As the main administrator of the enworld reviews site I can tell you now
that I have a policy of not deleteing reviews - whatever score they give a
product (there are exceptions, mainly if something doesn't actually
consitute as a 'review', e.g. Score = 1, Review = "Its crap, nuff said" or
the like)

However personally I'd probably think you where being a bit harsh, not
because I disagree with any of your criteria, based on OGL, but simply
because I don't think the average gamer is that bothered about what is and
isn't OGL. All they care about is if its balanced, creative, fun, well
written, good layout, value for money etc. The only people who _really_ care
about the OGL are other publishers, or people wanting to use this
information in some public fashion.

I think a seperate 'OGL' score is what you need, for those who are bothered
they can refer to this.

Oh, and on a side note, if you have any problems, requests or suggestions on
the ENWorld review site then contact me off the list as I'm always looking
for ways to improve it and make it easier. If you are finding it hard, time
consuming or difficult to post reviews then I'd especially like to hear,
although I hope you just meant that writing reviews is time-consuming.
Also - feel free to include links to your own web-site inside your review
(I'd recomment at the end).

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

----- Original Message -----
From: The Sigil
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:42 AM
Subject: [Ogf-l] OGC Designation Clarity


If it makes you feel any better, Clark, I did factor in OGC designation in a
couple of my reviews of Malhavoc's products... the "cripple OGC" (spell
names not made OGC) caused a couple of products to lose a full point in the
ratings.  I will probably go back through and edit my reviews at some point
to include this factoring on all of them.

In fact, were I to follow your suggestion, I think that from henceforth in
my reviews, a book that is closed content - or has such a convoluted OGC
designation that it is de facto closed content - will stand to automatically
be docked 3 points.  That means that WotC products (excepting the PH, DMG,
MM, and PsiH, which due to their inclusion in the SRD are counted by me as
OGC) are rated on a scale of 1-2.  Overly harsh?  Perhaps.  It means that
the product must otherwise be Superb (5) to garner anything but an
"Appalling" rating of (1).

A book with "crippled OGC" - where the names of prestige classes, creatures,
feats, magic items, and/or spells (specifically these five types of things -
they're the only ones that come to mind, but they are essentially the
"smallest contiguous pieces" of OGC that can be re-used; though my feeling
on PrC's is not as strong as the other four) are PI'd (discounting the
PI'ing of a few selected proper names - i.e, if "JOE" is PI I am okay with a
spell called JOE'S BLASTING BOLT but I am not okay with "JOE'S BLASTING
BOLT" being PI'd), the product is automatically docked 2 points of 5.
Unfortunately, that would include Relics & Rituals II, both Creature
Collections, and other excellent products put forth by SSS/Necromancer
games.  But 2/5 points is about how strongly I feel about "crippled OGC."  I
hope that doesn't offend you, Clark - it is how I feel about the stuff and
the OGC designation you (and Malhavoc) happened to use.  Ultimately, though,
I feel that if you want "JOE" to be PI, just name the spell "BLASTING BOLT"
instead of "JOE'S BLASTING BOLT."

R&R I, with it's "goodie license," would probably get docked a point by me -
I give credit for including the goodie license, but IMO, names of spells,
creatures, magic items, and feats should never be PI'd so that they can be
easily identified when they are reprinted.  Similarly, PI'ing proper names
and dropping the names into spells "JOE'S BLASTING BOLT" annoys me.
Remember the reaction when all the proper names were removed from the SRD?
Such as with "Mord's Sword?"  If you don't want it to be OGC, keep it out of
the spell name.  Even with a goodie license or PI'd proper names only, I'm
still mildly annoyed by that sort of designation - to the tune of 1 point of
5.

However, I worry that the reviews moderators at ENWorld might choose to
delete my reviews for this level of harshness - the one reason that I worry
about requesting that folks do the "legwork" on ENWorld.  I would do more
reviews, except they are quite time-consuming - I note with my 21 reviews,
I'm one of the top non-staff reviewers at ENWorld.

In fact, I may just start adding reviews to my own website, graded on my
criteria (and probably with a 1-10 scale instead of 1-5).

Something to think about, I guess.  We'll what happens - a lot depends on
how much time I have to make those revisions/changes/moves.

Just be careful what you wish for, Clark - your OGC designations may not be
to everyone's liking, either ;-)  LOL.  Then again, I'm probably more
"extreme" than most - I feel that PI should be limited to (outside of
Publishing Company names and Product Names) at *most* a couple of dozen
words - all proper nouns/names - per book and the text should be 100% OGC,
so you may have nothing to worry about. ;-)  Again, if the Realms were
produced under the OGL, I would say "Elminster" is important to the FR
setting and should be PI'd.  "Joe the Fifth Barkeep in Tilverton" is not
important to the FR setting and should be Open.

I guess that comes from the name "Product Identity" - which to me means
"that which identifies your product" or in other words, the "iconic" parts
of your world.  In the Scarred Lands, for instance, "Slacerian" and "Mithril
Golem" and "Carnival Krewe" strike me as PI-type stuff - while things such
as, say, "Fleshcrawler" do not.  I think people get confused with IP and PI
- people are trying to protect all of their IP under the name of PI.  They
aren't the same.  But that's a matter for another thread. ;-b

Hope that all came across right - not trying to be threatening of Clark or
sound mad... just trying to explain "here is what I feel."  It's all my
opinions, so it's almost guaranteed that Your Mileage Will Vary.  I'm not
"right" in the empirical sense, but I am definitely right when I say that
"this is how I feel." :-)

--The Sigil

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to