Hello,
Mathew Gray wrote:
> 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.
Actually I have been doing just that. Me and my group are in the middle of
making the Modular D20 Document. It will be a bunch of plug and play type
things. Fit in what is required for your campaign and then start playing. It's
coming along quite well.
I'm currently working on a way to make D20 a skill based system, and i have even
been considering some different roll mechanics for a bell curved system.
Something that i am told some people insist in a game.
We also have a variable wound system that allows different levels of deadliness.
By the time we are done with it (assuming of course that there is such a thing
for this type of project.) I am hoping to have a document that will allow the GM
to construct a playable set of rules in minutes to fit any type of genre, feel
or style of play.
> "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. :)
Well, there will be my group as well. :-)
> 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.
No, I'm not wrong. I think i am just looking at the Open Gaming Community
differently than most other people are.
For me the Open Gaming community is a subset of the D&D Community. I think it
will eventually break away though. From the sounds of it, it sounds like
everyone else views the two as the same thing.
I also see it as a development community, although I know that isn't really all
that accurate. Comes from what side of the house I'm on i suppose.
Generally when people are talking about selling modules, they aren't targeting
the Open Gaming Community, they are targeting the D&D community through the D20
Logo.
If both communities are the same, then i can see the modules (even the entirely
closed modules) as contributing to the Open Gaming Community.
If they are separate, then I don't see the all closed modules as being all that
contribute to the OG Community. After all, for most D&D consumers, the D20 logo
will equal D&D, not Open Gaming.
> 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.
Yes please, lets keep this a civil discussion. I think I found the word.
Community. Definitly need to define 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'm glad you know me so well.
But yet if you give a web site, are you not contributing to the Open Gaming
Community? Assuming of course the link connects to the community.
I believe i have stated before that the rules are not the only way to
contribute.
> 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."
Wow, in fact I said it right here.
> The war cry has been: "Give me OGC, or give me death!" (Or at the very
> least: "Give me OGC, or u suk d00d!"
Not by me.
> "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.
Really, I'm glad you have been reading my posts so closely.
> This is *silly* . . . you wave this banner around, expecting that if you
> don't the synergy of the movement will be lost.
Yes I do. I want this to succeed. The only way it will is if it continues to
grow. Ask any business man what happens when your company stops growing and
expanding.
> You demand people share and
> "contribute" in a manner which satisfies YOU.
Um, well, yes. Considering what i have listed as contribution, most people
should be able to accommodate me. Do you not have any expectations of your own?
> 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.
Except I'm not talking about those that draw attention to the OGL. I'm talking
about those that are not contributing. That means not drawing any attention to
the OGL. Really isn't that hard to do. People that use the D20 Logo are counting
on it being the same as the D&D logo. That is it's job, and that is how
consumers are going to view it. If a person does nothing to point the consumer
to the OGL/F on the product or on his web site. Then that benefit is not going
to happen.
Those are the people I am referring to. Those that take from the community,
while giving nothing back.
> If they fall on
> their face and have contributed nothing, no big loss."
That is a loss though. If we don't show them how to contribute and how to be
successful, then we have lost a chance to make the community stronger. And that
is our loss.
> Is the Cold War over in your world?
Yes, more civil discussion. Gotta love it.
Have Fun,
Darren
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
