From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug
Meerschaert
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 11:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] Non-D20 Reference Documents
<< >From: "Nicholas H.M. Caldwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Option A:
>If we were to go ahead and make it D20/OGC but sprinkle liberally with
>Product Identity and "close off" anything that does not need to be "open",
>we will be accused of not being in tune with the spirit of Open Gaming.
So? Admit that you aren't, and that you're just using the OGL to remain
consistent with everyone else. :) Or say that you're "supporting the
network", or something else. >>
So in other words, if they take what appear to be the only steps that can
provide them profits (as best I can determine from this slew of messages),
you believe they are no longer in tune with the spirit of Open Gaming, and
should declare as such? Smiley notwithstanding, that seems as clear a "No
commercial producers need apply" sign as anyone could ask.
Remaining consistent with everyone else is JUST as much in the spirit of
Open Gaming as is adding in brand new OGC which may or may not be adopted by
the masses eventually. Open Gaming serves the consumer in two ways: by
(hopefullly) weeding out bad ideas and improving good ones; and by
encouraging a stable, common base so it's easier for consumers to learn and
play games. Both ways are equally important. In fact, the weeding out
process can be BAD for Open Gaming in the short run: if fourteen different
superpower rule systems come out at the same time and have to fight for
supremacy over a year or two, there will be much consumer confusion: "Oh, I
play D20 supers?" "Oh, yeah? Which one?" "There's more than one?" Imagine
the convention listings, as people try to specify what subrules each game is
using. Eventually, when the truly superior rules emerge triumphant, evrybody
will win. But the early confusion is bad for the early consumer. Conversely,
early consistency is good for consumers; but if superior rules emerge, some
of the early consistent products may be less useful.
<< >Option B:
>If we make it much more open, the valuable content, i.e. the names, the
>descriptions, the stats, etc., will all appear on one or more
>databases. The author, the editor, the artist(s), and the production
>expert won't get their royalties and we won't make any profits either.
Make the valuable content PI. *That's why it's in the OGL!* >>
And don't forget to declare up front: "Yes, we're using OGC; but we don't
really believe in Open Gaming. We're just trying to make a buck off it."
<< Well, not the stats... but the names and descriptions are *perfect* for
making PI. I'd suggest that you come up with "placeholder" names if you PI
just names, but that's all. >>
While I think this is a good idea, it shouldn't be hard for future
developers to settle on placeholder names if the source developer chooses
not to.
<< >On the belief that it's the added value of artwork, layout, etc. which
>makes people buy open-game content, remember firstly that this
>would be an electronic product not a luxurious hardback, and secondly the
>content would be equipment and magical treasures so artwork and good
>layout are nice but not essential. A sensibly formatted HTML page
>containing the content would be nearly as good (in terms of use) as a
>lovingly laid out and illustrated PDF document.
But, in itself, it won't be worth paying you money. >>
Exactly: it would serve all the functional purposes of the work, thus
discouraging sales of the work. And Mr. Caldwell's position, I believe, is
that this may discourage PRODUCTION of the work.
<< Question: Are yout thinking of converting to d20? If not, wouldn't
rolemaster be rather tiffed at being OGL'd, even in part? Wouldn't that
constitute a violation of the OGL? >>
"Now I'm having my doubts about going to the author and explaining how we
might make it compatible with D20/OGL." I'd say the answer to your first
question is, "Yes, until this issue gave me doubts." And the answer to the
other questions is, "Well, if we don't convert to D20, we won't go OGL at
all. We'll just license from ICE." And if I have read his intentions
correctly, I want to emphasize: "We won't go OGL at all." Yep, that helps
Open Gaming...
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
