On 1 Oct 00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re: [Open_Gaming] discussing
an Ope:
>
> Just a note. I'm not talking about closing game rules. Those would stay
> open. I'm talking about opening up the Product Identity 100% but keeping
> it within a closed system.
>
Sorry, Maggie, but that last sentence contradicts itself. It is not
really opening it up. What it is doing is partially opening it, as you
still have checks and balances controlling the final outcome of the
product.
> For example, a group of people get together and brainstorm ideas for a d20
> compatable module. Those ideas belong to everyone in the group but only
> for the usage of that group. Anyone may join that group. The d20 game
> rules stay open to the world, but the Product Identity is only open for
> people who are willing to contribute through group effort. Thus, game
> rules stay open and ideas stay open. I think some of you keep thinking
> that I want to put game rules under quality control. I don't. Never did.
> I want to open product identity within a controlled system for the
> purpose of world creation.
>
Have you ever tried to get any work done in a committee? It is the
only known creature to have many heads and no brain.....
One method is to have a consensus, meaning that everybody has
to agree to any changes, which will become increasingly difficult as
more people join. As you will never get a large group to fully agree
to anything. If you limit the number of people, then you are going
against the spirit of your proposal.
Another method is majority rule, which means that you stifling the
efforts of some, base on the the opinions of others. This type of
system degenerates into the "most persuasive" or loudest rules of
getting things passed. Not very good and just as bad as the above
option, but in a different manner.
Yet another option, since this will be occuring on a mail list of
some sort is the "moderator rules" method. This means that while
folks can submit ideas, the list moderator has final say, and can
actually kick folks off the list for being disruptive (or for any reason
they want). A mild dictatorship at best.
Another option is to create the world itself (the map/general
outlines) and then let folks volunteer to develop certain
areas/cultures/etc... while following certain guidelines about power
level, politics with other nations, etc..... Again, this is not truly
open as you are placing restrictions upon them and what they can
do.......
> IMO, that's even closer to the spirit of open gaming than the OGL for
> _group_ world creation projects.
>
Sorry to disagree, but it isn't open in any manner, no matter how
look at it. In all the possible options I could see (and there are
more options and variations of options that I have not seen or
listed), it is not open in any manner because *somebody else
always has control* over the work of somebody else. The most that
this could be considered to be is a "Collaborative Development
Environment". Perhaps you should work on creating a specific set
of rules (for development) designed to work around this concept.
*************************
********TANSTAAFL********
*************************
Rasyr (Tim Dugger)
E-Mail:
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Work:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WebPage: http://www.rpghost.com/rasyr/
Last updated: October 6, 1999
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
