>WOTC seems to think there's a lot of value in producing some material
that other publishers can freely reuse.
When 80% of your income comes from your core rules logic states that you
should do whatever it takes to sell more of those. WOTC is doing exactly
that after realizing that the more games that are out there, the moer
people by their core rules. This is not the same when it comes to 'color'
materials. If it were the Monster Manual would be part of the Open Content
and so far I see no indication that this will be the case. Yes, monster
stats may certainly be open but again, you are discussing rules, something
no one has EVER been able to lay a claim to, even prior to the OGL.
> why are you planning to make use of D20 material that WOTC is offering
for free? Shouldn't you take your own advice and "write > your own stuff"?
Not at all. If I use the OGL d20 materials I am HELPING WOTC. They have
proven this to be the case. Furthermore, WOTC is coming from a totally
different point of view business wise than anyone else in the market. Ask
ANYONE if they have heard of roleplaying games and they will say "Oh, like
Dungeons and Dragons.". One cannot take what works for a company with the
amount of name recognition as WOTC and think it will apply to a smaller
organization.
In addition, rules are a totally different thing than creative
property. Frankly rules are ALREADY open game to anyone who wants to take
the time to rewrite them. You can't patent them. You can't trademark
them. You can't copyright them. The same is NOT true of creative
property. If making anything and everything open was an effective
marketing strategy why not just make the PHB and DMG Open Content? Why
mess around writing a carefully crafted SRD? Because it is the creative
property that makes a product unique and marketable and if you give that up
you are giving up the one thing that has financial value.
>If it's wrong for me to recommend that White Wolf offer some "product for
free,"
And what basis of research are you using to make this recommendation? Have
you polled test markets? Have you had proven financial sucess doing the
same thing? It sounds a lot less like a rcommendation designed to help
anyone but yourself and while I don't hold that against you I do disapprove
of holding it against WW and SSS that they aren't interested in giving away
their work for free.
At 05:36 PM 10/17/2000, you wrote:
>At 02:42 PM 10/17/00 -0400, "Marc Tassin, Ilium Software"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >For what? To let other people make products for their game and get
> nothing for it?
>
>WOTC seems to think there's a lot of value in producing some material that
>other
>publishers can freely reuse. I think the same can be true for White Wolf's new
>monster book, which is why I found the closed-name option bizarre. Now that
>Stewart Wieck has explained the reasoning, it sounds like a reasonable short-
>term hedge until the D20 SRD is finalized. For the long-term, though, I wonder
>how much benefit White Wolf gains from opening monsters while keeping
>their names closed.
>
> >I'm just sick of people putting down those that have busted A**,
> invested huge
> >amounts of money and come out with a quality product, just because the
> person
> >who has succeeded won't give them their product for free. Give me a
> break. Write
> >your own stuff.
>
>I think you're overreacting to what was stated here. No one has put down
>White Wolf
>or called the company evil. If it's wrong for me to recommend that White
>Wolf offer
>some "product for free," why are you planning to make use of D20 material that
>WOTC is offering for free? Shouldn't you take your own advice and "write
>your own
>stuff"?
>
>Rogers Cadenhead
>E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Web: http://www.prefect.com
>
>-------------
>For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
