>From: "Martin L. Shoemaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >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.
Option A: you cripple your OGC to ensure that you make money.
>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.
I was listing possible ways to answer critisism. You could say "yes, we
are. Tough." You could say "We are, but we're also supporting the network."
You could say "Hey, look at all the neat OGC we made! It can't be that
hard to Cut & Paste the open and mixed sections, an then Find/Remove the
PI!"
Commercial providers are great. HOWEVER, no commercial provider trying to
make a name for himself should bet his financial future on OGC--bet it on
PI, which is why the OGL has it in there. Your projcect won't be called
"open," but really, *WHO CARES?*
>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.
Yep. That's "supporting the network." A module that puts D20SRD monsters
together for a battle is *just* as valuable as one that comes up with a new
1 HD humanoid.
>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.
Yep. All good things, and should be emblazoned on the "how to OGL"
pamphlet.
>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."
Bull. There is *NO WAY* to use OGC without supporting Open Gaming. Tell
those who say "but you're not in the spirit!" that you'll be happy to sell
them the rights so *THEY* can OGL your meal ticket, if they'll pay for all
the revenue that PI will ever get you.
Don't let anyone mess with your meal ticket--especially not over open
gaming.
>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.
True, but it makes agreeing on what's the same monster as a little easier...
which may or may not be valuable, but it's the only thing the "open"
community has a right to complain about (assuming no violation of the OGL.)
>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.
Yep. I haven't finished The Craft of the Mind (still) becuase there's no
money in it. If I had the capital to toss together it with some graphics, a
world setting, and some other juicy PI, I'd go for it.
>And if I have read his intentions
>correctly, I want to emphasize: "We won't go OGL at all." Yep, that helps
>Open Gaming...
Ah. Why not tell him "it's cool for bragging rights?"
DM
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
