kevin kenan wrote:
> > The benefit of keeping a world closed is in maintaining a coherent
> > geography, politcal situation, racial make-up, history, etc....
>
> Right, but is that benefit more valuable to the users? It seems to me
> that the right to use, copy, modify and distribute the material is
> more valuable to users than the benefit of a single, consistent
> storyline that can not be modified and shared.
It seems to me (and this is just my two cents) that if you want a world
for which all supplementary products are consistent and of high quality,
then you aren't really looking at a situation which is handled well by an
open license -- you're looking at a situation which is handled by a
license which you give out for free, but which is only given out when some
central authority has approved a work.
Part of the reason for opening material is that the offspring of that
material will *not* be walking in lockstep -- and the development of the
world will proceed according to the laws of the market (consumers will buy
the products they want to make up their game world; other designers will
self-select consistent, high quality material because they have no
interest in using inconsistent, low quality material).
If there were three different rulebooks out there covering the City of
Greyhawk (if Greyhawk were to be placed under an open license), I don't
see the problem. GMs will pick the one they like best. Developers will
pick the one they like best.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
It would be interesting if WotC took one of their "dead" worlds and placed
it under such a license. Dark Sun would be ripe for this sort of
alternative development, IMO.
Justin Bacon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
