his or her product.
Rogers Cadenhead wrote:
> Maybe I'm wrong to compare
> software and roleplaying, but to watch programmers give away millions
> while RPGers fret over pennies is hard to view charitably.
I agree that the idea of milking gamers for their money is also an ugly one. It is
also
somewhat unlikely. It is quite difficult to make a real fortune from gamers without a
product
that generates real word-of-mouth sales and brand loyalty. Both are difficult to
achieve with
a product that is lousy.
Also, I think you *are* wrong to compare the two. The monetary scale of the game
market,
for many companies, is just not the same as that of the software industry. The pennies
I hope
to make from my game material really will impact my life. I'm going to fret over it
because,
at the scale I live, these pennies feed me. I think writing game material is something
I do
well, and I don't think it's wrong for me to profit from it if the market will support
my
work.
I'm not sure who I'm aiming this next part at, and it's a bit of a philosophical
tangent,
but I've left it in anyway.
Not recognizing that wealth is relative to the individual suggests that I cannot be
considered a good person because I do not have wealth, in comparison with software
engineers,
to share with my industry peers. They give away $1 million. I will never have $1
million.
How much money must a person concern themselves with before that concern can be
considered
reasonable? $100? $5000? $1,000,000? Your answer will not be the same as mine.
word,
will
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
