>Before I even go to the link I can already tell you that from my >perspective, this KOCGL is inferior to the OGL because of one major >detail: it won't grant me access to the SRD. I think that is the >main reason why so many of us fixate on the OGL and its attributes >because we are opperating from a common premise. We want access to >the SRD in an environment where our projects and ideas will have the >most chance for success.
and exactly the source of the tension in discussions: there are afew of us (apparently a very small minority) who are primarily concerned with open-content RPG development, and either only see D20 as "just another game system", or are actively disinterested in it for one reason or another. >I think there will be a paradigm shift where most open licenses will >be filtered out and the gaming community will focus on improving one >license's definition of "open gaming" and one gaming system. I >think the end result will be that there is just as much variety as >there was before, but it will begin to compete at a new, higher, >and, dare I say, more noble level. Instead of focusing on game >mechanics, perhaps future game designers will focus on other things, >things that we can't even begin to imagine. i suspect that there will always be at least two viable ogls. just as there is the split in the open software community over what exactly constitutes "open", i suspect that there will always be the two sides in the open gaming community: those who say that for something to be "truly open" it must allow you to do whatever you want with the material, including mixing it with closed content, and those who say that for something to be "truly open" it must not allow any closed content. currently, those are represented by the WotC OGL and the OOGL (and the DRL, but that explicitly ties stuff to DR). more than likely, the WotC OGL is here to stay, just because of the D20STL. it may get refined, but i doubt it will ever eliminate the concept of mixed open and closed content, and thus never satisfy the other camp. whether the OOGL will end up being "the" license representing the other side is harder to say. so far, no competition for that slot, but i have run across a couple of changes that need to be considered WRT the OOGL, and whether those changes ultimately get made or a new license is written, or neither, is impossible to say. >I also don't feel a need for any kind of affirmative action toward >other open licenses. They will grow and thrive on their own merits, >and the public should not be judged for ignoring them. I have never >seen Ryan bash another license or discourage it. They just don't >thrive and I think the individual licenses must take all of the >responsibility for that. actually, you just gave the reason that different ogls will or won't thrive, i suspect: the games released under them, not the licenses. i.e., the individual licenses can be saddled with almost none fo the responsibility for their success. you said yourself that it wouldn't matter how wonderful one of the other ogls was, you wouldn't care because what you want is the D20SRD. >And since I'm already rambling...Personally, I am sick of the whole >"game mechanics" debate when it is all the same anyway. It's just >math. Rules are a minor, minor factor in the success of a game, yet >so many people fixate on it. we're going after completely different results for almost the same reason: you think mechanics don't matter, so just pick one (D20) and use it. me, i think game mechanics don't matter, so there's no reason to just stick with one. i can already pick up a Feng Shui scenario and use it in my D&D3E game, or define my Mage: the Sorcerer's Crusade town in Aria terms, or drop a Call of Cthulhu baddie into my CORPS game, so there is nothing to be gained by more games using the same mechanics. >I am looking forward to a day when game rules can no longer be the >basis for pissing contests (and they really are on some of these >email lists and even at the gaming table) and it becomes obvious >that designers are focusing on getting to intimately know the people >who actually play the game. > >Open licenses offer different ways to distribute game rules and >setting materials. They can only be as strong as the popularity of >the game mechanics or the setting materials they offer. If the >KOCGL were to open up the Harry Potter setting, for example,then you >can believe that it will thrive and its community will probably be >able to tollerate and mistakes in its design. But attach it onto an >unopular setting or set of rules and no attorney in the world could >make it a valuable license. now, this i think is a fallacy in thinking. IMHO, what *should* be important WRT ogls is the strength/vitality/flexibility of the license itself. ideally, the licenses should thrive or not based on their own merits. as it is, the D20SRD 900lb gorilla has pretty much insured that teh WotC OGL is one of them that will survive, regardless of its merits or lack thereof, so long as it functions at a certain minimum level. *if* there were another ogl that granted access to the D20SRD but was clearer, then there might be competition on that front. but it will never happen, and thus there's less incentive for the WotC OGL to be reformed, despite the many changes that people either agree on or argue for (such as explicitly mentioning "regular" closed content, or being friendlier to software uses). -- woodelf <*> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.home.net/woodelph/ If any religion is right, maybe they all have to be right. Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them. --Sinclair _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
