Matt-
To follow up on your comments:
My partner Bill Webb and I wrote the Wizard's Amulet,
released by our company Necromancer Games. Now we gave
that away for free, but all the content is not open.
In doing that free module, we spent over two months in
writing, playtesting, editing, designing the
publication and converting to pdf. plus, we hired a
professional artist to do some awesome line art. The
total project cost was well over $1000 (not counting
my or Bill's time which would have been astronomical).
Guess what. If anyone thinks I am going to open that
up all the way is on crack. I keep all rights to the
art and to the text (and as further designated in the
module).
Now we did offer some open content: npcs, monster
descriptions, etc. plus, we created the Leucrotta
(which will not appear in the 3E MM) in 3E terms and
made it open. So we cant be accused of keeping all our
stuff closed. But beyond that, get real.
Maybe an examination of what we did will be
enlightening. The problem is that both sides of the
debate tend to speak in these poorly defined
hypotheticals. Why not look at our adventure and say
"Clark should have opened this up," or "Clark could
have closed this and didnt and we like/dont like that
he did it that way."
Personally, I think even the rabidly content open
types will have no problem with our open content. But
it would be interesting to see...
Clark Peterson
=====
http://www.necromancergames.com
"3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail � Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
