However, a reviewer attempting to evangelize OGC over non-OGC work would have to reflect a lack of OGC (or poor declaration) negatively in his review to make his point. The real problem is whether anyone who didn't care about OGC would take his reviews seriously. (This guy gave that great book only 4 out of 5 because of some license? What's up with that?) Ultimately I think we'd be better served if more reviewers just included a line or two about how much OGC the book contains. d20zines.com reviews have two license-level components:
�Amount of Open Game Content: 5.0
�d20 Compliance: 4.0
�Originality: 2.0
�Playability: 3.5
�Value for the dollar: 3.5
Now if your goal is to create OGC compliance exposure (that's a mouthful), I guess you should send them review material and then link to their reviews prominently on your website.
Someone needs to come up with a better term. Writing this is making my head swimmy.
Joe
At 01:49 PM 2/16/2003 -0800, you wrote:
I want to clarify. I posted in haste. I am not calling for negative reviews. I agree that it is no place for companies or employees or affiliates of a company to post reviews--positive or negative--for their own products or products of others.I re-read my post and it sounds like exactly that. The sentiment I was trying to express (poorly and sloppily) is that there is no market force dictating compliance. I was saying that all the fans who complain about OGL issues DONT actually post negative reviews. They just complain. Again, the frustration is that this seems to be an issue that we only care about internally. I was not leading a call to arms against any companies. I appologize for dahing off an email without proper editorial reflection. I have been away from the computer for several days and had over 250 emails. I was dashing off responses on all topics that seemed to warrant comment, and perhaps not dedicating the time to each response. Sorry about that. Clark --- Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've considered this. And I've decided I and by > > extension Throwing Dice > > Games would look petty. It does not seem > > professional to complain about > > someone's OGC declaration except when it needs > > correcting. > > I agree. It would be wrong for us to do it as > companies. But these people who claim to not be > buying > this stuff because of its OGC designation should > feel > free to post reviews. But they dont. > > Clark > > ===== > http://www.necromancergames.com > "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel" > _______________________________________________ > Ogf-l mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l ===== http://www.necromancergames.com "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel" _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
