John,
Let me say in advance: I have a headache, a deadline looming, six dogs that
won't stop barking, and a screen door that spontaneously locked me out of
the house tonight. So if ANY of this comes out as angry at you, I apologize
in advance.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Nephew
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 2:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Open_Gaming] More on the evil conspiracy ;)
<< And even if White Wolf is thinking something else, or decides to stick
all
the monster names under the OGL too, what I've described is still a strategy
that someone else might want to use, since the expansive structure of
"Product Identity" looms large in the OGL v.1.0.
In fact, I think it may loom a little too large -- and I think that the
community of developers should apply positive peer pressure to encourage
people to take a more limited view of "Product Identity" whenever possible.
>>
I respectfully disagree. Pressure from the developer community is no more
desirable than control from the owners of PI. Pressure must come from the
consumers. If all the claims that "Open Gaming is Superior Gaming" have any
merit, then it will prove out when the most open games are the most
successful games.
<< I look forward to seeing him do that, since I am certain it will be good
for
open gaming. However, it would have been a lot better if names and
statistics were all OGC, and only world-specific "flavor text" had been
restricted. That would protect those IP concerns (if you want to control
stories and unique characters on which movies or something could be based),
while not creating administrative licensing hassles for other OGL
developers -- and for yourself. >>
But names very likely ARE "world-specific 'flavor-text'".
<< Alternately, a license could have been
included, comparable to the D20STL, to describe exactly how the monster
names could be used in other OGL products without special permission.
(You're a lawyer; couldn't you have drawn up such a license for them?) >>
We all have time constraints; and most of us have real lives outside of Open
Gaming. While it might have been nice for Clark to do so, I think it is
unreasonable to complain if he just did not have the time.
<< Uh...then why are people talking about its License specifying "Product
Identity"? >>
"Product Identity" as a phrase does not appear in the legal notices.
"Product Identity" as a concept is very much like what the legal text seems
to be after when it specifically excludes monster names from OGC. I think
people are simply using the convenient label for the concept.
<< Uh-huh. That's true of ANYTHING. Dungeons & Dragons, the trademark, has
the same status -- "you just have to get permission to use it." It's just
that WotC isn't handing out that permission left and right. And if the
intention were to hand out permission left and right, why not include it
under the OGL, or provide a D20 license type document? Lacking such
mechanisms, the presumption "that SSS doesnt want people to refer to the
monsters" seems perfectly reasonable. >>
Well, I hate to be a pain, but... Letting them use the monsters seems plenty
open to me. Insisting that that is not open enough seems very punitive to
me. Most of the coolest monsters in there can be of great use in my game
without ever even being named: the Dweller at the Crossroads, for example.
Others can easily be named whatever I like. The Miser Jackal, for example,
is a great game gimmick, even if I call him a Treasure Hound. Now there are
a FEW examples that I feel verge too closely on "prior art" and thus should
be open. The new Golem types are the biggest example: if my players see
something that is obviously a Golem and obviously made of mithril, calling
it a "Shinier-than-silver-and-stronger-than-steel Golem" is a mite silly.
But I think those are by far the exception.
<< > There are IP issues that you have to make sure you
> dont just piss away.
Right. So why not do something, like a D20STL-like trademark license, for
all the product identity monster names, to take care of those IP issues
while embracing Open Gaming more fully? >>
I respectfully suggest that you be careful of phrases like "embracing Open
Gaming more fully". There is plenty of room for disagreement on what Open
Gaming means, plenty of precedents to be set and either rescinded or
reinforced, and plenty of territory to be explored. (This one phrase was the
one which made me fear I was going to yell at you in lieu of the blasted
dogs! If I've kept my calm to this point, I should be safe.)
<< "If you want to use the monsters, you have to talk to Steve first." >>
If you want to use the monster names, you have to talk to Steve first. But
use the monsters all you want.
<< > "It's an interesting business choice, and it's one
> that makes considerable sense if you are one of the
> largest game companies and have built in advantage in
> terms of marketing and familiarity -- you can grab
> what a larger company, WotC, is giving away, without
> really having to pay it forward to other publishers
> (who are your competitors)."
>
> Again, faulty premise.
I must disagree. I think there is a very coherent argument that can be made
that proceeds from one of two assumptions (a) the Theory of Network
Externalities is invalid, or (b) the Theory of Network Externalities only
benefits one player, the one at the center of it all -- i.e., WotC. For
anyone other than WotC, I would hold that either premise is functionally the
same. >>
Just to clarify: the Theory of Network Externalities says nothing -- I
repeat, NOTHING -- about open or closed development. Rather, it is about
development around a system with a large user base vs. development around a
system with a small user base. And what it says, in essence, is: the system
with the large user base gets efficiency and scale benefits that will tend
to reinforce its larger user base; and the user base is further enlarged by
making it possible for other systems to build upon it.
Meanwhile, there is a theory of open development. I don't know of a formal
name for it, so I'll call it that: the Theory of Open Development. It's
elucidated in "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". And the main thrust of that
theory is that ideas developed in the chaos of competiting ideas in the
Bazaar will go through a nearly Darwinian process of weeding out some and
improving others; while ideas developed in the carefully managed
environement of the Cathedral will be limited in vision because they have
not had as many chances to be reviewed by as many observers and have not had
to endure as many challenges to weed out weaknesses.
Now these two theories are essentially orthogonal. The Theory of Network
Externalities takes no notice of whether the ideas are developed in an open
or closed environment: whichever approach leads to a large and growing
market share leads to some advantage for that large and growing market
share, which tends to further grow the market share. Meanwhile, the Theory
of Open Development presumes that open development will produce better
development, but does not necessarily say how "better" will be measured.
Market share is just one possible measure (and some would argue an
inaccurate measure).
Now where these two theories intersect in Open Gaming is this: the market
for the market leader is improved by the existence of a large number of
quality third-party products that work with their system, and there are
ranges of the cost-benefit curve where theory states that the benefit to
them is larger than the cost/risk of losing a little control of their own
system; and Ryan personally is a major adherent of the Theory of Open
Development, and happens to believe that Open Development will produce the
largest number of highest quality third-party support products at the least
cost to Wizards. He personally believes that this will be a win-win
situation all around. Now there are other ways they could have encouraged
third-party support products while protecting their interests; but Ryan
believes strongly in Open Development AND is both persuasive and
influential. So it is likely (but not guaranteed) that Wizards will finally
endorse Open Gaming as a way to benefit both themselves and outside
developers.
And at some point, if the body of quality third-party products becomes large
enough and successful enough, the community as a whole could become the de
facto holders of the large-market-share system, with Wizards merely a major
player in the community. I ain't holding my breath, but it's possible in
theory.
So the point of all this is: differing ideas of what constitutes
"sufficiently open" has little or no bearing on the validity of the Theory
of Network Externalities.
<< If the CC had more fully embraced Open Gaming, it
would not have created its own nemesis -- players and developers would want
to buy the great use-as-it-is-for-whatever-I-want hardcover for a very
reasonable $25, even if there were a web version of the open content for
free. (The web version wouldn't add value, in that case, except if you want
it for cutting-and-pasting or electronic searching...it's still worth the
$25 to have the book in hand.) >>
I remain completely unconvinced that the market as a whole cares about Open
or Closed AT ALL. For nigh on three decades now, the market has gobbled up
heaps of entirely closed content and adapted it in all sorts of ways,
because it was all for personal use. The CC being mostly open with closed
names won't bother the market at all; and it clearly won't bother some
portion of the developer community, since Clark has folks on his side here.
The names being closed is such a tiny quibble compared to all the great open
content and great game content they have provided.
<< In any case, I hope you don't take any of this discussion personally. I
think these are important issues to debate. >>
And the same here. Sorry if anything came across as harsh. The dogs have
stopped barking, but the headache remains. I think it's caffeine.
Martin L. Shoemaker
Emerald Software, Inc. -- Custom Software and UML Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.EmeraldSoftwareInc.com
www.UMLBootCamp.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
