From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Will Hindmarch
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 1:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Open_Gaming] Consolidated Remarks
<< Am I correct in saying that any D20 statistics printed in an OGLed
product would be, by
the nature of the License, OGC? >>
I think that's essentially correct. I am no lawyer, so I can't say for
certain.
<< If so, than it would be almost impossible to produce a
respectable, useful product with appropriated OGC without also contributing
OGC. >>
Very possible, if somewhat limited. Imagine an adventure targeted at
existing characters of some level range. Thus, no sample characters are
provided. Further imagine that there are no major NPC opponents, simply a
range of existing OGC monsters. No stats are provided for the monsters,
simply instructions to roll up the monsters using the usual rules. No unique
magic items or treasure are provided, only treasure listings that include
existing OGC treasure. Maps and setting and story are provided as original,
closed content. The new effort involved in such an adventure is the barest
minimum necessary to express the adventure itself. This sort of "leverage"
of OGC allows high quality compatible adventures to be produced in a way
that is economical for the creators and for the customers.
And please reconsider the adjective "appropriated", with its connotations of
"used improperly". What I just described is an entirely proper use of OGC
under the terms of the OGL.
<< 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. >>
Ah, but in my example, they buy nothing "again": the adventure is D20, which
means it may require the PHB. The creator shall rely on this, shall make it
part of his design strategy. The creator may also rely on the D20 monsters
and simply presume that any interested GM can get the stats from another
source (the MM, of course). They buy the new closed content, nothing more.
<< Yes, someone who does what you're saying would be a "leech."
Hopefully, consumers would
recognize that and not buy his or her product. >>
Will, can you please explain to me what "leech-like" behavior has happened
in the example I cite? I agree with a lot of what you say; but "leech"
crosses the line. A creator has built an adventure of value to his
customers, using the OGC to provide benefit both to himself and to them. No
one has lost anything in this transaction. Imagine that the creator can find
a printing option that makes it possible to distribute these adventures for
a very low cost -- say, a set of eight adventures in one paperbound volume
for $8, with his profit being about $1 per book -- which is only so
affordable specifically because he's targetting people who already own the
necessary OGC. His book is chock full of nothing but adventures, for a high
bang/buck ratio. Assuming the necessary quality, I see only good for the
gaming community in this product. Yet somehow, this effort earns him the
title of "leech".
Martin
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
