Martin L. Shoemaker wrote:
> 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.
The product you described before the above quote is by no means "high
quality." I would not buy a product which claims to present a game adventure,
but actually seems to be a description of how the author would have written his
product if he felt inclined to actually put in effort. ("Well, I would have gone
to the MM, and seen what this monster was. I would have copied the important
info out for my notes, as you must now do yourself ...") It is my opinion
that no one who purchased the adventure you described would be particularly
impressed with it, and would very likely stop buying products from that author.
This is the Capitalist philosophy, and for all that it *is* flawed, it is a
Capitalist market the OGL will be operating in.
Economical production for the creator is all good, as his an economical cost
of access to the customer. This is a tremendous asset powered by the OGL. A
product which displays visible effort will perform better in the marketplace, I
believe.
> 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.
Will do. I'm not married to that word. I didn't intend to imply that it is
"used improperly." Since you've picked up on that, you can substitute whatever
word you feel fits better.
> 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.
Then your example does not much apply to the topic I thought was in
question. Products may well make use of the OGL in regards to the game mechanics
without producing OGC. That is so. If you feel that it is bad form for an author
to produce such work without sharing OGC, that is your right. I will make my
decisions on a product-by-product basis. I have been speaking to a different
point. Authors who utilize someone else's OGC (another new, non-WotC source) in
their own product without producing new OGC themselves are not likely producing
much of a book.
1. If the monsters and treasure in Crazy Dungeon #1 are all taken directly
from Wacky Dungeon #1, why would I pay money for both products? I will probably
keep the one I have.
2. If Crazy Dungeon's closed content is so great that I'm willing to pay for
it, even though all the monsters come from another book I already own, then I
applaude the author. He or she has written great material, and I am willing to
put down my dollar.
3. If Crazy Dungeon reproduces Wacky Dungeon's OGC for free and distributes
it across, let's say, the Internet, that is the nature of the OGL. I am not
likely to much respect the move. If Crazy Dungeon also supplies closed content
with Wacky Dungeon's OGC, and still distributes it for free, then what is the
big deal. I pay nothing, Crazy Dungeon makes no (or little) profit, and who
cares if Crazy Dungeon's new material isn't OGC. It isn't my decision to make,
because I didn't write Crazy Dungeon. I can't force someone to give away their
work. (Even in Socialism you can't *force* someone to act in the benefit of the
state. If you have to do that, then the system is flawed.)
> << 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?
First, I was not referencing your above example. It had not been written
yet.
Second, I am not the person who initiated the use of the word "leech." I was
speaking to a point already raised. See my above example for "leech-like"
behavior. That is, utilizing the benefit of a larger body for one's own
survival. The implication, I read, is that the leech gives nothing back to that
body.
If I seem to have crossed a line, it was not my intention. Honestly, I don't
think you and I are looking at the same line.
To be clear: I don't much care for the idea of authors who will produce
material under the OGL which does not contribute OGC. My mind can be changed
most directly by quality products which do just that, however. I will be happy
to be proven wrong, if such products lead to success in/for the market and/or
the OGF. At the same time, I believe the OGL is best left the way it is. It is
the author's right to select what of their product is and is not OGC. If the
price for securing those rights for the authors is the risk of undesirable
product, I think that's fine. It's a fair price.
word,
will
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
