Re: [Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] D&D 4E

2006-08-13 Thread Clark Peterson
Dave- I'm agreeing with you for three reasons: 1. your post was too long to read, so I cant argue with what I didnt read :) 2. the part I did read was hillarious and most of all 3. you put my name with Monte. And, as we all know, Monte is a "genius." So I feel all warm inside. Clark --- Davi

Re: [Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] D&D 4E

2006-08-12 Thread David Shepheard
From: "The Sigil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:50 AM >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/

Re: [Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] D&D 4E

2006-08-10 Thread Clark Peterson
People didnt copy Monte's designations. Other publishers were doing it that way for some time before Malhavoc was even in existence. Clark --- The Sigil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Not at all. I think you are mostly right. You're > >probably aware of my take on "crippled" OGC--I dont > >buy in

Re: [Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] D&D 4E

2006-08-10 Thread The Sigil
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 that most people are just trying to do stuff the best way they knew how, but I know for sure that there were some publishers who were trying to hoard content.

Re: [Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] D&D 4E

2006-08-10 Thread Philip Reed
Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now, there are lots of exceptions. I like to thinkTome of Horrors is an example of great sharing of opencontent. But even that product, as great as I (ratherbiased, I admit) think it is, wasnt exactly reusedthat widely. And I even put instructions in the t

Re: [Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] D&D 4E

2006-08-10 Thread spikeyj
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Doug Meerschaert 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

Re: [Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] D&D 4E

2006-08-09 Thread Doug Meerschaert
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

Re: [Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] D&D 4E

2006-08-09 Thread Clark Peterson
> 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

Re: [Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] D&D 4E

2006-08-09 Thread spikeyj
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

[Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] D&D 4E

2006-08-09 Thread The Sigil
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-