Clark Peterson wrote:
The bottom line truth is that there was very little
significant reuse of OGC.
I think I'll place blame for this most on a failing in the OGL -- there
was no easy way to say "my book uses Monte Cook's rules" without
actually asking Monte. Which puts you right back in t
> That little rant is not likely to endear me to
> anyone in the RPG industry,
> but there it is. The uglier the truth, the truer
> the friend that tells it.
Not at all. I think you are mostly right. You're
probably aware of my take on "crippled" OGC--I dont
buy in to all the claims, and I think
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, The Sigil wrote:
> Enlightened
> self-interest would push most publishers together to adopt the same
> bug-fixes?
>
> It will NEVER happen. One of the "talking points" that had everyone excited
> about the OGL was that we were likely to see a whole bunch of rules and
> id
Surely if the Wizards of the Coast bring out a 4E D&D that is not
compatible with the SRD it will just make it economically viable for people
to add character creation rules to the SRD and sell their own 3e PHB/DMG/MM
clones.
Game companies would also have an incentive to do their own SRD bug-
From: "David Shepheard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Tim Dugger"
On 12 Aug 2005 at 10:09, Spike Y Jones wrote:
Oops I must be going mad. That was a year ago! Feel free to ignore my reply.
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http:
From: "Tim Dugger"
On 12 Aug 2005 at 10:09, Spike Y Jones wrote:
> Slaine, Warp Spasm, Tir Nan Og, Fomorian, Red Branch, Fir Bolg,
> Enech*, Cromlech.
Here is an idea - for these terms, since they are public domain,
include a statement of such.
Example:
Public Domain terms: From Celtic Mytho
