> Many games exist because at some point the market demanded it.
I disagree.
Many games exist because the company that controlled the most popular system
aggressively tried to stymie any attempt to use it without a license, and
they didn't grant licenses. And once that pattern was established, it
became the norm, so that the market continued to divide and subdivide, with
each publisher staking out a portion of the rules continuum and then
defending it against encroachment.
The current RPG market is a direct result of the >unnatural< actions of TSR,
then most of the companies that followed it, not the natural actions of the
desires of consumers being fulfilled by unrestrained providers.
> Second, the implication that the OGL, as an alternative to this, will
unify
> the market (it really has nothing to do with that as I am sure you are
aware)
> is farfetched by itself. d20 might unify it.
The two are inextricably linked. The OGL/D20 combination both gives 3rd
parties access to the most popular platform, and it eliminates the concerns
that 3rd party publishers might accidentally infringe on WotC's copyright
and trademark rights.
I'm watching the market daily, and I think that even in it's nascent, almost
pre-birth condition, D20 is >already< causing a unification of the market.
Assuming consumers react favorably, I think that the tipping point will be
reached by the end of next summer.
> Players who enjoy other systems might find less value in a unified network
or in
> a reduced set of offered games.
Luckily for the 2.5 million people who play RPGs monthly, the people who
appear to be more interested in divergent systems than in finding other
people to play the game with are a tiny fraction of the whole.
> You also say products which trample copyright and trademark law are rare
> and generally failures. How does this support the use of the OGL
Because there are a lot of products and ideas that never see the light of
day because the publishers don't see the point in trying to compete against
the established systems. There are lots of ideas for components, or bit
parts of games not whole games. The OGL creates the opportunty for people
to publish just the things they care about, and ignore the need to create a
whole game system >in addition< just to avoid a lawsuit.
> Carefully following existing laws get you the same result
Sorry, but you're just wrong. Any business plan that gets written in this
area prior to the OGL has to carry a long and detailed disclosure to
investors about the challenging IP issues. And I know first hand that there
are companies who have been denied distribution because they did not have
clear title to the materials they wanted to produce and bring to market.
The issue is simply not black & white, and investors >HATE< gray areas of
risk.
Again, this is a place where the difference between the theory and the
practical aplication is the difference between "works" and "won't work".
> WotC isn't being a bully, but the concern that people have that they will
> be sued stems from the actions of one former company in general
Sorry, but you're wrong again.
Palladium is considered by far a more litigious company. In addition to
Palladium's actions, I know of many, many cease and desist letters, suits
filed and settled out of court, etc. that have populated the hobby almost
since its inception. Usually, the lawyers step in, and the people involved
settle the matter quietly and in a way that generally hides the problem from
customers. When those problems spill out into the public, like the Primal
Order issue, the Dangerous Journey's issue, the ICE/Middle Earth issue, etc.
you're seeing the tip of the iceberg. And as you know, only a fraction of
the ice shows above the water.
Let me give you a prosaic example. Many years ago, as a joke, I wrote an
article for SHADIS magazine titled "Bicycle: the Gathering"; a parody of the
rules of Magic that could be applied to something no more complex than a
deck of cards. SHADIS got a C&D order. Who do you think sent it? WotC?
Nope - the letter came from USPC, claiming that the use of the word
"Bicycle" in conjuction with an article about playing cards was a trademark
infringement.
John Wick, for example, got a C&D from Games Workshop for his use of the
word "Ork", even though GW doesn't even have that mark registered in the US,
and probably couldn't even if they tried.
The current genration of publishers are by and large benign and friendly
towards each other. That is a circumstance of the times, not the history of
the business, and it certainly means nothing about the future of the
business. Tomorrow, we could be plunged right back into the copyright wars
and the petty infighting.
The OGL stands as a bulkwark against that craziness, and might create a
stabalizing force even between publishers who choose to ignore it, or
publishers who don't even publish RPG products.
> If what you are saying is the OGL isn't going to make lawsuits go away
It will make the lawsuits go away. As long as people use the OGL and the
System Reference Document (and other OGC content contributed by 3rd parties)
within its terms, nobody is going to sue anyone.
Ryan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
