Darren wrote:
"By successful, I am sure that you mean how many people play. I think that
Ryan
even views it's success in the same way. But, by using that definition only,
it
will never be as successful as it could be. The reason being, there are
quite a
few people out there who just don't like the D&D game mechanic. Hit Points
seem
to be the big thing, but there are also others."
One could write OGC to modify some of the existing conventions. (Within
reason, mind you, as certain things have been put forth as being so basic to
d20 that you can't change them and still work under D20 guidelines.) In
this manner you would bring people into the community who otherwise would
not have come. Victory to the community, WoTC, and you.
"I personally view the success as a quality issue. If you are giving the
player
the best playing experience possible, then there is not much point in having
a
million players playing. The best way to give quality is to expand the base
so
that the game is actually the one the player wants to play, and not the one
he
is stuck playing because there is nothing else."
Yes and no. The BEST way is to make it possible for the player to use the
conventions he is pleased with in a game. If that requires stepping away
from D20, and merely using the OGl, fine. But if that is merely making
modifications to the way you use the D20 system, it's also quite feasible.
"Since i will be playing it as long as I am developing it, I don't think we
have
to worry about that happening."
Let's all hope you're not the only one left playing. We'll have all failed
at that point. :)
"See i disagree with this. I believe that the goal of the Open Gaming
Community
should be to make itself strong and versatile, so that it can stand up to
the
pressures of everyone using it to expand the gaming community as a whole."
And I think you're BOTH right. A large, strong, viable gaming community is
the goal. PART of this is a large, strong, viable open gaming community.
"I don't think i agree with this either. Some of the bigger stuff that
happens to
the Gaming community may affect the Open Gaming community. At the moment
however, the Open Gaming Community is too small to be bothered by much that
goes
on in the Gaming community as a whole. After all, how affected is the Open
Gaming Community if 50 new people start playing GURPS?
Now I can see it being affected more by the D&D community, however i would
thing
the Open Gaming Community will have more of an effect on the D&D community
than
the other way around."
It's all connected in the end . . . I'll tell you what 50 new players in
Gurps means to us. It means the resellers who might stock our paper
products might be making a bit more money to stay alive . . .
"Not at all. The type of exchange is different in your example than it is in
an
Open community. With your example the exchange is you provide the
entertainment
and they provide the money to make it happen while agreeing to come over and
have fun with you.
In an open community, if it to thrive and grow, the exchange has to be an
exchange of ideas. Otherwise it doesn't grow, and is relegated to a fad."
You're wrong.
I just cannot say it any more clearly than anyone else has. I do not think
you will ever understand what we're saying. It is simply this: there is not
just one way to make a community thrive. Your way is not the only one.
> Your view of who constitutes a member of a community is too narrow. Not
> every member of a community takes the role of a contributor. Simply by
> being there and lending support a person can be a member of a community
> without giving anything tangible to it.
I tend to disagree with this as well. I think being there and lending moral
support *is* a tangible and very important part of the whole process. It is
what
sustains and gives motivation. However, giving back to the community in the
form
of rules, is what makes the community become more flexible. It is the influx
of
ideas that makes the core stronger and growing.
Bollox on rules. I can write a frigging STUNNING piece of plot, adventure,
and such, not include a single damned rule, and the community will be better
for it. People will buy it, see the d20 symbol, check out the websites,
etc. I show them. This in turn causes mjore people to become excited.
(Well, everyone but you, who is too busy being angry that I didn't give you
even one new creature.)
"I don't think it is unreasonable to expect every member to contribute. If
they
don't, why be part of the community?
Contributing can be as simple as moral support, a little "this is a good
idea"
every once in a while, a new monster here and there, new equipment,
historical
accurateness, math abilities, typesetting, editing, ideas, etc."
No, what people have been talking thusfar has been about *RULES and OGC*.
Not once (until now) has someone said: "If you *.pdf convert this document,
you're no longer a l****."
The war cry has been: "Give me OGC, or give me death!" (Or at the very
least: "Give me OGC, or u suk d00d!"
"What concerns me, are the people who have no intention of contributing, and
are
just using the work of the community to further their own ends. Those people
I
have absolutely no use for."
Your concern is only there because you won't open your eyes and really
consider what contribution to the community means.
"Making adventures is great, and quite frankly sounds like fun, and if I
thought
i could actually make a living at it, I would be interested in trying.
However,
it is important that those using material from the Open Gaming Community
also
contribute back to the Open Gaming Community so that we can grow and thrive.
Especially considering that all the adventures i have seen so far are
directed
at the D&D community, not the Open Gaming Community. Not a big difference at
the
moment to be sure, but the difference will grow over time, I have no doubt."
This is *silly* . . . you wave this banner around, expecting that if you
don't the synergy of the movement will be lost. You demand people share and
"contribute" in a manner which satisfies YOU. Many of us are essentially
saying, over and over: "If people produce things of quality, which draw
attention to the OGL, and the community, that's great. If they fall on
their face and have contributed nothing, no big loss."
> I disagree here. The sharing of ideas goes on every day in the gaming
> community, even outside of the blanket of Open Gaming. I see the greatest
> benefit of Open Gaming to be the legal freedom to act upon these ideas to
> change and evolve the OGC.
"Which can't be done if no one contributes." (Referring to the freedom to
use OGC legally via the OGL.)
Is the Cold War over in your world?
We're not talking about NOBODY "contributing" (have to quote it, your
definition is so much different) to the community. We're saying that if
some people to not choose to release content, that's not going to mean the
community is being hurt in some way. Simply put (which doesn't seem to
work, but we'll try again), the very act of producing something and
associating it with the OGL has real potential to assist the community in
numerous ways, regardless of what new OGC is included.
"Or they are driven away by the fact that everyone is willing to take the
work
that they have done, but yet not willing to contribute back."
I like how you use "everyone" . . . when in fact we're talking about the
fact that there will be some people who don't end up releasing new OGC,
while a lot of other people do. You're being paranoid and reactionary if
you even believe half of what you expouse. I am shocked that anyone
involved in a community where anything is open (even when it's not a true
"open source" model) would be screaming so much about the possibility of
their work being used by another member of the community.
It boggles the mind.
Quite literally it's becoming apparent that you're far overblowing the
ramifications of people who end up "not contributing" by your definition.
It's fast approaching the point where your paranoia is serving nothing more
than to waste bandwidth. You've started making broad generalizations in an
attempt to "show us how it will be" . . . why you spend so much time on
meaningless hyperbole and doomsaying is beyond me. Try a dose of reality,
look at all the people who ALREADY have PRODUCED and RELEASED open game
content, then ask yourself if there's really any great threat of this
apocalyptic future you seem to be dreaming of.
-Mathew Gray
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
